Sitting of 28 June 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Foot and Mouth
    Mr. Michael Jack: If she will make a statement on the holding of a public inquiry into matters relating to the foot and mouth outbreak. [R] [570]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Margaret Beckett): I begin by apologising to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs who, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is a most assiduous and conscientious Member. He has written to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and to you about his unavoidable absence. Also, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is attending the preparatory discussions in The Hague for the forthcoming conference of parties on climate change. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult at this stage in a Parliament, when no one can foresee the timing of these events.
    It is right that we consider very carefully the issues connected with the foot and mouth outbreak. The question whether there should be a public inquiry as such is one for the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Jack: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her first Question Time in her new Department. She mentioned the Prime Minister, but yesterday, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him a simple question as to whether there would be a full-scale public inquiry into foot and mouth disease, the Prime Minister had considerable difficulty in giving a straightforward answer. Why are the Government finding it so difficult to answer that question?
    We do understand that if the disease has a long tail, there may be a question about the timing of such an inquiry, but could not the right hon. Lady say today that in principle the Government accept that there should be a full-scale public inquiry, so that evidence can be accumulated before memories start to fade? If the Government have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from holding such an inquiry.
    Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is both too intelligent and too experienced not to know how
    760
    disingenuous he is being. I was surprised to read in yesterday's press the perfectly untruthful allegation that Ministers had ever suggested that there might not be an inquiry. The Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear from the start, as has every Minister who has commented on the matter, that of course, at the right time, there will be an inquiry. No one is more anxious than this Government to see that inquiry fully held.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the term "full public inquiry" has a precise legal meaning. He may well have heard the recent radio interview with the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, in which the interviewer confidently asked, "Aren't you demanding that the Government commit themselves to a full public inquiry now?" and the answer was, "No, we are not, because what we want is an inquiry when the outbreak is over; an inquiry which is thorough and expeditious and which tells people, in the farming community and beyond, what they need to know."
    I heard hon. Gentlemen say from the Conservative Back Benches, "We are calling for a full public inquiry." Yes, they are— not in the interests of agriculture, but because they hope it will be in the interests of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend and her colleagues to their new positions and welcome the new Department, but I also pay tribute to their predecessors, who did a superb job in the most difficult circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] As someone who has had 44 cases of foot and mouth confirmed in my constituency and 240 farms culled out— a disastrous time for the whole of Teesdale— may I add my voice to those calling for a public inquiry into foot and mouth disease?
    Margaret Beckett: Of course I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said about my predecessors. I share his view that they have nothing to fear, and nothing to be ashamed of in their handling of the outbreak. I also wholeheartedly accept my right hon. Friend's assessment of the great problems and difficulties that have been caused in his area, as in many others, and of the need for a thorough look at everything that happened in the course of this disease, not least because its scale and the manner of its spread have been unprecedented. It is extremely important that we learn as much as we can from all the aspects of the case that we can.
    Mr. Colin Breed: It is quite clear to everyone, not only in the House but in the country, that the scale of this disease demands a full, public, open and independent inquiry, and I hope that at some stage Ministers will recognise that. Surely, however, we do not need a panel of experts to tell us some of the obvious lessons; so will the right hon. Lady give us assurances that the Government are getting to grips with three things in particular? First, we need tighter port health inspections, so that we do not become subject to foot and mouth disease again very quickly. Secondly, we should alert the public, and everyone in the country, to the need to look at personal imports of food and plants, so that we can keep disease out for as long as possible.

    761
    Thirdly, we should introduce new biosecurity measures for all farms, and inspections to ensure that we reduce any incidence of animal disease in future.
    Margaret Beckett: Of course I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will have heard Ministers say repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that we are looking at, and taking on board, all issues of the kind that he raised. However, he will know that it is as yet not clear—although I know that there have been widespread allegations—whether the cause of the initial outbreak was imported food, and particularly whether it was illegally imported food. However, that does not alter the fact that of course it is important to ensure that that does not become a possible source of another outbreak, and the Government are very mindful of that.
    Mr. David Drew: I welcome the call for an open investigation, but will my right hon. Friend also make sure that that will include intelligence reports, whether from the police or trading standards, to ensure that we have the fullest possible knowledge about what went on during this dreadful outbreak?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is certainly right to draw attention to the range of material and information that may be available. He is also right to say that we need to take a careful and thorough look at how the disease spread as it did. I understand that not least among the reasons is that the presence of the disease was not known of for fully two to three weeks, which was probably the prime cause of the nature of the difficulties that followed.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: As it is quite plain that the right hon. Lady will not be appearing in front of a public inquiry in the near future, will she please undertake a personal inquiry into whether movement licences to and from Lincolnshire, which is not an affected area, are being unduly restricted? Furthermore, will she undertake a personal inquiry into why letters from me to her and to her predecessor regarding Mr. Dorey and his application for a licence have not yet been replied to despite the fact that I wrote on 28 May?
    Margaret Beckett: First, I find it somewhat ironic to hear Conservative Members holding forth about the need for a public inquiry when I consider that, for so many years, they resisted any call for an inquiry into the BSE outbreak, which was infinitely worse even than foot and mouth.
    Of course we are considering the movement restrictions. Indeed, we have made some changes and there was some alleviation a few days ago, which I understood to have been quite widely welcomed in the agricultural community. I am afraid that I have not seen the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I am sorry to learn that he has been waiting for a reply and I will certainly look into it.
    Mr. Mark Todd: First, I welcome my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to her new post. Already many farmers in Derbyshire have expressed enthusiasm for having such a local interest in their subject. Secondly, I echo the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but would add one element that he missed. Should not the consideration of import
    762
    controls and their adequacy be tackled with our European neighbours to ensure the security of internal transactions within the European market and to ensure our ability to be confident of the adequacy of those controls at the first point of entry into the European Union?
    Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have always worked closely together in the locality and I look forward to working even more closely with him now if, as may indeed be the case—of course, it is not a matter for me—he remains a member of the relevant Select Committee.
    My hon. Friend has a good deal of knowledge in this field and I entirely accept his point. It is important not only that we have the right approach, policy and scrutiny as regards the handling of imports, but that we encourage others elsewhere in the European Union to learn from our experiences and take their own precautions. I am happy to say that, as my predecessor reported to the House, I see every sign of the very supportive and sympathetic hearing that we have had from our European colleagues at the Council of Ministers continuing. It is clear that they are anxious to learn for themselves the lessons that we have had to learn.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: I recognise that the previous Conservative Government were wrong to resist the calls for an inquiry into BSE. I am amazed that the very Labour Members who were so vocal in their calls for that inquiry appear, now that they are Ministers, to be resisting similar calls for an inquiry into foot and mouth disease. The Government have lost the trust of rural communities because of their handling of foot and mouth. Only an independent and public inquiry at which Ministers and former Ministers can be questioned will restore that trust. The previous Labour Government held such an inquiry after the 1967 epidemic. Surely the Secretary of State realises that sooner or later she will be forced to do the same thing for this epidemic. On Tuesday morning, I sent her our proposed terms of reference for the inquiry. Will she say what was wrong with those?
    Margaret Beckett: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the BSE inquiry— a sinner who comes to repentance late is better than a sinner who does not repent at all. Nevertheless, that does not excuse the Conservative party's rather pathetic behaviour in trying to pretend that the Government have not said from the very beginning that of course we have every intention of holding an inquiry.
    Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons said:
    "We are not looking for a full public inquiry on the model of the Phillips BSE Inquiry, which took … two to three years … and cost probably thirty five million."
    The form that any inquiry should take is clearly very much an issue to be kept under review because—I repeat—despite what Opposition Members say, I see no evidence whatever from the rural communities that they want anything other than an inquiry that, yes, is carried out properly and expeditiously and that produces the information that people want. They are not interested in party political games, they are interested in answers.

    Kyoto
    Mr. David Kidney: What assessment she has made of the level of international support for the Kyoto agreement. [571]
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What measures she plans to advance the Kyoto accord. [579]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Mr. Elliot Morley): The overwhelming majority of countries continue to support the Kyoto protocol. The Government will continue to make every effort to promote a successful outcome at the next round of negotiations in Bonn in July. We will also continue to encourage the United States to re-engage with the Kyoto protocol.
    Mr. Kidney: I am fortified in pursuing this question by the batch of letters that I received this week from Rising Brook high school, from 13 and 14-year-olds putting forward their concerns about global warming and their suggestions for meeting the challenge. On their behalf, as well as my own, I shall ask some specific questions. Will President Bush's decision to turn his back on the Kyoto protocol undermine the resolve of other signatories to ratify it? What line on global warming is my hon. Friend's Department taking in its relations with its American counterpart?
    Mr. Morley: We very much regret the fact that President Bush has stated that the United States is not prepared to ratify the agreement. We believe that it is important to engage the Americans and to continue to try to persuade them that such an agreement is absolutely vital. I am very pleased to hear about the interest of young people in my hon. Friend's constituency, because the agreement is very much about the future of this country and, indeed, the future globally.
    I am pleased to say that other countries are actively engaging in discussions. I should also make it clear that, if necessary, we will go ahead with the ratification of the Kyoto treaty without the Americans, but we would much prefer them to engage in the process, and we hope that they will reconsider their position.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that the Kyoto protocol is arguably the most important environmental issue that the world faces at the moment and that Britain could play a very constructive role in brokering a deal between the United States and the rest of the world; but does he also agree that that role is diminished by the fact that his Department is undertaking the preparatory negotiations, yet the Deputy Prime Minister is now in charge not only of the negotiations but of the Cabinet Office? Is that a tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister's forensic negotiating skills, or yet another example of unjoined-up government?
    Mr. Morley: It seems to me that the contrary is true, because the Deputy Prime Minister has had a long involvement in the negotiations, and he will continue to do so, but the Government take the issue very seriously. That is why we have engaged in it at a number of levels, and of course it is a very important issue for my Department. The fact is that we think we are making very
    764
    good progress. We have a long way to go, but there is a possibility of reaching an agreement at Bonn. We are also encouraged that, in subsequent speeches, President Bush has recognised the importance of the agreement and has also been somewhat taken aback by the strength of feeling internationally about the fact that the Americans, who are such big energy users, are not prepared to ratify the agreement. So, we have work to do, but I believe that we can make progress, and we are engaged at all levels of government because of the importance that we give to such issues.
    Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that the platform that we take on the world stage should be very much joined up with the platform we take not only on national policies but in the European Union? In my part of south Yorkshire, which he knows very well, we are seeking European protection for Thorne and Hatfield moors to end peat extraction on that land and to restore that very precious asset, not only for Britain but for Europe and the world. Will he support our proposal to make that land a candidate for special European protection when we seek to submit the names shortly?
    Mr. Morley: It is important that we conserve all natural resources. Thorne and Hatfield moors are one of the best examples of raised peat bog in this country. My hon. Friend is right to say that I know it well. I am aware of the enormous amount of work that she and her colleagues in the area have put into conserving it. We certainly want to see progress made in the designation and protection of that important site.
    Mr. Damian Green: It is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House are rightly exercised about the threat to Kyoto. Will the Minister focus on the Government's responsibilities? The House of Commons Library tells me that of the 84 signatories to the protocol, 34 have ratified it. That group does not include the United Kingdom. Why have the Government not ratified the protocol and when do they propose to do so? Will they concentrate a little less on lecturing others and a little more on doing something to move the Kyoto process forward?
    Mr. Morley: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have been following the progress of the negotiations. If he had, he would understand that it is better for us to ratify in conjunction with our European partners, in a block rather than individually. That is what we are moving towards. There is no delay. We want to ensure that the agreement is supported internationally, so we are preparing the ground for ratification together with our European and other partners.

    Rights of Way
    Paddy Tipping: What advice has been given to local authorities about reopening the rights of way network. [572]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Margaret Beckett): In my statement last week, I said that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs would review the powers of local authorities to impose a blanket ban on footpaths in an area. He has

    765
    now announced the intention to lift this general power except where a specific local authority shows that it needs to continue the power for a further period.
    Paddy Tipping: Has not the foot and mouth crisis and the consequent closure of the footpaths shown the economic value that walkers, climbers and birdwatchers contribute to the rural economy? Given that, is it not ill-conceived and short-sighted for councils such as those in Lincolnshire, the East Riding of Yorkshire and Hertfordshire to have made so little progress in opening footpaths? Will my right hon. Friend introduce proposals to get rid of the blanket ban as quickly as possible?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. It has been a revelation to people in many areas of the countryside to realise the sheer value that walkers and hikers contribute to the local economy. It has been a surprise for people to find how much difference the lack of walkers has made. In the longer term, that can only be worth while.
    I understand my hon. Friend's concern that some authorities have been particularly resistant to or ultra-cautious about opening footpaths. We wanted to wait and see how much progress could be made without revocation of the ban, but officials are now in discussion with local authority representatives, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State hopes to make a further announcement in about two weeks.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does not the issue illustrate the need for a proper public inquiry? Does the right hon. Lady accept that what should be of paramount concern is the safety and the future of British agriculture? That is all that matters at the end of the day. Cannot all those issues be properly examined only if there is a full public inquiry when the outbreak finally comes to an end?
    Margaret Beckett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in working into this question, a request for a full public inquiry, as there is no evidence that any walker or hiker has made contact with foot and mouth disease. As I have said on many occasions, and as my predecessors have said, the Government have every intention of holding an inquiry, but we do not wish to be bound to a specific legal form at this time as we want to find the most effective way of carrying one out.
    Andrew Bennett: I welcome the Government's decision to consider the blanket ban on footpaths. As we move towards the school holidays and the holiday season generally, does my right hon. Friend accept that it is most important that clear and accurate information is available across the country to people thinking of visiting the countryside about how many footpaths and how much access land will be available to them?
    Margaret Beckett: I accept that, and I take my hon. Friend's point. We are doing everything that we can to make available information that is as up to date and accurate as possible. My hon. Friend will know that a code of conduct for users of rights of way is available on
    766
    the former MAFF website. We are endeavouring to make available as much information as possible so that people can use the footpaths in the summer holidays.
    David Burnside: Will the right hon. Lady seek a case study from the devolved Stormont Department responsible for agriculture and read it carefully to learn the lessons from the more effective, efficient and competent handling of the foot and mouth crisis evident in Northern Ireland? As someone who lives on a farm there and knows England, I think that there are many lessons to be learned.
    Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. We keep in touch with the devolved Administrations and endeavour to learn what we can from each other. However, the sheer scale of the problems that were faced by the authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom were not quite matched by the problems in Northern Ireland.

    Food Sourcing
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: If she will meet the British Retail Consortium to discuss methods of improving local souring of food produce. [573]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The British Retail Consortium represents one of the key sectors in the UK food chain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met it yesterday and they discussed a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Pickthall: I am pleased about the coincidence of that meeting's timing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Retail Consortium has an enormously important role to play in encouraging local sourcing of agricultural produce? Does he also agree that the practice by some of the big retailers of arbitrarily ending contracts with local growers, especially in Lancashire, creates serious business problems for growers and increases the environmental damage by multiplying lorry miles as they haul heavy produce back and forth across the country? Will he continue to place pressure on the British Retail Consortium to strengthen local sourcing of produce and fully shoulder its environmental responsibilities?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a serious point about food miles, regional foods, regional distribution and regional marketing, and we raise those issues with the British Retail Consortium and large retailers. He will be aware that following on from the Competition Commission report, a statutory code of practice has been recommended to cover some of those matters. That is being prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be completed in due course.
    Mr. David Heath: The Minister will know about the great number of distortions in the food chain. Of particular concern for dairy farmers is the failure to achieve a sustainable increase in the farmgate price of milk for both liquid milk and cheese production. There was a hint in the previous Parliament that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was producing a study on the food chain as it applies to milk producers and the

    767
    supermarkets. Will he confirm whether that is the case? If it is, when will the report be finalised and what action will be taken to improve the lot of dairy farmers?
    Mr. Morley: One change that will improve the lot of dairy farmers is to act on the Competition Commission's former recommendations to split up the former Milk Marque into regional co-operatives. That will help with prices and competition. We consider the issues carefully, but most are market driven. That is why it is important for the agricultural sector to ally itself more closely with the market and consumers. The Department is, of course, providing help and support, both financially in terms of market advice and in discussions with end users.
    Mr. George Howarth: If my hon. Friend has such discussions, will he consider how the quality of pigmeat from animals raised on swill differs from that of pigmeat produced by other forms of pig-rearing methods? I understand that the taste is different. Will he consider whether it is appropriate to lift the ban on properly prepared pigswill so that that market can be more fully exploited?
    Mr. Morley: The ban on pigswill was introduced as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, in the light of concerns about applying the regulations on heat treatment, and that was the appropriate course to take. There are one or two exemptions for pig feed that has a low risk of disease spread. We will give those matters careful consideration.
    Mr. James Paice: In the light of the claim this week by the major bakeries, justifying the 9p rise in the price of a loaf of bread on the basis of an increase in wheat prices—whereas, in fact, as I am sure the Minister knows, the total cost of the wheat content of bread is less than 8p a loaf and the increase probably 1p—will the Government now adopt the Opposition's policy to introduce a quarterly survey of comparisons between trends in retail prices and in farmgate prices, so that both consumers and farmers know who is being taken for a ride by manufacturers?
    Mr. Morley: There is nothing new about those trends. Indeed. the information is collected and made available. If the hon. Gentleman has ideas about how that can be disseminated more widely, we will of course be willing to consider them. Again, these are market issues, a fact which emphasises the need for the agriculture industry to take into account market changes and be involved in some of the added value and downstream distribution of products. That is the way in which agriculture should go. Many of our policies are designed to assist producers in having more of a stake in such matters.

    Foot and Mouth
    Mr. Steve Webb: What further plans she has to support businesses affected by the consequences of foot and mouth disease. [575]
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: What plans she has for compensating ancillary businesses hit by the foot and mouth crisis. [R] [578]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): More and more small rural businesses are benefiting from the measures that we have introduced. More than 11,000 affected businesses have had cash benefits, either through deferral of tax payments or approval of hardship rate relief or in grant awards from the regional development agency business recovery fund. We are continuing to keep the operation of each scheme under review.
    Mr. Webb: I am grateful for that reply, but draw to the Minister's attention the situation in my constituency, which has more than 400 farms, several cases of foot and mouth and many businesses affected by the knock-on effects of the disease. My constituents were shocked to learn that they are not rural because other parts of the authority area have higher population densities, and "rural" is defined on the basis of the whole authority. In reviewing the schemes that she has described, will she include businesses that have suffered from foot and mouth, regardless of whether other parts of the authority have higher population densities?
    Margaret Beckett: Of course I will look at the precise issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but he will know that there is always some difficulty in defining terms in the context of such schemes. A very careful balance was struck on the proportion of authority areas that could be considered on anyone's definition to be rural, and that has been looked at several times. I am prepared to look at it again and to consider his point, but I am not undertaking that it will necessarily make all the difference as he is hoping.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will the right hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to the hundreds of slaughtermen and women who gave up their time to ensure that the cull was professionally carried out? Will she particularly thank those hundreds of hunt staff who gave their time and commitment, which the Government accepted only grudgingly and belatedly? Does she agree that the best way of saying thank you to those hunt staff is for her to make a firm commitment not to vote to destroy their livelihoods?
    Margaret Beckett: I will of course heartily join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to slaughtermen and women or anyone else involved in the handling of this terrible outbreak, all of whom have been and, unfortunately, still are, working very long hours at what is frequently a thankless and unpleasant task. I was particularly gratified recently when I met people in the area of the most recent outbreak in Yorkshire to be told what high regard they had for the work of the staff of my Department and local authorities and of all those who have been involved. That does not always come across in media coverage, so I was very pleased to hear that and to pass it on to those who continue to work so thoroughly. As for the hon. Gentleman's final remarks, we may of course have to agree to disagree.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: As well as considering support for rural businesses, will my right hon. Friend look at supporting charities such as the Treginnis farm for city children in my constituency? It has lost just under £100,000 as a result of foot and mouth

    769
    disease, and it would be a tragedy if that organisation, which offers experience of the living countryside to children from inner-city areas, were threatened because of financial hardship arising from foot and mouth.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and slightly unusual point. I must admit that that case had not been brought to me before. I shall certainly make some inquiries and consider whether there are means whereby, through the overall operation of the various schemes, the charity can be assisted.
    My hon. Friend will know, however, that many worthwhile organisations and small businesses are affected by the outbreak. For the vast majority, the most important thing is that we bring the outbreak under control to such an extent and come so much closer to achieving its end that their customers return to them. That will do more good than any compensation scheme.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Among the businesses losing out as a result of foot and mouth disease, the tourism industry has lost more than most. Will my right hon. Friend examine the sense of some of the biosecurity measures that have been used, especially those that affect the tourism industry? In April, I was banned from walking along stretches of the Pembrokeshire coastal path where there were no animals within miles, but shortly thereafter I found myself trapped behind a muck-spreader driving along the road. Clearly, the muck-spreader poses a far greater risk of passing on the disease, but the rules do not allow that to be banned.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the impact of the difficulties on tourism and the way in which the early reaction, before we had a clear picture of where the disease had spread, resulted in the closure of some areas of the country and some footpaths which with the benefit of hindsight we can see might not have been justified by the degree of risk they presented. Now, what we are encouraging everyone to do and what we as a Department are trying to do is to ensure that the action taken is proportionate to the risk posed. My hon. Friend is right to say that the movement of vehicles and contact with and between animals are the key triggers in the spread of the disease.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the Secretary of State accept that many businesses, including farmers who have over-30-month-old cattle, have suffered irrecoverable losses as a direct result of foot and mouth disease for which no compensation has yet been offered? When will she complete the review of that problem which her predecessor promised in the House? When will she publish the proposals to rebuild the rural economy in the wake of foot and mouth disease to which she referred in the House last week? Does she realise that many businesses are engaged in a daily and desperate struggle for survival? They need more action, such as interest-free loans, now—not at some unspecified future date that happens to be convenient to the Government.
    Margaret Beckett: Of course I admit that many people are suffering losses with which the Government are not in a position to assist, and that one particular category of those affected is made up of those who have cattle that would have gone into the over-30-months scheme but
    770
    cannot currently do so. On the plans for recovery and the review, first, we are looking at those issues and will make any announcement that we can as soon as we can; secondly, there is what I would characterise as the relatively short-term farm recovery plan, which we hope to introduce in the not-too-distant future.
    In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have committed themselves to set up an independent commission to examine the longer-term context of and future for the countryside and, within it, the agriculture industry. It is extremely important that we undertake that debate and that we try to ensure that our actions in the short term to overcome the short-term difficulties experienced as a result of the outbreak do not cut across the action necessary for long-term sustainable agriculture within a context of sustainable development.

    Waste Disposal
    Mr. Andrew Love: What steps she is taking to develop an integrated strategy for the disposal of household waste; and if she will make a statement. [576]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government set out their programme for delivering sustainable waste management in "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May. Since May, we have set statutory targets for household waste recycling and composting; published guidance on municipal waste management strategies for local authorities; found major extra funding from the spending review 2000 for local authority waste and recycling; and established the waste and resources action programme with funding of more than £40 million to overcome market barriers to re-use and recycling.
    Mr. Love: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that incineration has a role to play in any waste strategy, yet considerable concerns remain about it, not least among my constituents, who look out on the largest incinerator in the United Kingdom. Those concerns are reflected in the recent court case involving Greenpeace.
    What steps is my hon. Friend taking to address those concerns? First, will there be a more robust regulatory regime for the industry? Secondly, will better emission standards be set so that we can all be reassured that there is no impact on health as a result of incineration?
    Mr. Morley: I am aware that, rightly and properly, my hon. Friend has been raising his constituents' concerns. He will appreciate that the increase in capacity of the local incinerator in his constituency will be decided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I cannot prejudge that decision, and I cannot comment whatever it may be.
    I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that new emission standards have been put in place. The latest emission data show that the annual dioxin emissions from all the UK's municipal waste incinerators have fallen from 413 g to 1.8 g since 1995. The emissions are even lower than was previously thought. They are only one fiftieth of what is

    771
    currently emitted from the steel and iron industry, and only 6 per cent. of the sort of dioxins that would be emitted on bonfire night.
    Tony Baldry: Many parish councils and community groups are promoting household waste recycling schemes with help from money from the landfill tax credit scheme. These councils and groups are concerned that the Government appear to want to scrap the landfill tax credit scheme. Will the Minister explain why the Government want to kill off local parish and community environmental recycling initiatives?
    Mr. Morley:That is not the case. I welcome the involvement of local councils and local parish councils in recycling. It is part of our strategy and targets to increase the amount of waste that is recycled. Many councils, including my council of North Lincolnshire, have made enormous advances with such things as municipal composting. We very much welcome and encourage such involvement. We have committed a further £1.1 million over the next three years to support those initiatives.

    Food Supply
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: What plans she has to review the supply of food within the UK. [577]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The supply of food within the UK is kept under continual review by my Department as sponsors of the food industry.
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been growing disquiet, certainly on the part of consumers, about the way in which we produce food. With the establishment of the Food Standards Agency, the Labour Government have gone a long way towards responding to concerns about food safety, but will my right hon. Friend take on board concerns about the cost of production methods? Is she aware of the comments of the former chief economist of the National Farmers Union, Sean Ricard, who argued recently:
    "After 50 years of subsidies, farming is the most hopelessly inefficient and uncommercial sector of the whole economy"?
    Even though this is a time of difficulty for farming businesses, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless examine whether subsidies to farming, in the form in which they have been made available in the past, have been good either for the consumer or for farmers, or whether the same money would not have been better spent on producing different kinds of work in rural economies?
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I have seen some reference to the article to which he referred. He will be aware that there is wide-ranging discussion in the agriculture industry in the United Kingdom and across the European Union about whether, as we consider reform of the common agricultural policy, we should be looking to change the direction of funding from direct support for production to support for other areas—not least the second pillar, where we are considering rural development and so on. That is exactly the sort of issue that we hope
    772
    the independent commission the Government have pledged to set up will consider in relatively short order. It is an important part of the future of the countryside and of the background to the way in which we decide to produce our food in future.
    Mr. John Gummer: The right hon. Lady rightly suggested that the supply of food in this country depends on farmers, both here and in the rest of the Community. How will she get the confidence of British farmers and her fellow Agriculture Ministers in the European Union. when she is the only member of that Council who is not an Agriculture Minister, and the only Minister looking after farming in the history of this country who is not a Minister of Agriculture?
    Margaret Beckett: All the evidence suggests that, within both farming and the European Union—at the Agriculture Council—there is widespread understanding of the need to change the way in which we deal with agricultural support, which will mean seeing the farming industry as part of the wider food chain, which is quite proper. That may mean that people have different titles; I freely confess that I cannot recall the precise titles of all my colleagues in the Agriculture Council, but the right hon. Gentleman will find that Ministers there have a range of different responsibilities; they are not all simply Agriculture Ministers.
    As for the attitude of the farming community, it has already expressed the view that it is pleased to see the farming industry's place in the food chain recognised in the title of my Department—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that, but I assure him that I can direct him to the people who said so.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing public concern about food production, particularly in relation to meat, eggs and dairy produce? Will she join me in welcoming the "Freedom Food" initiative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which ensures that animal welfare concerns are taken into account by farms, hauliers and abattoirs? Will she also consider looking at re-targeting financial incentives, initiatives and support for farms, abattoirs and hauliers that take those issues seriously?
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Certainly, when I do my shopping, mostly at my local Co-op, I look out for the "Freedom Food" label, which is an excellent RSPCA initiative. I know that it is not the only label geared to high standards, quality and a high standard of animal care, but I very much welcome it.
    My hon. Friend raised a further important issue. Right across farming and the food industry, it is recognised that we want to aim for quality, and for labelling and information that will assure consumers of quality; we want to give them as much information as we can about where and in what circumstances the food that they eat is reared.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does the Secretary of State agree with her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the supermarkets are not playing fair? The right hon. Gentleman recently told farmers that
    "the supermarkets have pretty much got an arm-lock on you people at the moment".
    Is it not perverse to break up Milk Marque but leave the supermarkets untouched? How much does the dairy industry in this country have to decline before the Government do something?
    Margaret Beckett: I am interested to learn that it is Conservative policy to take on the supermarkets; I am sure that they will be even more interested to learn that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Competition Commission looked at those matters recently. Although it concluded that the industry was broadly competitive, it identified a number of practices about which it had concerns and which it felt adversely affected some suppliers and smaller retailers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the commission recommended that the best way to deal with those issues was to have a binding code of practice for the larger supermarkets. Although that is a matter for the DTI rather than my Department, I anticipate that we shall see such a code of practice in the near future.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: When the Secretary of State takes on board the increasing consumer demands about food accountability, will she bear in mind the fact that more than 60 per cent. of the food currently imported into the United Kingdom could be grown here, and look at the way in which we subsidise and support food production to strengthen local markets and local accountability? If we do that, we will reduce pollution and congestion in towns, strengthen the links between producer and consumer, shorten food miles and give a boost to the organic food market, which desperately needs support for agriculture rather than agri-business.
    Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have increased substantially the amount of support that we give to producers who move into organic production, and that there is widespread interest in promoting local markets and in encouraging local supply that is specifically geared and identified. That is all part of the direction of the current debate on these matters, and the Government certainly welcome it.

    Foot and Mouth (Devon)
    Nick Harvey: If she will make a statement on progress in eliminating foot and mouth disease in Devon. [580]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Significant progress has been made towards eliminating foot and mouth disease in Devon. Since the upsurge of the disease in March and the first half of April,
    774
    the number of cases has fallen to just one or two a week. Visits and tests are continuing in order to ensure that areas are free of the disease.
    Nick Harvey: I welcome the fact that the number of incidents seems to have tailed off at present, but does the Minister understand that the farming industry in Devon is in a terrible state and that it is still reeling from the effects of the disease? Last week, the Department announced with something of a fanfare that some restrictions on movements would be lifted. Does the Minister understand that farmers have been beating a path to my door and that of the National Farmers Union offices, reeling from the news that they will now have to pay for veterinary inspection? What advice would the Minister give to Mr. Francis Courtenay, a farmer in the neighbouring village to mine? He has had no significant income since foot and mouth disease broke out in February, but now has 13 lambs that he wants to sell. He has now been told that he will have to pay £150 for the veterinary inspection and clean-up. That cost will work out at more than £10 a lamb, when each animal is likely to bring in only £35 or £36. Surely the Department understands that the farming industry is in a desperate state. What possible justification can there be for landing that additional financial burden on farmers at this time?
    Mr. Morley: Of course I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the costs being borne by his constituent. We are sensitive to that. However, the changes in movement restrictions have been welcomed by the livestock sector, as they have begun to bring some normality back to the markets. That is important, but changing the restrictions requires care, as moving livestock still entails enormous risks. That is why veterinary inspections have to take place.
    I appreciate that there is a problem with regard to the costs borne by individual farmers, although some of those costs can be shared. So far, the Government have paid £1 billion in compensation for livestock that has had to be culled, and the total costs of the FMD outbreak are certainly in excess of £2 billion. However, I shall certainly take into account the point that the hon. Gentleman made.

    Fuel Poverty
    Mr. David Amess: If she will make a statement on the targets for the elimination of fuel poverty. [581]
    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The goal of the Government is to seek an end to the problem of fuel poverty. The first target is to ensure that by 2010 no vulnerable household need risk ill health owing to a cold home. We will then seek to widen the focus to include those healthy adult householders in fuel poverty.
    Mr. Amess: I fully accept the work done by the Minister for the Environment in trying to end fuel poverty, but during the consultation period a number of organisations objected to the definitions used in setting targets. They are especially worried that the term "gross income" rather than "disposable income" is to be used to determine which households are vulnerable. The right hon. Lady will probably answer that the use of either term

    775
    would help to end fuel poverty, and an announcement on the matter is expected in November. Before that announcement is made, will she consider dropping the controversial term "gross income", and replacing it with "disposable income"?
    Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Government's goal is to eradicate fuel poverty, however that is defined. I take the point that some people consider that a different definition that included more people would beneficial, but the Government have given a massive undertaking. It represents a huge step forward that no previous Government have been prepared to take, and it is necessary to proceed step by step.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will keep up the pressure on the matter, and I applaud them for it. However, rather than quarrelling about the definitions—which the Government will keep under review—it seems to me that the main thing is to support the project and ensure that it has the effect that we all want it to have.

    Animal Movements
    Dr. Nick Palmer: If she will proceed with restrictions on repeated long-distance transport of farm animals. [582]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): The most recent Agriculture Council unanimously adopted a resolution instructing the European Commission to bring forward early proposals for changes to the current rules. That will form the basis for change, including the possibility of reducing the number and duration of long-distance journeys of farm animals to slaughter.
    Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been widespread concern about the secondary market in farm animals, in which intermediate dealers buy animals and take them from market to market, seeking the best price? Does he also agree that that has been a significant factor in the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease?
    Mr. Morley: I certainly agree with the last point. There is no doubt that the recent growth in dealers' movement of animals around livestock markets has contributed to the wide spread of foot and mouth. There were approximately 2 million sheep movements in the three weeks before foot and mouth was identified in this country. We are considering proposals for dealing with that, and we are consulting the livestock industry. I am pleased that the Council of Ministers has decided to examine long-distance transport, including vehicle design, standards, enforcement and even the justification for it.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that farm livestock is transported over long distances in recent times because of the rapid reduction in the number of small abattoirs? That is the direct result of the huge cost imposed on them by regulation from government, not least the EU. Will the Government do something to re-establish small abattoirs? Many have closed in my area. We have one left—a good,
    776
    small, family-owned abattoir. If the Government act, they can claim that they are doing something sensible about repeated long-distance transport of farm animals.
    Mr. Morley: We are taking action on that. We have already announced in the rural White Paper support of £8 million for small abattoirs. However, the position is a lot more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests. In many cases, long-distance movements in the United Kingdom mean driving animals past slaughterhouses and taking them to slaughterhouses at the other end of the country. That happens for all sorts of reasons, not least those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) in relation to dealers moving animals from livestock market to livestock market.
    We must tackle many complications, and the decline of small slaughterhouses, though important, is only one of them.

    Rural Diversification
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on her Department's plans for rural diversification. [583]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): In the last Parliament, we announced several measures aimed at supporting the rural economy and encouraging it to adapt to changing market conditions.
    The rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the Future—A Fair Deal for Rural England", which was published at the end of last year, contains several initiatives to help support a thriving rural economy.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that although help and information are available for diversification through the regional development agencies, the countryside agencies, structural funds and other sources, constraints often exist in planning law, regulations and guidance? That is often the principal constraint on diversification. Will my hon. Friend discuss the issue and those constraints with his colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions?
    Mr. Morley: Yes, we are doing that. My hon. Friend makes an important point. In some cases, planning restrictions have been unduly restrictive in relation to on-farm diversification. We do not want to exempt applicants from planning controls on vehicle movements, noise, emissions, smells. After all, planning controls exist to protect people. Nevertheless, we want to encourage diversification, and we are taking steps to do that.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister appreciate that rural diversification can be helped by relatively small amounts of start-up capital? Does he know that, yesterday, in Skipton, the Craven Trust was set up to collect voluntary contributions to help people who have been affected by the foot and mouth outbreak? The Government funds that would match that money expire in two days' time. Will he ensure that areas where

    777
    foot and mouth disease has broken out recently in the cycle are not disadvantaged in comparison with those that unfortunately suffered it much earlier?
    Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and I can give him an undertaking that we will look sympathetically at the case that he has made.
    778
    I should add that the rural enterprise scheme, which is part of the English rural development programme, provides support for rural businesses. The regional development agencies also provide support designed to help rural businesses to recover. I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, and we shall look carefully at that matter.

Business of the House
12.30
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 July—Second Reading of the Homelessness Bill.
TUESDAY 3 July—Second Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4 July—Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 5 July—Motions relating to the Senior Salaries Review Board report and related issues.
Motion to amend the Standing Orders relating to Select Committees.
FRIDAY 6 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 9 July—Second Reading of the Export Control Bill.
TUESDAY 10 July—Second Reading of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 11 July—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (1st Day).
At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
THURSDAY 12 July—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion; the subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 13 July—Debate on small firms on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for July will be as follows.
THURSDAY 5 July—Debate on the role of the Department for Work and Pensions.
THURSDAY 12 July—Debate on the report from the Agriculture Committee on organic farming.
THURSDAY 19 July—Debate on youth justice.
The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House rise for the summer recess at the end of business on Friday 20 July and return on Monday 15 October.
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. Given the concern on both sides of the House about the current political situation in Northern Ireland, will he, as a matter of urgency, ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement to the House on Monday? We are all aware of the discussions that the Prime Minister is having today, and the issues that will come up in the next few days in relation to the future of the political situation in Northern Ireland are of great concern.
Will the Leader of the House also ask a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box next week to confirm, or at least dismiss, the reports that we have read with great alarm in the press this week about the imposition of VAT
780
on residential care home charges? This matter affects all of us as constituency MPs, and clearly has an important read-across for the public sector finances in relation to social services departments. It will also be a matter of great concern to individuals who are either paying for their own residential care or planning and making provision to do so.
The Leader of the House will also be aware that, in the concluding debate on the Gracious Speech yesterday, the Home Secretary, in answer to some very probing questions from the Conservative Benches, confirmed the new calculation by which the Government record asylum applications and the numbers of those denied asylum here. This matter has never been debated on the Floor of the House or announced in the House. We would welcome an opportunity to hear why the formulae have been changed, and to hear how the calculations are now made.
In giving the business for the coming two weeks, for which I am grateful, the Leader of the House announced that Wednesday 11 July will be the first day of consideration in Committee on the Floor of the House of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has announced the possible date of the House rising for the summer recess, can he confirm exactly the number of days on which that Bill will be considered in Committee on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Cook: On the question of Northern Ireland, the whole House will understand the gravity of the circumstances and, whatever our party, we all hope that the Prime Minister, on his visit today, is able to make progress with those who are party to the disagreement over the Good Friday agreement. I can assure hon. Members that the House will be kept fully aware and informed of the developments.
At this stage, it would not be helpful to any of us to commit ourselves to making a statement on Monday, but I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are fully seized not only of the gravity of the situation, but of the importance of keeping the House fully informed, in the hope that we can best preserve a cross-party approach
As regards VAT on care home costs, the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the decision of a VAT tribunal in an individual case. The Government's position is clear we do not believe that vulnerable people provided with care in residential homes should have to face VAT or be subject to it. There will be an appeal against the judgment. Whatever the outcome, we shall ensure that those in residential homes do not have to face increased costs as a result of the ruling.
On the asylum statistics, I am assured that there has been no change in the practice, but if the hon. Lady is in some confusion as to what is the practice or when it was introduced, we shall take every possible care to disabuse her and make it plain that there has been no change under this Administration in the basis on which such figures are counted.
Lastly, the House will of course have a full opportunity to debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, and we shall ensure that a motion to that effect is before the House when it considers Second Reading next week.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend knows that setting up the Select Committees is tremendously important, and we welcome

781
the arrival on the Vote of the suggestion that we should take forward that essential part of our work as quickly as possible. May I have his assurance that Her Majesty's Government intend to get the Select Committees up and running before the break, so that they may not only decide on the subjects that they want to consider, but be able to gather information when the House resumes in the autumn?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, and I hope that I commit no indiscretion by saying that I consulted her and some of her colleagues in considering what proposal we should table on the Standing Orders. That motion is on today's Order Paper and, apart from the modest question of the size of a Select Committee, they will find that the recommendations that they put to us are faithfully reflected there.
I take it that my hon. Friend was expressing the view that the Select Committees should be up and running before the recess. As I told the House last Thursday, that is my intention and the Government's wish. We want to get them up and running and we intend to try to achieve that by the week commencing 16 July. If we succeed, that will be the shortest time in any Parliament in which Select Committees have been set up. I stress again that that is a tight timetable that requires two separate motions and debates in the House, so I shall require co-operation from all parts of the House if we are to meet it.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I press the Leader of the House a little further? He said last night and again today that he will use his best endeavours, but can he give us a guarantee that he has had the assurance of full co-operation from the Conservative party? He will recall that, after the 1997 election, when there was another hiatus on the Conservative Front Bench, there was a long delay before the House was able to return to its normal practice of scrutinising the work of Departments and, indeed, other matters of Government concern. That represented a considerable problem in respect of Parliament carrying out its business.
In particular, does the Leader of the House have an assurance that the Standards and Privileges Committee will be set up in that time scale? There is important unfinished business, as he is only too well aware. I draw his attention to the fact, of which I am sure he is aware, that Standing Orders provide that, while the domestic and departmental Select Committees require nomination from the Committee of Selection, any Member or any group of Members can nominate for other, important Select Committees, such as the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. If Front Benchers cannot agree by 16 July—that was the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman gave us—perhaps other Members will take matters into their own hands. That, I hasten to say, is not a threat; it is just a promise.
Mr. Cook: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about its being not a threat but a promise. I am sure, however, that what he said has been heard on both sides of the House.
It is not for me to speak for the official Opposition, nor would I seek to do so; but I do not think I am misrepresenting the position if I say that they have been
782
fully co-operative in trying to ensure that we make reasonable progress with the setting up of Select Committees. I hope that, in offering that support and making businesslike progress, they are carrying with them all Members, not just Front Benchers.
Andrew Mackinlay: All?
Mr. Cook: I am assured that they are, so we can now relax a little.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked about the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is, of course, a very important Committee. I think it would be rather odd if we sought to set up Select Committees that did not include one dealing with standards and privileges, and I hope we shall be able to include it in the overall package.
David Winnick: Are we being softened up for the non-renewal of the contract of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? What is wrong with her being zealous in the performance of her duties?
Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in past Parliaments, we campaigned—before and during the "sleaze" allegations—for far tighter controls over matters relating to finance and Members of Parliament? The steps that were taken were very important. For heaven's sake, are we really going back to those former days? The Parliamentary Commissioner has performed her duties correctly. Why on earth should her contract not be renewed?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do require a zealous Commissioner, and we will ensure that the House is served by a zealous Commissioner. As my hon. Friend says, the present Commissioner has been extremely zealous in performing her duties.
I deprecate the speculation that I have seen in the press about the future of Ms Filkin. I do not consider it in any way helpful to Ms Filkin or to her authority; nor does it serve any of the interests of the House. For the record, the House of Commons Commission has not even met in the current Parliament, far less reached any view on what it may or may not to do when that contract becomes open for renewal—next year, not this year. I urge all Members not to rise to the bait that the media offer them to speculate.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether it is possible to organize a debate on the genuinely serious position of some of my elderly constituents who find themselves bed-blocked in hospitals? In the Princess Royal hospital in mid-Sussex, 20 per cent, of beds are blocked at any one time. People are having to spend nights and days on trolleys in the accident and emergency unit before they can get into a ward. All that is because the Government have redistributed—in effect, stolen—£15 million of social services money in order to distribute it to other parts of the United Kingdom, leaving West Sussex very short.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make time for bate on a matter that affects Members on a much wider scale than that of my constituency? Bed-blocking is a real problem, and is causing great hardship.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman can express his views in many quarters about the standard spending assessment,

783
which is basically what he is complaining about, but these have never been easy judgments under any Government. It is not easy to provide an outcome that is fair to all local authorities—authorities of differing character, and with differing requirements. I shall, however, happily draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the Department of Health and encourage it to respond.
Julie Morgan: I am sure my right hon. Friend knows how pleased many Members are that the Queen's Speech includes reference to a Bill to promote women's representation in politics.[Interruption.] How soon could such a Bill be introduced? Given that elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are due to take place in 2003, selections for candidates are likely to start over the next 12 months, It would be helpful for all political parties if the legislation were in place by then.
Mr. Cook: I see that the Bill will be opposed, so that will be a factor in the decision of the business managers as to when we introduce it. I am fully aware of the urgency of the issue, and as a Scottish Member I understand my hon. Friend's point about the desirability of getting this measure in place in good time for the elections in 2003. That is why we included a reference to it in the first Queen's Speech of this Parliament, and we shall try to make diligent progress with it—in so far as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will allow us.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the fact that the last full debate in Government time in this Chamber on their national drugs strategy took place on 2 July 1999. Bearing in mind the recent changes introduced by the Government, whereby responsibilities have been transferred from the Cabinet Office to the Home Office, and the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator is no more, retaining only an international remit, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that a debate in this Chamber on the national drugs strategy, with all its implications, is long overdue?
Mr. Cook: The House has just completed the debates on the Queen's Speech, during which a full day was available to discuss home affairs and there was also a full day on health issues. The Secretaries of State of those Departments took part in those debates. The issue that the hon. Lady raises will continue to be a serious and grave problem throughout this Parliament. During yesterday's debate, a number of hon. Members drew attention with force and vigour to the severity of the problem, and I assure the hon. Lady that she will have a number of occasions during this Parliament to ventilate her concerns.
Mr. Derek Foster: In warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post, may I add my voice to those calling for the speedy setting up of Select Committees? Does he agree with me that he and the House have a unique opportunity to make an historic advance in parliamentary democracy by strengthening Select Committees? Will he give us an early opportunity to debate the Liaison Committee's and the Hansard Society's reports on strengthening Select Committees?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support of our progress in setting up the Select
784
Committees. Members from all parties have urged on me that the important, urgent priority is to get the Committees set up, but other questions need to be addressed. That is why I stressed last Thursday that the Modernisation Committee is among those that I want set up at an early date.
Mr. Eric Forth: Oh no!
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman can be relied on to resist anything that smacks of the modern era, and to take our processes back to something more akin to the Gillray cartoon era, from which he comes. Most of the House want such a Committee to be set up and to examine some of the issues that my right hon. Friend raises. I shall be speaking at the Hansard Society conference in two weeks' time.
Mr. Forth: So will I.
Mr. Cook: Indeed, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman will be speaking at the conference, and I look forward with great interest to seeing which of its recommendations he welcomes.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that there will need to be an early motion to create the Committee of Selection if his timetable for the creation of departmental Select Committees is to be met? Will he confirm that if there is any delay or exception taken in the early stages of the creation of the Committee of Selection, that could prejudice his timetable?
Will the Leader also say a word about the business motion that he has helpfully tabled for 5 July? Is it tight enough to ensure that if the motion were amended—for instance, some of us would like the number currently suggested for the Education and Skills Committee to be increased from 11 to 17—there would be no danger of the outcome of any such motion prejudicing the timetable for the creation of the other departmental Select Committees?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is right to outline again the pitfalls that lie along the way in order to secure the tight timetable that is necessarily set by the date of the rising of the House. I hope that all hon. Members will take his point on board.
On the business motion for next Thursday, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that those who wish to table amendments to the current motion on Standing Orders will have an opportunity to do so, and if they are selected, to have them voted on.
The motion that I drafted and placed on the Order Paper fully reflects consultations with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Liaison Committee. I hope that, in the spirit of making good progress, what we have tabled will find consensus in many quarters of the House.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend indicate when the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs will meet? Does he accept that there is growing unrest about regional disparities and growing concern about the lack of accountability for regional quangos? Will he accept that there is unease about

785
responsibility for the regions being spread across at least three Departments, and that that means that it is essential for the Committee, for which so many hon. Members fought so hard, to be reconvened at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to an important policy dimension. The Government have placed particular importance on regional policy and that is why we want to ensure that our decisions are properly scrutinised. I cannot give a date for when the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs will meet. I understand that it met only once in the previous Session. I hope that it can meet early enough in this Session to guarantee that it can meet again this Session.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. Will he use this opportunity to break with the practice that has been established over the past four years—of Ministers not answering the questions put to them? I should like to pray in aid an answer given to a question that I tabled to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I received a reply from the Financial Secretary on a much narrower point.
My question was on the representations that the Chancellor had received on the taxation of company cars and the assessment he had made of the impact of that taxation on company car use. I wonder whether the Leader of the House will agree to an early debate on the issue, because I have received many representations from employees who are lamenting the fact that they will lose the tax advantage. Regrettably, the reply I received was on the narrow point of the new CO2 emissions-based company car tax, which was not what the question I tabled was about. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we will have a debate on the issue and that the Government will answer the questions put to them, oral and written?
Mr. Cook: I have to confess that I am not familiar with the question and answer to which the hon. Lady referred. There are remedies for her to pursue if she feels that her initial question was not answered properly. The House has many opportunities to debate tax matters. The hon. Lady may wish to lobby her party, as she will be aware that, during the business statement, I announced a day on which the Opposition can choose the issues they wish to raise.
Andrew Mackinlay: The Leader of the House has announced what is, in effect, a three-month closure of Parliament. I realise that in his early weeks as Leader of the House he cannot alter what has, unhappily, become a pattern over so many years. Will he look ahead to next year and discuss through the usual channels and with the Modernisation Committee the possibility of having a more even distribution of the parliamentary calendar, so that scrutiny and accountability can go on in this place even if the Government do not want to consider legislation? We should sit not just when we are considering Bills, but to provide scrutiny. Over the summer, will he consider an innovation and ask Ministers, with the support of the Prime Minister, to produce a report, on our return, on the activities of Departments over the closure so that the
786
stewardship of those Departments over the summer months can be the first business to be considered by Select Committees?
Mr. Cook: It is for the Select Committees to decide what business they wish to pursue. I am sure that my hon. Friend will pursue his suggestion with whatever Select Committee he chooses to serve on. For the record, the recess that has been announced is 86 days long, which is almost the average for the past eight or nine years—it has varied between 81 and 87 days. In the first Session after the 1992 election, which Conservative Members will remember was the last election they won, the recess was 94 days long.
I agree that it would make sense for us to have a rolling programme of legislation. It is one of the issues that I want to see addressed early in the Modernisation Committee, and I hope that we can get a smoother process than the sudden fits and starts with which we conduct our business at present within a 12-month period.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome what appears to be the co-operation in all parts of the House over the re-establishment of Select Committees. The sooner they are set up, the better for the House and its role in monitoring the Executive and holding the Government of the day to account.
However, I point out to the Leader of the House in a friendly fashion, following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), that he failed to respond to the question by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), a past Labour Chief Whip, who asked whether the Leader of the House would find time in the near future for a debate on the Liaison Committee's report, "Shifting the Balance Unfinished Business". The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland did not ask about the Modernisation Committee; he asked about the Liaison Committee. Does the Leader of the House not accept that that Liaison Committee report is very important, and may even go well beyond anything that the Modernisation Committee might do in due course?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome for the speed with which we intend to proceed with setting up the Select Committees. On the Liaison Committee's report, which I have read with interest, he will be aware that when we met—I; hope that I do not cause him embarrassment by saying that I have consulted him—I said that I would want to take a fresh look at some of these issues in the autumn. I would like to do so with his advice and consultation, and with that of anyone who serves on the Modernisation Committee with us. At an appropriate time, we can examine these matters on the Floor.
Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree, further to the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), that now is the time to look at the date for the start of the summer recess in 2002? Does he agree that one recommendation of the Modernisation Committee relating to the carry-over of Bills would help

787
him in that; and that the electors of this country have just elected a Parliament for a parliamentary term, not for a year-on-year dogfight that finishes each October?
Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have been elected for a full parliamentary term, and with every intention of serving their full parliamentary term. I was therefore disappointed by comments suggesting that matters that were not in the Queen's Speech were not going to happen. The Queen's Speech is for one year; this Government are here for a full parliamentary term.
Much as I would want to help my hon. Friend, I believe that I would be in difficulty in being tempted into announcing now the date of the summer recess in 2002. I would hope to get just a little more satisfaction in the House for having announced the date for 2001.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Following the Government's announcement that they are embarking on a major review of energy futures, including a possible enhanced role for nuclear power, will the relevant Minister make a statement to the House on the terms of reference of that major review, so that we can be reassured that there will be a genuine level playing field, given the very powerful vested interests in that field?
Mr. Cook: It is very important that any examination of that subject should cover all the issues, and that all the various vested interests should be properly assessed. However, I would not really encourage the House to seek a statement on a review when it has just been announced. It seems to me much more logical that any statement should come towards the end of the review rather than at the start.
As I have repeatedly emphasised to the House, I have encouraged the setting up of the Select Committees as soon as possible. I would imagine that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry night well wish to consider the energy review as one of its urgent items of business.
Syd Rapson: It is now a year since the unfortunate outbreak of anti-paedophile riots in my constituency. It is also three weeks since the longstanding leader of Hampshire county council was convicted of being a paedophile; we also have a city councillor held on far more serious charges, on the same basis. May we hold a debate on that issue, to ensure that checks are far more stringent and that anyone involved in this evil is precluded from public office?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important issue and one that must be of grave concern to his constituents and the local media. I fully understand why he has taken this opportunity to raise it on the Floor of the House. I encourage him to explore the avenues that are open to him to ensure that he can deal with the matter in greater detail, perhaps in an Adjournment debate or in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Forth: May we please have an urgent debate entitled, 'The Great Census Cock-up"? Is it not time that we had a thorough explanation of why a procedure that has taken place efficiently for hundreds of years cannot be conducted by this Government? Is it a conspiracy,
788
or is it just sheer grotesque inefficiency that we are no longer able efficiently and accurately to count the number of people in this country?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the census is still being examined—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman."] I am sorry if I demoted the right hon. Gentleman and will take great care not to do it again. He is well aware that the results of the census are being collated and will be available, as they usually are, in the fullness of time. In the meantime, if he wishes to pursue the matter he has a remedy through both oral and written questions and I suggest he takes it up that way.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Did my right hon. Friend see the story in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times, under the headline
"Blair and Kennedy to press on with Lib-Lab alliance"?
The years have mellowed me and I am much more relaxed about these things than I used to be, but will my right hon. Friend be innovative and forward looking and perhaps arrange for regular reports to the House on the nature of the discussions that take place between the Prime Minister and the so-called Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's closing line was perhaps his most provocative and plainly demonstrated that he has not in any way mellowed with his years in the House. He calls for regular reporting. From my recollection of the previous Parliament that issue was not underventilated or underdebated in the House. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister looks forward with confidence to being asked about the issue frequently and to exploring it in this Parliament as much as in the last. I would tell my hon. Friend one thing: whatever may pass between the Cabinet and Front-Bench Liberal Democrat Members, it has broadly been my experience that one does not have to wait long to hear it fully reported—often in even greater detail than I remember from the meetings I attended.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Would the Leader of the House look again into the request for a debate on asylum seeker statistics, bearing in mind the fact that the decision to regard a family of six as one unit on arrival and as six on departure is not only a change of policy but a statistical fiddle and the sort of practice that one would not expect from a decent democratic Government?
Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that a full statement is made to the House—I imagine it would be a written statement setting out the basis for the figures. Let us be clear that in the past year the Government made much rapid progress to ensure that decisions are taken more quickly and that those asylum seekers who are turned down are removed more quickly. If the hon. Gentleman had attended the Chamber yesterday, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary express his commitment to remove 2,500 per month within the near future. At the same time, we are ensuring that genuine asylum seekers get their decision more quickly and have the doubt about their position removed. We have achieved faster decisions,

789
quicker removal and quicker acceptance of genuine asylum seekers than was achieved by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. I urge him to welcome that fact rather than to continue to complain about the figures.
John Cryer: May we have a debate on the vexed question of mixed-sex wards? The Oldchurch and Harold Wood hospitals in the borough that I represent—they are not in my constituency, but they are used by my constituents—still have such wards, which is causing much offence and upset, despite the policy pursued by the Department of Health and the promises that the trust made to me.
On another matter, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill was the first intended extension of the business vote since 1832 and it was promoted by a right hon. Gentleman who has since retired. It was supported by the Tories in their droves and was brilliantly sabotaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will never see that Bill again?
Mr. Cook: If I may, I shall respond first to the very serious issue that my hon. Friend raises about mixed-sex wards. As he is aware, the Government's policy is that mixed-sex wards should be eliminated by 2002, and the last report showed that we are 93 per cent, on target to achieve that. I entirely accept that that is cold comfort to those hospitals that my hon. Friend mentioned which have been unable to achieve that progress.
I understand that the difficulty at Oldchurch hospital is that refurbishing the wards to provide single-sex accommodation is regarded as inappropriate pending the very large development that is about to take place. I am informed that the hospital's managers are considering other management practices to secure that objective, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to press them to deliver on our commitment.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On reflection, does the Leader of the House consider that his response to the perfectly sensible request of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in relation to Northern Ireland was adequate? Was it adequate merely to say that he would keep the House aware of developments in the Province? Is he not profoundly concerned by the turn of events there? Is it not the case that the community has been polarised and that there is the potential for a breakdown in democratic institutions, caused by the failure of Her Majesty's Government's policy, especially on the decommissioning of terrorist weapons? Can we have a full day's debate on that grave subject, which is of concern to the whole kingdom?
Mr. Cook: In fairness to myself, I must say that I expressed my concern at the gravity of the situation, and I do not think any hon. Member on either side of the House fairly listening to what I said would accuse me of not recognising that gravity or the deep concern felt on both sides of the House. I said at the time that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is, at this very moment, in Northern Ireland engaged in discussions on such matters.
790
It would not be right for the House to jeopardise my right hon. Friend's efforts by anticipating the outcome, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the event of the negative outcome that he anticipates, the House will have many opportunities to examine the issues.
Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Keetch Cottage children's hospice, on the edge of Luton, has recently discovered that it has a £1 million deficit, thus jeopardising the palliative care for children in Luton and the surrounding area? I am sure that he will want to join me in offering thanks both to all those in the hospice movement who do so much for the care of our children in very difficult circumstances and to the community, which contributes the vast majority of resources to keep local hospices going, but will he please agree to hold an early debate on Government funding for hospices? That is necessary, given that hospices are saving the national health service considerable amounts of money and that they are so vital to patient care and medical services.
Mr. Cook: I fully appreciate the enormous value of the hospice movement, which provides particular support not just to the patients for whom it cares, but to all the relatives of those patients at a time of difficult crisis. That is why a commitment to the hospice movement was very strong in the NHS plan that the Government set out two months ago. I am very sorry to hear of the situation that my hon. Friend describes. I assure her that the Government and, I believe, all hon. Members support the work of those in hospices, and I ask her to convey our support to the staff of the hospice that she mentions.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement next week from the Minister of State, Cabinet Office about the code of ministerial conduct and, in particular, about which of its provisions allows for the sacking of a competent junior Home Office Minister simply because he insisted on telling the truth about a telephone call from one of the Prime Minister's Cabinet cronies?
Mr. Cook: It would be inappropriate for me to enter into a commentary on why particular decisions were made during the last reshuffle; otherwise, I might detain the House much longer than it would have anticipated. My hon. Friend, to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, did an excellent job at the Home Office. Indeed, that was reflected in many of the statements that were made yesterday, and it is for my hon. Friend to add to that if he wishes, but he made a speech of great dignity and utility in yesterday's debate on home affairs. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is wide of the mark.
Mr. Mark Fisher: I, too, warmly welcome what the Leader of the House has had to say about establishing the Select Committees before we rise. I infer that he accepts that both sides of the House want to return to the Liaison Committee report. The House accepts that, in the interests of speed, the Select Committees will be established on the existing basis, and will remain dominated by the Government through the Whips Office. Does my right hon. Friend accept that Select Committees are parliamentary Committees, not Committees of the Government, so it is wholly illogical that their membership should be determined by the

791
Government, by whatever means? It is wrong for anyone to appoint their own scrutineers. Does he accept that case in principle?
Mr. Cook: The process by which Labour Members will be chosen to serve on the Select Committees is set out in the rules of the parliamentary Labour party. Decisions will be taken by the PLP, not the Chief Whip. If my hon. Friend wishes to serve on one of the Select Committees that we have nominated on the Order Paper today, he will receive an invitation in the Whip this Thursday. That democratic process through the PLP is to be commended, and I hope that all parties in the House will follow a similar democratic process.
Mr. Richard Allan: The Leader of the House may have heard the news this morning of yet another major Government computerisation project running into serious problems, this time affecting the courts service and the criminal justice system. Given that such difficulties are clearly a cross-departmental problem affecting the whole of government, will the Leader of the House look for an early opportunity for his colleagues from the newly beefed-up Cabinet Office to come to the House to debate the Government's information technology strategy?
Mr. Cook: I cannot say that I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman draws my attention, but I shall report it to my right hon. and learned Friend and he may respond to him.
Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the Government's announcement today about family-friendly and flexible employment policies. Concern has been expressed, however, about the way in which employment agencies treat their workers, those workers employment rights and their access to employment tribunals, especially in relation to proposed changes to the award of costs. Does my right hon. Friend intend to make any time available to discuss employment relations policies in the near future?
Mr. Cook: I cannot hold out the prospect of any immediate debate on that issue, but it is one of great importance and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. I hope that the House and its Committees will find opportunities to look into it. There will be regular opportunities to examine the responsible Ministers.
Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate the Leader of the House on his well-deserved and long overdue advancement within the ranks of the Government. Can we please have an early debate or a statement on the provision of beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis? Given the evidence that the drug is likely to be effective only if used early in the course of the disease, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that hundreds of people risk permanent disablement if they are denied access to the drug during the extended National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal, especially as that appraisal has been the subject of an enormous amount of cogitation over two years. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the very least that sufferers and their representatives are
792
entitled to expect from the Government is a comprehensive statement or debate on the matter before we rise for the summer recess?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue has been aired repeatedly in the House and in the press. He is a knowledgeable Member who does his research well, and he will be aware that the central problem is that NICE, which was set up to advise us on the use of drugs, has not advised the use of this drug in the NHS. Nevertheless, I shall happily convey to my colleagues in the Department of Health the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter again so that they can bear that in mind in their future considerations.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on safety at sea following the damning report published this morning by the chief inspector of marine accidents? It links the astonishing decline in safety standards at sea with what it describes as
"the lengths that some shippers will go to make a profit."
It goes on to say that of the 1,453 accidents reported in United Kingdom waters last year, just 3 per cent, were investigated. Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss that urgent problem?
Mr. Cook: I heard about the report this morning and understand my hon. Friend's concern. Transparent reporting and full investigation of what goes wrong is vital to the confidence of those who use our merchant navy and to ensuring that such events are not repeated. I shall happily draw his comments to the attention of the relevant Minister and perhaps also to that of the Deputy Prime Minister who, as my hon. Friend knows, takes a close interest in such matters.
Mr. David Heath: I warmly welcome what the Leader of the House said about VAT on care homes, but does he recognise the accelerating crisis in long-term care? That was demonstrated by the closure of yet another home in my constituency last week, which distressed residents of the home and their relatives. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate the Government's strategy for long-term care, in particular how they propose to ensure that local social services departments have the cash available to house people properly when they most need it?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my response to the tribunal ruling on VAT. He is right: the provision of long-term care is a worry to an increasing number of our constituents, and that problem will continue because of demographic changes. That is why we made the commitment that long-term care will be an important priority for the national health service plan that we are developing and why we have secured the basis on which free nursing care will be provided from October for those who require it in the long term. I will be surprised if this Session proceeds much further without a suitable opportunity for us to examine such matters. Health legislation is proposed in the Queen's Speech and we will introduce that as soon as possible.
Mr. Alan Simpson: My right hon. Friend will be as appalled as everyone else about the rioting in recent months in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham

793
and the specific ways in which the National Front and the British National party have targeted areas to foment racial divides that split and devastate communities. Will he arrange for the House to debate the conditions of squalor and poverty and the shroud of hopelessness and despair that affect those communities and scar the urban landscape across Britain? They form the fundamental challenge that the House has to address if it is to confront the poisonous politics of the far right. Will my right hon. Friend give us the opportunity to set out specific ways in which we intend to do that and to build the unified, cohesive, inclusive and multiracial communities in which I hope most of us want to live?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's concern, which is fully shared by those on the Front Bench. Indeed, in yesterday's debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred in strong terms to the recent riots. There was also an exchange in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) asked a private notice question. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) that the only people who gain from violence and destruction are extremists such as those in the BNP, who want to turn racism to their own poisonous political objectives. It is important that we defeat them. I agree that to do that, we must address not only the racism that was demonstrated in the riots, but the social conditions that breed tension.
Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend hold a debate in Government time on the need to bring the working practices and hours of the House into this century? Hon. Members on both sides of the House raised that in the debate on the Gracious Speech and it was mentioned again today. Why is it necessary for hon. Members to take 20 minutes going to the Table Office with a question for a Minister when an e-mail takes two minutes? Why do we not start Tuesday's and Wednesday's important work in the House until 2.30 pm? There are big issues to address. I know about today's debate, but I am concerned that we will not be able to represent our constituents and to scrutinise legislation properly if we continue at this pace and do not have a wider debate on the subject. We will need to hit a few more centuries before we make progress.
Mr. Cook: I must confess that I do not think that I have too many more centuries left in me.
Mr. Bercow: More, more.
Mr. Cook: I am deeply encouraged by the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that I can rise to that challenge.
I would like more rapid progress than my hon. Friend suggests might be made, and her comments are relevant to the debate that we are about to commence. I agree entirely that there are many ways in which we can make our House more efficient and ensure that we use the latest methods of communication in order that we are able to use our time effectively in the task of scrutinising legislation.
Dr. Brian Iddon: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 44?
[That this House notes that Railtrack purchased their business apparently without a full understanding of their assets and liabilities; notes that railway bridges all over the country are now being closed or having their use restricted as a result; notes that some closures are putting lives at risk, such as that at Green Lane, Bolton, which lies on a main access route to the Royal Bolton Hospital and is expected to be closed for up to three years; requests Railtrack to repair those affected bridges which are causing the most disruption as a matter of urgency; and asks Her Majesty's Government to assess the scale of the problem and enter into a dialogue with Railtrack in order to persuade them to deal with this emerging situation.]
All over the country, local authorities have been given the duty to inspect Railtrack's railway bridges, and they are closing them or severely restricting their use. Of several examples in my constituency, the worst is Green lane railway bridge, which has been closed for up to three years. That bridge lies on a main access route to the Royal Bolton hospital. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that the situation is intolerable.
My constituents have of course noticed that Railtrack continues to pay dividends to its shareholders and, more recently, paid £1.3 million to its ex-chief executive. May we please have statement from the Minister for Transport on whether he believes that Railtrack can meet all its financial liabilities in the near future?
Mr. Cook: I am aware of the early-day motion that my hon. Friend has tabled. He raises an issue that must be of great concern to travellers in his constituency and he has highlighted a matter of considerable concern among the wider public: payments to the former chief executive of Railtrack and the question that that raises about the company's relative priorities. I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and ensure that it responds to his local concerns.
Mr. Martin Salter: May I take this opportunity to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position as Leader of the House? I assure him that there are many on the Labour Benches who welcome his wholehearted commitment to modernising the arcane proceedings of this place.
May I encourage my right hon. Friend to consider finding time for a matter that should be debated and be of concern to all democratically elected politicians: the appallingly low turnout at the recent general election? I respectfully suggest to him that reform of our democratic processes is an essential precondition to reconnecting with the swathes of disengaged young voters.
Mr. Cook: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point about the importance of modernisation and welcome the support that he expresses for it. I am not sure that I necessarily see it as the main response to the question of voter participation in our democracy. The electorate will judge us by the extent to which we deliver on the programme that we set out at the election. If we do that, we can convince the public that democracy works and that the policies for which they voted are those that we

795
implemented. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that when our electors look at how we behave, the hours that we sit and the absence of fast, efficient electronic communications, they sometimes wonder whether we are living in the same century as them.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I raised with my right hon. Friend's predecessor the delay in the publication of the report of the review of support for student nurses. Obviously, that was some months ago. Given the need for many more student nurses in our hospitals, I urge my right hon. Friend, following discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, to publish that report at the earliest possible time.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a point that follows on neatly from a previous question. We have committed ourselves to an increase in the number of nurses over and above the increase achieved during the previous Parliament. My hon. Friend raises an important part of the process to ensure that we are able to provide nurses to match the substantial expansion in the number of beds in our 10-year plan. I shall make sure that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health responds to my hon. Friend's question.
Geraint Davies: May we have an early debate on the social value and economic prospects of independent retailers and community shopping parades? Many hon. Members will be aware of the continuous erosion of those community facilities, not least, in recent times, community pharmacies which are being forced to close by the drop in drugs prices. Will urgent consideration be given to council tax concessions for some of those groups, so that we do not end up with the retail deserts created when large retailers such as Tesco withdraw to make ever higher profits and leave various groups in our communities who lack proper transport without adequate retail facilities?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue that must be familiar to any hon. Member who represents a constituency containing small towns from which such facilities are disappearing, and I share the deep frustration of Members who represent those towns and their residents when they find that their local pharmacy has disappeared and there is no readily available alternative. We have to be realistic: the secular change in shopping trends is one in which the public have fully participated because they find it attractive in many ways. It is important that local authorities and the supermarkets work together to preserve
796
shops in villages and small towns where they can, and, where they cannot do so, to make sure that there is readily available, free transport to the supermarket
John McDonnell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Members must be in the Chamber for the Leader of the House's statement if they want to ask a question, so I cannot call the hon. Gentleman.
John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise, but I got stuck in traffic on the way here.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to hear that.

Business of the House
  BILL PRESENTED
    ELECTORAL FRAUD (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    Mr. Secretary Reid, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Byers and Mr. Desmond Browne, presented a Bill to provide for the supply to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland of the signatures and dates of birth of electors and persons seeking registration as electors in Northern Ireland; for the use of that information in connection with elections in Northern Ireland; for the issue of electoral identity cards by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland; for the modification in relation to voters with disabilities of certain rules about voting procedure in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 2 July, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 6].

Point of Order
1.27 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we come to the business of the House, will you provide some clarification as to the significance of the business motion? As I understand it, the debate can continue until 7 o'clock or later—that is the effect of the two motions on the Order Paper. Am I right in supposing that, if the debate on the business motions continued until 7 o'clock or later, the votes on the substantive motions would then be taken immediately, without any discussion of the merits of the substantive motions?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. That would be the case.

Business of the House
1.28 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg)I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to Programming of Legislation and Deferred Divisions not later than half-past Six o'clock; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
It might be helpful if I briefly introduce the motion, which I anticipate will ensure the orderly conduct of business and is for the convenience of hon. Members and of the House. It is a straightforward, simple procedural motion that allows you, Mr. Speaker, to close today's proceedings in a timely fashion, while providing a full day's debate. There is nothing new or controversial about the motion and I hope that the House will now agree to it without lengthy discussion, so as to ensure the maximum time in which to debate the real issues of the day.
1.29pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am bound to say that, for a complete absence of explanation of the purpose of the business motion, the introduction that we have just heard takes some beating. I do not understand— I hope that the Minister will intervene and explain—why we have the business motion at all. I assume that without it the principal business of the House—the programming of Bills and deferred voting—could be debated until 7 o'clock when, according to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, votes would take place on those two matters there and then. Will the Minister please intervene—we have had no speech—to explain the need to introduce a programme motion to curtail the debate by 30 minutes? I am happy to give way to the Minister.
The situation becomes more astonishing. We have had no explanation of why we should go through the paraphernalia of debating the programming of business for the saving of half an hour. Apparently, that is what we are being asked to do.
I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Dispatch Box, but failing even to try to explain succinctly what is before us and the purpose that the motion is intended to achieve is rather an odd way of starting. I repeat: am I right in saying that the purpose of the motion is to save 30 minutes of debating time this afternoon? If so, why?
Again, the silence is astonishing. The House is being treated with complete contempt. The Leader of the House knows well from past debates the anxiety that has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about trying to achieve sensible programming of business. He knows also mat there are considerable anxieties about the way in which the system is exploited. Here we have a system being introduced in an irrational fashion, with absolutely no justification or explanation offered of why we should have to go through this process.
I hope that in the course of my short remarks and a short debate on the motion we might receive an answer from the Minister. I find it astonishing that none has so far been tendered. Does that not call into question the
798
entire issue that we shall have to discuss on the substantive motions? If we are to be treated in this fashion over a simple business motion, Lord help us when it comes to the major issues that we must discuss, which involve trying to hold the Government to account and which ask us to make substantial concessions in terms of the normal practice of the House for the sake, apparently, of improving the way in which business is conducted.
If the Minister cannot explain this simple motion in a coherent fashion, how can we have any faith or trust in the explanations that will be given on the substantive motions?
1.32 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has said in opposing the motion. I have but a few points to make.
First, it is lamentable that the Minister who has charge of the motion should not have explained why he is introducing it. We are entitled to know. The fact that he has not told us, or even advanced an explanation, shows either a lack of mastery of his brief or a contempt for the House, which I find deplorable.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I notice that a note has now arrived from the Box to assist the Minister. Perhaps we might get an answer now. The Minister appears to have received it.
Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the Minister will need notes and advice. He will also have to learn to treat the House with something approaching respect. If he wishes to be, as I understand he is, the deputy Leader of the House—
Mr. Eric Forth: What?
Mr. Hogg: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is the deputy Leader of the House. He will have to take more care with the House. The purpose of the Leader's office is to represent the interests of the entirety of the House. If the junior Minister in the Leader's office does not have the courtesy to tell us why he is laying a business motion before the House—
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman does not know.
Mr. Hogg: I suspect that he does not, and that suggests that he did not properly prepare himself before speaking from the Dispatch Box. That shows a contempt for the House that I find wholly lamentable.
Secondly, it is not good enough that a debate of this sort, which is of some importance, should come out of the time that is allocated for the substantive motions that are to be debated. It is not necessary, either, because the House's business could be ordered so that we took the substantive motions in a way that ensured that full time was preserved for debate on them. The Government have chosen not to do that; they have taken a course of action that could result in questions on the substantive motion being put without any debate at all. If the House chose to debate the business motion until 7 o'clock, questions on deferred voting and programming in the substantive motion could be put to the House without any discussion. I suspect that that is deliberate; the aim is to try to curtail debate, which again shows contempt for free speech.

799
There is a related point to do with voting. If we are minded to press for a Division on the business motion, which we are perfectly entitled to do, that too will come out of the time allocated for the substantive debate. If we are to do our job properly, press the Government on why we have a business motion and ask for a proper explanation—which, if we find it unsatisfactory, we shall vote against—the time for all of that comes out of the substantive motion. That is yet another example of a tyrannical Government trying to confine the House and prevent proper discussion, and it is a disgrace.
1.36 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This is a rather sad and sorry beginning to what will be a sad and sorry parliamentary day, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) reflected all too well.
The spectacle of a Minister coming to the House with no explanation at all for the motion on the Order Paper indicates all too readily the current relationship between the Government and the House of Commons, which is one of arrogance and total mastery. The Government's attitude is that the House is an irrelevance, inconvenience and nuisance to be swept aside; its role is to be minimised.
We shall shortly explore those matters further when we debate the main motion but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has already pointed out, the business motion illustrates only too well the difficulties that we now face. Ministers no longer regard it as their responsibility or duty to the House even to attempt to give any sort of explanation of their proposals. After all, technically at least, the motion is a proposal from the Government, to be considered and disposed of by the House. The sad fact is, after four years of the previous Parliament, in which the Government had a majority of 170, we now have to repeat the exercise. The Government believe that they have an absolute right to do what they wish in all circumstances and without even giving an explanation of their motives and what the consequences may be.
As Members, we are reduced to making a judgment on whether to curtail our remarks on this part of the day's business to preserve something of what is left. That is obviously the Government's intention; they are happy and think that they have been clever. In a sense, they are; the motion, together with the result of the motions that we have still to debate, is a relentless diminution of the opportunities available to Members, not just to question the Government and hold them to account, but to irritate them, delay them and cause them inconvenience. There is a new constitutional departure—the belief that the House of Commons exists for the convenience of Government Members.
That should be spelled out. At the start of what will no doubt be a distinguished and lengthy career, it would be helpful if the Minister set the stamp on it in a manner uncharacteristic of a Minister. Will he lay out for us with honesty and transparency the fact that the Government now regard the House of Commons as a necessary inconvenience, whose role they wish to diminish as far as possible so that the business can simply be got through as expeditiously as possible?
We hear from the babes on the Government Benches— and from other hon. Members — that they believe that being detained inconveniently in the House is
800
unacceptable in this modern age. They believe that the legislative process should be reduced and diminished to something that is quick, easy and efficient. Hon. Members would then be able to leave the House as soon as possible to get on with I know not what.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right, and does not that make it all the more scandalous that the House is likely to rise at 7 o'clock tonight? There is no reason why even the babes should not stay here a bit longer.
Mr. Forth: It remains to be seen how much time the Divisions later today will add—and, in the hope that hon. Members will be able to plan their busy day, I can assure the House that there will be Divisions later. We will then be able to assess how many hon. Members—and of what gender—will be present to vote.
Mr. John Bercow: I am as perturbed as my right hon. Friend by the Minister's failure to offer a rationale for the motion in his unnecessarily truncated speech. My right hon. Friend has a track record of penetrating the inner recesses of ministerial minds: does he believe that the motion is an example of knavery or of folly, or is it a hybrid of the two?
Mr. Forth: The House should show its traditional generosity to the Minister, who has not been in his post long. He has not been in the House long, but I do not hold that against him. His opening remarks were brief, but I am sure that we will get a comprehensive and penetrating analysis from him after this debate. That will re-establish our confidence in him, which was dented by the way in which he stuck to his notes in his short speech. I hope that I can persuade Conservative Members to join me in being generous towards the Minister.
For hon. Members who love the House and believe that it should still have a role, this is a sad and depressing day. I fear that today's debates will show that a large step has been taken towards the House's demise as a true instrument for holding the Government of the day to account. I should like to think that I was wrong, but I suspect that I will have been proved all too right by about 7.30 this evening.
1.43 pm
Mr. William Cash: I share the view that the motion reveals the Government's contempt for the House, but it is equally true—and just as important—that the Government have contempt for the electorate. At the recent general election, voters sent hon. Members to the House to represent them. They deserve better.
I spoke in yesterday's debate on the constitution about parliamentary reform, and the motion reveals why that reform is needed. It is inconceivable that ordinary people could understand the verbiage and gobbledegook that today's Order Paper contains. I defy anyone to come up with a rational explanation for today's proceedings.
I have no sympathy for the Minister, who treated the House with contempt from the Dispatch Box. Equally, however, I severely censure those—in particular the Leader of the House—who are responsible for the disgraceful way in which today's debates are to proceed. The motions, if approved, will effectively cause debate on treaties and other important matters to be truncated and driven underground.

801
I want to comment briefly on the motion. It calls to mind Dunning's famous motion of 1780, which stated:
"The power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."
For the word "Crown", we should substitute "Executive"; for "Executive", we could substitute "Ministers of the Crown". That includes the Prime Minister.
The motion shows contempt for the House. More than that, it shows the contempt of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House for the people who recently voted in the election. No wonder there was a low turnout and such cynicism. Any electors who were confronted with such ridiculous gobbledegook and verbiage would have every reason to question why they should vote. Ministers should take the responsibility and the blame for that.
I would have expected the Leader of the House to rise above what we are witnessing today.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the verbiage in the motions. Does he agree that it would be a great improvement if the Order Paper always contained a summary of the consequences of the motions presented to the House?
Mr. Cash: As ever, I am delighted by my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks. Like most of my hon. Friends, he understands these matters. Labour Members apparently do not understand them. Bills that deal with treaties—one was published recently—and other important matters are accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, explaining in simple language what exactly is going on. Do not Members of Parliament have a right to such explanations of motions?
There is a serious problem. The confidence of Members in what is happening is at risk. Its diminution is the direct result of the sort of technical garbage that we are considering. It is therefore essential for the House to deal with the matter properly. I believe that some Labour Members agree with me in principle. I should be delighted if they addressed the matter, however moderately. I am looking at a specific Member, whom I know well. All power to the elbow of those who have the courage to stand up to their Government. The independence of Back Benchers in matters that relate to the power of the Executive is at risk. Hon. Members know that some Conservative Members occasionally had to inconvenience our Government.
We are considering a test case, which presents an opportunity for Members of good heart, good will and determination on behalf of Parliament to say from the beginning that we have had enough and that we will not allow such a method of proceeding to continue.
1.48 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I came to the House with the joyous intent of wishing the new Parliamentary Secretary all the best. His appointment under the Leader of the House is important. Indeed, the Leader of the House is one of the most effective parliamentary speakers and questioners, who has—or had—a fundamental regard for the purposes of the House. I shall now enter a caveat: it is disappointing that,
802
with his first words in his new post, the Parliamentary Secretary moved a guillotine motion. The motion that we are discussing simply truncates business. It is followed by the important motions whose consideration it truncates, albeit by only half an hour, although it itself holds out the possibility of debate until any hour. I reflect on those matters because it is an unfortunate way for the Parliamentary Secretary's tenure to commence.
I think that it was Maine who said that justice was to be found in the interstices of procedure. I am conscious that in justice lies our liberty. The Leader of the House, when he took over these responsibilities on that glorious day, 8 June, must have closeted himself away to produce, between then and now, nearly seven pages of closely argued and reasoned motions. Reasoned? Well, argued, anyway, through the seven pages.
Is the House being given justice in being asked to examine something in only four and a half hours that strikes at its very function and purpose? These pages touch on the absolute control of the Executive over the House. That is why this little half-hour being taken out of those deliberations signals something: this is not now a matter for the House; it is a matter for the Executive.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am a little bit baffled as to where this entire set of suggestions came from. Has it been debated on the Floor of the House before now, or in one of the Committees, perhaps giving us some of the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman is now asking?
Mr. Shepherd: There are no documents attached to this motion. It is purely an act of the Executive. It is being taken at the moment of the greatest vulnerability and weakness in the life of a Parliament, which is when it is a new Parliament. I look across the Chamber and I ask myself how many hon. Members have actually read the motions that are to follow, which are to be subjected to this guillotine. Two people have put their hands up. Any other offers? Now four people have put their hands up.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Have you read them?
Mr. Shepherd: Yes, I have. I remember the great Michael Foot asking that question of "the ninnies on the other side" and they put their hands up. That is what we have reduced this Chamber to: not reason, not argument, but to the fact that we put our hands up. The reading of this document and the understanding of Standing Orders are important. When I first came into the House, I did not understand the constitution and the way in which we carry out our business. Our justice lies in these details. We are talking about the constitution not only of the Chamber but of this country.
If I cannot express myself, if I cannot argue even though I am mandated, and if it is solely the majority— or not even the majority, after all—that slaps in and says what will happen on occasions that follow this, I must ask the House to consider whether what is effectively a guillotine that will truncate our debate will allow us enough time to discuss in detail whether we shall have in future the opportunities that we have had in the past.
The traditions and freedoms of the House to represent our constituents touch on our liberties. The legislation that comes forth from our debates in this place is the criminal

803
law of our land. I ask the most important section of any Parliament—the majority—to reflect. Great issues will come up in this Parliament, such as trial by jury and double jeopardy. Such legislation will require amendment. Does this motion, which gives the Government the ability to set—to the minute, if necessary— what we may debate, enable us to discuss those matters now? It will be taken for granted that those on the Opposition Benches will oppose everything, although that is not the truth of the matter. We must reflect what we are bringing upon ourselves if we accept this: a Minister will be able to dismiss every amendment. That is what it says here.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is very obviously referring to the motions yet to come. We are at the moment debating the business motion.
Mr. Shepherd: Sir, I would only suggest that I am referring to the motions in respect of the question of whether there is sufficient time to discuss them. Their import is so great that, having identified the principles behind them, I am arguing that there is not. That is the purpose of my reference.
It is difficult to condense into a four and a half hour debate the passions, the histories and the traditions of this country as a free nation in which freedom of expression was central to the way in which we undertook our business. I suggest that new Members should have the opportunity to read the seven pages of the motions. After all, the former Foreign Secretary must have spent an enormous amount of time preparing them.
If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Sir, or if I am fortunate enough to be able to speak to the amendment, I shall ask many questions and address the issues then, but, as the matter stands, let us be absolutely clear that the time available is inadequate; that this motion does not give us the opportunity to discuss the matter sufficiently; and that we ought to stand back and put our view to the Leader of the House. Remember, he holds a unique post in which he tries to hole the balance between the interests of the House and— [Interruption.] I thought I heard the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) say, "Too long." It is not my fault that the motion is on the Order Paper. The hon. Lady should take that up with her Whips and her Government. If she has a view, she can make her own argument as to why the time we have taken is too long. This "off with their heads" attitude has reduced the House to impotence, so that it is of no interest to the wider public outside.
I am trying to contain a fury at what is to come, although my anger started during what was to have been a tribute and well-wish to the deputy Leader of the House. I hope that he will understand that balance in future. When the present Leader of the House was already a Member, John Biffen, a former Leader of the House, said, "We have to remember that today's Government is tomorrow's prospective Opposition." Protect our freedoms and our liberties, and do not introduce these measures.
1.57 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about the central
804
seriousness of what we are to debate this afternoon, in that it goes to the core of Executive control of the House and relations between the House and the Executive. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made the good point that we would all benefit from an explanatory memorandum on such motions. To go further, I would have welcomed an explanation from the Minister of the loss of half an hour.
Allowing for all that and for the central seriousness of a proposal which, unless the Leader of the House says otherwise, could in some respects represent almost instant guillotines on our proceedings, are we not being daft in wasting time on this debate? The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made the point that we have only one afternoon to discuss the matter, but we have already wasted half an hour—
Mr. Forth: Wasted?
Mr. Fisher: We have wasted half an hour during which we could have discussed the substantive motion. We are merely debating the time available. Let us get on, because the issues are so important and so central to the balance between the Executive and the legislature that we need all afternoon to discuss that matter, rather than considering whether we are spending time wisely.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Has he finished? I thought that I was intervening.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) did not make his intentions clear. I assumed that he was giving way.
Mr. Fisher: For the convenience of the House, I am happy to give way, although I was within syllables of concluding.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is ever gracious.
Mr. Grieve: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not think it right that we should spend a little time discussing the matter, particularly in the absence of an explanation? It goes to the very root of the relevance of the Chamber and the way in which we operate. The explanation could easily have been provided and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows as well as do what it is. Why could we not be told?
Mr. Fisher: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but are we not losing our perspective? The important issue is the substantive motion, but we have spent half an hour discussing time, which is a slight error of judgment.
2pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). However, while I agree with many of his sentiments, I do not agree with his specific suggestion that the time spent on this motion is wasted, because it and the next motion are inextricably linked. This motion is a

805
forerunner of what is to come: this motion encapsulates the Government's attitude to the House. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are challenging it.
I am also delighted to follow the last Conservative speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose passionate defence of this House and this Parliament— its traditions and its liberties— is an inspiration to many of us and will, I hope, serve as a lesson to many who have just joined the House. One day they will be on the Opposition Benches, just as one day I started out on the Government Benches. If they treat lightly the way in which we enact legislation on behalf of our constituents, they will not only do their own constituents a disservice, but fail to live up to the responsibilities conferred on them by the privilege of membership of the House. They should therefore treat it with great seriousness.
I do not wish to speak for long, but I will say this. Like my hon. Friend, I had hoped to be able to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to his new post in the usual way. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the four years that he has spent in the House, the House is very understanding of new Ministers, and of the trepidation with which most sensible new Ministers approach the Dispatch Box— the nervousness, the anticipation and all the rest. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman started off so inauspiciously; I hope that he will take advantage of the House's indulgence to return to the Dispatch Box and provide the proper explanation that the motion unquestionably demands.
As I said earlier, I consider that a motion to truncate debate on such hugely important issues by half an hour demonstrates the Government's contemptuous attitude to the House. It is significant that the first business before us since the debate on the Gracious Speech should be a measure to truncate the powers of the House, and to confer yet more powers on the Executive—powers that they arrogated to themselves in the last Parliament without the consent of the Opposition. That was not agreed by the House: it was agreed by the Labour party, and by no one else.
The Government should bear it in mind that vengeance will return. If they treat the House and the Opposition with such contempt, they should not expect, when the tables are turned, to be treated with the courtesy with which they should be treating the Opposition now.
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend share the widespread view—it is certainly widespread on the Conservative Benches— that the intended circumscription of debate on business of the House motions would be unacceptable even if it had enjoyed cross-party agreement through the usual channels, which it patently has not? Does he also agree that we need not look into the crystal ball when we can read the book? We know from the way in which Programming Sub-Committees have been constituted that they entail domination by Government Whips. They are hand-picked; they are not accountable. It is here, in the House, that we have our only opportunity to express our views about the wisdom or unwisdom of what the Government propose.
Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend; and if he casts his mind back to the last Parliament, he may recall
806
that there were those of us who did not always agree that the usual channels were the best defence of our liberties here. We are a new Parliament, however, and we are starting afresh. We mean to ensure— I hope that this applies to Members on both sides of the House; I am certainly much encouraged by what was said by my former Staffordshire colleague, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)— that there is cross-party determination, in the interests of good government, to prevent tzhe House from being treated with contempt by the Executive.
David Winnick: The time will certainly come when Conservative Members will be sitting on the Government Benches, although I trust that it will not be for a long time. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who support the Government on this measure do so not out of arrogance or to prevent proper scrutiny by the Opposition— although we also have a responsibility in that respect— but because we want a balance between proper scrutiny, the role of the House of Commons and our sitting hours, which should be normal, and should not go right through the night when that is totally unnecessary?
Mr. Howarth: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in his examination of the Executive, but I do not recall many all-night debates in the last Parliament. When I came into the House in 1983, we had night after night of all-night sittings. I did not enjoy that, and it is not the best way to run this place. I hope that Labour Members will understand that one of the reasons why we did what we did in the last Parliament, led by my indefatigable and wonderful right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was a great inspiration to us in our endeavours, was that we felt that there was no other way to get the message across that we did not believe that the balance that the hon. Gentleman wants to establish was being struck at the right point.
I want to conclude my remarks, because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was right that we should get on to the main business. I hope all hon. Members agree that it is a matter of central importance to the good governance of this country and to those who sent us here that we should have proper scrutiny of the Executive. However, the absence of people in the Press Gallery shows how little interest the media take in the serious issue of the government of this country. That should concern every Member of the House, from whatever party and regardless of the view they hold. The media's indifference to any discussion of these matters, and their concentration on the trivia of our private lives and issues of froth and no substance, is one of the reasons why the House is held in declining regard by our constituents, and why we need a proper debate on this issue. We do not need this programme motion, which, to the discredit of the new Leader of the House, is the first measure he has brought before us.
2.8 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I make a plea to the Leader of the House, who has a very important role. Will he please prevail on his junior Minister, before the debate is brought to an end, to provide a simple, straightforward, brief explanation of why this motion is necessary? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in the

807
last Parliament I was a member of the Modernisation Committee, and also had the honour to chair the Select Committee on Procedure. I am concerned about the House's ability to monitor the Executive and to hold the Government of the day to account.
I listen with deep respect every time my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) speaks, because, whether he is sitting on the Government Benches or on the Opposition Benches, his belief in upholding the integrity of the House is second to none.
I should like to respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is also a fine parliamentarian. The major part of the debate we are about to have will be based on the first report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2000–01, "Programming of Legislation", in whose production my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I played a part.
We should get on to the main business, but the Government should at least have the courtesy to explain why this unfortunate motion is necessary.
2.9 pm
Mr. Stephen Twigg: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the Opposition for the warmth of their welcome for my first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for their kind words and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) at least for his intent. I served with the him and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the Modernisation Committee for two years during the previous Parliament and I am aware of their experience and of their commitment to the House and to ensuring the effectiveness of the Chamber and the House in general.
The answer to the question that has been raised by many hon. Members is that, without this business motion it would be possible for the debate on the programming motion to continue beyond 7 o'clock. Were that to happen, the subsequent motion on deferred Divisions could be talked out. There may be some hon. Members who would like that to happen, and they can vote against this motion, although I urge hon. Members to support it so that we can begin the debate.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand that it is always possible to talk out Government business. If it were not, there would be hardly any point in having Members of Parliament. However, if such a mishap were to occur, is there any reason why the matter should not reappear on the Order Paper, perhaps even next week?
Mr. Twigg: This is not Government business: it is a matter for the House. It is based on a Modernisation Committee report and Labour Members will have a free vote on the issues later.
Mr. Forth: Will the Minister remind us who chairs the Modernisation Committee?
Mr. Twigg: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House chairs the Committee. However, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the report, he will see that there was cross-party support.
Mrs. Angela Browning: It was not supported by the official opposition, whom I represented on that Committee.
Mr. Twigg: I accept that, but the former right hon. Member for East Devon, Sir Peter Emery, who was a highly respected Conservative Back Bencher, did support the report, and therefore, there was cross-Bench support. The hon. Lady is right to say that there was no Opposition Front-Bench support.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: If it is right that this is not Government business and is entirely a House of Commons matter, it does not matter if it runs beyond 7 o'clock. It is in the House's hands. It is no skin off the Government's nose. We could just bring it back on another day for the mutual convenience of all hon. Members.
Mr. Twigg: It is a matter for the House and, if a majority in the House share that opinion, it will be reflected in the vote on the business motion. I reject the charge that by tabling the business motion we are showing contempt for the House. We have allocated a full day for this discussion and there have been no Government statements. Previous similar subjects have been granted only half a day. My feeling is that the House wants to get on and discuss the substantive matters.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 118.

Division No.5]

[2.13 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Bryant, Chris

Ainger, Nick

Buck, Ms Karen

Allan, Richard

Burden, Richard

Allen, Graham

Burgon, Colin

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Burnham, Andy

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cable, Dr Vincent

Atkins, Charlotte

Cairns, David

Austin, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Bailey, Adrian

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Baird, Vera

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barnes, Harry

Caplin, Ivor

Barron, Kevin

Caton, Martin

Battle, John

Cawsey, Ian

Bayley, Hugh

Challen, Colin

Beard, Nigel

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clark, Dr Lynda

Beith, Rt Hon A J

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Bell, Stuart

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benn, Hilary

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bennett, Andrew

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Benton, Joe

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Berry, Roger

Clwyd, Ann

Best, Harold

Coffey, Ms Ann

Betts, Clive

Coleman, Iain

Blackman, Liz

Colman, Tony

Blizzard, Bob

Connarty, Michael

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Borrow, David

Cooper, Yvette

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Corston, Jean

Brake, Tom

Cotter, Brian

Breed, Colin

Cousins, Jim

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cranston, Ross

Brooke, Annette

Cruddas, Jon

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Browne, Desmond

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

809

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jenkins, Brian

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Johnson, Miss Melanie

David, Wayne

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Joyce, Eric

Donohoe, Brian H

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Doran, Frank

Keeble, Ms Sally

Doughty, Sue

Keen, Alan (Feltham amp; Heston)

Drew, David

Keen, Ann (Brentford amp; Isleworth)

Drown, Ms Julia

Kelly, Ruth

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kidney, David

Efford, Clive

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ellman, Mrs Louise

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ennis, Jeff

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Farrelly, Paul

Kirkwood, Archy

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Flint, Caroline

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Follett, Barbara

Laxton, Bob

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lepper, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Levitt, Tom

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Francis, Dr Hywel

Linton, Martin

Galloway, George

Lloyd, Tony

Gapes, Mike

Llwyd, Elfyn

Gerrard, Neil

Love, Andrew

Gibson, Dr Ian

Lucas, Ian

Gidley, Sandra

Luke, Iain

Gilroy, Linda

Lyons, John

Goggins, Paul

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McCabe, Stephen

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McDonnell, John

Grogan, John

McFall, John

Hain, Peter

McGuire, Mrs Anne

McIsaac, Shona

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McKechin, Ann

Hanson, David

McKenna, Rosemary

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Mackinlay, Andrew

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Havard, Dai

McWalter, Tony

Healey, John

McWilliam, John

Heath, David

Mahmood, Khalid

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mallaber, Judy

Hendrick, Mark

Mann, John

Heppell, John

Marris, Rob

Hesford, Stephen

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Heyes, David

Martlew, Eric

Hill, Keith

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hinchliffe, David

Miller, Andrew

Holmes, Paul

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hood, Jimmy

Moffatt, Laura

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Moran, Margaret

Hopkins, Kelvin

Morgan, Julie

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mountford, Kali

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Munn, Ms Meg

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hurst, Alan

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Norris, Dan

Iddon, Dr Brian

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Illsley, Eric

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Olner, Bill

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Neill, Martin

Jamieson, David

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

810

Owen, Albert

Stringer, Graham

Palmer, Dr Nick

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Perham, Linda

Stunell, Andrew

Picking, Anne

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pickthall, Colin

Tami, Mark

Pike, Peter

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Plaskitt, James

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Pope, Greg

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Prosser, Gwyn

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Purchase, Ken

Thurso, John

Purnell, James

Tipping, Paddy

Quinn, Lawrie

Todd, Mark

Rammell, Bill

Truswell, Paul

Rapson, Syd

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Robertson, John

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rooney, Terry

Tyler, Paul

Ross, Ernie

Tynan, Bill

Ruddock, Joan

Walley, Ms Joan

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ward, Ms Claire

Ryan, Joan

Watson, Tom

Salter, Martin

Watts, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

White, Brian

Savidge, Malcolm

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sedgemore, Brian

Wicks, Malcolm

Shaw, Jonathan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Sheerman, Barry

(Swansea W)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Simon, Siôn

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Willis, Phil

Skinner, Dennis

Winnick, David

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wishart, Pete

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wood, Mike

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Woolas, Phil

Soley, Clive

Worthington, Tony

Southworth, Helen

Wright, David (Telford)

Squire, Rachel

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Wyatt, Derek

Steinberg, Gerry

Younger-Ross, Richard

Stevenson, George

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mr. Tony McNulty and Mr. Ian Pearson.

Stoate, Dr Howard

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Collins, Tim

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cran, James

Bacon, Richard

Curry, Rt Hon David

Baldry, Tony

Djanogly, Jonathan

Barker, Greg

Dodds, Nigel

Baron, John

Duncan Smith, Iain

Bellingham, Henry

Duncan, Peter

Bercow, John

Evans, Nigel

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fabricant, Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Fallon, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Flight, Howard

Brady, Graham

Flook, Adrian

Brazier, Julian

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Browning, Mrs Angela

Francois, Mark

Burnett, John

Gale, Roger

Burt, Alistair

Garnier, Edward

Butterfill, John

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Cameron, David

Gibb, Nick

Cash, William

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Chope, Christopher

Goodman, Paul

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Grayling, Chris

(Rushcliffe)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grieve, Dominic

811

Hague, Rt Hon William

Prisk, Mark

Hawkins, Nick

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hayes, John

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Heald, Oliver

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hendry, Charles

Rosindell, Andrew

Hoban, Mark

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Horam, John

Shepherd, Richard

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Simmonds, Mark

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

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

Jenkin, Bernard

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Spelman Mrs Caroline

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spink, Dr Robert

Lansley, Andrew

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Leigh, Edward

Steen, Anthony

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Swayne, Desmond

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Swire, Hugo

Lidington, David

Syms, Robert

Loughton, Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Luff, Peter

Taylor, John (Solihull)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Tredinick, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Maples, John

Watkinson, Angela

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Whittingdale, John

Mercer, Patrick

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Wiggin, Bill

Moss, Malcolm

Wilkinson, John

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Öpik, Lembit

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Page, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Paterson, Owen

Mr. John Randall and Mr. James Gray.

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to Programming of Legislation and Deferred Divisions not later than half-past Six o'clock; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

Programming of Bills
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the main motions. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that the motion on deferred Divisions may be debated together with the motion on programming of Bills although, of course, there will be scope for separate Divisions. I must also announce to the House that the Speaker has been unable to accept the amendment tabled to the motion on programming.
2.26 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons(Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
That in the current Session of Parliament Orders A to I below shall have effect:
A. Programme Motions
(1) If, before second reading of a bill, notice of a motion providing—

(a) for committal of the bill, and

(b) for any proceedings on the bill to be programmed,

is given by a Minister of the Crown, the motion may be made immediately after second reading, and Standing Order No. 63 shall not apply to the Bill.
(2) Such a motion is to be called a programme motion.
(3) An order made by the House as a result of a programme motion is to be called a programme order.
(4) A motion to vary or supplement a programme order is also to be called a programme motion.
(5) A programme motion may provide for the allocation of time for any proceedings on a bill.
(6) Except in the following three cases, or where paragraph (B) of Programme Order B (Programming Committees) applies, the question on a programme motion is to be put forthwith.
(7) The first exception is where—

(a) a Standing Committee has reported a resolution under paragraph (11) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees) proposing an alteration of the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House, and

(b) the motion made under paragraph (12) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees) does not give effect to the Standing Committee's proposal.

(8) The second exception is where the motion makes further provision for proceedings on consideration and third reading of the bill otherwise than in accordance with a resolution of a Programming Committee under paragraph (5) of Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) or a resolution of a Standing Committee under paragraph (13) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees).
(9) The third exception is where the motion reduces the amount of time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on the bill (whether or not it also increases the amount of time allocated for other proceedings on the bill).
(10) In an excepted case, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion is to be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion.
(11) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted Business) applies to proceedings on a programme motion.
(12) Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of Time) does not apply to a programme motion.
(13) If a programme order applies to a bill, neither Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) nor Standing Order No. 120 (Business Sub-Committee) applies to the bill.
B. Programming Committees
(1) This order applies if proceedings in committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading are subject to a programme order.
(2) There is to be a committee for the bill consisting of—

(a) the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is to be chairman of the committee); and

(b) not more than eight other Members, nominated by the Speaker.

(3) The committee is to be called the Programming Committee.
(4) The quorum of the Programming Committee is four.
(5) The Programming Committee shall consider the allocation of time to proceedings in committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading and report any resolution which it makes to the House.
(6) Proceedings in the Programming Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after their commencement.
(7) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (6), the chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided; and

(b) then put successively questions on any motions made by a Minister of the Crown.

(8) On a motion being made in the House relating to a resolution of the Programming Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
(9) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the bill.
(10) Proceedings on a motion made under paragraph (8) may be entered upon and decided, though opposed, at any hour.
(11) Resolutions of the Programming Committee—

(a) may be reported from time to time; and

(b) subject to the powers of the Speaker or Chairman to select the amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings on the bill are to be taken.

C. Programming Sub-Committees(1) If a bill is subject to a programme order which commits it to a standing committee, the order stands referred to the committee and shall be considered by a sub-committee of the committee.
(2) The sub-committee is to be called the Programming Sub-Committee.
(3) The Programming Sub-Committee shall consist of—

(a) the chairman or one of the chairmen of the committee (who is to be chairman of the sub-committee); and

(b) seven members of the committee, nominated by the Speaker.

(4) The quorum of the Programming Sub-Committee is four.
(5) The Programming Sub-Committee shall report to the committee any resolution which it makes about—

(a) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the bill in the committee;

(b) the allocation of the proceedings to each sitting;

(c) the time at which any proceedings, if not previously concluded, are to be brought to a conclusion;

(d) the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House;

(e) the programming of consideration and third reading.

(6) Proceedings in the Programming Sub-Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after their commencement.
(7) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (6), the chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet been decided; and

(b) then put forthwith successively questions on any motions made by a Minister of the Crown.

(8) Resolutions of the Programming Sub-Committee—

(a) may be reported from time to time; and

(b) subject to the powers of the chairman to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings are to be taken.

(9) On a motion in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee being made in the committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion is to be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
(10) If the provisions of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee under sub-paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph (5) are agreed to (with or without modification) by the committee, the provisions (or the provions as modified) are to have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the bill.
(11) Any resolution of the committee—

(a) proposing an alteration to the date by which the Bill is to be reported to the House; or

(b) making a recommendation about the programming of the Bill on consideration and third reading;

shall be reported to the House.
(12) If a resolution is reported proposing an alteration to the date by which the Bill is to be reported to the House, a supplemental programme motion shall be set down for a day not later than the fifth sitting day after the day when the report was made which may—

(a) give effect to the Committee's proposal;

(b) otherwise alter or supplement the provisions of the original programme of the bill; or

(c) confirm the date set in the original programme order for the bill.

(13) If a resolution is reported making a recommendation about the programming of the Bill on consideration and third reading, a supplemental programme motion shall be set down before the consideration of the bill on report which may—

(a) give effect to the Committee's recommendations;

(b) otherwise alter or supplement the provisions of the original programme of the bill; or

(c) confirm the original programme order for the bill.

D. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House
(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings in standing committee or in committee of the whole House to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
(2) The chairman shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)—

(a) any question already proposed from the chair;

(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;

(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chairman for separate division;

(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the chairman shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill.
(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.
(5) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the bill, the chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those provisions.
(6) On conclusion of the proceedings in a committee, the chairman shall report the bill (or such of the bill's provisions as were committed to it) to the House without putting any question.
E. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration or third reading
(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration and third reading to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others) —

(a)any question already proposed from the chair;

(b)any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;

(c)the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate division;

(d)the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(e)any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill.
(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments of motions.
F. Programme orders: conclusion of proceeding on consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single question on any further amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown; and

(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment; and

(b) the question on any motion made by.a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may he) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has—

(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments; or

(b) disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,

816
the Speaker shall put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
G. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords
(1)This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on any further message from the Lords to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
(2)The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
(3)The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the chair.
(4)The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.
(5)The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all of the remaining Lords proposals.
H. Programme orders: Reasons Committee
(1) This order applies in relation to any Committee to be appointed to draw up Reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman.
(3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(4) Proceedings in the Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than half an hour after their commencement.
(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (4), the chairman shall—

(a)first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided; and

(b)then put forthwith successively questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(6) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further question being put.
I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions
(1) The provisions of this order apply to proceedings in the House or in Committee of the whole House on a bill which is subject to a programme order.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) applies to the proceedings for any period after ten o'clock (or on Thursday, seven o'clock) allocated to them in accordance with the programme order.
(3) The proceedings may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) If, on a day on which the bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day, a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a)that motion stands over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to conclusion at or before that time; and

(b)the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

(5) If a day on which the bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day is one to which a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the

817
bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day is postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
(6)No dilatory motion may be made in relation to the proceedings except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion is to be put forthwith
(7)If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of the programme order
It might help the House if, before I turn to the substance of the motion before us, I respond to some of the comments that have just been made.
First, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked whether the motion had been before any Committee of the House. Motions that are before the House this afternoon flow from the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee in two successive reports, and fairly faithfully carry through the recommendations of both those reports.
Secondly, the terms of the motions before us are very close to those of the motions that the House has debated previously. The first, on programming, is similar to the one carried in the last Session; the second, on deferred Divisions, is identical. The only difference between the debates on the motions that we have debated in the past and tonight's debate is that the time for tonight's debate is longer than the time for debate when the House last passed these motions. When it last debated them, it did so on a half day, starting at 7 pm. On this occasion, because of the importance of these issues and because hon. Members would wish to express themselves, we have allowed a full day for debate.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: But the right hon. Gentleman will observe that the programming motion now before the House provides that programme motions will be put to the vote immediately, and we shall not be able to debate them for 45 minutes as we were able to do in the last Parliament. Moreover, there is no point in saying that there was all-party agreement to the report because, had the right hon. Gentleman been in the House, attending the debates in the last Parliament, he would have known full well that programming motions were resisted on every occasion. I made more than 12 speeches opposing them.
Mr. Cook: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can take some credit for having been one of the reasons that persuaded the great majority of the members of the Modernisation Committee, in their last report, to propose that those programming motions should be taken forthwith. I did say—
Mr. Hogg: Why?
Mr. Cook: I will turn to the issue of substance later, but I said at the start of my comments that the motions before the House faithfully include the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, of which—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right—that was one.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised, in the course of the previous discussion, the proposal that, when there is before the House a motion that is necessarily
818
technical and legalistic, it should be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, setting out the purpose of the motion. That is a worthwhile proposal. In future, I shall endeavour to ensure that that is met on the Order Paper, although on this occasion I shall have to attempt to explain it in my speech.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The right hon. Gentleman told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that it was his participation in 12 debates that led the Modernisation Committee to its conclusions, but that is not the case. One of my objections to the way in which that Committee dealt with the matter is that it made no analysis of the way in which programming motions were debated in the previous Session.
Mr. Cook: Other members of the Modernisation Committee will be able to respond to the hon. Lady's comments on the way in which it reached its conclusions. I am sorry if she is going to deny the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) the benefit of being able to claim the credit for the change.
Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend mentioned previous reports of the Select Committee on Modernisation. I have only had a chance to look at the report on the programming of legislation. It does not seem to include all the items that are before us today. For example, has the proposal that Lords amendments and Government motions to disagree with them should be taken forthwith without any debate been considered previously?
Mr. Cook: It is fair to say that the Modernisation Committee's report is brief and does not go into the full detail necessary for the resolution that is put before the House. That proposal is entirely consistent with the policy proposal of the Committee.
Mr. John Bercow rose—
Mr. Cook: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion; I never wish to disappoint him. However, I must then make some progress.
Mr. Bercow: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his gracious protection of my interests, but I am sorry to have to say that his flippant response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) betrays an ignorance of the history of the dispute on this matter, that is to his enduring discredit. Is he not aware that in the previous Parliament there was continuous dispute about the operations of the Programming Sub-Committees and programming motions on the Floor of the House, and that his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping)—an assiduous performer at the Dispatch Box, who is sadly no longer a member of the Government—undertook, with the support of his boss, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), on a number of occasions to review the operation of those matters. Has the Leader of the House forgotten, or did he not know?
Mr. Cook: Of course, these will never be matters on which it is easy to form a consensus. I wish it were

819
otherwise. Different views will be taken on a programming motion. However, it is hard to see why on every occasion in the previous Parliament—despite the fact that the Programming Sub-Committee may sometimes have reached a conclusion that was acceptable to many of its members—the motion was contentious.
Perhaps I may try to restore a sense of perspective to the debate.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I wish to make some progress, but I will happily give way when I have made this point.
The motions put before the House give effect to proposals of the Modernisation Committee that remain experimental. That is why they were temporary in the previous Session and why they must both be renewed. Both will be reviewed at the end of this Session. I invite hon. Members, therefore, to recognise that this is not the seismic debate that some people attempted to describe in which we are setting aside centuries of tradition and of the rights of Members. This is an experiment to make the proceedings of the House more effective, which the House itself will have ample opportunity to review and reconsider on a future occasion.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is beginning what I hope will be a long and illustrious tenure of an important office. Does he accept that the Modernisation Committee is discredited in the eyes of many Members of Parliament because it is chaired by the Leader of the House? If it were chaired by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), or even—dare I say it?—by me, it would command much greater cross-party support for its proposals. I urge the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider his position with regard to that Committee. If it produced proposals that were truly cross-party, there would not be much objection from most Conservative Members.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has made one of the most gracious pleas for a post that I have heard. I shall bear his volunteering in mind. As I told the House, it is important that as the Leader of the House I should take a close, personal interest in the Modernisation Committee and be involved in its decisions. Also, the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of how the Committee arrives at its recommendations is not borne out by the nature of the conclusions of the report. There is no evidence that—
Mr. Dominic Grieve rose—
Mr. Cook: I will not give way. I am still responding to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend on the Back Benchers. I have to defend the rights of Back Benchers in the House, too. There is no evidence in the report that my predecessor manipulated the Modernisation Committee or imposed a conclusion on it. Indeed, the initial recommendation for programme motions was unanimous on the part of the Committee—including all the then Conservative members of the Committee.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can I confirm, as a member of the Committee, that although the details of the
820
motion have obviously come from the right hon. Gentleman's office, the father of the idea behind it was certainly the former Member for East Devon, Sir Peter Emery, who was a distinguished Member and who chaired the Procedure Committee for some time? In due modesty, it is also fair to say that I share some responsibility as a godparent with the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). So the proposals were the result of an all-party approach. That does not mean that I take responsibility for the motion, but it would be a gross calumny to suggest that somehow the proposals have simply emanated from the Government.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the parentage of this project is shared by many hon. Members of all parties. I had it in mind to pay tribute to Sir Peter Emery and am pleased to echo what the hon. Gentleman said—that after many years of distinguished service in and experience of the House, he was able to participate fully in some of the radical proposals for modernising our procedures.
The motion on deferred Divisions, which is the second on the Order Paper, is identical to the motion that the House considered in the previous Session. It flows from the proposal of the Modernisation Committee, which reasonably justified it on the basis that it would
"allow Members to debate business after 10 pm without requiring other Members who did not wish to take part in the debate to remain in the building late at night waiting for a division which might in the event not take place."
The experiment on deferred Divisions has already shown one clear result: many more Members are able to vote— [Interruption.] I honestly do not know why Conservative Members, who were complaining earlier about low turnout, should find it hilarious that the procedure allows more Members to participate in decision making. The more Members participate, the more we can be confident that the decision represents the considered judgment of the House.
Mrs. Browning: The reference is presumably to Members for whom it is convenient to attend only on a Wednesday afternoon. How has the Prime Minister's voting record improved since deferred voting?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady can certainly pursue that matter with me and I will happily write and advise her. I must confess—this may be a failing on my part—that I cannot share with her the voting record of every one of the 659 Members of this House, including the Prime Minister.
I draw the hon. Lady's attention, however, to the vote on 19 December on child support. In the deferred Division on that vote, 522 Members voted aye and only five voted no. If we had not had the deferred Division arrangement on that occasion those five Members would have kept more than 500 here until midnight to record their view. As a result of the deferred Division, those five Members were able to express their view and the Members who opposed them could also all take part in the vote, when many of them would not have been able to do so had it not been for that arrangement.
It is very difficult not to reach an interim conclusion that deferred Divisions have suited the interests of hon. Members and enabled many more of them to take part.[Interruption.] I remind the Opposition Members who are

821
speaking from sedentary positions that not all 522 Members took the Labour Whip, so plainly the arrangement was of benefit to many Members other than those on the Government Benches.
The other motion provides for the continuation of the experiment with programme motions. The Modernisation Committee twice recommended doing so in the previous Session. On the first occasion, it did so by consensus, but I fully concede that it did so on the second occasion without the support of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and another Conservative Member. It is worth recalling that when the Modernisation Committee first, by consensus, recommended programming motions, it explicitly did so because it believed that they would improve the House's capacity to scrutinise legislation.
Let us be honest and realistic. Before programming, Governments of both colours—certainly including the Government who preceded us in office for 18 years—got their legislation by guillotine: a crude device, by which the first half dozen clauses in a Bill might be debated at great length and, frankly, with a lot of time wasting in the process, with the result that there was enforced silence on subsequent clauses. That does not tend towards the effective scrutiny of the whole Bill and of Government legislation. That is why the Modernisation Committee recommended programming and said in its report that it was doing so because it would benefit Opposition parties and Back Benchers, who would have a greater opportunity to debate and vote on the issues of most concern to them.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: I should like to try to solicit an assurance from my right hon. Friend. As he knows, until a few weeks ago, I was part of the usual channels. I guess that I am now part of the unusual channels. I had the privilege of whipping five major Bills through the House for the Government. On each occasion, I managed to reach an agreement with the Opposition Whips on timetabling in Committee and on Report and Third Reading, and I think that that worked very successfully. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government attach timetable motions to Bills only when they cannot secure an agreement with the Opposition?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend asks a question that I was asked at business questions last week by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who invited me to show good will by not programming every Bill. As I told him at the time, good will has to be a two-way street, and it is sometimes not easy to find that good will or common sense. Indeed, there was a classic case in the previous Parliament, when the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Act 2000—an unobjectionable, even tedious measure—took longer to be considered on the Floor of the House during its remaining stages than was taken in Committee, thus prompting a guillotine.
Mr. Desmond Swayne rose—
Mr. Cook: Let me finish the point.[Interruption.] We had several hours' debate on the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Act 2000 and I do not propose to reopen the matter. Although I would not necessarily expect to carry the hon. Gentleman with me in a spirit of consensus,
822
I understand that this is a new Parliament and that hon. Members have a new spirit, so I am willing to attempt an experiment in finding out whether such good will can be reciprocated.
Mr. Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I will not. The Homelessness Bill will be the first Bill to receive its Second Reading next week. May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes)and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that it is not our intention to move a programme motion on the Second Reading of that Bill? It is a short Bill and similar clauses were debated in full in the previous Parliament. It is not particularly contentious. Indeed, it has support in all parties. That will be a fair opportunity to test whether the good will exists to enable serious scrutiny of Bills without programme motions, rather than frivolous time wasting. I assure my hon. Friend that if the good will exists to proceed by agreement and consensus, without a programme motion, we can renew that experiment on a future occasion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), in the interests of his own health.
Mr. Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman abandon the practice, which was common when the experiment began in the previous Parliament, of publishing the programme motion before the Government have even heard the Second Reading debate? It was absurd and insulting that the Government could decide what the outcome of the programme motion should be without actually having tested the opinion of the House or found out what issues would be raised on Second Reading. Good will would be generated if the right hon. Gentleman were to abandon that practice.
Mr. Cook: I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's last sentence, because I think that I can help him. The effect of our motion on programming would indeed be to introduce a programme motion on Second Reading—I shall explain why in a moment—but it also introduces an innovation: in response to the Modernisation Committee recommendation, the Standing Committee considering a Bill may recommend a later out date than that set at the time of Second Reading.
Under the motion on programming that the House is invited to consider, if the Standing Committee makes a recommendation, the Government will be obliged to table that recommendation, which will be taken forthwith. However, if the Government reject the Standing Committee recommendation and table a different out date, it will be debatable. That would give the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) an opportunity to address the House at length, which is a strong incentive to the Government to accept the Standing Committee recommendation and deal with it forthwith.
I can respond to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for New Forest, West by saying that if those dealing with the Bill conclude that the out date set at Second Reading is unreasonable, it can be changed by a

823
resolution of the House. The Government will be obliged to table the necessary motion, but the House will take a decision on it.
Mr. Hogg: The Standing Committee will be dominated by the Government.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to challenge the fact that the Standing Committee will have a Government majority. I can do nothing about the fact that the Government have a majority. Indeed, if I were to do so, it would be an affront to parliamentary democracy because it would not only deny the Government their policy, but deny the will of the majority of the House of Commons.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I give way to my hon Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
Mr. Peter Pike: I understand why my right hon. Friend refers to good will and moving in that direction. I have considered such matters seriously for several years and have been involved in the modernisation process since it began. Despite what the official Opposition or any other party may say, they can destroy good will at the drop of a hat. We must ensure that legislation makes sensible progress and that all the clauses of a Bill are scrutinised. From day one, the Modernisation Committee's objective has been to introduce sensible programme motions that allow debates on all the clauses that need to be debated and opposition from either side of the House to be considered properly.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend expresses the view, which is held by several hon. Members, not just those on the Government Benches, that every should be programmed. I am willing to attempt the experiment to discover what happens when we do not programme a Bill, but I agree with him that not only good will but discipline and self-restraint are required from ill hon. Members if the House is to carry out its task of scrutiny.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I urge some caution in the course of action that my right hon. Friend proposes. I can recall several occasions in the previous Parliament when agreement on an unofficial timetable for a Bill was reached through the usual channels. However, it seems that Opposition Whips were not able to control Opposition Back Benchers—[Interruption.] and that often led to time-wasting and very late nights for all of us.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend will welcome the fact that her proposition that the Opposition Whips were unable to control members of their party was heartily endorsed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Voluntary agreements are meaningful only if all members of the parties that reach them abide by them and support their Front-Bench spokesmen in such agreements.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I will give way to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but then I must make some progress because I have not even finished answering the question put by the hon. Member for New Forest, West.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am a member of the Modernisation Committee which produced
824
the report on which the Standing Orders that we are considering today are based. Will the Leader of the House confirm that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report are fully taken into account in the Standing Order changes that we are discussing? Is he prepared to highlight the importance of the position of the Chairmen of Standing Committees, who could come from any of the parties in the House? They chair the Programming Sub-Committees. As they are pledged to impartiality, the Chairmen will take into account the interests of the House as a whole in the scrutiny of the legislation.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, on which I am happy to reassure him. The motion endeavours to give effect to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report. I apologise to the House for the fact that giving effect to the dozen lines of those paragraphs requires so much legal jargon.
I explained to the hon. Member for New Forest, West that the motion contains a provision for the Standing Committee to recommend a different out date, and that under the terms of the motion the Government must table that proposal within five sitting days. The motion contains a further provision; the Standing Committee will propose the length of the remaining stages and the allocation of time within that.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield is right to say that the Programming Sub-Committee that makes the recommendation to the Standing Committee will be chaired by the Chair of the Standing Committee. That will bring an impartial and independent element to the discussion and he or she will be responsible for safeguarding the interests of the Opposition and Back Benchers. I know that the Chairman of Ways and Means takes a particular interest in the important role of the Chairmen of Standing Committees in chairing the Programming Sub-Committees.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) was an excellent member of the usual channels when he and I piloted the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill through Committee. We agreed at the start, with no timetable, that the Bill should come out of Committee six weeks later. It came out exactly on the dot. It would be a more sensible procedure not to timetable debates on Second Reading or in Committee. It is in Committee that omissions and lacunae in Bills are often exposed. It could then be decided whether it was necessary or desirable from the Government's point of view to timetable the remaining stages.
Mr. Cook: In fairness to the House, it is helpful to the House if the Government are transparent and open about their target date for concluding the Committee proceedings. Let us get real. Every Government have always had a target date for the conclusion of Committee stages. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) will be able to confirm that. The programme motion on Second Reading makes transparent the target date so that every hon. Member—not only the Official Opposition, but Back Benchers and members of the other parties—knows it.
The motion before us today contains an innovation and improvement on last year's practice. If the Standing Committee becomes persuaded that the out date is

825
unrealistic and that other matters need to be examined, it will be within its power to recommend a later out date. The Government must then put that before the House.
Mr. Derek Foster: I commend the spirit in which my right hon. Friend is dealing with the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It augurs well for what might occur during the rest of the Parliament.
As one who had a PhD in opposition and used to orchestrate during 10 years as Opposition Chief Whip the sort of things that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) gets up to, I must advise my right hon. Friend that we must not be too sanctimonious. Indeed, I know that my right hon. Friend is the last one to be sanctimonious. There were many times when I did not have complete control over my Back Benchers. There were even more times when I pretended not to have control over them and colluded with them in frustrating the Government of the day. Such were the things that went on in this place.
Is not our dilemma that every act of modernisation—I am broadly in favour of what has been done and what is proposed—tends to increase the power of the Executive vis-à-vis Parliament? It is all too easy for Labour Members to want to steamroller all opposition, but we ought to have some consideration because one of these days, not I but some of my colleagues might be in opposition again.
Mr. Cook: I would have appreciated it if sometimes during the 18 years my right hon. Friend had made it clear that he was happy for us to rebel against his instructions. It might have made us easier in our consciences, if not in what we did, if we had been aware of that at the time. I disagree with the conclusion that he draws about the effect of programme motions. They can assist the House in its scrutiny. They enable the House to focus on issues of concern to Back Benchers and Opposition Members, in the full knowledge of what the timetable allows. Members can then resolve to participate in debates on the issues on which they wish to express their views.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I think that I have already given way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I will make a special exception and give way for a second time in a moment.
At present, under the threat of guillotine or even in the absence of a guillotine, all Government Back Benchers have to be quiet because there is no time for them to speak. The majority of hon. Members are Labour Members. Under a programme motion, when the timetable and the out date are clear, all hon. Members are free to speak on issues of concern to them.
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will remember from his previous experience in the House that interventions are not confined to one. Will he come back to the point that he made earlier that the purpose of timetabling is to enable Back Benchers to identify the main issues? Surely that is not the case. In the first place, the
826
Programming Sub-Committee has a quorum of four so it almost certainly will not involve ordinary Back Benchers. In the second place, the motion before the House does not provide for debate on the timetable motion. It provides for the motion to be taken immediately. In other words, Back Benchers are precluded from expressing their view on those parts of the Bill on which they wish to focus or on the length of time to be taken in Committee.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman deludes himself if he imagines that many Back Benchers both in the Chamber just now and outside it would not welcome the provision that programme motions be taken forthwith.
Mr. Grieve: The Leader of the House touched on the fact that one of the areas that will be covered by programme motions is the procedure when Bills come back from the House of Lords. How will the system work and be an improvement on the previous system of crude guillotining? For example, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill enjoyed cross-party support, but we had 666 amendments from the Lords, of which 665 were Government amendments. There was no filibustering, but we had the chance to consider only 80 amendments in the time allocated under the Government's guillotine. One of the direct results was that we had to introduce subsequent legislation to correct the howler in relation to the imprint at the bottom of election literature.
Mr. Cook: A programming motion must reflect the volume of amendments from another place. It can always be updated to take account of that. The Opposition should not pretend that there was a more generous allocation of time for scrutiny when they were in government. In the 1991–92 Session, in their last year in office before the 1992 election, they passed 33 Acts and spent 95 hours on Second Reading, 72 hours for all remaining stages and 696 hours in Standing Committee. In our last year before the 2001 election, we passed 21 Acts. Although that is a much smaller number, they were debated on Second Reading for 110 hours—15 more hours for a fewer number of Acts. The remaining stages took 72 hours—precisely the same as when the Conservatives were in office, although for fewer Bills. The legislation spent 690 hours in Standing Committee, which is less than 1 per cent. less than the time taken in the 1991–92 Session.
By the benchmark that the Conservatives established in office, it is false to say that programming motions result in less time for scrutiny by the House. On the contrary, more time was available, proportionate to the number of Bills considered.
Mr. William Cash: Much of the discussion is about how much time is taken up, which raises the use of filibustering and the extent to which a particular Chairman construes whether that has occurred. I have grave reservations about whether the use of time is the best weapon for the Opposition, because it is better to use argument. However, it is true that the distortions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are often a reflection of people misusing time and the Chairman not enforcing the rule on filibuster.
Mr. Cook: I do not wish to assent to criticism of the Chair, but I agree that scrutiny can be effectively carried

827
out by telling argument, not by the length of time that a speech takes. I speak with experience because I spent longer in opposition than any Conservative Member in the Chamber. It is possible for the opposition to change legislation. The ingredients for successful scrutiny to challenge and change legislation are persuasive argument, mobilisation of the public to express their view and the formation of alliances across the Floor of the House with other Members who can be persuaded to share the same opinion. On that basis, we were sometimes successful in changing legislation while in opposition. I remember forming an alliance, which I can now admit to my hon. Friends, with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to amend the Community Care Bill. We did that with the substantial support of the country.
In my long years in opposition, I rarely saw policy or legislation seriously challenged by the wasting of the House's time. The general effect of such activity united those on the Government Benches in their determination to see a measure through. That is the result of much of what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does, which is why I tabled a motion today to enable the House to accept the programming motions forthwith as recommended by the Modernisation Committee.
There are no medals for spending long hours in the Chamber; nor does our legislation necessarily benefit from long hours. We sit for longer than most democratic Parliaments and it is not self-evident that the quality of our law making is any better. There is nothing to be proud of in a culture of long hours. In my time, I have put in as many hours as any other hon. Member. Indeed, I was locked in the Library twice when I was shadow health spokesman because the custodian took the reasonable view that, as the House had risen and everyone else had gone home, no one would be in there I have no objection to Opposition Members staying in the House or Library until they are locked in—indeed, I can arrange that for anyone who volunteers—but there is no reason why those who want to work all hours of the night should be allowed to force the rest of the House to keep them company.
I commend the motion to the House as a valuable foundation for the efficient use of our time and effective scrutiny of Government legislation.
3.5 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: This subject is truly a House of Commons matter. It affects the rights of all Members of Parliament to fulfil the important function of scrutinising legislation and of tabling and debating amendments to ensure that the Executive is held to account.
The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) made his point well. Although the term "modernisation" is frequently used, what is done in its name does not strengthen Parliament, the Chamber or the rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House to hold the Executive to account. Instead, it strengthens the Executive. Since I became shadow Leader of the House, I have objected strongly, and shall continue to do so until I leave this post, on a point of principle that the so-called Modernisation Committee should be chaired by a Minister—specifically, the Leader of the House, who has a responsibility to protect the rights and duties of Members of Parliament.
828
The Modernisation Committee under this Government and formed by this Government is no less than a tool of this Government. It is outrageous that it should be used in such a way by them, and by the Leader of the House in particular, to introduce changes that affect the Standing Orders and the rights of the House so that we depart from the tradition of seeking consensus across the House. Consensus should not be sought in just one Committee, because that goes against the grain of what we have always understood to be the rights of hon. Members.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Liberal Democrats—who now make the ludicrous claim that they are some sort of opposition—have done nothing but work hand in glove with the Government on the Modernisation Committee to contrive to reduce the opportunities available for opposition and have acted as their tool?
Mrs. Browning: As always, my right hon. Friend is right. However, I add a caveat. The new Liberal Democrat Chief Whip for the Modernisation Committee expressed concern about the way in which legislation passed through the House, especially in the previous Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend is as hopeful as I am about that development. That Chief Whip was worried, as many of us were, about the guillotining of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and the fact that more than 600 Lords amendments were not scrutinised by the Chamber. Much of the Bill will need to be tidied up and put right by us because problems were not properly addressed at the time. Indeed, just before the House rose for the general election, the imprints—an important aspect of the Bill—had to be reconsidered.
It is to no one's advantage if legislation is not properly scrutinised and challenged before it becomes an Act. I suspect that much of the legislation that was passed in the previous Parliament will cause great problems, not least because people ask about our intention behind the laws that we enact. If it has not even been scrutinised or debated, if there is no official record of the intent of the House at the time, how can we say that we are the legislators? Once it is seen that Parliament did not address matters, people outside will second-guess its intent. That is not the way in which any legislature should behave.
I say to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in all sincerity that it is the job of the Leader of the House to ensure that there are procedures that respect the right of all of us—in government or in opposition or on the Front or Back Benches—not only to challenge the Executive but to do our job in scrutinising and amending legislation.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is not there a curiosity in all this? Although the Liberals have indicated their great support for these measures, as they have throughout, when it has come to implementing them, they have voted against every guillotine motion. That is contradictory. That did not enable the Leader of the House to reflect on what was happening in practice and on the fact that our opposition is based on experience, not theory.
Mrs. Browning: That is exactly right. I must at this stage put on record my grateful thanks to my hon. Friend, who has stood shoulder to shoulder with me in the

829
Modernisation Committee to try to ensure that those of us who have grave concerns have them put on the record of the Committee's proceedings.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another substantive point about the chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee? As I said in yesterday's debate on the constitution, and certainly according to past conventions of the House, all Select Committees that are scrutiny Committees should automatically be chaired by an Opposition Member. The Public Accounts Committee is so chaired, although we face a disgraceful situation concerning the European Scrutiny Committee. I have great respect for its Chairman; this is not a personal objection. Am I right that there will not be the independence in Parliament for which people are calling if the naked exercise of power through the Whips and the appointment of Chairmen of those Committees is not sorted out? That is a fundamental question on which the debate should turn.
Mrs. Browning: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Since becoming shadow Leader of the House, I have made that point myself. Indeed, the point is not just that a Select Committee is chaired by a member of the Government—the Leader of the House—but that, interestingly, the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House took a place on that Committee. I do not know whether that will be so in future. The Committee is a tool of the Government. It was intended to be so by this Government. This Government intended to ensure that, under the guise of a Select Committee, they could change the Standing Orders. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, given tradition and what we know and understand of Select Committees, it is of course nothing of the sort.
I would not necessarily press for such a Committee to be chaired by a member of the Opposition. I would happily accept a Back-Bench Chairman of any party in the House. The Committee deals with matters to do with the House. It is therefore not just entirely inappropriate but obscene that it is chaired by a member of the Government.
Joan Ruddock: The hon. Lady is making a great deal of bluster about the Committee and its formulation. Let us consider the points under debate. She is suggesting that the programming of business is worse than the guillotining that her Government undertook. I remember very well from the decade that I spent in opposition the very problems to which she has alluded about tabling many amendments at the last minute and the difficulty of interpreting legislation in the country. We ought to get to the heart of the matter, which is the value of programming business.
Mrs. Browning: I shall come to that in a moment when I will be happy to quote—I am sure that the hon. Lady will be interested to hear it—the letter that I received at the beginning of the year from the then Leader of the House acknowledging that the motions on programming before the House in November, for which, as I recall, the hon. Lady voted enthusiastically, had not worked and that there were great problems. It is only because that went on record that the Modernisation Committee addressed those great problems.
830
If the hon. Lady really wants to get to the heart of the matter, let us do so. This is not about the rights of Members of Parliament and scrutiny of legislation. We know the Government's view on scrutinising legislation. Owing to their majority, they are prepared to allow Back Benchers constituency weeks away from this place. It is clear that, according to the Government's philosophy, an MP's role is not, as we have always understood it to be, two-fold—to represent one's constituents and ensure that constituency issues are dealt with, and to scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account. The Government are enthusiastically changing that role. They did so in the previous Parliament and they are clearly encouraging it in this one. They want to turn everybody into glorified social workers while they dictate how the country will be run.
David Winnick: In response to what the hon. Lady said about Chairs of Select Committees, does she recall the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) being Chairman of the Health Committee? To his credit, the Government of the day considered him unreliable and he was replaced by another Conservative Member, Sir John Wheeler, who was considered totally safe.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the past few minutes, we have been moving away from the substance of the motion to historical tales. I realise that there are connected matters, but we must try to concentrate on the motion before the House.
Mrs. Browning: I shall of course be happy to respond to that intervention in next week's debate. when it would be more appropriate to do so. The hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed by my reply.
Without going through everything that I said when we dealt with deferred Divisions and programme motions in November, as that is on the record, I shall reiterate my key objections to them. First, deferred Divisions divorce the debate from the vote. It is critical that the vote follows the debate. The ballot paper that can be handed in between 3.30 pm and 5 pm could be filled in by any third party anywhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The fact that Labour Members do not think that that is a matter of concern shows clearly that they do not understand the way in which the procedures of the House have developed over many years. They may think that the procedures are old-fashioned anachronistic, but Members have always been able to go through the Lobby following the debate unencumbered. by the influence of any external third party.
I am talking about the sort of third-party influence that was seen in the 19th century—that is going back a bit—which affected the way in which Members voted.[Interruption.] We have procedures in this House as a result of which Members are unencumbered when they vote at the sound of the Division Bell immediately following the debate.
Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady is clearly one of those who thinks that it does not matter if a third party has access to a Member when voting. Ballot papers that are available in the morning could be filled in by anybody.

831
Coercion could be used. A third party could stand over a Member of Parliament while they filled in that ballot paper. Government Members shake their heads, but the freedom and the right of a Member of Parliament to proceed unaccosted to the Lobby following a debate to make sure that when their vote is cast they are not subject to third-party influence is rooted in history.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend comes to an issue that has done more than any other to lower the House in the country's esteem—the fact that Members of Parliament no longer speak their mind or vote according to their opinion. What she is really saying is that we should diminish the control of party over this place—we should try to diminish the control of the Whips over the party. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we should assert the independence of Back Benchers and the freedom from party control?
Mrs. Browning: Never mind Back Benchers—we should also assert the rights of Front Benchers.
Let me share with the House the results of an experiment that I carried out a little while ago with one of the deferred Divisions. I simply looked at the questions on the paper, filled it in as I thought fit and waited to see what would happen. I am pleased to say that nothing did. The point is that it represents a departure from an important principle—although it might not be important to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who is trying to intervene—which is that we discharge our duties in the Division following a debate.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: The hon. Lady is making a wholly spurious point. Every Member of Parliament who goes into the Lobby with a piece of paper is responsible for what is written on that paper. She is trying to pretend otherwise, but her argument has no basis in reality.
Mrs. Browning: There is a distinction to be drawn. Members of Parliament can be faced with multiple votes on a piece of paper, some of which deal with highly emotive issues that attract especially active lobby groups or constituency activists who want to influence the way in which that Member of Parliament votes. It is quite possible that the day will dawn when the public, having finally realised the way in which our voting system has been changed, will demand to see the hon. Lady fill in her ballot paper, and might even stand over while she does it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!] Government Members dismiss that scenario, but if they are never subject to third-party influence when they vote, we must all assume that the little notes that they read out so politely during Prime Ministers questions and on every other occasion are not, in fact, written for them by people at Millbank tower. Perhaps the Minister who winds up the debate will tell us whether Millbank tower or the Whips ever issue any direction on how ballot papers are to be filled in.
In some ways, programme motions cause me greater concern. When they were introduced, it was suggested that they would benefit the Opposition—that, provided that a final date was agreed for the Bill to complete its passage, the Opposition and any Labour Back Bencher who was sufficiently strong minded to challenge the Government would have the opportunity in the preceding stages to ensure that proper scrutiny and time were given to challenge the detail of the Bill. However, that is not
832
what happened after the change was made to our Sessional Orders in November last year. The change was not made to assist either the Opposition or Back Benchers; it was made purely to ensure not only that the Government got their business but that they did so with important parts of legislation being allowed to proceed through both Houses of Parliament without having been properly scrutinised and without the Opposition having been able to challenge the detail or speak to amendments.
I mentioned a letter from the previous Leader of the House, who wrote to me on 30 January:
"You will recall I undertook at business questions … in response to Sir Peter Emery, to remind all my Ministerial colleagues of the purpose of the new procedures on programming, given the expressed view from your benches that the Government is not paying sufficient attention to the interests of Opposition parties when establishing programmes for legislation.
I have now done so. In particular, I have stressed that … it was agreed that in return for the Government securing each Bill by a particular date, the Opposition parties and other non-Government interests would have the major say in how—"
that word was underlined—
"the available time is used."
Would that that were so. Despite that letter, as legislation proceeded through the House, as Minister after Minister came to the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, and as other Members presided over the Programming Sub-Committees and deliberations in Standing Committee, matters went from bad to worse, culminating in the travesty of proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
As a result of that, the Modernisation Committee met to recommend further changes. One might have thought that the changes would be designed to make procedures more flexible and to give the House, Back Benchers and the Opposition greater opportunity to challenge and scrutinise. Instead, the Modernisation Committee, chaired by the Leader of the House, produced its first report. As the House will be aware, it contained a memorandum submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and myself, because neither of us were content with the so-called "repairing" job that that Committee had attempted in order to correct the clear deficiencies in the Orders to which the House agreed in November last year.
I shall not read out the whole memorandum, but I shall repeat some of the points made therein. I should point out that the reason why it was a memorandum and not a minority report was that such are the procedures of the Modernisation Committee that I was prevented from tabling such a report. Because of the shambles resulting from the fact that the rules of that Committee appear to be made up as they go along, I, a member of the official Opposition, was not permitted to table a minority report as I had asked to be allowed to do. Only after my hon. Friend and I insisted were we able to get even a memorandum appended to the report of the Committee. The House will not be surprised to hear me repeat that the Modernisation Committee is a tool of government: it has no interest at all in dissenting views or the views of the official Opposition.
On Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, the Minister had stated how many sittings of the Standing Committee he thought would be required, but he reneged on that promise when the Programming Sub-Committee met to discuss the matter. The Standing

833
Committee ran out of time to such an extent that, as it reached its final sitting, it had dealt with only 90 of the Bill's 132 clauses. That made it necessary for my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and three other Opposition Members to sit in that Committee and demonstrate their grave concern that its proceedings were to be guillotined and that it was being forced to complete its business without having scrutinised important parts of the Bill.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does the hon. Lady agree that we are debating these motions, which I think are unnecessary and inappropriate, not for the sake of proper scrutiny, but because of the time-wasting tactics used by the provisional wing of the Tory party, led by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others?
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) to claim that there was time wasting in the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, given that the Chairman of that Committee made a specific ruling to the effect that there had been no time wasting? In fact, that is the scandal of what occurred.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of argument, not a point of order.
Mrs. Browning: I am happy to say that the Hansard Committee record shows that both Chairmen confirmed that there was not time wasting. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) agreed with that. That is mentioned in the memorandum that is attached to the first report of the Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's recollection is a precise and damning indictment of the Government's handling of this sorry saga. Does she recall that the Leader of the House, in one of his attempted purple passages, sought to justify programme motions on the grounds of candour, openness and transparency? Will she confirm that that claim is flatly contradicted by the practice of the Programming Sub-Committees, which do not meet in public, which do not provide a verbatim transcript of their proceedings, and which do not even have the courtesy to provide Members with a minute of their deliberations?
Mrs. Browning: That is right. It is one of my on-going complaints, which I shall reiterate. Such Committees, especially as they have voting rights, should record their deliberations, including voting records.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested that it was the time wasting of some Conservative Back Benchers that caused the Modernisation Committee to recommend, and the new Leader of the House to agree, as on the Order Paper, that no longer should the House discuss a programme motion for 45 minutes before it goes to the Programming Sub-Committee. That is a serious misjudgment, for two reasons.
During a Second Reading debate, some of the issues about which there is concern—for example, what might be in the Bill or how it will be taken forward—emerge
834
only during Back Benchers' representations and contributions. All too often it falls to the Minister who responds to the debate to answer the specific questions that have been raised. It is not until the conclusion of Second Reading that many Back Benchers—it is to be assumed that those who speak on Second Reading often have a particular interest in the subject, and perhaps wish to serve on the Standing Committee—have their specific questions answered.
If Back Benchers hear the answers to their questions in the Minister's response, they will have signs of the sort of issues that will be raised in Committee and the time that will be needed, especially in terms of apportionment between certain parts of the Bill. Some parts will be long in print, but they will not take up too much time in Committee. It is often as a result of detail coming forward from Ministers that many amendments need to be tabled. If the House is to be denied the opportunity of a 45-minute debate—a member of the Committee will not necessarily be a member of the Programming Sub-Committee—Back Benchers on both sides of the House will be dented the opportunity to make their contribution to an it important part of the deliberations in Committee.
Mr. Graham Allen: I thank the hon. Lady for her characteristic generosity in giving way to me and apologise to her for missing the centre portion of her speech.
I feel that someone must come to the defence of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Does the hon. Lady agree that it is true that he, by his antics over the past year or so, has done far more for the modernisation of this place than serious-minded reformers like myself managed in 14 years or more?
Mrs. Browning: We have a dichotomy. What do we mean by modernisation? We know what the Leader of the House—along with many Labour Back Benchers, I suspect—means by it. He means getting away from here at 10 o'clock. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a balance to be struck between getting away from here at a reasonable time and discharging our duties as Members. That is why I referred to the dual role of a Member. It suits the Government increasingly to regard the role of Members on both sides of the House as being confined to looking after their constituency interests. Important as that is, the role of a Member is that of scrutiny and challenge. We must have ample opportunity, for example, to table amendments at the various stages of a Bill's consideration, and to speak to them if Mr. Speaker has been gracious enough to select them for debate. I am worried that so-called modernisation does not enhance that process. It does not strengthen the ability of Back Benchers to participate. Instead, it restricts it.
We are getting rid of the 45-minute debate following Second Reading, and there is concern about the way in which the guillotine will fall, when only outstanding Government amendments will be dealt with. Where does a Back Bencher on either side of the House go to express what may be a deeply held belief about important issues within the context of a Bill?
I return to what I have euphemistically described as the actions of the Maidstone Four. They felt obliged to attend a sitting of a Standing Committee in its concluding

835
minutes when the guillotine fell and large and important parts of the Bill concerning the police force had not been dealt with by the Committee.
Unless Back Benchers can see in our procedures a reasonable opportunity to table and speak to amendments on matters of importance and often of principle to them, the only alternative will be for more Members to take action such as that taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald or—I hope that this does not happen—action similar to that taken in earlier Parliaments by hon. Members on both sides of the House, who felt that the only way to demonstrate their frustration was to wave the Mace about. Let us not go down that route. That is not modernisation. Such action reflects the sheer frustration of Members at the fact that their will is being subsumed by a Government who are unwilling and ungenerous enough not to strengthen the rights of Back Benchers and instead curtail and usurp them through the deliberations of a Committee that is in the palm of government.
The Leader of the House ain't seen nothing yet if he thinks that what he saw in the previous Parliament will be acceptable in this Parliament, with badly drafted legislation being guillotined at every stage of its consideration as it passes through the House, and possibly in the upper Chamber, if that is what the Government plan to do. That is not modernisation by anybody's definition.
The motion is not about proper scrutiny. It is about getting away from the House by 10 o'clock. That is the benchmark that has been set. The Leader of the House touched on the matter briefly in his remarks last night, when he said:
"it does not seem entirely unreasonable that we should allow colleagues to go home at 10 o'clock at night Members of any other profession would regard that as a very minimum working condition."—[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 739.]
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the very definition of "profession". People who regard their work in life as professional do not set deadlines for when they clock off. The definition of professional is seeing the job through until it is completed, and doing so in such a way that standards are upheld so as to ensure that the job is well done.
If the House and its proceedings are not to be professional in the definition to which I have referred and if we are to clock off before the job is finished or before it has been properly done, it is not only hon. Members but the country who will be the poorer. There are many hon. Members, including myself, who did not come to this place just to clock off. If that is what the Leader of the House means by modernisation, he should be only too well aware that future generations will spend a great deal of time trying to put right the legislation that the Labour Government, both in the previous Parliament and in this one, bequeathed to the nation, because it will be bad legislation. That will be the hallmark of what the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Government pass on to future generations.
3.40 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: The danger of our debate is that it provide s a false choice for the House between programme motions—which undoubtedly will restrict time, one of the weapons of Parliament and the Opposition—and the status quo prior
836
to their introduction. The idea that earlier arrangements were a desirable or effective way of conducting business in the House is a dangerous fallacy to which those of us who are extremely worried about aspects of programme motions can easily fall prey.
As Sir Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister and Conservative leader, said in his final speech to the House before the election, Parliament's ability to hold the Government to account and scrutinise them has been getting weaker for a long time—about 50 years, he estimated. Unlike one of his predecessors, Winston Churchill, Sir Edward was never a great historian; in fact that weakness goes back to the Reform Act 1884 and the Parnell debates. Parnell obstructed the work of the House so much that both Front Benches got together and augmented the four Standing Orders that the House had with a great raft of further orders, on which every Government since have built. As has been said by many speakers in our preliminary debate on the business of the House and in this debate, all those changes to scrutiny in the House have had the effect of strengthening the Government and weakening Parliament's ability to hold them to account.
In seeking, quite properly and sensibly, more orderly debate, programme motions are strangling time—the one weapon left to the House. However, it is the weakest, crudest and least interesting weapon that we could possibly have, and my hon. Friends are right to say that the abuse of time does not help anybody at all; it does not help scrutiny or debate, does not help us to achieve better conclusions and is the most idiotic of weapons. However, it is the only one that Parliament has left. After 150 years, there are far too few weapons in the armoury of Parliament or the Opposition.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting reference to a late 19th-century Session. He will of course recall that the former distinguished Clerk of the House, Sir Edward Fellowes, made the point that that autumn Session was devoted exclusively to transferring the rules and powers of the Speaker to the Executive—in effect, the Whips. In 1969, or whenever Sir Edward wrote his book, he said that, at that moment, the power of Back Benchers and Parliament was reduced. Parliament has not regained its strength since.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the past 25 or 30 years, the situation has got progressively worse and that this is the time for Parliament to get it right? It would be a disorganised hypocrisy for the Leader of the House not to do so.
Mr. Fisher: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, who is right to link the problem to that period and to the essays and contributions to the history of the House of the former Clerk of the House, Sir Edward Fellowes.
We have got to find a third and better way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I agree that programme motions could easily be abused by this Government or a future Government and could severely restrict the ability of the House to hold any Government to account. However, arrangements that we had in the recent past were no good either, and there will be no chance to improve scrutiny in the House unless we compensate Parliament and the

837
Opposition for taking away time—which is used to hold to account and scrutinise the Government—and put other weapons in the armoury of Parliament.
Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only are we taking time from the Opposition via such motions but we are giving the Government a powerful time-management tool, which will be used most brutally when there is dissent from Labour Members? Debate is arranged so that a Government trustee will take up the available time to agree at length with the Government, to the exclusion of the dissenting voices of the hon. Gentleman's own colleagues?
Mr. Fisher: It is not yet clear whether the motions will improve the scrutiny that Parliament can apply to legislation. Nobody participating in our debate has addressed the valid point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—that the crucial weapon is not time but the quality of argument. How do we provide Parliament and the Opposition—indeed, all Members of Parliament—with the opportunity to focus on the quality of argument before legislation is introduced, while it is being introduced and when it has been properly considered? We should consider how to get that quality instead of being seduced by the idea that spending a lot of time on legislation improves scrutiny, because it does not.
Mr. Forth: It is difficult to give any credence to the hon. Gentleman's case about the quality of argument when members of his Government, including those on the Front Bench and in the Modernisation Committee, introduced the device of deferred Divisions which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out, has divided and separated argument from voting. How can we give any credence to the assertion that the quality of argument will change hearts and minds and, perhaps, votes in the House, if someone who has never had a chance to hear the argument or—who knows?—even read it is expected to cast a vote in one of those peculiar deferred Divisions?
Mr. Fisher: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on many aspects of this matter, but his obsessive, conspiratorial arguments against deferred Divisions rather miss the point. I take the point of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that, in an ideal world, the vote follows the debate in quick succession, but the worry about deferred Divisions is much less significant than the one about a new set of programme motions that are not compensated for by other methods of improving the quality of scrutiny in the House.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution, which the House appreciates.
I shall make three quick suggestions. First, the Government should always introduce Bills a long time before Second Reading so that there is ample time for discussion by interested groups. Secondly, we should look again at the Special Standing Committee procedure, so that such Committees can take evidence from interested groups before a Bill goes into Committee. Thirdly, we should have much less legislation in every Session so that there is not so much time pressure.
Mr. Fisher: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention, which is of the quality that
838
ought to be brought to this debate. The weakness of the case of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and, indeed, of her memorandum—with whose spirit and critique I sympathise—is that they provide no alternative ways of improving the quality of scrutiny in the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done the House a great service by suggesting some clear and simple ways in which scrutiny could be improved. We simply do not make enough of pre-legislative scrutiny; we do not engage in advance the skills and expertise of people who will be subject to our scrutiny. We ought always to have a standard for all important Bills and have a scrutiny stage prior to a Bill's Committee stage; those who understand the implications of the legislation should have an opportunity to engage with Members and say, "Look, the Bill will not work like that. It is well intentioned and we can see the thrust, but it will not work like that." As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, better pre-legislative scrutiny has a role to play, but we also need to strengthen the structure of scrutiny, especially in Select Committees. That matter has been discussed already, and will be discussed again.
Mr. Shepherd: Quality of argument is related to time, and the amount of lime available for debate is entirely in the hands of the Government. The Opposition's objections result from experience. The Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 has been mentioned. Liberal Democrat Members opposed every guillotine imposed on that Bill.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) spoke about rational alternative schemes. I would love to engage in a debate on such possibilities, but we have to address and vote on the motion before the House.
Mr. Fisher: I seldom disagree with the hon. Gentleman on matters to do with the House or the constitution, but I do not agree with what he has just said. I shall try to demonstrate that a useful contribution can be made in a short time. I shall it down forthwith when I have made the points that I want to make.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that the quality of an argument or debate depends on the time that is available for it. All hon. Members can speak much more concisely, briefly and in a way that holds the House's attention so that points can be made more quickly. I do not think that the quality of debate; or scrutiny is reduced when contributions from Back-Bench Members are restricted to 10 minutes. On the contrary: such a time limit focuses minds.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fisher: Very briefly, as I wish to live by my own precepts.
Mr. Bercow: I understand the vantage point from which the hon. Gentleman approaches the matter, and his general principle is that the maximisation of time is not necessary for the effective scrutiny of legislation. However, does he accept that it is at least reasonable to observe that, when the Government insist on a programme

839
motion that represents something of a truncation of debate, it is not reasonable for them also to demonstrate that they have an insatiable appetite for amendments? It is common for several hundred Government amendments to be tabled towards the end of proceedings on a Bill, when less than a couple of minutes can be allowed for debate on each. Is that not wrong?
Mr. Fisher: I agree. Any legislation that goes through the House without debate or scrutiny is an insult to the public. It is extremely dangerous to pass ill-considered legislation.
However, Oppositions have often been guilty of hindering that scrutiny. The first Standing Committee to which I belonged was the one considering the Bill to privatise British Telecom. My colleague and friend Mr. John Golding told me how to operate in Standing Committee. We kept that Committee going for more than three months, thinking that we were doing a brave, noble and determined thing. It was an example of machismo politics, and it was quite understandable when the then Government guillotined the Bill after three months, saying, "This is ridiculous; enough is enough."
As a result of our tactics, most of the Bill was never discussed in the Standing Committee. With the benefit of 18 years of hindsight, I now think that our opposition—in which I believed totally at the time—was thoroughly misguided. British Telecom has probably performed better than when it was in public hands. However, parts of the Bill were never scrutinised. It is an insult to the public and the House when such important legislation can go through in that way.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have one simple question for my hon. Friend. Had that Bill been guillotined in the way proposed today, is he certain that the elements that were not scrutinised would have been looked at? Would all the drafting have been improved? Would all the clauses have been debated? I have considerable reservations about that.
Mr. Fisher: I wonder whether my hon. Friend meant to say, "Had that Bill not been guillotined," because it was in fact guillotined. However, ever if it had not been so guillotined, it is possible that we would not have made progress. We had got hardly one third of the way through what was a long and complicated Bill.
Mrs. Dunwoody: My question was based on that Bill being guillotined in the way that is proposed today.
Mr. Fisher: The Bill was not guillotined in the manner set out in the proposals before the House today, but it was ruthlessly guillotined. As I said, I now sympathise with that guillotine, and believe that the then Government were right to be impatient with the rasher crude tactics employed by the then Opposition. We did not do justice to the Bill, and we did not allow the Standing Committee to do justice to an important piece of legislation. My point is that Oppositions can constrict debate as much as Governments.
The job of hon. Members of all parties is to improve the scrutiny of legislation and to hold the Government to account.
Lynne Jones: It has become clear to me in the time that I have been a Member of the Horse that the key to
840
better scrutiny of legislation is a more effective Committee stage. If the Government want to reduce the power of Back-Bench Members to waste time—and I agree with that aim—they should also be more willing to enhance scrutiny at the Committee stage. That might be achieved by appointing more independent people to the Committees. My own offers to serve in that way have often been turned down.
I agree that Special Standing Committees should be used more often, but only if they are allowed to come to some conclusion. They should be required to produce a report to the Government, containing recommendations about whether proposals in legislation will achieve what they are intended to achieve.
Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend knows that I have much sympathy with what she has said, and that I acknowledge the independence with which she always speaks in the House.
I have detained the House long enough. The thrust of my remarks is clear, and it is that we are getting the balance wrong. I do not see how the motions before us will improve scrutiny, although they will make business and the House more orderly.
Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government cannot impose orderliness on the programming of Lords amendments? There will be no Programming Committee to deal with Lords amendments, for which the mechanism will be exactly the same as the old guillotine. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that must be the interpretation at which one arrives after a detailed reading of the motions' texts?
Mr. Fisher: I share the hon. Gentleman's worries in that regard, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will clarify how Lords amendments will be handled. What is the point in having a second Chamber if we cannot consider the amendments that it sends to us?
However, the crucial question is whether the programme motions will improve scrutiny of legislation and Government business. I do not think that they will. There is nothing wrong with greater orderliness, but we are not getting right the balance between the responsibility of hon. Members of all parties to scrutinise legislation and the Government's absolute right to introduce the legislation that they want and to have it introduced according to the proper cycle.
I do not believe that the Government's right not to have their legislation obstructed means that the same legislation cannot be amended, but there is always a tension between those two possibilities. I do not think that the motions before us today improve the balance. I hope that we will return to these matters during this Parliament, as they lie at the heart of why hon. Members are here, and of what we do here.
3.58 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), whose contribution lasted only 18 minutes yet was more thoughtful and provoked more sensible exchanges than what went before. I am grateful to him.

841
However, I draw the House's attention to the Modernisation Committee's first report of the 1997–98 Session. It contains an excellent chart that shows how the scrutiny of legislation can, under the existing Standing Orders, be undertaken in a number of different ways. If those options were taken up, there is no doubt that the legislation emerging from the House would be improved. The report contains some other suggestions for enhancing those different options.
The House faces some very important matters. The motions before us do not offer a panacea. The proposals do not amount to a magic wand that will do everything necessary to improve the way in which the House does its job. However, in a modest way and with good will, which has already been mentioned, they can make improvements.
Let us consider the context of the proposals and much of the discussion in the Chamber since the general election. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said earlier that the fall in turnout should worry every Member of Parliament. I read an excellent Library briefing on turnout, and discovered that, when I was first elected in February 1974, the national turnout was 78.8 per cent. In my constituency, which was then called Bodmin, it was 83.3 per cent. This year, the national figure has dropped to 59.4 per cent., and even in the great constituency of North Cornwall, where we take politics seriously, it was down to 63.8 per cent. That is a 20 per cent. difference in a relatively short political lifetime. If the trend continues, it will be disastrous. In that context, this afternoon's debate is very important.
How do we rediscover Parliament's ability to demonstrate to the nation that it is the place where we conduct our business in an orderly manner? Scrutiny of Executive action is as important as that of legislation. In that respect, the Modernisation Committee's proposals have been successfully realised in Westminster Hall. A Minister has to attend proceedings and explain a specific part of the appropriate Department's responsibility. That is an important demonstration to the country of the way in which we do our job properly. The media have not picked that up, but that is another story for another occasion.
Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are held in such low esteem partly because individual Members are not seen to be expressing their views, and are perceived as creatures of a party? That, perhaps more than any other factor, has done most to lower the House's standing.
Mr. Tyler: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He may recall that I once proposed a motion, which stated that the power of the party had increased, was increasing and should be diminished. It reflected the famous Dunning motion of the 1780s. However, I recall that the right hon. and learned Gentleman went into the opposing Lobby. All sinners repent eventually.
All parties have an important job to do in demonstrating that we approach the business of Parliament freely. That business has three purposes, and comprises scrutinising legislation, scrutinising Executive activity and representing
842
our constituents. All three aspects are important. We are dealing with only one this afternoon, and I must not be diverted into considering the others.
Mr. Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that hon. Members who can scarcely be described as lickspittles have been present throughout the debate? They have occasionally expressed their views in defiance of their party. However, many choose not to do so at 2 am. What is wrong with that?
Mr. Tyler: I shall deal with that point later. The debate is the first opportunity for me to declare that I am no longer a member of the usual channels; I am no longer my party's Chief Whip. Our new Chief Whip has decreed that we have a free vote this afternoon. I am expressing my personal view as Liberal Democrat shadow Leader of the House, but I hope that my colleagues will follow my good example.
The new Leader of the House has had rave reviews in the media because it is clearly anticipated that he will be the House's man. I welcome that. However, I hope that the first, limited step that we are discussing will not also be the final step towards improving the conduct of the House's business. As other hon. Members have said, we look to the Leader of the House genuinely to lead us in trying to re-establish parliamentary control, not least over scrutiny and holding Ministers to account.
The Modernisation Committee, on which I was proud to serve, has produced several reports that are relevant to the motion. It is important to say up front that there is a genuine difference between quantity and quality. The quality of our work is not measured by the quantity of time that we spend on it. We must try to identify ways of improving the product without simply extending the hours. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, use of time is only one weapon. The weapons of effective argument and effective use of time should be our major consideration
I plead with hon. Members who participate in the debate to read what must be the shortest report from any Select Committee. The report that the Modernisation Committee produced earlier this year is only one page, but it appears that not all hon. Members have read it. Again, I put it on record that the report's parentage is cross party, whatever the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) says. She may want to airbrush Sir Peter Emery, her former parliamentary neighbour, out of history, but he wrote the draft report. Neither the former Leader of the House nor I but Sir Peter Emery wrote it, and it was then discussed in the Committee.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who voted for the report, is not present. I am also disappointed that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is absent because he took an active and positive role in the earlier stages of the Modernisation Committee. None of those hon. Members complained about its chairmanship or said that the Leader of the House should not have chaired it. That spurious argument arrived on the scene with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton at a late stage in the proceedings.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire

843
(Sir G. Young). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not omit to mention that my right hon. Friend prepared a minority report on the Modernisation Committee's previous report, which originally introduced programming and deferred Divisions.
Mr. Tyler: That is true. However, it is also true that, in the report that we are currently considering, which has given rise to the motions—their details are the responsibility of the Leader of the House; they are nothing to do with the Committee or me—we took up the right hon. Gentleman's point. It states that the terms of trade between the Government and the Opposition need to be re-evaluated.
The Government of the day have an opportunity, a responsibility and a right to introduce legislation. If they have a mandate and retain a majority in the House, they have the opportunity to do that in reasonable time. Are the Conservative Opposition saying that the electoral system has gone wrong, and that because only some 40 per cent. of voters supported the new Government with their large majority, their legislative opportunities should be circumscribed? Are they saying that the fact that less than a quarter of the electorate voted for the Government means that they should be more humble? If so, that is new, and if they want to support us in introducing a fair voting system, we welcome all allies, even at this stage.
Let us assume for the moment that all hon. Members agree that a Government elected under our democratic, parliamentary system are entitled to introduce legislation while they command a majority in the House. The report also said that, within the time allocated for the legislation, it should be up to Opposition parties to make the running. They and Government Back-Bench Members should stipulate the priorities for consideration and votes. That will not happen if we revert to the blunt instrument of a guillotine, if that is not a contradiction. If there is a guillotine, the Government organise their business to prevent the Opposition and dissenting voices on the Government side from having their say and getting their vote.
The Transport Bill was a classic example. We had a programme motion, but, by agreement between the three main parties, and the full involvement of Government Back-Bench Members, we enabled the people who had genuine anxieties about the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services to have their say and their vote. If there had been a guillotine, the Government would have made sure that that did not occur. We therefore believe that, on an experimental basis—we always work on that basis—programme motions are more helpful to the conduct of good business in the House than guillotine motions. I know that in the past the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has voted for a great many guillotine motions. She might be embarrassed by that. So far as I can recall, I have never voted for a guillotine motion, and neither have most of my colleagues. That is because we think that they just do not work. We vote for programme motions.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is not here at the moment, but he made a rather misleading statement earlier about the Liberal Democrats which I must correct. We have voted against programme motions when they have immediately followed a Second Reading debate, because we felt that that was not the right context in which to discuss the matter. The right context in which to discuss the way in
844
which business is to be handled is a debate in Committee involving the people who are going to handle that business.
That is why the Select Committee proposals said, "Take it away from the Floor of the House, because it will not be discussed by the people who will then be responsible for the way in which the Bill is considered. Take it into Committee." In Committee, those who are going participate in the discussion will have an input into the way in which the programme is designed, and the Chairman of the Standing Committee will seek to ensure fair play and that a balance is maintained between the different interests, including those of the Back Benchers—an important point made earlier by the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly sensible suggestion, but it would be even more sensible if we could devise a way of ensuring that the membership of the Standing Committee—which, under the hon. Gentleman's scheme, would be devising the timetable—were not so controlled by those on the Front Benches. The danger is that the Standing Committee will contain people who are broadly speaking, the creatures of those on the Front Benches.
Mr. Tyler: I very much agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is extremely important that those who have experience on the Front Benches get on to the Back Benches as fast as possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's redemption since he left the Government Front Bench is remarkable. I do not recall him raising these points at any stage when his Government were packing Committees on Bills and Select Committees in the 1992 to 1997 Parliament. However, he makes a perfectly valid point, which I endorse. Although it is not appropriate for this debate, the process by which people are put on to Committees—be they scrutiny Committees for Bills or other Committees—is an important issue to which I know the Leader of the House will want to return on a different occasion.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman accept, on the strength of the operation thus far of Programming Sub-Committees, that one of their enduring problems is that they seem to suffer from an identity crisis? They are what might politely—or less politely—be described as political cross-dressers or transvestites. On the one hand it is mooted that they are really a variation on the theme of a Standing Committee. If that is the case, why is there no verbatim transcript of the proceedings? Alternatively, it is suggested that they are Select Committees. In that case, what on earth is the business of the Government Whip in sitting on them?
Mr. Tyler: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior judgment. He obviously has direct experience of political cross-dressers whereas I have never encountered one, so I cannot speak on that with authority. However, he makes a serious point, which I take. I am sure that the Leader of the House and his deputy are listening carefully. There is mixed experience—let us put it no more strongly than that—of the operation of the Programming Sub-Committees. Some of my colleagues came back saying that they had worked remarkably well; some said

845
that they had been led well by the Chair of the Committee; and some came back and said that, frankly, it was all sewn up in advance.
I say with great care as I look round the House, and now that I am no longer part of the usual channels, that I am amazed by the contributions of some previous members of the Government Whips Office—I am not looking at anyone in particular—earlier this afternoon. My experience of carve-ups between those on the two Front Benches was that they deliberately excluded the third party, and other minor parties, in the House, and often also excluded very carefully any consideration of the views of Government Back Benchers. That was true under successive Governments. If, by means of the proposals, programme motions will enable a less formal but more open dialogue to take place with those on the Back Benches in the Committees, that must be good for Parliament. I hope that that would restore some of the reputation to which other hon. Members have referred.
I am a great believer in evolution in this place. Having been in and out of it for some time, I am conscious that people outside think that we are far too staid in the way in which we conduct our business. They think that we get stuck in a rut and that we do not know what is going on in the world outside. The proposals that the Leader of the House has put before us represent a modest step, based on the solid support of a broad cross-section of members—not everyone; I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton—in the Modernisation Committee. The principle is right that those who are going to do the detailed scrutiny are the best people to decide how that scrutiny should be punctuated.
Mr. Grieve: I return to the point that I made earlier on Lords amendments, and I would be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments on that. Nobody will determine the programming in that regard apart from the Leader of the House or the Minister in charge of the Bill in question. Does not that fly in the face of the intention that the hon. Gentleman says the Modernisation Committee had in coming up with these proposals?
Mr. Tyler: It is perfectly true that I do not recall a detailed discussion about Lords amendments. I shall look to the Minister to respond to that question when he replies. That is a perfectly fair point.
The choice before the House is this: do we want to revert to a situation in which an imposed guillotine is going to be used after appropriate amounts of waffle and hours of filibustering? It would not technically be filibustering, but we all know a near-filibuster when we see one. Is that the right way forward for the House? Alternatively, are we prepared, on some Bills at least—not on all of them; the Leader of the House has already given that assurance—to try to seek agreement in the Committee on the best way to programme the debate? I think that that is the better route.
I am extremely disappointed that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is not still here. Having said how important this debate was, it is disappointing that he has not stayed for it. Yet even he abstained on guillotine motions. I have here the proceedings of the Finance Bill
846
from February 1994 The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton voted for the guillotine on that occasion, but even the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who makes such a fetish of saying that we must never be forced to do anything we do not want to do, recognised that there was some merit in trying to make progress with the business of the House. It is better to have agreement across the Floor, and to have Back-Bench contributions, than to have everlasting guillotines.
I confess that I cannot get wildly excited either way on the subject of deferred Divisions, and I do not believe that the great British public can either. However, it is nonsense to say that this is breaking some terrible precedent or some great tradition. After all, we sometimes have a two-day debate on the remaining stages of a Bill or a delayed vote because amendments are grouped together. That can happen all too often.
However, what I really object to is the humbug of suggesting that 659 Members—or however many are permitted to vote—sit here throughout every debate and listen to every argument before they come to a conclusion. That day has long since gone, if it ever existed. Looking round the House now, I do not know how many Members are going to vote at 6.30 pm, but no one could say that they have all been sitting here listening to my words of wisdom and therefore know precisely what the issues are all about—and that that is why it is so critical that we have to ensure that they are all here. I am sorry to pick on the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but he made this point very strongly on an earlier occasion. He is not here to listen to my arguments, so how can I persuade him? I fear he may go into the Opposition Lobby as well.
The proposals are not breaking precedents and I regard that as a dubious argument. They represent only a tiny step, and I hope that it is in the right direction.
I also hope that the House will be prepared at least to experiment, because that will mean that we can demonstrate to the world at large that we are taking our business more seriously. We are seeking to work in a more businesslike way and perhaps, in a small way, we might be able to reverse that disastrous turnout to which I referred earlier.
4.19 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to the Front Bench. I believe that this is his first debate. He has considerable expertise on constitutional issues and I am sure that he will be a valuable addition to our Front-Bench team.
I have to start by being slightly critical of the Modernisation Committee's report. I would have liked to see the kind of analysis of programme motions to which hon. Members referred earlier. Analysis of the arguments made in programme motion debates would have been valuable because it would have shown that no new arguments were made after the debate on the first such motion.
Every programme motion debate that I heard was remarkably similar. On several occasions, I made a point of coming to the Chamber to listen after 10 pm, and when I did not come to the Chamber, I often listened to the monitor in my room. The debates were remarkably unoriginal in content, so I am sorry that the Modernisation Committee did not think that it could undertake an

847
analysis. I did the next best thing. I could not undertake one myself, but I thought that reading the contributions of individual Members would be worth while.
A nice search facility is offered by Hansard online, so I typed in the name of a Member and the words that I was looking for. Instantly, and with little work, I found the number of references by a Member to a particular subject. I typed in "programme motion" and "Forth". I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not in his place, as the total was 4,353. When I typed in "Hogg" and "programme motion", the total was 3,558, while "Bercow" gave a total of 3,401.
I was expecting to be asked how many references I had made. I typed in "Campbell" and must confess that the total was 5,833. However, I should point out that four other Members of the previous Parliament shared my name. I am afraid that Hansard online is not sufficiently discriminating to distinguish between Anne Campbell, Ronnie Campbell, Menzies Campbell and so on. My point is that programme motion debates were the sole preserve of a few Members who made the same points over and over and over again.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is right that we were repetitious, but the problem is that once one accepts the precedent, it is difficult to protest. She is therefore correct that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I took advantage of every debate to protest about what was going on so as not to let go and allow a precedent to be established for a procedure that we thought profoundly wrong.
Mrs. Campbell: I admire the right hon. and learned Gentleman's persistence. However, there comes a point in all democratic debate when one has to admit that the argument is lost. This is one such occasion. The point was made several times and the right hon. Gentleman lost in democratic votes, for good reasons.
I remind the House of the situation that persisted before the introduction of the programming and deferred votes experiment. Bills that were thought to be uncontentious sailed through Second Reading and Committee only to be subjected to the tabling of huge numbers of amendments on Report and Third Reading. Those amendments often lacked substance, and were frequently trivial and obviously time-wasting, although they were, of course, in order. Many Opposition Members made essentially the same point.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does not the hon. Lady detect in her tone some arrogance in her treatment of the House? She dismisses the opposition afforded from this side of the Chamber, but I put it to her that when she finds herself on these Benches, as she will one day, we shall throw those arguments back at her.
Mrs. Campbell: I have had the benefit of experience of the Opposition Benches, and I did not like it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not like it either. It is uncomfortable to feel that one is continually losing the argument, and I remember my delight when we won a vote in opposition. That was a remarkable feeling, although it becomes commonplace in government.
I do not believe that I am being arrogant, as many amendments were tabled for one purpose and one purpose only: to waste the House's time and to keep Labour
848
Members up until all hours of the day and night. We were frequently subjected to sitting until 2 or 3 am. Next day, Ministers and Members together felt deprived of sleep for no good purpose, as the debates changed nothing. After hours and hours of discussion, the Government did the obvious and imposed a guillotine, which was equally futile.
If Conservative Members think that the public admire or approve of such actions, I am afraid they are sadly mistaken. The general public do not approve; they think that we are all mad to sit here until 2 am or 3 am discussing arcane points about a comma in the middle of a clause. That is not a sensible way to use the time of busy people who have serious work to do, and it is one reason why many of the public, who are so disenchanted with the whole process, decided not to turn out to vote at the general election. The public find such activity totally abhorrent.
Mr. Howarth: There were infinitely more all-night sittings when I was elected to the House in 1983—night after night after night. My noble Friend Baroness Thatcher never complained, unlike the Prime Minister, who treats the House with complete contempt and comes here only once a week. My noble Friend would come to the House at 4.30 am completely unfazed, hair impeccably in place and handbag at the ready. She gave inspirational leadership to us all and never made any complaint.
I accept that there is no sense in time wasting and keeping Members up indefinitely for no good purpose, but I remind the hon. Lady that, when we were in government, there were no complaints from Ministers at the antics of the present Leader of the House and his colleagues.
Mrs. Campbell: The fact that the House sat later more frequently is no reason to say that it was better. When I sat on the Opposition Benches, I was aware that such activities were perpetrated by my party, although I never participated. I never even thought about whether I approved, although now that I sit on these Benches, I know that I definitely disapprove and that I would not like them to be pursued, even if I finish up on the Opposition Benches again.
Joan Ruddock: Can my hon. Friend clarify a point on which I hope she agrees with me? Those of us who are modernisers and who have campaigned for these changes are not trying to work fewer hours. We are trying to achieve circumstances in which we can work more effectively. We are all prepared to work horrendous hours, as we do now, but there must be a balance between the constituency, family life and our life in the House. As so many hon. Members have said, effective scrutiny can be achieved if we make changes and rearrange our hours and voting patterns.
Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. All of us, as Members of Parliament, want more effective scrutiny in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made a similar point when he said that time was not in fact a very good weapon: we need to improve the quality and succinctness of our arguments, and make our points more

849
briefly and sharply and in a more focused way. Speeches that are to the point are much more likely to be noticed and to engender interest outside.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: I have given way a number of times, but I will do so once more.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am sure that she speaks with great sincerity, and I accept her critique of some of our practices, but she will appreciate that—especially when measures are being introduced by a Government after a period during which that Government used the very tactics that she now deplores—the Opposition are bound to greet such measures with a certain suspicion. That is all the more inevitable given that on all the real measures that could be taken to modernise procedure in the House, we have heard nothing from the Leader of the House. The Conservative party has contributed by publishing a major document with proposals on the subject.
Mrs. Campbell: I am surprised that it has taken so long for an Opposition Member to refer to Lord Norton's report on modernisation, which was a welcome contribution to the debate. I am trying to set up an all-party modernisation group. I hope that Opposition Members will feel able to participate, and will use the opportunity to put Lord Norton's views to the group more cogently so that we can have a sensible discussion.
Debates could be much briefer and less repetitive than they are now. I am reminded of the famous writer—I think that it was Oscar Wilde, but I may be wrong—who said, "I am writing a long letter, as I do not have time to write a short one." That is the problem: because we do not prepare very well, we often have to go the long way round to say things that we could have said much more succinctly.
Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: I want to make some progress.
Mr. Tyler: A very small correction.
Mrs. Campbell: If it is a correction, I will give way.
Mr. Tyler: In fact, the quotation comes from Dr. Johnson rather than Oscar Wilde. That may appeal rather more to the Conservative ranks.
Mrs. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
I also feel that debates held at a more reasonable time of day would attract more press interest. We have often engaged in debates at midnight or in the early hours of the morning, and it is unreasonable to expect any member of the press to be up at that time of night listening to what we say. I do not think that debates held after 10 pm are the most widely watched or noted.
I ask myself whether the general public admire parliamentarians who stay up late night after night, and I have to conclude that they do not: they just think we are
850
stupid to allow it to happen. Time and again, when I have raised the issue in the national media, constituents have asked me, "Why do you put up with it? We find it incredible that you are expected to be there night after night, for no good purpose."
It is important that we allow adequate time for debate. I do not approve of the practice of pushing clauses and Bills through this place when they have not been debated or scrutinised. But adequate time does not mean unlimited time because unlimited time has shown itself to invite abuse of the system.
Opposition Members mentioned the role of Members of Parliament. We must continually and carefully rethink that role. I regard myself as a representative of my constituency, and I think it important for me, in that role, to listen closely to what my constituents say to me. I read their letters and e-mails, talk to them whenever I can, and engage in dialogue, and I am frequently influenced by their remarks. I come back here, mention my experiences in debates, talk to Ministers and if I am persuaded myself, try to persuade other people.
It is important to the whole process of democracy for us all to give ourselves opportunities to be influenced by what constituents say. The problem is that some of us have the impression that a parliamentarian has a fixed set of ideas, comes here to express his or her views, and never undergoes any process of renewal—never goes back to listen to what the outside world is saying.
Elections are a good time at which to bring home the views of constituents. Many of us knock on doors in our constituencies during election campaigns, and at the end of the recent campaign I felt that I had a good idea of my constituents' concerns. That is an important process in which we should engage as often as we can, and that means having time to engage in it. If we are in this place all the time, the balance is wrong.
Mrs. Dunwoody: On a day when it has been announced that the House will probably rise on 19 July, does it not behove us be careful about saying that we do not have enough time to talk to our constituents?
Mrs. Campbell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that 19 July is early. In recent years, the House has sat until the end of July. The early finish may be due to a number of factors, but it is certainly not due to the fact that the Executive want to give us time to go back to our constituencies. Listening to constituents, however, is an important part of our role.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Campbell: I am about to finish. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
I hope that the House will vote for the proposals. I believe that both the quality of our lives and the quality of debate will be improved if we accept that programming will become a permanent feature of our procedures.
4.38 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who made some remarks with which I

851
agreed. Let me say this to the House more generally: I hope that Ministers will gather from the debate that there is a lot of genuine anxiety on both sides of the House about the way in which we conduct business.
The hon. Lady said that we had returned from the election with a clearer view of what the electorate felt about a number of issues. One message that I received—as, I think, did other Members—concerned the extent to which the House of Commons, politicians and politics are held in low regard. There are many reasons for that, and I do not think it necessary to catalogue them now; but for many years I have been aware of a recognition that the House has become the instrument of the Executive, and we as Members of Parliament have become the creatures of party. As a result, members of the public observing our deliberations say of Members that they are but expressing the party view.
I want to impress on hon. Members my profoundly held conviction—which, I should point out to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I held when I was on the Government Benches and serving in a Government office—that Members of Parliament should be much more independent. It is very nice to see my deputy Chief Whip on the Front Bench, because he knows my views as he has heard me express them many times. I took the precaution of including in my election address my belief that it is desirable for Members of Parliament to be as independent as possible. I wanted my constituents to know that when I come to the House it is my intention to be as independent as I feel is right.
I do not believe in the whipping system, and I do not like to be told that I have a free vote only on matters of conscience. I regard all votes as free. Clearly, there is a presumption that we vote in favour of our party, and we are obviously not experts on many issues. This has nothing to do with conscience. When individual Members of Parliament form an opinion, it behoves them to express that opinion and to vote according to it when desirable.
Mr. Cash: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that statement and on his election address. I made a similar point in my election address for exactly the same reason. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the greatest objective and justifiable change that any great party could make would be to have a policy of ensuring the independence of Parliament as well as the independence of Back Benchers?
Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend. Modernisation is important, and there are things that we can do about our practices to make ourselves more efficient. To re-establish independence on both Benches is by far the most important thing that we can do. If we were to do that, and to speak our minds and vote accordingly, we would be held in much greater esteem, and the decisions of the House would have much greater authority.
Mr. Tyler: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I told my electorate that I would agree with everything that my Chief Whip told me, but then I was the Chief Whip.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is particularly valid for Select Committees and Committee work, but it is more difficult to be independent in the discussions that take place on the Floor of the House.
852
The fact that the centre of gravity has moved from the Chamber to the Committees—which some people regard as a retrograde step—may be an advantage in the context of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right in part, but I would like to see as much independence as possible everywhere. It is obviously easier to be independent in the Committees, because hon. Members have access to much more information on the specific measures that they are discussing. I want hon. Members to be, broadly speaking, independent, and to form their own views on the basis of the evidence presented to them.
Incidentally, I would change the oath that we all take when we come to the House, not because I am an anti-monarchist—I am not—but because I want hon. Members to take an oath that they will vote in accordance with their judgment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now straying rather wide of the mark.
Mr. Hogg: Only to this extent, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I may be able to persuade you of a slightly different view. If hon. Members swore that they would vote in accordance with their judgment, they would be in a much better position to say to the Whips, "Oh, no, my friend. I have sworn an oath, to which I intend to adhere." That would erect a different obligation, which one could set against the obligation of party. However, I do not want to test your patience further, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am against the deferred Division procedure, and I have not the slightest intention of participating in any of the votes in the No Lobby for the remainder of this Parliament. We are allowing important decisions to be made by hon. Members signing a visitors' book. which they may sign as many as five or six days after the debate. I willingly concede that hon. Members frequently vote on matters without having heard the debate and without having been present at any material time, but the deferred Division procedure gives a legislative or parliamentary sanction to that process. I regard that as profoundly unsatisfactory. Although I did not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) when she talked about third-party influence, the truth is that when hon. Members vote on a piece of paper six or seven days after the event they are much more prone to pressures from their Whips than they would be if they were present for the debate.
If hon. Members have to vote at the end of the business under discussion, there is a reasonable chance that they will listen to some part of the debate. They may identify some anxieties or problems that they wish to communicate to their Front-Bench colleagues or to the House, but the deferred voting procedure makes that impossible.
By using delegated legislation, Governments can make substantial changes to the law. If they must have hon. Members present—often late at night—to approve those changes, that is a check on the volume of legislation that they can handle in that way. The hon. Member for Cambridge understandably does not want to be here late night after night, and she would say to her Whips, "Look, my friends, this is intolerable." If enough of her

853
hon. Friends said to their Whips, "This is intolerable", the volume of legislation passed in that way would not be as great as it would be if the Government could get it through by getting the visitors' book signed. There is no merit in the visitors' book, so I do not intend to sign it throughout the lifetime of this Parliament.
I am profoundly uneasy about programme motions. We need to consider the detail of the proposal for the programme motion, which has two substantive parts: paragraph A and paragraphs B and C. The key detail of paragraph A is that the motion is tabled before Second Reading and is to be voted on immediately after the conclusion of the Second Reading debate. It will be voted on, not debated, after Second Reading. Save for three limited exceptions, the programme motion will be taken forthwith.
The detail of the programme motion will be formulated before the Second Reading debate, which is before right hon. and hon. Members have had a chance to express their views on the merits of the Bill, or even those parts of the Bill that are deemed to be material. That is a travesty, because the Executive are determining the timetable without having listened to the views of hon. Members. We are precluded from saying that the timetable is inappropriate, because we cannot debate the timetable motion: it is to be voted on immediately after the Second Reading debate. That is a travesty of democracy.
Paragraphs B and C relate to the composition of the Programming Committee and Sub-Committee. The House will know that the Programming Committee comprises eight Members to be selected by the Speaker, with a quorum of four. The truth, as we know well, is that the members of the Committee and the Sub-Committee will be selected largely by the Whips. They will draw up the timetable that they wish to see. They will probably not consult the awkward squad on either side. Indeed, the awkward squad's interests will be disregarded. I do not suppose that the interests of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) or of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) will he taken into account because the Front Bench will not want that to happen.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, the process also takes place in secret. There is no record of what happens in the Programming Committee. We do not know what pressures were brought to bear, who said what or how people voted. The process is put together by the Front Benches, whose interests are not mine nor are they those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is now a Back Bencher and whose interests should be with us. We have a legitimate interest in preserving the rights and powers of Parliament.
Mr. Shepherd: The rights and powers of the people.
Mr. Hogg: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right.
When we consider legislation, leaving aside the benefits and rights that flow from it, we are considering penalties and obligations. Legislation imposes burdens on the electorate, sometimes penal in character. In a democratic society, we all make an implied bargain to the effect that legislation will be properly scrutinised by the
854
representatives of the people. There is an implied bargain between members of a political community that legislation will not be imposed unless those representatives have had a chance to scrutinise it and express their views. The process that I have described, and which the Government are pursuing, is calculated to break down that bargain.
Inevitably, large chunks of legislation, some of it quite serious, will go through—some went through in the previous Parliament—without it having been discussed. When people begin to realise that their obligations are arising not as a result of scrutiny but as a result of fiat, directive and Executive action, they will come to realise that the days of the elected dictatorship have truly arrived. I am not trying to say that we are a dictatorship yet because I do not believe that that is true, but we are putting in place procedures that enable the Executive to ride roughshod over the liberties and freedoms of the people of this country and to ignore the considered opinions of their representatives. That is not just bad in the short term, but will undermine the foundations of democracy. I fear for the future.
4.52 pm
Ann McKechin: It is a great honour to make my maiden speech as the representative of the electorate of Glasgow, Maryhill. Although I was selected as a Labour candidate only in March this year, I received a warm welcome from the community. I heartily support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the motions before us. Tradition has an important part to play in our institutions, but it should not act as a barrier to progress.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Maria Fyfe, who served the constituency diligently and with great skill over the past 14 years. Since arriving here, I have met many hon. Members who held her in high regard, and that sentiment was expressed to me by many of my constituents during my election campaign. She is an excellent example to follow. She was an independent and strong Back Bencher and I am sure that all hon. Members join me in wishing her well in her future endeavours. I feel privileged to stand here today as her successor and as part of a long line of Labour Members for Maryhill and, uniquely for Glasgow, as its second female Member of Parliament.
My constituency has yet again resoundingly shown its support for the Government with a 60 per cent. share of the vote and a majority almost double that achieved in the 1999 Scottish Parliament elections. Glasgow's citizens know that the Government are working for them on jobs, pensions or public services. When my predecessor was first elected, unemployment in Maryhill was growing at an alarming rate and was matched with chronic under-investment in public services and housing stock. The consequent dire effects on the local community were all too evident.
I am happy to say that the policies of the present Government, based firmly on the principle of social justice, have already had significant effect. In the past four years, long-term unemployment in Maryhill has been reduced by a massive 65 per cent. and the general unemployment figure has been lowered by almost 40 per cent.
However, there is still much to be done to lift our constituency from the poverty trap, and I urge the Government to continue their good work with a resolute

855
commitment to full employment and continued increases in our public spending. Too much talent and life has been squandered in the last quarter of a century. We have a heavy responsibility to our constituents, who have placed their trust in us year after year, to deliver them a country where opportunity for all is not just a meaningless phrase but a reality.
Maryhill has a strong record of community activism. That was particularly evident during my election campaign when the Forth and Clyde canal, part of which runs through the area, was formally reopened as part of the millennium project. Water has always been seen as a symbol of life, and that project encompasses many hopes and aspirations in the constituency for a better life in the coming years. Although Maryhill might not appear to be a tourist attraction, it may surprise hon. Members to know that it includes a bird sanctuary, the site of a Roman fort adjoining the Antonine wall, the Queen's Cross church designed by Charles Rennie Mackintosh and the largest number of farms in any Glasgow constituency.
Maryhill is also home to Glasgow's best-loved football team—Partick Thistle, of course—which this year not only celebrated its 125th anniversary but succeeded in winning promotion to the first division. I am sure that this will be only the beginning of more triumphs for the club and I look forward to watching my first ever football match at its ground. Although I have not watched a match before, my active membership of the Labour party in the west of Scotland over the past decade has proved to be an invaluable source of information and advice.
There has rightly been great concern in the House about the low turnout at this and other recent elections. I urge hon. Members from all parts of the House to give serious and mature consideration to that issue in the weeks and months ahead. It is clear that a growing percentage of our electorate feel no link between themselves and their elected representatives. It is beholden on us to commit ourselves to reform and modernisation, where necessary, while retaining the highest standards of conduct. In particular, I welcome the Government's proposed legislation to allow political parties to achieve better gender balance as an important step in that process.
It is vital, however, that all sections of our society, including the media, play their part in establishing the principle that our Government are the servant of their citizens and that, in turn, all citizens have a duty to maintain our elected democracy. That sense of shared responsibility has, for multiple reasons, broken down in recent years. Unfortunately, spin and sleaze are not new phenomena in world history; they have been with us since the days of Machiavelli, if not before. But the right of ordinary citizens freely to elect their Governments is still a relatively recent concept, and one that has involved much struggle and sacrifice. Many people throughout this globe are still facing death and oppression and are fighting for rights that we take for granted at our peril. We must move away from the pre-eminence of individualism in our society, to create a society where the principle of caring for, and working with, our fellow citizens has priority.
It is not just within the confines of our own boundaries that threats to democracy exist. Elected Governments will face enormous challenges in the coming years, as we experience the effects of continued globalisation and changing relationships with international organisations. The economic and political strength of transnational corporations has been well documented, but as yet the
856
imbalance of power that they hold has still to be harnessed and regulated for the proper benefit of all people on the planet. If we are to avoid a return to a modern-day version of feudalism, democracies will need to unite to ensure that the interests of their citizens instead of the level of dividends paid to shareholders are made paramount.
I very much welcome the widespread reforms that were recently put in place by the Department for International Development, and its new priority on the reduction of world poverty. As someone who has long campaigned for the end of the link between trade and aid, I congratulate the Government on their proposed reforms of the aid system. The Government have established themselves as a world leader in the fight against the scourge of world poverty, but much still needs to be done, and I urge them to renew their efforts on debt reduction at the forthcoming Genoa summit, and to argue vigorously for reform of our international organisations to ensure that poverty reduction is truly integral to their decision-making processes.
Reform should be embraced, not feared. Let us tackle our challenges, be they at home or abroad, with renewed vigour and confidence to ensure that we have a democracy that is fit for this century.
5 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and to congratulate her on her maiden speech, which was delivered with assurance and fluency and which was very much in the tradition of the non-controversial maiden speech while nevertheless making some extremely punchy and proper points. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing from her again, although she is likely to get the odd intervention in future, as she probably knows.
The hon. Lady spoke warmly of her predecessor, Maria Fyfe. We all remember Maria with considerable affection as a very individualistic parliamentarian. She was a real parliamentarian—she was frequently here and often intervened in debates. She was most certainly not a lackey of any Government—she spoke her mind, with confidence and authority. Her accent was slightly more Glaswegian than the hon. Lady's, so we did not always get every nuance. I am sure that we shall from the hon. Lady. Maria was a dear woman and an excellent Member of Parliament and we shall miss her. I am sure that we have a splendid replacement in the hon. Lady and I wish her many happy years here—with 60 per cent. of the poll it is going to take us more than a couple of elections to remove her. She will enjoy being here, I am sure.
The hon. Lady was right to interpret the rules governing maiden speeches by ranging widely, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were right to let her do so. What is pertinent to this debate, however, is the fact that the hon. Lady was speaking as the Member of the Westminster Parliament—the United Kingdom Parliament—for Glasgow, Maryhill. In debates such as these, we all have to remember the words of the late Duncan Sandys who, when upbraided for not attending his constituency—not that it was difficult because it was only in Streatham, just down the road—said that he was the Member for Streatham in Westminster, not the Member for Westminster in Streatham.

857
We have to pay due regard to our constituencies and our constituents and the hon. Lady will almost certainly do so. I am sure that she will report back regularly, as we all do in our different ways.
I was saddened by the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and I am sorry that she is not still in her place. She seemed to imply that we were here too much and in our constituencies too little. She was rightly interrupted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who reminded her that we have not only weekends but parliamentary recesses. That is when we do the bulk of our constituency work. Our prime duty is to be here when the House is in Session. I have always refused mid-week engagements in my constituency. I have returned there mid-week only for funerals, not for ordinary constituency engagements. It is my duty to be here.
One thing that has saddened me in the past few years, and which is relevant to this debate—it is not only the fault of this Government—has been the way in which the parliamentary week has been squeezed. There was a time when Thursday was one of the great parliamentary days. Until four years ago, we had Prime Minister's Question Time every Thursday as well as business questions. The House sat until 10 pm, when it nearly always voted. Thursday was an important parliamentary day.
An indicator of the way in which Thursday has ceased to be a great parliamentary day is the fact that even the Conservative party's 1922 committee now meets on Wednesdays, not Thursdays, because insufficient Members are here on that day. I do not suggest that all the blame is on one side of the House. The rot set in with Jopling. Many of us were too easily seduced by some of the Jopling proposals.
I will never forget a wonderful speech by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who told the House as he bared his soul a couple of years ago, how he had delayed the implementation of the Jopling proposals, which was very much in his gift as Opposition Chief Whip. He and the redoubtable Don Dixon delayed the proposals until they knew that they would be in government in a short time. They knew that the proposals would serve the Executive and the interests of government, and the right hon. Gentleman said so honestly in the House.
Of course, hon. Members can bare their souls and say all sorts of interesting things in debates such as this. I am bound to say that I savoured enormously the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). His was a wonderful bravura performance of the kind that we have come to expect of him on every occasion. I could not help but remember the days when he was a Government Whip instructing the 1922 committee on how we must vote—and if we deviated, by jove we would be in trouble.
I can also remember when, as a most distinguished Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend was not likely to brook deviation or any challenge—but of course, now that he is liberated on the Back Benches and in opposition, he is one of the foremost champions of parliamentary liberty. He has already said this afternoon that he will not cast his vote in a single deferred Division for the next four or five years, which will doubtless ensure that he can do one or two other things on Wednesdays.
858
This is a very serious debate, and I am bound to say that I welcome the tone of the speech made by the Leader of the House. I do not want to sound patronising, but the right hon. Gentleman has it within him to be a very considerable Leader of the House. When he was first elected, he immediately made his mark as someone who fitted in here and who relished the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate. He was a consummate debater, and some of the classic debates in the House in my time featured the right hon. Gentleman. He gave no quarter, but he was always punctilious, courteous and hard hitting, and I have missed him during the past four years. I make no criticism; of course, he had his particular brief and he did not attend debates very frequently because he was on Her Majesty's Government's business in other parts of the world.
The right hon. Gentleman could be a considerable Leader of the House, so long as he remembers that he has a dual role. Of course, he is a leading member of the Cabinet and of Her Majesty's Government, but he is also the leader and the servant of the House of Commons, and in that context, his role is second in importance only to that of Mr. Speaker or the occupant of the Chair. I hope that he will recognise that it is important that he gives back to the House more opportunities for the effective scrutiny of the Executive.
Legislation that is not properly scrutinised is frequently very bad, and we should all remind ourselves of that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I have never been a friend of the guillotine. I have voted against guillotines introduced by my party because it is wrong when great swathes of important legislation go undebated and undiscussed. We reached a parliamentary nadir just a few weeks before the general election, when we debated the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and the House connived at what I then called, and call again, a parliamentary lie—we deemed that things had been discussed that had not been discussed. That was a low point in parliamentary history, and I hope that it will never be repeated and that it will not have set a precedent. That happened as a direct consequence of programming legislation.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will not automatically programme all Bills. It is not the subject of programming that excites Opposition Members, but the manner in which it is done, so I hope that when programming is considered, there will be a proper opportunity adequately to discuss all the clauses of the Bill under consideration. That will mean that the Government cannot programme until after Second Reading. There must be proper opportunity for extending the time that is available. To take up the point made several times by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) from the Opposition Front Bench, there must also be adequate discussion of amendments from the House of Lords. If that means that the Government have to produce less legislation for the House rather than more, so be it. That would be a good thing. If it means that the Government have to produce more draft Bills that we can crawl over before we come to debate them in their substantive form, again that will be a good thing. It is the quality, not the quantity, of legislation that matters.
There are many proposals in the Queen's Speech on which there will not be an ideological divide between the Government and the Opposition, but there will certainly

859
be a divide if things are rushed through without the opportunity adequately to consider and properly to debate. That also means the opportunity properly to consult with those legitimate outside interests whose fortunes will be affected by the legislation that we are passing. Far too often in the past four years, there has been inadequate time to discuss with our constituents and other interests what the Government have proposed.
The pre-election Session was rushed and there was almost no opportunity to discuss certain legislation. The Leader of the House will have to bear all these things carefully in mind if he is to earn the reputation of which he is certainly capable; if he is to go down in history as one of the considerable Leaders of the House. I remember many Leaders of the House, and two or three stand out as absolutely first class. One thinks of Norman St. John Stevas, who was responsible for introducing the Select Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills anticipates me by mouthing the words "John Biffen", who was a marvellous Leader of the House because he was—I do not think that I am being unfair to anyone else—the least partisan. He was semi-detached before his semi-detachment was dispatched by the lady with the handbag. I sincerely hope that if the present Leader of the House becomes semi-detached he will not be dispatched. I hope that the Prime Minister will redeem his parliamentary reputation by realising that he has put the right man in the right place and leaving him there. This is a reputation that is at the moment potential, and we all want it to become actual.
Programming should not be entered into automatically. It is important that the Leader of the. House heeds the words uttered this afternoon about the composition of Programming Committees and the way in which the time is allocated. If he does not, we may well have a repetition of events last year, and the reputation of Parliament will suffer in consequence. None of us, whether we come from Glasgow, Maryhill or from South Staffordshire, will benefit if the reputation of Parliament sinks. I want to see Parliament once more at the centre of national life, which at the moment it is not, and this Chamber at the centre of Parliament's life, which at the moment it is not.
The Leader of the House did not deal adequately with deferred Divisions—the postal ballot a week after the debate, when there has been no requirement to do anything and plenty of opportunity to be got at by all sorts of people. Deferred Divisions are a negation of what Parliament and parliamentary voting should be all about. I hope that, at the least, the right hon. Gentleman will discuss with his colleagues on the Modernisation Committee a reorganisation of deferred Divisions. As he reminded us, we are still in the experimental stage. Divisions should at least take place the day after the debate. It might be inconvenient for hon. Members to be here at 2 o'clock the next day to cast their votes, but we are not here for our convenience. It is our role to serve our constituents and to represent them adequately and properly. If that means the inconvenience of casting a deferred vote the day after a debate —at, for example, 9 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the afternoon—so be it.
I am no friend of long nights—I have been in the House too long for that. I remember Parliament sitting night after night in 1970 to debate the Industrial Relations Bill. There was a great spirit of camaraderie and I shall never forget the Labour Opposition bursting into song with a rendition
860
of the Red Flag at about 4 am. Nevertheless, the quality of legislation was not enhanced and the Industrial Relations Act 1971 had possibly the shortest life of any reforming legislation in the past 50 years. I do not want us to be here just for the sake of it, but it is our role to ensure that legislation is more than adequate.
As for the Modernisation Committee, I do not like its title and want it renamed. The "Improvement of Scrutiny Committee" would more adequately describe its proper function and role. I apologise to the Leader of the House if my intervention was a shade flippant, but he should think carefully about his role in relation to the Committee. He should consider whether it might be better for him to have someone like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich or my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills as its Chairman. Its stature as a parliamentary Committee would grow immeasurably and its recommendations would carry far more weight. The right hon. Gentleman would continue to have an input; he would not be prevented from attending Committee meetings to put his point of view. However, the Leader of the House, a senior member of the Executive, should not be perceived as being in the driving seat of a body that is deciding how we will scrutinise every Government action. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect carefully on that over the recess.
We are at the beginning of a new Parliament. The Conservative party did not have an especially successful election. That fell to the Labour party. Democrats must congratulate the winning party, but they must recognise, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill did in her maiden speech, the fact that we have to look to ourselves when we consider the percentage poll. Some 25 per cent. of those eligible to vote voted for the Government; 19 per cent. voted for us; and 11 per cent. voted for the Liberal Democrats. In that context, none of us has anything about which to be proud. One reason for that vote is the fact that the House has fallen in the estimation of the people. It lies within our power to enhance that reputation once again.
It is important that hon. Members, especially new Labour Members, remember that they have a crucial role. We cannot properly and fully hold the Executive to account unless they take part in that process. Everything that we do to reform and change our procedures should be with one aim in mind—to improve that scrutiny and involve everyone in it. If the Leader of the House can set us on that road, he will deserve the thanks of us all.
5.19 pm
Mr. Iain Luke: It is with a great sense of honour and humility that I rise to make my maiden speech in this venerable Chamber. I am proud to have been elected by the constituents of Dundee, East to represent the city of my birth and their best interests in Westminster.
I believe that Dundee is Scotland's friendliest city. It certainly claims to be the United Kingdom's sunniest city, given its favourable location on the east coast and the shelter of the Sidlaw hills. It is one of Scotland's most densely packed urban centres, forming a regional centre for North Tayside, Angus and North-East Fife.
Dundee is unique in Scotland, if not in the UK, in that it can boast two premier league football teams within a stone's throw of each other on the same road. As well as

861
that, there is an even political balance in football support in the city. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. West (Mr. Ross) is known in Dundee as an Arab, not because of his intense and knowledgeable interest in the middle east, for which I commend him, but because of the alleged practices in which his club used to participate: putting sand on the ground to make it more difficult for more skilful teams to play football in the winter. On the other hand, I am a dyed-in-the-wool true blue Dundee supporter. I hasten to add that not many supporters of either club will be casting their votes in the ballot in September for the leader of the Conservative party. Dundee is therefore a truly united city.
I am proud to represent a city which, over its long history—it celebrated its octocentenary in 1991—has never been frightened of change. One recurrent theme has been its ability to restructure and adapt itself to the circumstances with which it has been faced. Sited on the banks of the silvery Tay, which, as William McGonagall reflected, <b5>
"flows past Dundee once a day",
the city is one of the most beautiful estuarial settings. The beauty of its surroundings has, however, provided a picturesque backdrop to some tumultuous times.
In its long history, Dundee has been destroyed at least twice—once during the dynastic disputes between our two kingdoms in the 14th century, and again during the civil conflict between the Crown and Parliament in the 17th century. Neither, however, has posed an impediment to the growth of my home town, which continued at a great rate during the 19th century, when the city embraced technological and economic change to become what was known as "Juteopolis"—the centre of the world's jute production. Links with the Indian sub-continent remain today. Dundee was a city of immense wealth and, indeed, of immense differences in income and opportunity. It was a truly radical city—outside Glasgow, perhaps at times the most radical in the UK.
Dundee provided a platform in the early 20th century for Winston Churchill, who was then part of the Liberal Government who introduced many progressive and impressive reforms, changing the social provision of this country for ever. Although Churchill lasted in the seat for 14 years, he was uniquely ousted by the only prohibitionist Christian Socialist Member of Parliament, Neddy Scrymgeour.
During my lifetime, changes in the city have been even greater. I and my generation have witnessed a massive transformation in the city's outlook, economy and physical environment. Gone are the days when the "standard fayre" was a pie, a pint and an onion bridie. We have moved to the Budweiser and bun served at Dundee contemporary arts centre, of which I am proud to be a director, which has transformed the city's outlook as a provider of culture and art. William Topaz McGonagall, whom we in Dundee would call a worthy, would certainly write a poem in the hilarious vein, which unfairly earned him the title of world's worst poet, chronicling his amazement at the changes that have been effected in the city in the 99 years since his death.
The city is currently building itself out of the 1960s city-centre planning blight that is so prevalent throughout the UK. It is not frightened of change. As a previous
862
two-time chair of the Dundee partnership and economic development and housing convenor of the city, I like to think that I have made some contribution to the process and helped Dundee to meet the demands of the 21st century.
Gone are the days when Dundee was known as the city of journalism and Now, we boast many leading-edge companies, such as NCR, Michelin, ABB Nitra and a host of smaller, research-based enterprises that are building on the biomedical expertise and computer-game technology of our city's two universities. I am proud of my city's progress and look forward to participating in that process and serving as its advocate here in Parliament.
The House and Dundee can rest assured that I shall do all I can to assist the civic process. I shall also do what I can to assist the modernisation of the House. I should like to pick up a theme that I have heard discussed in the past few weeks: the disengagement of electors from our political processes. Setting aside the television coverage, which tends to put people off anyway, I got the feeling while going around my constituency during the campaign that many people believe that it is the politicians who have distanced themselves from the electors.
Wherever we stand on modernisation, a vital role for the House is to re-engage with electors, especially young people. I have had the privilege of visiting schools and taking part in debates. I have seen the passion, commitment and great interest that many young people have. My Conservative opponent nearly got lynched in one school when he kept referring to the Scottish Executive as the "White Heather Club", but he certainly gave dimension to the debate and that should be continued.
I shall continue the campaign for modern practices pursued by my predecessor, John McAllion, to whom I pay tribute. I know that the Whips in the House will have heaved a collective sigh of relief now that John has moved to the Scottish Parliament, where he is technically under the control of Tom McCabe, the Labour business manager there. Throughout his time here, John advocated continual improvement in the lives and economic prosperity of his constituents, and I know that he will continue to do so in Holyrood. John and I and all the other elected representatives for Dundee will work as a team to put the case for our city. I am proud to have been elected to represent my home town and I shall do everything in my power to ensure that the best case is advanced for the city.
5.27 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The speech by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) was a cheer to me. One of the very first cities to enter my consciousness was Dundee: I was born in Aberdeen and my mother comes from Glasgow, and our journeys between the two settled on Dundee, whose romance has never left me. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the great jute industry which, in a sense, opened up Scotland and brought the world to Scotland, so part of his history as a man of Dundee extends much further than the borders of Europe.
When the jute trade, which had created great wealth and prosperity, went into decline, Dundee shared the experience of many of our great cities. I give a cheer for what the hon. Gentleman had to say in that respect. I was especially moved by the fact that he believes in

863
representing the people of Dundee. I believe profoundly that the purpose of the House is to bring together people from all the parts of this island of ours to represent the people who live real lives—those who suffer the varying fortunes and prosperity of their town or region. I wish the hon. Gentleman well—his was a bonny and fair speech.
Before the House today are certain motions, and every speaker has touched on them—indeed the hon. Member for Dundee, East did so as well. It is a cause of sorrow to me that we seem to be in a court in which the prosecution determines how long the defence may have to make its case. That was not always the tradition of the House. I should have liked the Leader of the House to be present for my speech, because I agree with much that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who held forth the hopes for one of the most profound and forensic of cross-examiners of previous Governments, who could use procedures that were more open in those times to cause great difficulty to the Government.
I wonder what would happen if there were yet another Scott inquiry. I remember the formidable arguments that Sir Richard advanced to demonstrate the improprieties and the actions of people in high places. I was convinced that his arguments were right, and I along with one other Conservative Back Bencher supported the critique that Sir Richard Scott made of the actions taken by government. He said that certain Ministers had failed in their constitutional duty. I can think of no more severe rebuke. We are talking not of pennies that are stolen but of people who fail in their constitutional responsibilities.
In a sense, that is why I feel that the burdens of the arguments that have been advanced in response to the motions are a real failure in a constitutional sense. I would have liked to remind the Leader of the House that his job is as set out in the traditional sense by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire. The right hon. Gentleman represents the House to the Executive. The formation of how we go about our businesses must allow the defence, if I may so categorise the other position, the opportunity to make its case—the Opposition's case. The motions arrogate power to the Executive—not the House as a collective of individual representatives, such as the hon. Member for Dundee, East and me, of defined areas in the country—and to the Government and the Crown.
A great Member retired at the end of the previous Parliament. He used to characterise the historic function of the House as a struggle against the powers of the Crown. In the course of our democratic history, however, the Crown moved from the end of the Mall to Downing street, and with that came the distinction that was lost. The Crown now so entirely controls the House that the opportunity for us to make a contrary case is diminished. The motions will enforce that.
There is no opportunity to make representations prior to the determination by the Government of what is the appropriate length of debate. Why is it that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who led for the Opposition from the Front Bench, and all my other hon. Friends have so taken agin these proposed measures? If I were taking Oakeshott as my guide, I would say, "I do not know where we are going sometimes. I can only guide myself by past experience."
The experience of the previous Parliament was lamentable. We ended up with no safety valve. There were no means by which we could say, "This was
864
insufficient." My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and three other colleagues protested in a Committee Room. The Government insisted, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, that what was not true was true and that the House had considered a Bill when it had not.
I have spoken about justice lying in that cross-section of the detail of procedure. However, the justice that we are talking about concerns liberty, the liberty of the people whom we represent. There are those who argue that Parliament is in decline, and we know why that is. What difference do we make? If I want to do a deal, like Mr. Ecclestone, I deal direct with Government. None of those matters ever came before the House.
Our constituents are not foolish. We have no weight in the balance of things. Perhaps when there is a Major-type Government with a small majority, where persuasion can alter the conduct of individual Members who support that Government, that will make a difference. In these great days, however, there is fealty to party. That is not to denigrate the concept of party, because I do not doubt that every Member on the Government Benches supports the Labour party, and that those Members who sit round me support the Conservative party. But the control of patronage runs through the whole system.
The Leader of the House told us that the motions were built on reports produced by the House. With my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I served on the Modernisation Committee. We consistently asked for a simple thing—an analysis of how the system had worked in practice. Rational people sat down and pursued rationally a Bill's individually weighted progress, allowing for differing tolerances, but that turned out so badly that the Liberal Democrat representative, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who, if I may say so, had prattled on in Committee about the merits of the arrangements, saw his party vote against every single measure.
Mr. Tyler: Had the hon. Gentleman been in his usual place earlier, he would have heard me explain in detail why we objected to that motion and why we think that the present motion is an improvement. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present, but perhaps he will at least give me credit for having explained that carefully. Since I was Chief Whip at the time, I was giving guidance to my colleagues; I was not accepting guidance from anybody else.
Mr. Shepherd: Building on experience, why should we suppose that the arrangements set out in the motion will be any different? We can only put our trust in the good will of the Leader of the House not to impose the guillotine—which, effectively, is what the arrangement amounts to—according to his or the Government's view, as opposed to that of other hon. Members. However, that runs contrary to everything that has happened.
The Leader of the House will not be aware that, during the four short years of the previous Parliament. when he was representing this country abroad, the Labour Government, of all Governments, imposed more guillotines than Mrs. Thatcher did in 11 years. That is

865
passed off as a simple thing, but I fought many of those guillotines because, as has been said, they involved our liberty, justice and relevance. That is all that I have to say on the issue.
I tabled an amendment to the motion which was not selected. However, I did so to try to shout to the House and those who are listening that, effectively, the motion gives the Executive the power to determine every jot and title of the business of the House and therefore strikes at our very function and at those whom we represent.
5.37 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) because he frequently expresses the views of the electorate in terms with which people identify.
Parliaments were created precisely to represent people's views, however they are expressed and wherever they come from. I am speaking today because Parliament matters as a representation of what the electorate think. Those who say that the recent election proved conclusively that people were turned off by voting and did not want to be involved are not confronting something that ought to be important to us. The electorate are concerned that their views, worries and upsets should be spoken about freely and simply in Parliament. If they do not believe that we are doing that job or, even worse, if they think that we are busy talking about our own interests, but not theirs, they no longer feel that their votes have an effect.
During the election. I spoke to many people who were concerned that the voting expected of them was no longer relevant to their lives. They did not feel that Her Majesty's Government and, in particular, Parliament reflected their real worries. Unlike the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), they did not discuss with me the procedures of the House of Commons. It would be nice to think that many of my constituents in Crewe and Nantwich have an intimate understanding of the role of Select Committees and the decisions on which procedural motions have an effect but—brilliant though they all are—sadly, that is not the case. The reality is that people want hon. Members to raise their problems in the House in language with which they identify, which they understand and which represents them.
If the House organises its work in a way that appears to exclude the rights of Back Benchers in favour of the organised juggernaut of government, and appears to make it more difficult for people's worries to be communicated to those in charge, the electorate will become uneasy about the process of government. That process governs people's lives, and is not a matter of which party is in power. When we alter the House's procedures enough to take away some Back-Bench rights, we take away hon. Members' right to represent ordinary voters.
I have been in the House a long time, under Governments of all shapes, sizes and colours. They have all organised the programme of the House for their own convenience, to get what they wanted out of it. All Prime Ministers believe that they speak for God—although there is not much evidence for that—so I am not surprised that
866
they should want to get the measures that concern them on to the statute book. However, the tentacles of modern government reach much further, extending beyond the laws of the country to all those matters that impinge on people's lives every day but which are not discussed in the House.
I am worried not by the way in which legislation is examined or changed but by the continuing aim of speeding up its movement through Parliament. That removes the right of Back-Bench Members to give voice to what they are told by constituents.
We have been told that time is a weapon but that we should not use it. Often, however, time allows constituents to tell hon. Members what is wrong with legislative proposals. Time is the oil that makes legislation move forward at a speed that is acceptable to the electorate. If people no longer find our laws acceptable, they will begin to withdraw their support.
I am delighted to see my young friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench. Perhaps it was cruel to land him, on his first appearance, with what I consider to be a negative proposal that will amount to a retrograde step. It is not new: it is the latest in a series of changes that are having a direct effect on the workings of the House. We have heard that the proposals are part of an experiment, and that they will not last, but when will the experiment end? I have heard a lot about timetabling, but nothing about the timetable for the experiment. Will the House of Commons have time to evaluate the experiment's effect?
When the electorate become uneasy about their lines of communication with the Government, and no longer think that their views are being represented as a whole, they will believe that alienation is their only answer. They will look for other means of expression outside Parliament, local government and the recognised norms of a democratic society. That is extremely dangerous.
It would be foolish to claim that the measure before us today, which is quite a small change, will automatically lead us down that path, but the thinking behind it could. That is the real worry: the feeling that the Executive must always have their way, that the Government must always get their legislation through whenever and by whatever means they want. That way lies perdition in a democratic society. Those who elect and send us here are varied and subject to many different pressures. If the gap between them and us, and between Parliament and what happens outside, becomes unbridgeable, there will be no need for timetables because our decisions will have no impact and be of no use. Ultimately, they will be of no worth to the electorate.
5.45 pm
Mr. David Cameron: I am pleased to follow the maiden speeches of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann Mckechin) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). Both spoke movingly and amusingly about their constituencies. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dundee, East is a true blue in the sense that he supports Dundee. It is our role to turn him blue in other ways; I look forward to trying to do that.
I am delighted to make my maiden speech in a debate on our procedures. I have worked in two Departments—the Treasury and the Home Office—as a special adviser, and I was therefore one of the bad guys, always in a rush

867
to get legislation through the House in order to prove that the Executive were delivering their programme. However, experience shows that too many Bills are passed too quickly, often with too little scrutiny and to little concrete effect. I have therefore enjoyed listening to the debate on the Government's suggestion for improving matters. I remain sceptical about their solution.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Both his speeches today were incredibly inspiring. As a new boy, I shall try to remember those lessons about our role and that of the House of Commons. The balance has tipped too far in favour of the Executive, and I am highly suspicious about programming Bills in advance and separating debates from votes.
I listened carefully to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about being independent Members and listening to the arguments. I remember working with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was Home Secretary. We lost many votes in the other place, and my right hon. and learned Friend asked our Minister there why we kept losing them. He replied, "Home Secretary, I am afraid that, although I get all our peers to come and vote, they listen to the arguments and they do not always go the right way."
It is a privilege and an honour to represent the constituency of Witney and the people of west Oxfordshire. Witney is a seat rich in history and blessed with some of England's most stunning towns, villages, buildings and countryside. It stretches from the market town of Chipping Norton in the north to the banks of the Thames in the south, and includes the thriving market towns of Witney, Carterton, Woodstock, Burford and Eynsham.
The western boundary is Oxfordshire's county boundary and includes Cotswold villages of great beauty such as Taynton and Idbury. To the east, the seat stretches towards Oxford's city limits, taking in Begbroke and Yarnton. There are 115 villages and settlements in valleys and plains watered by the Dorn, the Glyme, the Evenlode and the Windrush.
Burford was home to one of our great Speakers, William Lenthall, who stood up so clearly for the independence of the House and his office. West Oxfordshire can also boast of great statesmen. It contains the birth and burial places of Winston Churchill—Blenheim and Bladon.
We have great generals, such as John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, who was rewarded with Blenheim palace for his victories in the war of the Spanish succession. As we, on the Conservative Benches, settle our own issue of succession—Spanish or otherwise—I hope that our battles are shorter and slightly less bloody.
West Oxfordshire's political history extends to all traditions. The Levellers, who are now regarded as heroic early socialists, rebelled during the civil war because they believed that their leader, Cromwell, had betrayed the principles for which they fought. I am sure that Labour Members who might sometimes feel the same way do not need reminding that the leaders of that rebellion were rounded up and shot in Burford's churchyard. William Morris, the socialist visionary, lived and is buried at Kelmscott manor in my constituency, and I have no
868
hesitation in urging all hon. Members to visit that beautiful village on the banks of the Thames which time seems to have passed by.
Since 1945, west Oxfordshire has been represented by Sir Douglas Dodds-Parker, who parachuted into France in the 1940s; by Neil Marten, who served with the special forces during the war before embarking on a long and distinguished ministerial career; and by Douglas Hurd, now Lord Hurd, who was an outstanding Foreign Secretary. This brings me neatly to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward).
I know that it is traditional to pay tribute to one's immediate predecessor, and I have no hesitation in saying that I agreed with almost everything that he said in the first half of the previous Parliament, when he was a trenchant critic of the Government. It was only when he moved to the Labour Benches and supported that Government that our views started to diverge. I know that he worked hard for people in west Oxfordshire and must have felt strongly to leave such a magnificent constituency with such friendly and welcoming people. However, he remains a constituent, and a not insignificant local employer—not least in the area of domestic service. We are, in fact, quite close neighbours. On a clear day, from the hill behind my cottage, I can almost see some of the glittering spires of his great house.
West Oxfordshire's economy includes a wide diversity of agriculture and small and medium-sized businesses. Witney was for years dominated by blankets, beer and its railway. There remains just one blanket factory, the beer is predominantly brewed elsewhere and the railway has been closed. I will always support moves to examine reopening our railway to Oxford and extending the line to Carterton. Witney and west Oxfordshire are now beacons of enterprise and success. A range of service, technology and light industrial businesses have thrived in our area, and with the Arrows and Benetton Formula 1 teams, we are becoming the grand prix capital of the world. Our unemployment rate is close to the lowest in the country. However, our farming and tourism businesses have suffered badly from the foot and mouth outbreak and need time and an understanding, enabling Government to recover.
RAF Brize Norton, adjoining the relatively modern town of Carterton, is now one of our largest employers. It is one of Britain's longest-established air bases, and has played an important role in the defence of this country and in servicing our armed forces. Its facilities and expertise in air-to-air refuelling make it the perfect location for the future strategic tanker aircraft and I will always support its role. The now ageing VC10s that thunder down the runway loaded with fuel for our fighter aircraft are fondly known locally as "Prescotts", because they are able to refuel two Jaguars simultaneously—one under each wing. There was some suggestion during the election campaign that the right hon. Gentleman's name should be appended to some other type of aircraft, perhaps a fighter that packed a bit more of a punch.
Carterton is a rapidly growing town and in need of new services, such as a sixth form for its excellent community college, the campaign for which I strongly support. West Oxfordshire has an excellent Conservative-led district council, which has invested in those kinds of facilities, including some in Carterton. and I look forward to working with it in the years ahead.

869
Chipping Norton, long famous for William Bliss's tweed mill, which remains a striking landmark, is a classic Cotswold market town. It is also home to the kennels of the Heythrop hunt. There is a long tradition of hunting in west Oxfordshire, originally based in the royal forest of Wychwood, where Ethelred II established the first royal hunting lodge more than nine centuries ago. I will always stand up for the freedom of people in the countryside to take part in country sports, and, in the light of today's debate, would always be concerned about any limits set on a debate on a hunting Bill that could curtail that freedom.
Under its beautiful and serene exterior, west Oxfordshire faces important issues and problems. Rural poverty has been exacerbated by foot and mouth. The decline of local services, emphasised by the tragic closure of Burford hospital during the last Parliament, has angered local people. We still have cottage hospitals in Witney and Chipping Norton, which I strongly support.
Rumours of budget cuts for our hospitals and the dreaded "r" word—rationalisation—for our ambulance service are rife. Those emergency services and hospitals play a vital role in rural communities and they should be expanded, not discarded. In the context of today's debate, the health reform bill promises decentralisation, but we shall need a lot of time to scrutinise it and ensure that it really will deliver a local NHS. I hope that that can happen under the proposed system.
In Witney, there is huge pressure on housing and great concern that the Government's top-down housing targets will mean building on greenfield sites and wrecking the countryside that we love. That is another issue of great local importance.
The theme of how we make and scrutinise decisions runs through today's debate. I wanted to be elected to the House because I believe in what it stands for and what it can do to hold Governments to account, air grievances and raise issues that people in west Oxfordshire care about. I also wanted to be elected because, through action here, one can get things done.
I shall support all the efforts being made to restore the House as the cockpit of debate, and the place where policies are announced, debated and decided and where the Government are scrutinised and challenged, whether on the Floor of the Chamber or through strengthened, independent Select Committees. I cannot see how deciding in advance how much time should be given to a Bill and systematic guillotining can help in that regard, but I am a new boy and I am listening to the arguments.
The beauties of west Oxfordshire of which I have spoken—the glorious view from the top of Burford high street and Pope's tower in Stanton Harcourt—sum up for many people what they feel about their British identity. I know that we shall always be able to treasure that identity, whether it rests on those feelings or on something else, but what matters just as much as our identity is our self-determination, and our ability to make decisions as a nation and to question and challenge them properly in this place. The ability to continue doing so rests in our own hands. It is a privilege that I shall try to preserve while serving the kind and generous people of west Oxfordshire.
5.57 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is rare for an hon. Member to have the privilege of following such an outstanding maiden speech. I congratulate my friend and hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on a superb speech that provided a fascinating and witty discourse on the qualities of the Witney constituency, which we have not heard so eloquently expressed previously.
I am bound to say, and as my hon. Friend may know, I regard him as a wonderful replacement for his predecessor, and I have no hesitation in saying that. He not only kept to the conventions of the House in his witty description of the circumstances of his arrival in Witney, but made extremely apposite points about the debate. We look forward with great pleasure to hearing more of him in the House, because he is a splendid addition to our Conservative ranks. In him, I see a conviction politician who will fight for the interests of his constituents and of our party and Parliament.
I have only two minutes in which to address the House on these important matters, so, having had the pleasure of entertaining hon. Members at rather greater length in the previous Parliament, I shall be brief. I oppose what the Government propose, because the debate, like the discussion on the programme motion, has shown the contempt in which the Government hold Parliament.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) described deferred Divisions as the visitors' book. It may be signed at 3.30 pm on Wednesdays, immediately after Prime Minister's questions, which has been moved from Tuesdays and Thursdays. There is minimum inconvenience for hon. Members, and right hon. Members in particular, who can sign the visitors' book at 3.30 pm. The introduction of that visitors's book is greatly to the disadvantage of the House and our procedures and, like my right hon. and learned Friend, I shall not sign it throughout this Parliament, because it is an affront.
As for the programming motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned how many times the present Government, in comparison with the previous one, had tabled guillotine motions. Moreover, the time allowed for debates on such motions has been reduced from three hours to 45 minutes, and then to no time at all, with the Question being put forthwith. That demonstrates the contempt in which the House has been held by this Government—this Labour party.
We should not see this development in isolation, for the Leader of the other place has made clear his plans for extensive changes there as well. We are witnessing an assault not just on the procedures of the House of Commons but on those of the other place, where it is proposed—not yet formally proposed, but the idea has been floated—that there be no votes during Committee stages.
It is to the great credit of the upper House that it has engaged in some of the more extensive debates on important issues that are of concern to our constituents, and that matters have been subjected to greater scrutiny there than has been possible here. The measure introduced today does the Government no credit whatever.
6.1 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a good debate. It struck me as much more measured than the debate in which we first discussed the question of motions of this type, and perhaps rather sombre in tone. I shall return to that in a moment.
One reason why this debate has been more good-humoured than the last may be the maiden speeches that we have heard this afternoon. I especially enjoyed those of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), and, of course, of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), whose constituency I know well. He succeeded in depicting it in short words but with a great deal of feeling.
All those new Members are welcome. It is, perhaps, especially apposite that they should have made maiden speeches this afternoon when we are debating issues that touch our future, our existence and our relevance. For what concerns us today is not just the programming motion in itself: as has been said, it is linked with the overall direction in which the House is going.
Hon. Members speak of modernisation and the need for it. I am second to none in saying that there are numerous areas in which the practices of the House, and its efficiency, could do with review; but the key issue for us to consider is whether we are going down the right path in carrying out that task, or whether we are simply passing an ad hoc measure whose purpose seems largely to be to suit the needs of the Executive rather than those of the House.
I hope this is not an omen, but one thing about the Labour speakers today struck me as noteworthy. Let me for the moment leave aside the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who made an interesting speech with much of which I had little difficulty in agreeing. As far as I could see, not one Labour member of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons—apart from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who contributed briefly to the earlier debate on the guillotine motion—spoke today, although the Committee's recommendation is being presented to the House. Yet this is supposed to be a debate initiated by the House itself.
My impression is that Labour Members who have made valuable contributions today have been very guarded in their reception of the proposals. I shall say more about those contributions shortly. No one expressed great enthusiasm except the hon. Member for Cambridge, and even she had some reservations. We saw a succession of critics on both sides of the House, the only two enthusiasts being the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who was a member of the Committee. I am sorry that he is not present now.
I do not want to spend too much time on deferred votes. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who rightly said that it was the lesser of the two issues that we are considering. I regret the fact that we brought the deferred votes procedure into operation, because it shows that the House is approaching its problems wrongly. It may be inconvenient to vote after 10 pm, and that may be a reflection of bad programming. However, rather than addressing how we could better programme or modernise our procedures so as to
872
minimise such votes, we have committed and will continue to commit the great error of separating vote from debate
There may not be many hon. Members present in the Chamber during debates, but at least there is a centrality to those activities, which is maintained when votes follow debates. The previous exceptions to the rule that we vote after debates were few. It has now been turned into a rubber-stamping exercise carried out on a Wednesday afternoon, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that for some people it is a relatively painless way of improving their voting record.
If we lose the centrality of the Chamber and its activities, we will lose something precious. We are not social workers in our constituencies—that may be a role that we have taken on, but it was not the role that we were elected to undertake. Our role is in the process of debate in Parliament, and even the gossip in the Tea Room is important in that exchange of political views because it brings us together. If we compartmentalise ourselves—as the deferred voting process tends to do—we do ourselves and the country a great disservice. I hope that we will revisit deferred voting, and that when we do, we will have the courage to tackle the problem that it was designed to address in a different way.
The proposal on programme motions goes much further than the system that we had last year. I was particularly struck by the contributions of the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and for Cambridge, who acknowledged that much more needed to be done than merely tinkering with programme motions. I shall not run through a list of all my hon. Friends who made telling contributions, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is a great exponent of our parliamentary tradition, should be listened to with care when he says that we are paddling ourselves into irrelevance and oblivion. That is how this will be perceived.
It is all very well having programme motions. I welcome them, and I have sat on Standing Committees that have been subject to programme motions. I acknowledge to the Leader of the House that if the system of Programming Sub-Committees that he is establishing works, it could be a great improvement. However, I am bound to flag up my anxieties.
First, the secrecy surrounding the process is all very well, but how can we learn from it if we are denied access to the Sub-Committees' operations and deliberations? After all, most parliamentarians learn from their mistakes, as do most people in their daily lives, yet those excluded from a Sub-Committee's deliberations will have no idea whether it got it right or not, except anecdotally. It is scandalous that we are setting up such a structure with no transparency.
Whole areas will be of no concern to the Committees and their Programming Sub-Committees, because much of this programming business relates to matters dealt with after the business has returned to the Floor of the House or when it comes back from the other place. In the last Parliament, the Government extensively used the House of Lords to rewrite and amend legislation. I see Labour Members shaking their heads. I sat on the Committee that considered the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. That Bill commanded support from both sides of the House and was acknowledged when it

873
left Committee to be in a woefully defective state. The Government, perfectly properly, amended it in the House of Lords. However, although that Bill was all the more the responsibility of the House since it concerned the electoral process, we had virtually no opportunity to consider it in detail when it returned to this place.
The guillotine that was imposed then was identical to what we will have if we pass the programming motion under consideration. I cannot see the difference. In both cases a ministerial decision determines how long should be allowed for debate and the programming takes place accordingly. There is no indication as to whether there will be an opportunity for input or consultation of any kind. I fail to understand how that can be an improvement on the existing system or how it will be to the House's credit. During today's debate, one hon. Member after another has highlighted the central point that it is wrong to pass legislation that has not been scrutinised.
We have heard a great deal about filibustering and about hon. Members who hold up proceedings. We have to face the fact that with hundreds of Members of Parliament and, thank goodness, with some who will not slavishly follow the Whips, there will be people with bees in their bonnets. Some of them may be unreasonable, as may be those who have lobbied them, but they are entitled to a hearing if this place is to have any relevance.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central rightly pointed out that from about 1866 onwards power started to ebb away from this place to the Executive. It is at least worth remembering that in the 19th century considerable tolerance was accorded to windbag Members of Parliament who droned into the night about their pet subjects. Ultimately, that was a matter of forbearance by the Executive, whom the Leader of the House represents just as I hope that he will represent our interests across the Chamber. That forbearance was based on the principle that it was necessary to have exhaustive discussion because if we do not, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) so rightly said, people may start to resort to extra-parliamentary methods to achieve their ends.
We should remember what happened as recently as last autumn when large numbers of people took part in a protest that paralysed this country and brought about a change in the Government's taxation policy. It may be thought that that was to the advantage of my party, but it frightened me. It seemed to be a classic example of a breakdown of parliamentary democracy. I speak as someone with a half-French background; there, I am afraid that the notions of parliamentary democracy are not well developed. In that country, such action is an institutionalised phenomenon and is seen as the only way to bring home to the Executive and the elite who govern the country the people's dissatisfaction at the way in which the country is being run. Mercifully, we have been free of that, but when I look at what is being proposed today, I am left with the feeling that this is another nail in the coffin.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend summarise his views before finishing? It is important to know what the Opposition Front Bench would do in office. Does he agree that the Government have a right to get their Bills through and to do so in a
874
reasonable time but that the Opposition also have a right to determine what subjects should be debated within that time? If there were to be a Conservative Government, would he ensure that there were discussions through the usual channels before any vote on a programming motion and that there would be such a vote only if discussions broke down?
Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes powerful and compelling points, but I would go further, in this sense.
Many have congratulated the Leader of the House on his appearance at the Dispatch Box, and I do, too. He has an opportunity, but the question is, will it be taken? If indeed the Government wish to bring forward proposals, along the lines of those of the Norton committee, for substantial reform of how Parliament can hold the Executive to account, he will have support, and if things such as the programme motion before us were part of those proposals, it would be much easier to be reassured about the Government's intentions. But at the moment, every time that modernisation comes along, it is simply another nail in the coffin of the few remaining—doubtless sometimes abused and tawdry—powers left to Back Benchers to make a noise about something. I tell the Leader of the House that if this is the best that we are going to get, we shall be in a sad and sorry place by the end of this Parliament.
For myself, I will vote against these motions. I believe that they are wrong. The only circumstances in which I could support them would be if they were part of a total package that had been brought about by co-operation. The willingness to co-operate exists, but the will on the Government side appears wholly absent.
6.16 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I start on a positive note. I welcome at least the first part of the concluding remarks made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and sincerely hope that, with a new Parliament, we can develop the good will that he mentioned. I would much prefer that the process of debate and consideration of the reform and modernisation of the House had full cross-party support, and that Members from the main Opposition party did not feel, as they have today, unable to support the proposals.
We have had an interesting debate, in which Members have spoken from a range of perspectives. It is the first debate in this Parliament on the modernisation of the House of Commons. Let me quote something that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last night in his winding-up speech on the debate on the Loyal Address, because I believe that it responds to some of the points that have beers made tonight by Members on both sides of the House. He said that two important purposes of modernisation were first,
"to enable the House to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise their Executive decisions and legislation … good scrutiny makes for good government … The second objective of modernisation must be to ensure that the hours and working methods of this House belong to the same century in which most of our constituents live and work."—[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 738.]
Very often, these debates create the impression that those two purposes are alternatives—opposites. I see no reason why we should have to choose between them. I see no reason why we should not seek to achieve both.

875
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the Norton commission and the Hansard Society, both of which have made positive contributions to this debate and both of which, in their different ways, seek to meet both criteria set out by my right hon. Friend last night.
I thank all Members who participated in the debate. I apologise if I cannot respond to all the points made, but I undertake to write to any hon. Member whose points I do not address. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the three excellent maiden speeches that we have heard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) made a powerful and confident speech. I pay tribute to the work that she did before entering the House on issues of international development and fighting world poverty. I was interested to hear that Glasgow, Maryhill is a farming constituency and to hear of her ardent support—new-found ardent support—for Partick Thistle.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) because I missed the opening of his speech, but he made a strong commitment, as did his predecessor in the House, to the modernisation of the House and its practices, and I pay tribute to that.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) made a very witty, powerful contribution to the debate. I am sure that he was pleased to bring to an end the brief period in which Witney was represented by the Labour party, although when he started to talk about the Levellers I wondered whether he might be planning to follow his predecessor and cross the Floor. I suspect that that might not happen. I congratulate all three maiden speakers.
Today's debate has focused mostly on programming, but I was struck by the fact that two Conservative Members said that they had never participated in a deferred Division and intended never to sign what they termed the visitors' book. I was worried that if that became a trend throughout the Conservative party, Labour's already large majority would become larger still. In the interests of democracy, I encourage other Conservative Members to participate in deferred Divisions.
We heard some pretty synthetic anger about the use of deferred Divisions. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) seemed to be concerned that our constituents might discover the timing of a vote and lobby us about how we should vote. I do not imagine that any of us would have a problem with that. If a deferred Division is on a matter that gives rise to strength of opinion in a constituency, surely it is part of the proper democratic process that people can participate.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested that deferring Divisions meant that Members would be less informed when participating in votes. If anything, a deferred Division enables a Member to be more informed. A Member who was not present for the debate has the time to study Hansard. It is not reasonable to suggest, therefore, that people who do not participate in debates are any less well informed than those who vote in the traditional way at the end of a debate.
The motion gives more rights to Standing Committees, as was grudgingly acknowledged by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, when he said that it could be a great improvement. That will be the test in the coming year as we experiment with the proposal. The Government will still table a programme motion on Second Reading, to set
876
an out date from Committee and the overall allocation of time for remaining stages. The motion will, for the first time, give the Standing Committee power to make its own proposals to amend either the out date or the allocation of time for remaining stages. Moreover, the motion obliges the Government to table a motion to give effect to the Standing Committee's proposals, which will be taken forthwith, or, if the proposals are rejected, to have a debate on the Floor of the House. If the proposal is that there should be more time in Standing Committee, the motion cannot be delayed and must be tabled within five sitting days.
That will enable the Standing Committee and the House to vary an out date and the time for remaining stages in the light of the Committee's sittings. It gives the initiative to the Standing Committee, as the Modernisation Committee concluded that its members are best placed to undertake programming. We have looked at the experience of the previous Session and have tried to learn from it. That is what the Modernisation Committee report seeks to do and the proposals tonight would implement that.
I shall attempt, albeit briefly, to respond to some of the other contributions. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton quoted a letter from the previous Leader of the House and was concerned that programming does not ensure that all parts of the Bill are scrutinised. Clearly, one of the major purposes of programming is to ensure that that scrutiny happens through all the stages of the Bill. The letter received from my right hon. Friend is evidence of her good faith. She stressed the powers that Opposition parties should have through the process and she tried to review how it was working in practice.
If the Opposition do not engage with the process, there is little that can be done. That is why the Modernisation Committee has reviewed the proposals to create greater flexibility. If there is good will and hon. Members on both sides of the House participate, we may be able to have more effective scrutiny as a result of the changes.
Mrs. Browning: Notwithstanding our principled objection to the proposals, once they were agreed there was no question of our not participating in the Programming Sub-Committees; we did participate. The right hon. Lady wrote the letter because Ministers were not complying as she had expected them to.
Mr. Twigg: It is clearly incumbent on all hon. Members, including Ministers, to comply with the letter and the spirit of the changes. That is important because they are as much about the culture as about the rules of the House and any Sessional Order with which we deal.
I shall move on to try to address some of the other points made by right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said that, although programming was acceptable, compensating changes should be made. As I have said, the aim of programming is not to reduce scrutiny. My hon. Friend made some important points about pre-legislative scrutiny, but the changes should not be seen in isolation. Pre-legislative scrutiny has already taken place, and we have the opportunity to extend it with the legislation that will be introduced in this Parliament. Hon. Members should view the changes as a package, rather than simply considering each of them in isolation. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to consider far more pre-legislative scrutiny.

877
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who served as a member of the Modernisation Committee throughout the previous Parliament, made a point, as he did in a previous debate, about the number of guillotine motions during the previous Parliament compared to the period when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister. I understand that he arrived at his figure for the number of Bills guillotined by adding guillotine motions to programme motions. I entirely respect the fact that he does not agree with programming; that is the point of this debate, but programming has wide support in the House. If guillotines are considered separately from programme motions, the hon. Gentleman will find that his point does not arise.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a point about the Programming Sub-Committees not meeting in public and the lack of available transcripts. I understand that all the formal proceedings of the Committees are minuted, but that it is not the practice to publish the minutes. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but it is not a decision for the Government. The Sub-Committees are constituted as Select Committees. They are deliberative Committees, and Mr. Speaker has ruled that they sit in private. That has advantages, because a more consensual approach can be established to ensure that the concerns of Opposition and Government Members, as well as those of Front Benchers, are included, but such issues can be reviewed and are open for debate as the process of modernisation and reform of the House continues.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), to whom I apologise because I was not in the Chamber to hear all his speech, made an important contribution. He made the suggestion, among others, that the Modernisation Committee could be reconstituted as an "Improvement of Scrutiny Committee". Clearly, that is one of the many suggestions that can be considered as matters progress. Of course, the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee, both of which are chaired by Back Benchers, serve as powerful advocates for change and improvement in the practices of the House. The most positive way forward is to achieve the best possible co-operation between those Committees and the Modernisation Committee during this Parliament.
If hon. Members will excuse me, I shall draw my speech to a close by referring more generally to the background to the debate. Several Members have referred to the role of Members of Parliament. Sometimes the impression given is that Labour Members are super social workers and that Opposition Members simply want to scrutinise legislation. That suggestion is deeply unfair; all hon. Members seek to do our best not only in representing our constituents but in scrutinising legislation and the Government.
The proposals are experimental and are based on a review of how the previous proposals worked in the previous Session. If they do not work, we can review and reconsider them in a year's time. As has been said, there was support from all parties in the Modernisation Committee. The former Member for East Devon, Sir Peter Emery, supported the proposals, as did Labour and Liberal Democrat Members who served on that Committee.
878
Many hon. Members have talked about the low turnout at the recent election and the disconnection between people and politics. The yah-boo politics, the time-wasting and the unnecessarily adversarial style in the House contribute more than anything to the alienation that is felt out there about politics and its relevance to peoples' lives. Being kept up all night to take part in debates makes no sense, does not mean that we make good law and is not a positive advertisement—
It being half-past Six o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day]
The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 125

Division No. 6]

[6.30 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cooper, Yvette

Ainger, Nick

Corston, Jean

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cotter, Brian

Alexander, Douglas

Cousins. Jim

Allan, Richard

Cranston, Ross

Allen, Graham

Cruddas, Jon

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Atherton, Ms Candy

David, Wayne

Atkins, Charlotte

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Austin, John

Dawson, Hilton

Bailey, Adrian

Dean, Mrs Janet

Baird, Vera

Dhanda, Parmjit

Banks, Tony

Dobbin, Jim

Barron, Kevin

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Battle, John

Donohoe, Brian H

Bayley, Hugh

Dowd, Jim

Beard, Nigel

Drew, David

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Drown, Ms Julia

Begg, Miss Anne

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Benn, Hilary

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bennett, Andrew

Efford, Clive

Benton, Joe

Ennis, Jeff

Berry, Roger

Ewing, Annabelle

Best, Harold

Farrelly, Paul

Betts, Clive

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Blackman, Liz

Flint, Caroline

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Follett, Barbara

Borrow, David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Brooke, Annette

Galloway, George

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

Gapes, Mike

(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Gardiner, Barry

Browne, Desmond

Gerrard, Neil

Bryant, Chris

Gibson, Dr Ian

Buck, Ms Karen

Gilroy, Linda

Burden, Richard

Goggins, Paul

Burgon, Colin

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Burnham, Andy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cable, Dr Vincent

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cairns, David

Hain, Peter

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hanson, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Caton, Martin

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Challen, Colin

Havard, Dai

Clark, Dr Lynda

Healey, John

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Heppell, John

Clwyd, Ann

Heyes, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hill, Keith

Coleman, Iain

Holmes, Paul

Colman, Tony

Hood, Jimmy

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

879

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Pickthall, Colin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Pike, Peter

Hoyle, Lindsay

Plaskitt, James

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Pond, Chris

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pound, Stephen

Hurst, Alan

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Illsley, Eric

Prosser, Gwyn

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Purchase, Ken

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Purnell, James

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jenkins, Brian

Rapson, Syd

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Rendel, David

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Robertson, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Ruddock, Joan

Joyce, Eric

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ryan, Joan

Keeble, Ms Sally

Salter, Martin

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Savidge, Malcolm

Kemp, Fraser

Sedgemore, Brian

Khabra, Piara S

Shaw, Jonathan

Kidney, David

Sheerman, Barry

King, Andy (Rugby amp; Kenilworth)

Shipley, Ms Debra

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Simon, Siôn

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Skinner, Dennis

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Lamb, Norman

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Laxton, Bob

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Leslie, Christopher

Soley, Clive

Levitt, Tom

Southworth, Helen

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Squire, Rachel

Linton, Martin

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Lloyd, Tony

Stevenson, George

Love, Andrew

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Lucas, Ian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Luke, Iain

Stoate, Dr Howard

Lyons, John

Stringer, Graham

McAvoy, Thomas

Stuart, Ms Gisela

McFall, John

Stunell, Andrew

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McIsaac, Shona

Tami, Mark

McKechin, Ann

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

McKenna, Rosemary

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

McNulty, Tony

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

McWalter, Tony

Tipping, Paddy

McWilliam, John

Todd, Mark

Mahmood, Khalid

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Mallaber, Judy

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Turner, Nel (Wigan)

Mann, John

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Marris, Rob

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Tyler, Paul

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Tynan, Bill

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Walley, Ms Joan

Miliband, David

Ward, Ms Claire

Miller, Andrew

Watson, Tom

Moffatt, Laura

Watts, David

Moran, Margaret

Weir, Michael

Morgan, Julie

White, Brian

Mullin, Chris

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Munn, Ms Meg

Wicks, Malcolm

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Norris, Dan

Willis, Phil

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Wills, Michael

Olner, Bill

Winnick, David

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Wood, Mike

Pearson, Ian

Woolas, Phil

Perham, Linda

Worthington, Tony

880

Wright, David (Telford)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Mr. Ivor Caplin and Jim Fitzpatrick.

Wyatt, Derek

NOES

Amess, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bacon, Richard

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Baldry, Tony

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Barker, Greg

Lidington, David

Baron, John

Loughton, Tim

Bellingham, Henry

Luff, Peter

Bercow, John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Beresford, Sir Paul

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Blunt, Crispin

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Boswell, Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Maples, John

Brady, Graham

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Brazier, Julian

May, Mrs Theresa

Browning, Mrs Angela

Mercer, Patrick

Burnside, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Burt, Alistair

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Buttertill, John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Cameron, David

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Cash, William

Ottaway, Richard

Chope, Christopher

Paice, James

Clappison, James

Paterson, Owen

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Pickles, Eric

(Rushcliffe)

Prisk, Mark

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Randall, John

Collins, Tim

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Cran, James

Roe, Mrs Marion

Curry, Rt Hon David

Rosindell, Andrew

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Djanogly, Jonathan

Shepherd, Richard

Dodds, Nigel

Simmonds, Mark

Duncan, Alan

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Soames, Nicholas

Duncan, Peter

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Evans, Nigel

Spicer, Sir Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Spink, Dr Robert

Fallon, Michael

Spring, Richard

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Flight, Howard

Steen, Anthony

Flook, Adrian

Swayne, Desmond

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Swire, Hugo

Francois, Mark

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Gale, Roger

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Garnier, Edward

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Gibb, Nick

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Tredinnick, David

Goodman, Paul

Trend, Michael

Gray, James

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Grayling, Chris

Viggers, Peter

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Waterson, Nigel

Greenway, John

Watkinson, Angela

Grieve, Dominic

Whittingdale, John

Hawkins, Nick

Wiggin, Bill

Hayes, John

Wilkinson, John

Heald, Oliver

Willetts, David

Heath, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Hendry, Charles

Yeo, Tim

Hoban, Mark

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Horam, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Mr. Edward Leigh and Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That in the current Session of Parliament Orders A to I below shall have effect:
A. Programme Motions
(1) If, before second reading of a bill, notice of a motion providing—

(a) for committal of the bill, and

(b) for any proceedings on the bill to be programmed,

is given by a Minister of the Crown, the motion may be made immediately after second reading, and Standing Order No. 63 shall not apply to the Bill.
(2) Such a motion is to be called a programme motion.
(3) An order made by the House as a result of a programme motion is to be called a programme order.
(4) A motion to vary or supplement a programme order is also to be called a programme motion.
(5) A programme motion may provide for the allocation of time for any proceedings on a bill.
(6) Except in the following three cases, or where paragraph (8) of Programme Order B (Programming Committees) applies, the question on a programme motion is to be put forthwith.
(7) The first exception is where—

(a) a Standing Committee has reported a resolution under paragraph (11) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees) proposing an alteration of the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House, and

(b) the motion made under paragraph (12) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees) does not give effect to the Standing Committee's proposal.

(8) The second exception is where the motion makes further provision for proceedings on consideration and third reading of the bill otherwise than in accordance with a resolution of a Programming Committee under paragraph (5) of Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) or a resolution of a Standing Committee under paragraph (13) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees).
(9) The third exception is where the motion reduces the amount of time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on the bill (whether or not it also increases the amount of time allocated for other proceedings on the bill).
(10) In an excepted case, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion is to be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion.
(11) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted Business) applies to proceedings on a programme motion.
(12) Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of Time) does not apply to a programme motion.
(13) If a programme order applies to a bill, neither Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) nor Standing Order No. 120 (Business Sub-Committee) applies to the bill.
B. Programming Committees
(1) This order applies if proceedings in committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading are subject to a programme order.
(2) There is to be a committee for the bill consisting of—

(a) the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is to be chairman of the committee); and

(b) not more than eight other Members, nominated by the Speaker.

(3) The committee is to be called the Programming Committee.
(4) The quorum of the Programming Committee is four.
(5) The Programming Committee shall consider the allocation of time to proceedings in committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading and report any resolution which it makes to the House.
(6) Proceedings in the Programming Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after their commencement.
(7) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (6), the chairman shall

(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided; and

(b) then put successively questions on any motions made by a Minister of the Crown.

(8) On a motion being made in the House relating to a resolution of the Programming Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
(9) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the bill.
(10) Proceedings on a motion made under paragraph (8) may be entered upon and decided, though opposed, at any hour.
(11) Resolutions of the Programming Committee—

(a) may be reported from time to time; and

(b) subject to the powers of the Speaker or Chairman to select the amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings on the bill are to be taken.

C. Programming Sub-Committees
(1) If a bill is subject to a programme order which commits it to a standing committee, the order stands referred to the committee and shall be considered by a sub-committee of the committee.
(2) The sub-committee is to be called the Programming Sub-Committee.
(3) The Programming Sub-Committee shall consist of—

(a) the chairman or one of the chairmen of the committee (who is to be chairman of the sub-committee); and

(b) seven members of the committee, nominated by the Speaker.

(4) The quorum of the Programming Sub-Committee is four.
(5) The Programming Sub-Committee shall report to the committee any resolution which it makes about—

(a) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the bill in the committee;

(b) the allocation of the proceedings to each sitting;

(c) the time at which any proceedings, if not previously concluded, are to be brought to a conclusion;

(d) the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House;

(e) the programming of consideration and third reading.

(6) Proceedings in the Programming Sub-Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after their commencement.
(7) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (6), the chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet been decided; and

(b) then put forthwith successively questions on any motions made by a Minister of the Crown.

(8) Resolutions of the Programming Sub-Committee—

(a) may be reported from time to time; and

(b) subject to the powers of the chairman to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings are to be taken.

(9) On a motion in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee being made in the committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion is to be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
(10) If the provisions of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee under sub-paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph (5) are agreed to (with or without modification) by the committee, the provisions (or the provisions as modified) are to have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the bill.
(11) Any resolution of the committee—

(a) proposing an alteration to the date by which the Bill is to be reported to the House; or

(b) making a recommendation about the programming of the Bill on consideration and third reading;

shall be reported to the House.
(12) If a resolution is reported proposing an alteration to the date by which the Bill is to be reported to the House, a supplemental programme motion shall be set down for a day not later than the fifth sitting day after the day when the report was made which may—

(a) give effect to the Committee's proposal;

(b) otherwise alter or supplement the provisions of the original programme of the bill; or

(c) confirm the date set in the original programme order for the bill.

(13) If a resolution is reported making a recommendation about the programming of the Bill on consideration and third reading, a supplemental programme motion shall be set down before the consideration of the bill on report which may—

(a) give effect to the Committee's recommendations;

(b) otherwise alter or supplement the provisions of the original programme of the bill; or

(c) confirm the original programme order for the bill.

D. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House
(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings in standing committee or in committee of the whole House to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
(2) The chairman shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)—

(a) any question already proposed from the chair;

(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;

(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chairman for separate division;

(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the chairman shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill.
(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.
(5) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the bill, the chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those provisions.
(6) On conclusion of the proceedings in a committee, the chairman shall report the bill (or such of the bill's provisions as were committed to it) to the House without putting any question.
E. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration or third reading
(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration and third reading to a conclusion accordance with a programme order.
(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)—

(a) any question already proposed from the chair;

(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;

(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate division;

(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill.
(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.
F. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single question on any further amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown: and

(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment; and

(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has—

(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments; or

(b) disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,

the Speaker shall put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
G. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords
(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on any further message from the Lords to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all of the remaining Lords proposals.
H. Programme orders: Reasons Committee.
(1) This order applies in relation to any Committee to be appointed to draw up Reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman.
(3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(4) Proceedings in the Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than half an hour after their commencement.
(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (4), the chairman shall—

(a)first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided; and

(b)then put forthwith successively questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(6) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further question being put.
I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions
(1) The provisions of this order apply to proceedings in the House or in Committee of the whole House on a bill which is subject to a programme order.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) applies to the proceedings for any period after ten o'clock (or on Thursday, seven o'clock) allocated to them in accordance with the programme order.
(3) The proceedings may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) If, on a day on which the bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day, a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a)that motion stands over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to conclusion at or before that time; and

(b)the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

(5) If a day on which the bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day is one to which a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day is postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
(6) No dilatory motion may be made in relation to the proceedings except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion is to be put forthwith.
(7) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of the programme order.

Deferred Divisions
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day],
That in the current Session of Parliament the following Order shall have effect:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question.
(2) Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply (and this order shall not apply) to questions—

(a) on motions or amendments in the course of proceedings on bills or allocating time to or programming such proceedings;

(b) on motions which may be made without notice;

(c) on motions to be disposed of immediately following the disposal of amendments proposed thereto, and on such amendments;

(d) on motions made under—

(i) paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business);

(ii) paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and means motions);

(iii) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills);

(iv) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates); and

(v) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.); and

(e) on motions made under paragraph 3 below or to which an order tr, ade under that paragraph applies.

(3) After the moment of interruption and the conclusion of proceedings under any other Standing Order which fall to be taken immediately after it, a Minister of the Crown may make a motion to the effect that this order shall not apply to questions on any specified motions; such motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, and the question thereon shall he put forthwith.
(4) If the opinion of the Speaker is challenged under paragraph (1) of this order, he shall defer the division until half-past Three o'clock on the next Wednesday on which the House shall sit.
(5) On any Wednesday to which a division has been deferred under paragraph (4) above—

(a) Members may record their votes on the question under arrangements made by the Speaker;

(b) votes may be recorded for one and a half hours after half-past Three o'clock, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division; and

(c) the Speaker, or the Chairman, shall announce the result of the deferred division as soon as may be after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.—[Mr. Hepell.]

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 130.

Division No. 7]

[6.43 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Austin, John

Ainger, Nick

Bailey, Adrian

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Baird, Vera

Alexander, Douglas

Banks, Tony

Allan, Richard

Barron, Kevin

Allen, Graham

Battle, John

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Bayley, Hugh

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Beard, Nigel

Atherton, Ms Candy

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Atkins, Charlotte

Begg, Miss Anne

887

Benn, Hilary

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Bennett, Andrew

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Benton, Joe

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Berry, Roger

Hain, Peter

Best, Harold

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Betts, Clive

Hanson, David

Blackman, Liz

Harris. Dr Evan (Oxford W)

Borrow, David

Harris. Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Havard, Dai

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Healey, John

Brooke, Annette

Heath, David

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

(Newcastle E amp; Wallsend)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Browne, Desmond

Hendrick, Mark

Bryant, Chris

Heppell, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Heyes, David

Burden, Richard

Hill, Keith

Burgon, Colin

Holmes, Paul

Burnham, Andy

Hood, Jimmy

Cable, Dr Vincent

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Cairns, David

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Cann, Jamie

Humble, Mrs Joan

Caton, Martin

Hurst, Alan

Challen, Colin

Iddon, Dr Brian

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Illsley, Eric

Clark, Dr Lynda

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Jenkins, Brian

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Coleman, Iain

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Colman, Tony

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Cooper, Yvette

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Corston, Jean

Joyce, Eric

Cotter, Brian

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cousins, Jim

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cranston, Ross

Keen, Alan (Feltham amp; Heston)

Cruddas, Jon

Keen, Ann (Brentford amp; Isleworth)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Kemp, Fraser

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Khabra, Piara S

David, Wayne

Kidney, David

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

King, Andy (Rugby amp; Kenilworth)

Dawson, Hilton

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Dobbin, Jim

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Lamb, Norman

Donohoe, Brian H

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Dowd, Jim

Laxton, Bob

Drew, David

Leslie. Christopher

Drown, Ms Julia

Levitt, Tom

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Efford, Clive

Linton, Martin

Ennis, Jeff

Lloyd, Tony

Ewing, Annabelle

Love, Andrew

Farrelly, Paul

Lucas, Ian

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

Luke, Iain

Flint, Caroline

Lyons, John

Follett, Barbara

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McFall, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McIsaac, Shona

Galloway, George

McKechin, Ann

Gapes, Mike

McKenna, Rosemary

Gardiner, Barry

McNulty, Tony

Gerrard, Neil

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gibson, Dr Ian

McWalter, Tony

Gilroy, Linda

McWilliam, John

Goggins, Paul

Mahmood, Khalid

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Mallaber, Judy

888

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mann, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marris, Rob

Soley, Clive

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Southworth, Helen

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Squire, Rachel

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Miliband, David

Stevenson, George

Miller, Andrew

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Moffatt, Laura

Stinchcombe, Paul

Moran, Margaret

Stoate, Dr Howard

Morgan, Julie

Stringer, Graham

Mullin, Chris

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Munn, Ms Meg

Stunell, Andrew

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Norris, Dan

Tami, Mark

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Olner, Bill

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pearson, Ian

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Perham, Linda

Tipping, Paddy

Picking, Anne

Todd, Mark

Pickthall, Colin

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pike, Peter

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Plaskitt, James

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Pond, Chris

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pound, Stephen

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Tyler, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tynan, Bill

Prosser, Gwyn

Walley, Ms Joan

Purchase, Ken

Ward, Ms Claire

Purnell, James

Watson, Tom

Quinn, Lawrie

Watts, David

Rapson, Syd

Weir, Michael

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

White, Brian

Rendel, David

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Robertson, John

Wicks, Malcolm

(Glasgow Anniesland)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Ruddock, Joan

Willis, Phil

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Wills, Michael

Ryan, Joan

Winnick, David

Salter, Martin

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wood, Mike

Savidge, Malcolm

Woolas, Phil

Sedgemore, Brian

Worthington, Tony

Shaw, Jonathan

Wright, David (Telford)

Sheerman, Barry

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wyatt, Derek

Simon, Siôn

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mr. Ivor Caplin and Jim Fitzpatrick

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

NOES

Amess, David

Chope, Christopher

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Clappison, James

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Bacon, Richard

(Rushcliffe)

Baldry, Tony

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Barker, Greg

Collins, Tim

Barnes, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Baron, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bellingham, Henry

Cran, James

Bercow, John

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Curry, Rt Hon David

Blunt, Crispin

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Boswell, Tim

Djanogly, Jonathan

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Dodds, Nigel

Brady, Graham

Duncan, Alan

Brazier, Julian

Duncan Smith, Iain

Browning, Mrs Angela

Duncan, Peter

Burnside, David

Evans, Nigel

Burt, Alistair

Fabricant, Michael

Butterfill, John

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Cameron, David

Flight, Howard

Cash, William

Flook, Adrian

889

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Francois, Mark

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Gale, Roger

Ottaway, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Paice, James

Gibb, Nick

Paterson, Owen

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Pickles, Eric

Goodman, Paul

Prisk, Mark

Gray, James

Randall, John

Grayling, Chris

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Greenway, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Grieve, Dominic

Rosindell, Andrew

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hawkins, Nick

Simmonds, Mark

Hayes, John

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Heald, Oliver

Skinner, Dennis

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Soames, Nicholas

Hendry, Charles

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hermon, Lady

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hoban, Mark

Spink, Dr Robert

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Spring, Richard

Hopkins, Kelvin

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Horam, John

Steen, Anthony

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Swayne, Desmond

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Swire, Hugo

Jenkin, Bernard

Taylor, Ian (Esher amp; Walton)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Tredinnick, David

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Trend, Michael

Lidington, David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Viggers, Peter

Loughton, Tim

Waterson, Nigel

Luff, Peter

Watkinson, Angela

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Whittingdale, John

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Wiggin, Bill

Mackinlay, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Willetts, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Maples, John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Yeo, Tim

May, Mrs Theresa

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Mercer, Patrick

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Goldfield)

Tellers for the Noes:

Moss, Malcolm

Mr.Edward Leigh and Mr,Gerald Howarth.

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Questions accordingly agreed to.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
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, 19th July 2002.—[Mr. Heppell.]
6.56 pm
: This is an important matter which—I am sure that you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker—signals an interesting departure from the long-established means of dealing with private Members' Bills. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that, unusually, this year it is proposed that the private Member's Bill cycle starts as early as 26 October and runs through November and January and on to July.
For some years, the precedent has been established that the final day for the consideration of private Members' Bills is on or about 19 July. In that sense, nothing new has been proposed, but there is a departure in the motion. I am rather disappointed but, frankly, unsurprised that nobody from the Government Front Bench has sought to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to explain to the House why that change has been made. I do not want to read anything sinister or conspiratorial into that—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. If Members wish to remain in the Chamber, perhaps they could remain quiet while the right hon. Gentleman proceeds.
Mr. Forth: I should have thought that a change on that scale would require a certain amount of explanation. A small number of us take an interest in private Members' Bills. Indeed, if I remember rightly, when we last dealt with private Members' Bills just before Dissolution, as many as 26 Members were present, which gives an idea of the interest in such Bills in the House: out of 659 Members, 26 took the trouble to attend the House on a Friday although, regrettably, they witnessed a Bill fall because of the lack of a quorum.
At least 26 people, therefore, are potentially interested in the motion. I am glad that a few more are here today; perhaps we can engender greater interest in private Members' Bills. However, there is an interesting question to which as yet we have no answer—I hope that I will be able to elicit one from the Minister. We usually expect the cycle for private Members' Bills to start in January. That is a proper procedure which, once the ballot for such Bills has taken place, allows an appropriate period for the legitimate consultation that Members wish to undertake with outside interests—but not, I hope, with the Government. Far too many Government Bills are smuggled through via the process for private Members' Bills, although usually they are pretty obvious and few of them survive. Those Members who are fortunate enough to come high in the ballot may wish to have a legitimate consultation with outside interests and incorporate their suggestions in their Bill. My question is whether, given that someone—surprisingly and out of the blue—is suggesting that we accelerate the process and bring it forward to 26 October—
It being Seven o clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Monday 2 July.—[Mr.Heppell.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made,
That the Motion in the name of Secretary Estelle Morris relating to the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved—[Mr. Heppell.]
Hon. Members: Object.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made,
That, notwithstanding paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 102 (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)), in respect of its meeting on Tuesday 3rd July, the Welsh Grand Committee shall consist of all Members representing Welsh; constituencies, together with Mr. Nigel Evans and Mr. Robert Walter.—[Heppell.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Crime Reduction (Plymouth)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
7 pm
Linda Gilroy: Plymouth is the largest city in the far south-west of England, and with its size and position as a major port come a variety of policing and safety challenges. Home to almost 260,000 people, my constituency of Plymouth, Sutton is part of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary area, geographically the largest policing area in England, with both rural and urban areas.
Between 1995 and 1998, young people in Plymouth rated crime and the fear of crime just behind poverty as the second worst thing about living in Plymouth. Young people were the most likely of any demographic group to be victims of crime. One in 15 young citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 was likely to be a victim of violence, and one in 14 was likely to the a victim of domestic burglary.
I am pleased to note that recent crime figures estimate that the national crime rate has declined by more than 6 per cent., and that this Government's anti-crime policies have contributed to a consistent decline in crime in the west country generally over the past few years. Home burglary, the handling of stolen goods, and fraud and forgery offences are all down by more than 15 per cent. in Plymouth.
In the 12 months to March 2001, even violent crime figures were going down in all but one of the eight wards in my constituency. However, after 30 years of relentlessly increasing crime rates, it will be some time before people feel a difference in their personal and community safety. In this debate, I want to draw to my hon. Friend's attention the achievement of our crime and disorder partnership, as well as to highlight some specific aspects of local crime fighting, in which the Government's further support will help to ensure that the outlook for Plymouth continues to improve.
The Government have a vital role to play in targeting resources and changing the law and criminal justice system to help communities in their fight against crime. However, active communities with statutory, voluntary and private organisations working in partnership are essential to achieving effective crime prevention and reduction.
Plymouth is an example of a can-do city that is creatively developing its own solutions in partnership with the guidance of supportive, prevention-focused Government policy. Such a partnership has operated in Plymouth longer than in most other parts of the country. With its mission statement to reduce crime and the fear of crime, the Plymouth community safety partnership consists of representatives from Plymouth city council, the police, the commercial and voluntary sectors, and the local health and fire departments.
The partnership evolved from joint agency work originally led by the Plymouth crime prevention panel in the late 1980s. In 1994, the Plymouth community safety strategy group was established. Inspired by the Morgan report, the chief constable, Sir John Evans, invited local authorities in his area to look at partnership as a way to build on the community policing principles for which the

893
Devon and Cornwall constabulary are well known. Plymouth was therefore well placed to meet the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, to carry Out a crime and disorder audit and to draw up a strategy to tackle the priorities identified by that audit.
If the Minister is not already aware of Plymouth's reputation for partnership work, I am sure he will soon become familiar with it. That audit showed significant achievements already arising from successful partnering and problem-solving policing. Domestic burglaries had declined by 54 per cent., and there had also been a substantial increase in detected drug crimes. Detection of possession was up 20 per cent., and trafficking detection was up 40 per cent. over the three-year period. There was, unfortunately, an overall 8.9 per cent. increase in reported violent crime during the review period. Not surprisingly, the audit also revealed a correlation between the wards with the highest social and economic deprivation and those with the greatest numbers of violent offenders and offences.
Eighty-four per cent. of students excluded from school were reported to be associated with crime. There was a strong correlation between alcohol excesses and disorder. The greatest public disorder occurred in the city centre and Plymouth's clubland areas.
Some of the partnership's additional primary findings were as follows: offenders per capita are young—predominantly 10 to 24 years old; one in 12 burgled homes has been burgled previously; and vehicle crime remains the largest category of crime in Plymouth.
Repeat offenders put disproportionate stresses on a range of Plymouth city agencies and account for a disproportionate amount of the city's crimes. For example, although drug-related crime accounts for only 2 per cent. of Plymouth's overall crime, more than 80 per cent. of acquisitive crime is related to drugs. That represents £1 million a week.
I strongly support our commitment to make Britain the toughest place in the western world for drug dealers. That is an ambitious challenge, which many constituents whom I met during the election campaign wanted realised. I shall work to support those in my constituency who are dedicated to tackling the mayhem that drug addiction causes.
I feel most strongly for the innocent bystanders. A feature of drug dealing in Plymouth appears to be that it is carried out in houses rather than on street corners. The lives of the people who live next door become a nightmare which they seem powerless to end. The police and the local authority are using the new powers that we introduced in the previous Parliament to implement antisocial behaviour orders.
We have new resources of approximately £220,000 over three years from the community action drugs fund. That will help to broaden and deepen the resources in the city for preventing and treating drug addiction. The successful bid for additional funds to enhance and extend the CCTV resources in the city centre will also help. I am pleased that the Government and the police authority have made funding available for recruiting 275 additional police officers in the west country. Forty-one will be based in Plymouth. Those additional resources are vital to help us to bear down on crime in our community.
894
The Minister can be confident that they will be well used. as the achievements of the community safety partnership show.
Since the partnership was formed in 1994, vehicle theft has decreased by 50 per cent. and burglary has dropped by 60 per cent. Since 1998, burglary in multi-let properties has been targeted and has decreased by 44 per cent. A project to tackle the 20 streets with the most burglaries has exceeded the 20 per cent. reduction target for the past year. Last year's target for reduction in theft of and from cars has been exceeded.
However, the Minister knows that as targets are achieved and exceeded each year, bearing down further on crime becomes ever more challenging. I have already referred to the most important reduction, which is that in violent crime. Last year's target was to contain the increase to 8 per cent. The outcome is a reduction of 8 per cent.
I want to consider some subjects that merit further attention. Bearing down further on violent crime means tackling domestic violence. The domestic violence strategy for the city will be launched next week, on 5 July, after extensive consultations between the partners. Although our city has done well from its applications for various funds, we were not lucky in the initial distribution of funding for domestic violence projects.
Domestic violence is an aspect of crime that perhaps lends itself less than others to targeted funding for targeted outcomes. One of the aims of work in the area is to ensure that incidents are reported. Policing that is targeted at reducing numbers can sometimes be subject to conflicting pressure because initial work may increase crime figures. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House about any future plans for enabling crime and disorder partnerships to do new work on domestic violence and whether there may be further rounds of funding for such work.
Plymouth would like to do some new work on proposals for a restorative justice programme for women. Women, often with young children, end up with a custodial sentence in proportionately greater numbers than their male counterparts. The Plymouth project builds on the good experience of the youth offending team in developing reparation schemes with young people. That may involve a meeting with a victim, or, when more appropriate, writing a letter, or work on a damaged community building. A similar approach for female criminals as an extra option for the courts to consider would often be better for the victims as well as being more successful in re-integrating the woman and her family.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that Plymouth was one of the areas to pioneer arrest referral schemes for drug offences. It has also designed a project that takes a similar approach to offences committed under the influence of alcohol. The idea, drawn up by the Plymouth team, has attracted funding and is being used in other parts of Devon. Given the role that alcohol plays in disturbances in our very lively city, I hope that it will not be long before we see this scheme, which was invented in Plymouth, in action in Plymouth.
Having pioneered such work in relation to drugs, the partnership is now working even further upstream of the arrest referral point of intervention. The police are now working with other agencies to focus on drug users, when

895
it is believed that they are funding their habit—usually of fairly chaotic drug use—by theft or burglary. Getting them into early treatment prevents all the crimes that they might have committed before the evidence existed to arrest them. That saves individual people the cost of suffering those crimes and represents a saving on escalating costs to the public purse in terms of health, tackling crime and other public service budgets. It also reduces crime.
Earlier, I acknowledged the significant investment that has been made in CCTV, and the effective role that CCTV has played in reducing crime in the city. There will shortly be further investment in North Stonehouse and in upgrading the control room facilities, as a result of additional funding announced earlier this year. However, this will still leave a key area of the centre of Plymouth unmonitored. Emma place and the surrounding streets are part of a longstanding red-light area in which residents are keen to see some improvement to the quality of their lives. A bid for CCTV there was unfortunately not one of the successful bids earlier this year.
Small pockets of money are available from the Communities against Drugs funding and the CCTV bids granted earlier this year, which could contribute to the project but which do not quite add up to enough to give it an early start. I ask the Minister to be vigilant in monitoring whether there is any scope for finding money for the project, perhaps by re-allocating, money from other projects that may be underspent. The project would complete CCTV oversight of the main trouble spots in the city centre. It would also mean a great deal to some of my constituents, who have been working to improve their area for some time.
Finally, I want to mention another innovative project which is not looking so much for money as for support to do something that has the potential to have a significant impact on young people way beyond the bounds of Plymouth. Since becoming the Plymouth coroner in 1998, Mr. Nigel Meadows has campaigned for more open court hearings and made history by inviting schoolchildren to attend inquests into the deaths of drug users. When a case ends, the children are invited back in into court for a one-to-one session with Mr. Meadows and allowed to ask any questions they like. He has been trying to persuade the authorities to allow cameras into his court, so that many more people can see what goes on. He has approached the Home Office, been referred to the Lord Chief Justice and then been referred back to the Home Office. In desperation, he is now writing to our colleague the Attorney-General to tell him of his wish to open his court to cameras.
I appreciate that this may not be within the Minister's remit, but the problem appears to be that no one is willing to own the issue. Mr. Meadows also has plans to engage convicted drug users in attendance at his court as part of our innovative local rehabilitation programmes. As part of my former employment, I had to read the transcripts of coroner's inquests. They made grim reading and I can easily understand that hearing in court about the stark reality of how the life of a drug user—normally a young drug user—can end is a good way of achieving effective prevention and rehabilitation.
Five deaths from drugs in Plymouth have come to the coroner's attention during the past 10 days. I hope my hon. Friend will, as a matter of urgency, ensure that the Plymouth coroner's idea is given serious consideration.
896
Interpretation of section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 seems to be the sticking point. If the law needs to be changed to clarify the position, perhaps that could be considered.
My hon. Friend will forgive me for raising so many issues. I realise, of course, that an Adjournment debate is not the place for announcements to be made about such issues, but I hope that he will understand my enthusiasm to celebrate the creativity, innovation and, best of all, results that stem from Plymouth's community safety partnership experience.
Having learned of Plymouth's good track record in partnership and problem solving, I hope that the Minister will look at Plymouth as a good place to support the piloting of new schemes. A second audit is planned for this year, and the results will be useful to determine which of the measures that we have used will continue to work, further to bear down on crime in Plymouth. We have achieved good results thus far, but we have more work to do before our citizens, young and old alike, will feel a quantum difference in their personal safety.
I believe that Plymouth is at the cutting edge of partnership community safety and policing. Minister, please continue with legislation that supports Plymouth and other communities in bearing down on crime and pilot more problem-solving approaches in Plymouth. We make good use of funds and can help the Government to meet their targets. Come and visit Plymouth, celebrate our successes with us and ensure that we continue to have the chance to show how we can positively transform the quality of life of our constituents.
7.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on securing the Adjournment debate for which she has been trying for some time. She will not be surprised to learn that my comments will echo much of what she said.
It is Government policy to increase police numbers. As a result, we have established the crime fighting fund to provide the necessary additional resources to all police forces. We have also provided extra resources to aid policing in rural areas. Devon and Cornwall police will recruit an extra 79 officers this year as a direct result of both those measures. In turn, the city of Plymouth will benefit from 16 more officers over the coming months.
The Government also recognise, however, that the fight against crime cannot be won by the police working alone. In some of the first legislation that we introduced on coming to power in 1997, we created crime and disorder partnerships to bring together at a local level all those with a part to play in reducing crime. The story of crime reduction in Plymouth is, as my hon. Friend said, an excellent example of what can be achieved by a wide variety of local agencies working in partnership, supported, when necessary, by central Government funding.
Plymouth reacted early to the principle set out by the Morgan report in 1991, which is that
"reduction of crime cannot be left to the police alone".
It formed the Plymouth community safety strategy group in 1993, and a safer cities project followed, running from 1994 to 1997. Following the introduction of the Crime

897
and Disorder Act 1998, the Plymouth community safety partnership was formed by agencies that by then needed little convincing of the advantages of working together.
Since 1998, the partnership has run a range of projects funded by a number of Government programmes such as the crime reduction programme and the single regeneration budget, which have successfully targeted the most vulnerable and victimised areas of the city. Those programmes have helped to reduce domestic burglary, vehicle crime and violent crime—offences identified by the Government as being of most concern to the community.
An example is the homesafe project, which received £170,000 from the reducing burglary initiative. That was aimed at improving the security of houses of multiple occupation. Those houses, which, frequently, consisted of bedsits occupied by students, represented only 3 per cent. of local housing stock but accounted for 20 per cent. of domestic burglary. The scheme involved the city council housing department, the fire and rescue service, local private landlords and higher education colleges.
A security certificate scheme was developed, which encouraged private landlords to improve door and window security standards to a level that qualified them for a certificate. Only those landlords holding such a certificate would be recommended by the colleges to students looking for accommodation. Since 1998, burglary in those properties has dropped 44 per cent., compared with the national burglary reduction target of 25 per cent.
A further project called "Safe as Houses" was granted £72,000 under the reducing burglary initiative to improve security in 3,800 homes in 20 streets identified as suffering the highest incidence of burglary. As a result of those security improvements, burglary rates in those streets have dropped 22 per cent. since 1999. In the city as a whole, rates dropped by 17 per cent. in the year to September 2000, compared with 1999.
Vehicle crime has also been tackled through partnership involving all the key agencies. A variety of approaches have been adopted. Publicity using local radio and advertisements in the local press have targeted potential victims, giving simple precautionary advice that they should not leave property visible in parked vehicles. Offenders and potential offenders have been targeted through the TREADS motor project, which provides an understanding of cars and teaches driving skills to all young people, while providing extra programmes for those who are at risk or have been referred to the project through the youth offending team. More than 250 young people from Plymouth have been through the scheme since the beginning of the year, and it has led to a reduction in reoffending among this group.
Vulnerable sites such as car parks have been targeted for increased security. Two car parks have achieved the Association of Chief Police Officers secure car park standard, and £114,000 was granted under the crime reduction programme closed-circuit television scheme to assist by providing cameras for the car parks at Derriford hospital. That sustained activity addressing all elements of vehicle crime has reduced offences of taking a vehicle without consent by more than 50 per cent since 1994. Over the last year the number of thefts from vehicles has fallen by 10.5 per cent., while the number of vehicle thefts has fallen by 13.2 per cent.
898
The partnership has also successfully targeted violent crime in public places and on licensed premises. A registration scheme for door staff on licensed premises has been introduced, requiring them to undergo training before being licensed to supervise doors.
The CCTV scheme at Derriford hospital, along with improved links with the health and ambulance services, has helped to reassure staff and reduce their vulnerability. As a result of those and other initiatives, violent crime in the city has fallen by 8 per cent. over the last year, as my hon. Friend said. That is a significant achievement, given the increases seen in many cities with similar problems.
The partnership is continuing to build on this success. I am aware that it has two further bids for Government funding for CCTV schemes. I assure my hon. Friend that the bids are being evaluated, and that we hope to decide shortly which have been successful.
Drugs continue to be a major influence on crime levels, and a recent concern is evidence that crack cocaine has begun circulating in the city. The Government have recognised the damage that drugs can do to local communities and have announced funding for all community safety partnerships to tackle the problem: the communities against drugs fund. The Plymouth partnership will receive £224,700 this year, and is actively developing plans to use the money to disrupt the local drugs market. Those plans will be produced in consultation with the drugs action team and the local police commander, whose willingness to consider and adopt a wide range of policing options has already contributed significantly to the successes enjoyed in the city.
Linda Gilroy: I am pleased that the Minister mentioned the local Chief Superintendent Pearce. Will he congratulate the superintendent and his team on coming down very hard on the recent advent of crack cocaine in the city, through Project Ovidian? That appears to have put the lid on the problem at least for the present, although we must remain vigilant.
Mr. Ainsworth: That is certainly what I intend to do. According to all that I have heard from officials in the Home Office, the superintendent's attitude to the partnership and to methods of working in the city have been innovative, and he has been supportive in employing policing methods that have delivered considerable success.
Although levels of crime in Plymouth remain above average, they are being reduced, but people's fear of crime often remains disproportionate to the actual risk. Reassurance from familiar and recognisable figures in the community often helps to address such fears. The Government have provided nearly £90,000 to fund the presence of 12 neighbourhood wardens in the city. They have been there sine April this year, providing ready and visible reassurance and acting as the eyes and ears of the community, solving problems as they arise and connecting residents with additional services when required to do so.
Crime is often the product of a range of factors present in particular areas. The Government are addressing the underlying issues through a number of programmes in Plymouth, which include a new deal for communities programme, a health action zone, an employment zone, and an education action zone. The new deal for

899
communities programme is providing almost £49 million over 10 years to improve the infrastructure of a deprived community at the heart of the city, through an integrated approach to problem solving by the local people.
Reducing crime is a major issue that will be addressed in the first year of the new deal programme through a number of initiatives aimed particularly at burglary and drug abuse. A further eight constables are planned for the area covered to help to tackle crime and disorder and to reassure local people. A CCTV scheme is also planned, together with the development of the homesafe project. Work with excluded pupils and young persons and family drug support programmes will also be undertaken.
The first year programme will commence on 2 July, and on 5 July a domestic violence strategy is due to be signed by representatives of all the key agencies. The targets set in this strategy will also be incorporated in the city council corporate plan.
As the partnership commences its crime audit and consultation with the people of Plymouth in preparation for the new crime reduction strategy, its efforts will be supported by resources from the Government's partnership development fund, which has provided £1.7 million this year to help community safety partnerships in the south-west to improve their performance. A substantial part of this funding is aimed at improving the IT available to collect, analyse and share data within the partnership. That will provide geographical information systems, which allow crime hot spots to be accurately mapped and tracked, so enabling resources to be targeted more effectively at areas where crime is most threatening.
Plymouth has consistently shown the benefits that can be achieved through working in partnership. It has shown that, by identifying and targeting crime problems, real reductions can be made by focusing actions around the community safety model. That model combines activities
900
to improve law enforcement and crime prevention, and the rehabilitation of offenders. The experience that the partnership has gained will be invaluable as the new crime reduction strategy is developed and integrated with the broader regeneration work that is being taken forward in the city.
My hon. Friend raised the matter of the Plymouth coroner, Mr. Nigel Meadows, being able to allow cameras into his court. I am sorry if the Plymouth coroner feels that his inquiries about filming have not been dealt with appropriately. The issue is subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which prohibits photography in court. Whether the prohibition applies in the particular circumstances envisaged by the coroner is a matter for him to decide. That was explained to my hon. Friend's neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), in correspondence on behalf of the coroner last year. The Government have no plans to amend the legislation. If further clarification is needed, I shall try to ensure that it is supplied.
Linda Gilroy: Would my hon. Friend also agree to further discussion and perhaps a meeting with the coroner? It is such an enterprising scheme, and we need every tool in our arsenal if we are to succeed in making this the toughest country in the western world on drug dealers.
Mr. Ainsworth: I would not be opposed to that. We want to listen to views, but I hope that my hon. Friend realises that there are many aspects to allowing cameras into court. If she makes those representations on behalf of the coroner, I promise to consider them and to respond as positively as I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Road Safety
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): It is usual in Adjournment debates to congratulate the person who has been successful in securing the debate. As the debate was initiated by the Government, however, it would be inappropriate to congratulate myself.
I particularly welcome such an early opportunity to speak about the Government's record on road safety and our plans for the future. I also welcome to the debate the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) who are to speak for the Opposition parties. They may know more about this subject than I do—or, at least, they may be more familiar with some of the topics. However, I assure the hon. Member for Poole, who is shaking his head, that I have grasped some of the issues, in particular the considerable importance of this subject to all hon. Members.
The Government consider road safety to be a priority. The issue affects everyone and plays a fundamental role in our society in terms of health, environment and education. In the previous Parliament, we published a road safety strategy to underpin our goal for 2010 to reduce road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. and by 50 per cent. for children. It is a sad fact that, although our record on road safety generally is very good, our record on road safety for children is not good at all—in fact, it is one of the worst in Europe.
The road safety strategy will help to meet a number of Government targets. The strategy will help to meet the Government's overall targets to cut accidents from all causes: to improve our child road safety record; to help wider environmental objectives, particularly the reduction of CO2 and other emissions, such as nitrous oxide, and of course the reduction of noise; to build stronger communities and form part of measures to regenerate urban areas and marginalised communities; and to tackle road crime, such as dangerous driving, thus playing a key role in the wider crime reduction agenda.
It is a sobering thought that far more people die on the roads in this country than die using any other mode of transport. Last year, there were more than 3,400 deaths on our roads and 38,000 serious injuries. The long-term misery caused by these accidents—both to those who are injured and to their families—cannot and should not be underestimated. Some people never recover properly from their injuries, which may result in lifelong impairment. I am keen to make a difference and to promote policies that are proven to make a difference. The foundations for that were laid in March 2000 in our
2WH
road safety strategy "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone" by my predecessor, Lord Whitty. We have set ourselves some challenging targets for reducing deaths and serious injuries and it is essential that we meet those targets.
Such targets cannot be met, however, without the active co-operation of other people. In many respects, road safety is a local matter. Local authorities and police forces have the biggest role to play, but schools, health visitors and the voluntary sector all have their place too. I visited Gloucester last week to look at the safer city project, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) may be familiar. It underlines the importance of co-operation among all those involved in safety in that area. I was impressed with their record on that scheme.
We should not forget that some of the most recent advances have come about through safer car design. We must, therefore, involve the motor industry. One year on from the start of the 10-year plan, it may be time to pause and ask ourselves some searching questions. Last year, we set a target that, in our opinion, was tough but achievable, if certain measures were adopted.
We must decide what is the acceptable level of casualties on our roads. In Bristol last week, at a road safety seminar that was organised by my Department, Dutch and Swedish speakers said that, given the money and the will, they could design their road system so that death and serious injury on the road would become a thing of the past. They were talking about sizeable sums of money and, it must be said, some inconvenience for motorists which some would call an attack on freedom. It is wrong to characterise road safety measures as anti-motorist, not least because drivers and their passengers make up the greatest number of casualties. Road safety measures are pro-motorist, at least in relation to the majority of responsible motorists. We must decide what we want. I do not intend to answer all those questions today, but I want this Chamber to reflect on some of the measures. We must decide what we are prepared to put up with, if that means less death and serious injury.
This debate is timely. We have just published the road casualty figures for 2000. They make fairly encouraging reading in most respects. For most road users, deaths and serious injuries are down. There were 9 per cent. fewer child deaths and serious injuries than in 1999. Alas, motor cycle casualties are moving in the opposite direction. Last year, there were 605 deaths and nearly 6,800 serious injuries. We are, however, on track to meet the targets that we set last year.
I cannot list everything that we have done since the strategy was published, but I will mention a few of the actions that we have taken. Our priority is to reduce child accidents, particularly pedestrian accidents where our record is not as good as that of some of our European counterparts. Our record is improving, but last year 107 child pedestrians were killed. In total, 191 children were killed in road accidents last year. That means that there were about two pedestrian accidents a day. We have only to imagine those numbers. The equivalent of a small primary school is being wiped out each year as a result of deaths through road injuries.
We have started a new national pilot programme of child pedestrian training using the Kerbcraft approach, which research showed worked well in Drumchapel, a

3WH
suburb of Glasgow. The key feature of the scheme is that volunteers are trained to instruct the children by paid local organisers. Bids for the first three tranches of local posts are due to be submitted by 20 July 2001. We hope that the successful authorities will have the first 30 co-ordinators in post by January 2002.
We have published various road safety education materials, and, not least, the lesson plans that go with them. As a former teacher, I know how useful lesson plans can be. Many of our actions will benefit children, as well as others. Some of the materials available at the road safety conference last week, especially those for use with young children, do not necessarily supplant other parts of the curriculum. The sort of materials that could be used in the literacy hour—the big book approach, as I think that it is called in the early years—were shown and used successfully with younger children.
We must improve the way in which we train our drivers. We may never produce experienced drivers just by instructing them and putting them through a test. In 1998, 13 per cent. of drivers involved in injury accidents were aged 17 to 21, which is disproportionate to the overall number of drivers. That age group accounts for only 7 per cent. of licence holders. The accident propensity falls by 35 to 40 per cent. among 17 to 18-year-olds as a result of them gaining experience in the first year. We hope to improve on that figure. In the autumn, we hope to consult about a new way of structuring training for learner drivers. Our plans to add a visual test to the driver theory test are well advanced. That test will assess how quickly drivers see hazards. For more experienced drivers, we expect a report to be published in the autumn on work-related driving from an independent taskforce studying work-related accidents and what employers and employees alike can do about them.
Mr. David Kidney: It is extremely useful to hear the Minister present this report one year into the Government's 10-year road safety strategy and 10-year plan for casualty reduction. He raises many issues that will be resolved in the next 12 months. Can he give a commitment that the Government will issue an annual report of this sort to parliamentarians, so that we can continue to monitor their progress and contribute ideas, as we shall today?
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. The figures that I have announced are reported annually. It would be timely to have an annual debate because there is so much interest in the issue in the House. Back Benchers may seek an Adjournment debate themselves or the Government may initiate a further debate on the subject. I shall take that idea to my Department and reflect on how best to produce on-going figures. We need to see how those figures change to assess whether our policies are successfully achieving their targets.
We still have a drink-drive problem. Surveys illustrate that about 1 per cent. of drivers are above the legal limit at any given moment. There are more than 400 deaths a year as a result of accidents in which at least one driver is over the legal limit. Many of those people are impervious to persuasion and must be caught. We are
4WH
currently drafting a safety Bill and are considering whether to take the opportunity to improve police powers for that purpose and to introduce better ways to combat drink-driving, and drug-driving, which we now know a lot more about. We also need to tackle the problem of tired drivers. It would be difficult to legislate for that, but our research has provided more information, which we have passed on to the public as advice. We need to do more about that, and we will.
As I said earlier, last week I was in Bristol at my Department's annual conference on road safety. At that conference, we launched the first edition of a good practice guide on road safety, aimed mainly at people new to the area of road safety. We need more of them to deliver our expanded programme of integrated local transport. Last December's allocations gave scope for 8,000 local safety schemes to be completed in the next five years. We may not get it right first time. I am sure that experienced professionals will spot ways of improving the guide, but we will revise it from time to time. However, it is the first time that we have published a guide that gives so much detailed guidance to those involved with road safety.
In Bristol, we also launched a report on the Gloucester safer city project. The objective of that programme was to find out what would happen if a strategic approach that involved everybody—including local politicians—were taken in one city. It was successful. Early results indicate that, although the number of deaths and serious injuries is not sufficiently high for reductions to be statistically significant, since the programme began 38 per cent. fewer people have been killed or seriously injured—that is about 19 people a year. That demonstrates that a concentrated, driven effort can achieve results. Both these projects underline the importance of local safety initiatives. Local people, not central Government, know where the problems lie.
It is the job of Government to promote best practice and organise demonstration projects, and we will continue to do that. We have sought, and are evaluating, bids from many authorities to demonstrate measures on how to prevent the many accidents that happen on high streets, as we said that we would in the strategy. Those that we select will work with us to implement about five demonstration schemes on mixed-priority urban roads next year. We must tackle the matter of road safety on our high streets— which are also through routes—if we want towns to grow, regenerate, and be safe and pleasant places in which to live.
We have started to examine how to control traffic speeds. We are considering the first year's results of the pilot schemes to meet the costs of operating speed and red light cameras systematically. We will announce our conclusions as soon as possible. We are also well advanced with the report on rural road hierarchies that we owe to Parliament by the end of November. The aim of the report is to classify roads by use, in order to decide on and review speed limits. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who sponsored the Adjournment debate held in the House on Tuesday night, may take an interest in that scheme.
We have taken to heart the point—made by the
Automobile Association and others—that motorists need to feel that speed limits are right. That is a huge job and it marks a departure from a provider-driven

5WH
approach to a user-driven one. We continue to press in Brussels and Geneva for higher vehicle standards, which are important factors in reducing the effects of accidents, as well as in preventing them. We support the safety ratings that are published on new cars across Europe. They are a British invention and, in the next leap forward, we would like to see the introduction of pedestrian-friendly car fronts.
The Government are the first for a long time to have engaged motor cyclists—and the motor cycle industry—in constructive dialogue of safety and other matters. Just before the election. my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), now the Under-Secretary for State for Health, initiated a short debate on the issue. The recent increase in motor cycle accidents seems to be due to commuters travelling on mopeds and scooters. We must improve training. Last January, we introduced a training requirement For those with a driving licence who want to ride a moped. That will affect only new licence holders. Motor cyclists and the motor cycle industry accept that that is a problem that requires urgent action.
There was a welcome drop in the year 2000 figures for pedestrian and cycling casualties. That may be due to our continued efforts to protect such vulnerable road users by traffic-calming measures in residential areas and by increasing cyclists' interest in training schemes. It is possible to encourage walking and cycling while keeping the number of casualties down. Some of the better local authorities have demonstrated that it can be done.
The UK has a long and distinguished record on road safety publicity—so much so that the French are borrowing some of our ideas. We discovered that new campaigns fortify old ones, so we launched the Think! brand for all of them. Yesterday, we launched our latest Think! campaign, which is about spec ling in towns and the significance of the stopping distances that we all learned— and have probably forgotten—for our driving tests. The physics of stopping distances is simple. Our television advertisement shows the difference between travelling at 30 mph and 35 mph. One needs 21 ft or 64 m more stopping distance just for that extra 5 mph. The Government's Think! campaign asks that motorists think about excess speed, particularly in busy high streets where children are going to school or pensioners are going to collect their pensions from the post office. We also ask drivers in the 30 mph zones to reflect on whether 30 mph is an appropriate speed at which to travel. We ask motorists to think about children on the roads, to consider whether the roads are wet, to consider the prevailing conditions and to obey not just the speed limits but to use good sense when driving.
I hope that my introductory remarks have underlined both the Government's and my personal commitment to road safety. I look forward to listening to and learning from the contributions to this important debate.
2.50 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: I declare in interest. I am a director of a family business involved in building and road haulage. I do so in case I stray on to that subject and someone was to pick me up on that.
As I said privately to you earlier. Madam Deputy Speaker, I may have to leave before the end of the debate so that I can drive—safely—to Poole to attend a meeting
6WH
early this evening. I apologise if I am not present to hear all the contributions, in particular the Minister's winding-up speech.
I welcome the Minister to his new post. I much enjoyed sparring with his predecessor, the hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), who is now Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household. I have no doubt that that tradition will continue with the current Minister, whom I have always found to be a genial and straight individual. I welcome the fact that the first debate that he has brought to this Chamber is on road safety. From the research that I have done on the topic, I see that he has certainly hit the ground running with the campaigns in Bristol and Gloucester.
The issue is vital. We seem to have adopted a different attitude to modes of transport and to the number of people killed or injured on the roads. Bearing in mind the personal tragedies that the Minister pointed out and the cost, which is estimated at £11 billion to the nation, we should all do more to reduce to an absolute minimum the number of tragedies that occur on our roads.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) who, when he was a Minister, was the first to set targets. I congratulate the Government on setting stringent targets—40 per cent. and 50 per cent. for children—for the future. It is correct to say that we have a good safety record in this country except on children, who must become a real priority. As the Minister said, the most recent figures issued show that we have made progress. However, it is becoming more difficult to make progress and to keep the pressure on.
The issue involves not only drivers, but cyclists, motor cyclists and pedestrians. Years ago, I was always told that, when driving, I should watch out for footballs if kids were about. I now watch people in London with mobile phones attached to their ear. They step straight off the pavement before they look left and right. That may be a matter for public education in the Minister's television advertising campaign. Many people who are engrossed in a conversation with their hairdresser or whoever have stepped out in front of a vehicle. I have seen many embarrassed people step out in front of a car, but fortunately the driver has been able to stop.
I welcome the Government's overall strategy and the high priority given to road safety, and it is good news that there is a good practice guide. A new television advertising campaign is definitely the right way forward. I agree with the Minister that it is good to focus at local level, because local people and local councils know where the problems lie.
There is sometimes a problem with the collection of statistics. Police forces do not collect many statistics for accidents, particularly for injuries sustained in accidents. People often complain that they will have to wait until someone is killed before something is done about a dreadful stretch of road where there have been several accidents but no one has been seriously injured. More of these statistics need to be included, so that appropriate measures can be taken.
In our recent very popular manifesto, we set out the Conservative party's policy. We are committed to setting up a road standards unit to collect statistics. One thing that we have not done well in this country is to produce performance indicators for roads. Australia

7WH
and many other countries have gone further with that, so they can have better measurements for the flow of traffic, safety and design. Just as the rail industry has people to investigate problems, a road casualty investigation branch should be set up with the specific objective of looking at stretches of road, collecting statistics and making recommendations. As in the design of vehicles, the design of roads is an important factor in reducing casualties.
We have several concerns. We are slightly concerned that some of the home zone proposals will give a false sense of security to those who play on the roads. The Minister made a good point about speed: the lower the speed, the shorter the stopping distance. I was glad that he gave the distances in both feet and metres, which will please some of my constituents. If one is unfortunate enough to have an accident, the chances of getting away with a less serious injury are fairly substantial at a low speed.
One of the great successes of the past 25 years has been in relation to drink driving. The vast majority of people accept the drink-driving limit. Attitudes have changed and driving beyond the limit is frowned upon. I am concerned that we should not reduce a sensible limit that has worked well over the past 20 or 30 years. However, the evidence is that those who substantially break the limit are sometimes two or three times over it. There seems to be a hard core of drinkers. Penalties should focus on those who drink substantially over the limit and are the main cause of the problem.
Early in the last Parliament we heard from Canadians who had looked at the possibility of confiscating cars. In this country where we have company cars and cars bought on hire purchase that may not be such a workable proposal. But the focus must be on the hard core of heavy drinkers. If we reduce the present drink-driving limit, which has worked well, we will start to lose support from people who want to go out and have a glass of wine with a meal. They would never exceed the limit but they may feel that lowering the limit is setting an unfair agenda.
Mr. Kidney: When I looked into this I found that offenders who exceed the legal limit for alcohol in their blood when driving break down into two equal groups: one group comprises the frequent heavy drinkers who, as the hon. Gentleman says, massively exceed the legal limit, and the other comprises those who are somewhere around the legal limit. Research shows that once the quantity of alcohol exceeds 50 mg per 100 ml of blood, a person's judgment is much more restricted. Would it not therefore make sense to have a two-pronged approach? The first would be to tackle the high-risk offenders and the second would be to consider the limit of 50 mg instead of 80 mg.
Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but if one looks at the accident charts one can see that the arrow quickly shoots up into the air when people start to go beyond the limit. The main focus must be on the heavy drinkers—the people who do not know what day it is and whether they have hit three cars—rather than on changing a limit that is widely supported and works well.
8WH
It always amazes me that so many people on NHS-prescribed drugs continue to drive. I am concerned that people do not always read what is written on the packet. People are sometimes drugged up to the eyeballs on NHS prescriptions, yet drive because it is part of their everyday life. That needs to be examined. The Minister talked about tiredness—an important subject, which any hon. Member representing a Plymouth constituency could raise. It is good that there are more motorway service stations than previously and that road network provision has improved with places to pull in, although we do not provide as many toilets by the side of the road as we should.
The issue of road safety will not be a great political battleground. There is House-wide support for making improvements. It will be hard to do so, but if we follow the Minister's creative examples of a good practice guide and a television campaign, we should continue to make progress. I look forward to congratulating him at the end of his period in office. If he does nothing other than make good progress in road safety, he will deserve our congratulations.
3.1 pm
Mr. David Kidney: Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr. Winterton—or, is it correct to call you Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Unfortunately, hon. Members are not as yet permitted in this Parliament to address me in that way. I regret it and hope that it will not be long before I get the distinction and honour that I richly deserve.
Mr. Kidney: I am with you on that, Mr. Winterton.
I declare a non-pecuniary interest in the debate in that I co-chair the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety with the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). who has already been mentioned in this debate. PACTS is a registered charity which provides research-based solutions to and impartial advice on all aspect of transport safety. Its main aim is to save lives. PACTS has established positions on several road safety issues—to which I will refer later—including wearing seat belts, the reduction in the maximum permitted blood-alcohol level for drivers, the deployment of safety cameras and the improvement in vehicle design. I shall make it clear when I am explaining the PACTS position. Otherwise, the content of my speech reflects my personal opinions.
In Great Britain in 1999, five people died in transport incidents at sea, six died in air transport-related incidents, 43 died on our railways—mainly in the Paddington rail crash—and 885 people were the victims of homicide. In comparison, 3,404 people lost their lives on the roads. In an Adjournment debate last Tuesday, the Minister gave the figure for road deaths in 2000: another 3,409 people. Why do we tolerate such a huge loss of life year after year? In fairness to the Labour Government since 1997 and the previous Conservative Government, the death toll fell by one third between 1990 and 1999. Being fairer still to them both, the previous Conservative Government set a target to drive down the number of road deaths, as did the Labour Government. The Government now aim to reduce

9WH
deaths by 40 per cent.—50 per cent, in the case of children—by 2010. The same targets apply for reducing serious injuries.
I welcome the Minister to his job and thank him wholeheartedly for this early opportunity to debate road safety. It allows us to express our horror at such continual loss of life, to call for action to achieve and exceed the Government's target for reducing road deaths, and to contribute our ideas for reducing the carnage.
I start by considering speed management. If a car travelling at 40 mph hits a child, there is a one in 20 chance of that child surviving; if the car travels at 20 mph, the survival rate is 19 in 20. However, that should not lead us to conclude that reducing vehicle speed across the board makes roads safer because, conversely, there are situations where slow speeds represent a danger. Nor is reducing the legal speed limit synonymous with reducing vehicle speed. About two thirds of drivers already break the 30 mph speed limit, which tells us that we face big challenges in both education and enforcement if we are to persuade drivers to mind their speed.
Education might begin with a reminder that drivers should match their speed with the prevailing road conditions. In many daily situations, that will mean that the appropriate speed is less than the posted maximum—an obvious example being when driving in fog or approaching a sharp bend. The Government and many organisations, including PACTS, accept the argument that excess speed, breaking the speed limit, and inappropriate speed, driving too fast for the conditions, contribute to as many as, one in three road deaths. Some groups argue that that overstates the significance of speed in road deaths Other factors are involved in many deaths on our roads, but nothing is wrong in recognising the risk that speed represents and in acting to curb excess and inappropriate speed.
Enforcement has an obvious role. Why do we put up with such a lack of respect for speed limits? How can anyone complain when the police and highway authorities enforce the law effectively? Safety cameras, which detect vehicles that go through red traffic lights or exceed the legal speed limit, have contributed to reducing road casualties. In Staffordshire, fatal and serious injuries at speed camera sites reduced on average by a massive 60 per cent, in the three years after installation. The Government have sponsored a pilot scheme in six authorities—Staffordshire is sadly not one—whereby the speeding fines received are recycled into meeting some of the costs of installing and maintaining safety cameras. Early signs are that such a systematic deployment of cameras saves lives. Towards the end of the previous Parliament, we enacted the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001, which permits the national rollout of that scheme.
Concern caused by more safety cameras is illustrated by some opponents' portrayal of the scheme as a stealth tax. We must answer the accusation if we want to carry public approval for the scheme, and there are three elements. First, the only people who pay speeding fines are those who break the law. Secondly, the siting of cameras must be seen to be for casualty reduction, not revenue raising. The Government must ensure that camera siting accords with published criteria relating to identifying casualty hotspots, the visibility of cameras
10WH
and related signage, and readily ascertainable speed limits. Thirdly, any recycled income should be additional to existing public spending on road safety.
It would also reassure the public if the Government kept the promise made by the then Minister of State at the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), in Standing Committee during the passage of the 2001 Act to provide regular reports to Parliament on the scheme's progress. The Government have a good story to tell to date on 20 mph zones, home zones and, still to come, quiet lanes in rural areas. A report on speed limits on rural roads, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, will be published later this year, as required by the Transport Act 2000.
I cannot leave the subject of speed management without mentioning traffic calming. It is a curious thing, as I learned once again during the recent election campaign, that residents cry out for traffic calming in their streets whereas motorists abhor the obstacle to their journey. I have thought about the problem for some time and have concluded that when local authorities start to draw up their local transport plans, they should engage their public in identifying strategic routes that should remain clear of humps, chicanes and the like and residential areas where traffic calming may, in conjunction with other speed management and casualty reduction policies, be justified.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my hon. Friend's experience different from mine? I have found that residents often cry out for traffic calming before it arrives, but when it does, many want to get rid of it because of increased fumes, noise, gear changing and other inconveniences. There are no new traffic-calming schemes in my area because they attract the ire of both motorists and residents.
Mr. Kidney: My experience is not quite the same. I receive grumbles from some residents in traffic-calming areas about additional noise, vibrations and fumes, but far more people are pleased about the schemes, which produce a visible reduction in speeds and a recordable reduction in casualties. In Staffordshire there remains a long list of requests, as yet unsatisfied, for new traffic-calming schemes.
Traffic calming is just one example of road engineering. We should not underestimate the contribution that attention to good design and road layout can make to reduce casualties on the roads. The AA Foundation produced an excellent policy document in 1999 entitled "What goes wrong in Highway Design…and how to put it right". I have a copy here. Its safety audit identified a series of commonly observed road safety problems for pedestrians, people with disabilities, cyclists, motor cyclists and vehicle users. As the title suggests, the document sets out some straightforward solutions.
Good road engineering solutions also featured in the PACTS-sponsored 11th Westminster lecture on transport safety last December. The lecturer was Dr. Rod Kimber, the director of science and engineering at the Transport Research Foundation. Some startlingly straightforward suggestions for road improvement were advanced, though Dr. Kimber's main message was that we must develop a coherent

11WH
combination of approaches to, tackle all three of the main challenges, which he listed as behaviour, roads and vehicles.
That brings me to the need to adopt a strategic approach to casualty reduction and to involve the local populace in the strategies. In Staffordshire the county council, as highway authority, approaches the challenge of reducing road casualties in partnership with other agencies, especially the police and the district councils. My hon. Friend the Minister provided a similar example of a partnership approach when he referred to Hertfordshire county council in the Adjournment debate on Tuesday. In Staffordshire the practical effect of the partnership is that everyone shares a clear commitment to reduce casualties.
I also happily support the PACTS' recommendations, not least because I had a hand in shaping them. The Government should ensure that road safety and road crimes are included in crime and disorder audits. Again, the value of doing so is that local communities can sign up to their commitment to casualty reduction.
In 1999 there were 870 pedestrian deaths and 172 cyclist deaths on the roads. I feel strongly that we should do more to keep walkers and cyclists safe. It is fair to say that they were here first, but during the 20th century, the explosion of powered vehicles has left the needs of those vulnerable groups overlooked. The promotion of safe routes to schools is a start and I commend authorities, such as Staffordshire county council, on their enthusiastic push. Come to Staffordshire, Mr. Winterton, and you will see that detailed attention has been paid to improving pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of schools, dedicated cycle ways to and from schools, and walking buses, which are organised, supervised group walks to and from school. It is worth making the point that creating safe routes to schools for walking and cycling benefits not only the environment but the health of those who participate.
The big, yellow school buses are already in use in Staffordshire. Parents like the feeling of safety that the journey to school by dedicated school bus gives. We have been at the forefront in pushing the Government to relax the two and three-mile walking distances laid down in the Education Act 1944. We want to offer more pupils the opportunity to travel to school safely aboard yellow school buses. Again, there is a double benefit: not only do pupils get to school safely but the school run of parents in cars is reduced and road congestion is eased.
The insurer Direct Line has been in touch with me about the usage of rear seat belts in cars. Apparently, this weekend will mark the 10th anniversary of the law that made such usage compulsory. The latest figures for compliance show that in December last year, only 59 per cent. of those travelling in the rear of cars wore seat belts. That contrasts with 94 per cent. usage of front seat belts. Direct Line is campaigning for the Government to narrow the gap between front and rear seat belt usage to less than 10 per cent. in the next five years and to eliminate it completely by 2011. I wish the campaign well. Anyone who has seen the latest hard-hitting television advertisements sponsored by the Government on the subject will have learned that 40 front seat passengers die each year as a result of being hit by an unrestrained rear seat passenger.
12WH
While dealing with other road users, I want to mention also the riders of powered two-wheel vehicles. They, too, are vulnerable road users. In 1999,547 deaths were attributed to motor cycle use. It is instructive to listen to motor cyclists; they are acutely aware of the antics of other motorists. They see thoroughly reprehensible behaviour, including driving while eating, while using a mobile phone and while reading. Like other vulnerable road users, motor cyclists are at risk of death and serious injury because of the momentary inattention of other motorists.
That brings me to the tricky subject of driver quality. I passed my driving test when I was 18 years old. I do not think that I am unusual in having thrown away the highway code shortly afterwards. I have so far avoided the attention of the courts—touch wood—which can order that the test should be retaken as part of the sentence for some offences, and I have not made an insurance claim for some years. No one has suggested that I need refreshes training. However, I undertook one training session with an advanced motorist, and I thoroughly approve of schemes such as Pass Plus and driver improvement for minor road traffic offending. Could we not do more to ensure that drivers and other road users are awl re of their responsibilities as road users?
I remember the brief public information films on television in earlier years, particularly the one from more than 20 years ago about using the outside lane on motorways for overtaking only. With our crowded motorways today, t hat might be a slightly inappropriate message. Nevertheless for 20 years the images from that advertisement have remained with me. Today, we see advertising campaigns from the Government on specific problems such as drinking and driving and wearing seat belts in the rear seats of cars, but we need a systematic campaign that is supported by all the relevant agencies: Government, local authorities, police, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Driving Standards Agency, driving instructors and insurers. The purpose of the campaign would be to win over road users to behaviour that demonstrates appreciation of risk, consideration of o her road users and respect for the laws of the road.
Employers of workers whose job it is to drive have a particular responsibility to ensure that driving skills are honed and refreshed I continually. Some employers have commendable driver training programmes, and some insurers and instructors offer excellent, cost-effective training packages. I urge the Government and the Health and Safety Commission not to lose sight of the potential benefits of a consistently high standard of driver training for workers who, because of the nature of their jobs, spend a great deal of time using the roads network.
Mr. Syms: On several occasions, the AA has raised the issue of the number of people who are driving without a licence. What the hon. Gentleman says about improving the standards of drivers with licences is perfectly appropriate, but many people out there should not be on the road.
Mr. Kidney: I entirely accept that. Another purpose of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 is to allow a greater exchange of information between insurers, courts, the

13WH
police and the DVLA so that people who should not be on the road can be detected and identified. That is a good point, and a positive step has recently been taken to try to meet it.
As the hon. Gentleman said, driver quality can be impaired in many ways, including by the consumption of alcohol, the taking of both legal and illegal drugs, illness and drowsiness. I am grateful to the Loughborough sleep research centre for the information that driver sleepiness is believed to be a bigger killer on our roads than alcohol.
Some hon. Members will have seen a briefing paper prepared for this debate by PACTS, which raises issues that my hon. Friend the Minister should address. I shall pick out three for which I have some sympathy and ask him to comment on them. First, the re have been news stories this week about the European Union caving in to the car manufacturing industry over standards of improvements to vehicle design. Reports allege that a proposed directive will be dropped in favour of a negotiated agreement that will bring at most 50 per cent. of the benefits of the directive. Where do the United Kingdom Government stand on that important issue?
Secondly, for some time the Government have been considering a proposal to reduce the maximum permitted blood alcohol level for drivers from 80 mg per 100 ml of blood to 50 mg. Does the Minister accept that that change would save lives and will the Government go ahead and make it?
Thirdly, following devolution I asked the Government last year whether they would consider abandoning British summertime at least in respect of England and Wales. Sadly, they responded that that was a reserved matter, so the whole of the UK had to be considered, but no further answer came on the substantive point about British summertime. I know that factors beyond road safety would be involved in such a decision, but conclusions from the Transport Research Laboratory report show that more than 100 lives a year could be saved through acceptance of a new time regime. Will the Government at least consider making a change?
I believe that the Minister accepts that the trail of misery caused by road deaths is long and shameful and that he wants to contribute significantly to reducing the death toll. Likewise, I accept that the Government are intent on reducing the number of road casualties, with an especially determined effort to reduce child deaths and serious injuries. To that end, the Government must make full use of the levers at their disposal: education, enforcement and road engineering. In addition, they should never lose sight of the fourth "e": fully to evaluate the data to discern what works.
We all accept that the causes of such high levels of death and injury are many and complex and that the challenge of reducing road casualties is a mighty one. Let us resolve to work together to meet it and reach out to the many organisations and individuals outside this place who can help us. We must deliver a united, loud and clear message to all road users that we want them to complete their journeys in safety, for themselves and others. We cannot bring back to life those who have died, but we can assure their loved ones and our fellow citizens and road users that we mean to twist, turn, scrape and save to make our roads as free from death and injury as possible.
3.23 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. He may find that debates here are less controversial than those in the main Chamber. I, too, declare a non-pecuniary interest in that I am a member of Brake, an organisation that campaigns on road safety—incidentally, it is no relation. I thank Brake and other organisations such as PACTS and RoadPeace for the information that they have provided for this debate and at other times.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), whose Adjournment debate on the subject was a mine of information, some of which I may recycle today. My hon. Friend stated that there had been no Government debate on road safety since 1994, so this debate is most welcome, albeit overdue. As PACTS stated this month—after the Government document "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone" was published—despite the effect of road accidents on citizens in every part of society, transport and transport safety did not achieve the high priority that it deserved under the previous Government.
The Royal Automobile Club, too, is calling for action. It wants greater emphasis to be placed on investigations to determine the causes of road accidents so that lessons can be learned, and on the introduction of improved safety education and campaigns for all road users, including motorists, pedestrians, motor cyclists and cyclists.
We should not underestimate the damage done by road crashes. Although this country's record is good, road crashes are the biggest cause of death in males aged from 15 to 44 throughout the world. Even in the United Kingdom, there are a significant number of road deaths, at a cost of £1 million per fatality; there are smaller, but still significant, costs as a result of serious and minor injuries in road accidents.
The total cost to the NHS and other services is between £13 billion and £18 billion, depending on which organisation's briefing one relies on, the latter figure being the equivalent of 60p on income tax. That is not a factor that we should disregard, although I am pleased that our record is significantly better than many in Europe. An article in The Guardian today states that last year, 7,643 people died on roads in France, where 63 per cent. of people admitted to having driven under the influence of alcohol, which is a problem.
Although we have a good record, more could be done. More speed cameras could be introduced, as they are very effective at reducing speed, as every driver knows, even though the effect, unfortunately, is often temporary. When approaching a speed camera, one often notices that the car in front has slammed on its brakes to drop below the speed limit in the vicinity of the camera. Speed cameras are not anti-motorist; they are anti the inconsiderate, or, worse, the reckless, driver. More traffic-calming measures could be introduced. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of those, including at least one Member of Parliament, who consider traffic-calming measures to be impediments. I do not see it like that; I have small children and we live on a busy road. I appreciate that it is difficult for drivers to drive much faster than 20 mph up and down my street.
More measures for safeguarding pedestrians could be introduced, but I add a word of caution: they should be appropriate. The Select Committee on the

15WH
Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs has been looking at walking in cities and towns, focusing on the use of cattle pens, which proliferate here but not on the continent. They do not always promote safe pedestrian use, and sometimes the opposite is true, as people avoid using them because it takes so much longer to cross a road when they cannot do so diagonally or in the direction that they want to go; they are forced to take a specific route if they go through the cattle pen. It is therefore important that only appropriate measures are introduced.
I support the introduction of safe cycle routes to schools and commend the work of my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, in that respect. I visited cycling proficiency schemes in the borough during the election campaign and saw hands-on training. The schemes involved going out on the roads, not just cycling in the safety of a school playground. Instructors highlighted the fact that there appeared to be no best practice guide that cycling proficiency instructors could draw on. They had to look at a number of different models adopted by authorities, and then produce their own. Perhaps the Minister will say that a best practice guide is, in fact, available to schools and local authorities.
We need to improve testing and training standards for drivers, but we must support standards that are meaningful and deliverable. I was lobbied by four or five motor cycle training organisations in my constituency about the recent introduction of the theory test. They are interested parties and not unbiased, but their view is that the theory test has added little to what is covered in the compulsory basic training test. We need to ensure that new measures are appropriate. If standards are improved—something that I support—the implications for organisations such as the Driving Standards Agency must be thought through. With the theory test, it was clear that the agency was unable to make the change, or that it was not prepared to do so, and that had a heavy impact on the motor cycle training companies in my area. They tried to book people for theory tests, but they were not available because the agency could not cope and had not thought through the implications of the change.
As part of the training process, we must improve standards for motor cyclists and cyclists. We must also improve the awareness of car drivers. I first got on a moped legally at the age of 14 when I lived in France—over there, mopeds can be driven from that age. Such experience enables people to develop a greater awareness of motor cyclists and cyclists so that when they become a car driver, they can appreciate how nerve-wracking it is when a car skims past one foot away. We need to do something to make car drivers understand the implications of their driving habits and to increase their awareness of cyclists and motor cyclists. That awareness needs to be introduced in schools, and I welcome the Minister's response to the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. The Minister stated that the Government
"are also looking for ways to work issues of safety into other lessons such as maths, physics and geography, where it can provide a link to the world outside through examples taken from real life."—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 339.]
16WH
Perhaps the Minister can give us a progress report on whether ideas for introducing safety into school lessons have been developed
A key point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester is the need to change attitudes to practices such as belting up in the back seat. The Direct Line research has already been referred to. People accept that they must belt up in the front, but how can we make them accept that they must do so in the back? Direct Line estimates that in the period covered by its research 82 lives were lost as a result of failing to belt up in the back. Progress has been made and I welcome the "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone" report; as the Minister announced, there have been 9 per cent. fewer child deaths in the past year. I want to give him the opportunity to demonstrate that his fine words, and those of other Ministers, will be translated into a real reduction in the carnage on our roads.
I ask the Minister to break with what seems to be the tradition, in debates such as this, of Members asking questions that are never answered because time runs out. Often, even when questions are clearly and numerically set out, answers are still not forthcoming. With that in mind, I want to state on the record that I would like answers to each of the specific questions that I shall ask.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) referred to the report on rural roads that is due to be published by November 2001. The Minister said that good progress is being made on that report. Does such progress guarantee that it will indeed be delivered by November 2001? A request was made that regular updates be given in Parliament. During a Standing Committee debate on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, a Home Office Minister said that regular progress reports would be issued on camera implementation and its effectiveness. What form will those reports take?
Reference has already been made to the European directive and I, too seek clarification from the Minister as to the Government's view on that. Do they intend to support what appears to be a watered-down version of the directive: a voluntary agreement between manufacturers? If so, why are they willing to opt out of the estimated 20 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries to which adoption of the directive would lead? Do the Government plan to support the implementation in rural areas of measures such as the Gloucester safer city initiative, so that we can get some hard data to work with?
I have just a few more questions for the Minister, to which I am sure he will respond in due course. Although it is not a matter for which the Government are directly responsible, have they undertaken an analysis of the number of additional police officers who might be employed on traffic-related duties following the budget increases that they announced? Would they support withdrawal of the charge of so-called careless driving, which fails adequately to reflect the impact of that offence? Would they support the introduction of an additional charge of serious injury by dangerous driving?
What plans, if any, do the Government have to enlarge the role of Victim Support following road accidents? Can funding be made available to Victim Support, so that it can play a bigger part?

17WH
The Minister said that he thought that the number of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists might have declined because of certain improvements. Will he comment on the view that the number has declined not because of specific measures, but because the number of journeys made on foot or by bicycle has gone down? How will the Government reconcile their valuable targets to reduce injuries with their significant targets to increase the number of journeys by, for example, bike? Many people think that although both targets are worth while, they could work against each other.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that I have finished my list of questions. I hope
that he will answer them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), I should point out that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has asked the Minister to reply to a large number of questions and has highlighted the quality of replies that he hopes to receive. If as many questions are asked by the remaining speakers, the Minister may be pushed to reply today. However, that is entirely in the hands of hon. Members.
3.40 pm
Ms Julia Drown: Thank you for that warning, Mr. Winterton. I can relieve the Minister from any anxiety that he might have had because I do not have as many questions as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
I am pleased to contribute to the debate because road safety is a crucial issue that is raised regularly by my constituents. Safety outside schools is the specific concern that is raised most frequently. Many parents want 20 mph zones to be set up outside schools, and there is a case for that being a general policy outside every school. The Minister referred to that issue in his introduction and I am sure that he will address it in his reply.
The Government's advice to local authorities—
Mr. McWalter: Is my hon. Friend aware that in America school buses display flashing lights when they are outside schools, and vehicles are not allowed to progress until the bus has emptied, so speed is effectively reduced to zero? Furthermore, it is a serious offence to bypass such a school. Might that not be a better idea?
Ms Drown: Well, that is one example of the lessons that we can learn from other countries.
The then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions specifically advised local authorities to consider 20 mph zones, particularly around schools, in their local travel plans, but only where there was suitable traffic calming. I am concerned that that advice seems to hold up consideration of 20 mph zones outside schools, and I should be interested to see the extent to which that advice is evidence based. In my constituent y we have some wonderfully effective signs outside schools. The signs, which were designed by children, say, "There is a school here. Slow down." That should wake up drivers on that road, who must realize—particularly around school time—that they should slow down and be aware of the
18WH
dangers. That would be a cheap and effective solution. However, some traffic-calming measures are expensive, which slows down the process of putting 20 mph zones outside schools.
The other issue raised in the Government's advice to local authorities on local travel plans concerned the effective use of speed cameras, which I shall discuss in a moment. Returning to traffic-calming measures, spending £20,000 outside each school in the country would be hugely expensive, but the cost would be small compared with the lives that would be saved. I should like to know the extent to which the Government have examined that issue.
Speed cameras would be an easy way of tackling road safety. Both Ministers and Back Benchers have argued that speed cameras should not be seen as revenue-raising schemes, which would be a concern if speed cameras were to go up outside every school, irrespective of local conditions. However, such schemes would be a reasonable way forward if they were part of saying to everyone, "Outside schools we slow down. There is no tolerance at all of speeding outside schools."
Concerned parents frequently ask me, "Does a child have to die on this road before we can get traffic calming or a speed camera here?" As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, the introduction of traffic calming must be considered logically and must be evidence-based. The areas that need the most help must be dealt with first. We can all understand why parents are frustrated and ask, "Does a child have to die first?" Their concerns should be an important criterion in our considerations.
The other measure that would help outside schools would be more crossing patrols. Schools in Swindon—for example, Robert Le Kyng school, which is on a main road quite near the centre of Swindon—face a real problem in recruiting crossing patrol staff. Even where there is a traffic patrol officer, there is often no one to take her place when she is off sick. On such a day, the local authority tries to inform the school and the police, but that is no comfort for parents who send their children off to school believing that there will be someone to help them to cross the road and hear the next day that there was no one. The solution might lie with the Prime Minister's volunteer scheme: more people could be encouraged to volunteer for the job. Although many companies might not want a member of staff regularly coming to work late because they are a school crossing patrol officer, surely almost every firm would say to an employee who volunteered, "I am happy for you to be the fill-in person when the local person is off sick." That could be their contribution to the community. Many parents who could not do the job would like to be able to be a back-up so that they would know that every day their child went to school they would have someone to cross the road with them.
Tom Brake: The hon. Lady might be interested in a suggestion that was made to me by a parent who was concerned about the absence of a school crossing patrol officer at her child's school. Having noted the regular presence of traffic wardens, she suggested that perhaps traffic wardens should have the scope of their duties enlarged to include school crossing patrols.
Ms Drown: That is a positive suggestion. I am afraid that in Swindon we have very few wardens—only one or

19WH
two—so they would not stretch far. In time, we hope to get more in order to tackle our parking problems, which can also lead to road safety problems. However, I shall not go into that now.
Speeding is a major contribution to many road accidents. It is a tricky problem to sort out, and two angles need to be considered. First, driving fast is still seen as macho, a perception that we are starting to tackle, but we have a long way to go in comparison with the way in which society has shifted its attitudes to drink-driving during the past 20 or 30 years. Some of the worst drives that I experience take place when I am on my way to take part in television programmes. A lovely, comfortable car comes along, and I have all my work to prepare for the interview that I am going to, but I have to spend half my journey telling the driver, "You're speeding. Could we go slower? I'm sure we'll get to the studios in time." Nowadays, whenever someone asks me to appear on a television programme and offers me a driver, my dear staff have to say, "She'll have a driver, but only if you can guarantee that they won't speed on the roads." I am afraid that that even extends to former police officers who drive us around the country. That shows that it is an accepted form of behaviour that needs to be tackled.
Secondly, there is a difference between men and women drivers in this respect. The AA carried out a survey examining the different techniques of men and women drivers, which revealed that women had a higher proportion of their accidents at junctions, but men had a higher proportion of accidents on bends, when overtaking and during the hours of darkness. Men adopt faster speeds than women, have a higher fatality risk and commit more driving and speeding violations. They are more likely to drink and drive or take illegal drugs and drive, and are prepared to drive for longer periods than women. If we could get rid of some of those different attitudes to driving, we might move forward.
In his introduction, the Minister mentioned car design and car safety design. We should look at that. Why do speedometers go up to 160 mph? It is absolutely crazy. That tempts people with a new car, on a quiet day, to see just how fast they can go. That is a part of society's attitude that needs changing. I know that we should tackle the problem with other European countries, but the Environmental Transport Association has been saying for a number of years that there is no justification in speedometers that go way over any nationally recognised speed limits. I hope that the Minister will take that matter up with his colleagues.
I have mentioned the macho element in speeding. Another element, which affects everybody, is that driving is such a day-to-day occurrence that it is easy for people to feel comfortable, relaxed and slack about it rather than thinking that they are about to get into a lethal instrument. For some age groups, it is the most likely place in which people will die or be involved in an accident in which someone else will die or be severely injured. The more we can remind ourselves and others of that, the more we will realise the necessity of taking every precaution, just as people do when they are doing other potentially dangerous things.
20WH
I have said a little about speed cameras, and the pilot schemes that have allowed local authorities the income from speed cameras have been mentioned. They have been incredibly effective in reducing accidents. In six pilot areas, after just six months, casualties were down by 34 per cent. and speeds by 53 per cent. If such results could be replicated throughout the country, we could see this not as a revenue—making exercise, but an attempt to move to the viewpoint—as has happened with drink driving—that speeding is not acceptable. We should be progressing in that way.
Hon. Members have mentioned the review of speed limits. The Minister said that the AA and others have said that such a review must be done in consultation with drivers. Of course that is right, but the views of pedestrians, cyclists and the families of victims who have died as a result of speeding vehicles should be listened to just as much.
I have three final points. First, there have been reports in this Chamber today about local acceptance of traffic-calming. In my area, many people have called for traffic-calming measures. There have been some complaints and mistakes are sometimes made in the way in which traffic-calming measures are carried out, but I have seen a general acceptance of the need for traffic calming. It is the results of traffic calming in Swindon that have made the greatest impression on me. Speed has been massively reduced and there has been a reduction in accidents—powerful results that show how worth while the measures are.
Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister about the impact on road safety of different vehicles using bus lanes. In Swindon. buses and cyclists use bus lanes but taxis and motor cyclists do not. Both of those groups have campaigned to use bus lanes, and the council is reviewing that. Is there any national information on the impact on road safety of allowing those groups to use bus lanes?
My final point is about road maintenance. It is always seen as boring because it just goes on, year after year, but it can have a big impact on road safety. It is especially important for cyclists and motor cyclists. We have all seen those potholes, and we have all seen cyclists topple over because roads are not maintained. Cars are affected, too. I am delighted that the Government have massively increased the amount spent on road maintenance. In Swindon, up to 10 times the budget provided by the Conservative Government has sometimes been allowed for road maintenance under this Government, but there is still a lot to do. The backlog for road maintenance is huge, and that affects road safety. I am especially worried when people talk about building loads more roads. We should proceed carefully in building more roads when road maintenance is insufficient for the existing ones. I hope that that will always be borne in mind in considering future schemes.
I am delighted that we are having this debate. It shows that the Government are making road safety a priority. We need to keep that priority. Too many people are dying, especially children. Swindon people, and Swindon parents in particular, will back the Government's initiative to tackle the problem. I am delighted with it, and I look forward to working with the Government over the years to come to reduce fatalities and injuries on our roads.
3.56 pm
Mr. David Drew: I welcome you, Mr. Winterton, to the Chair. I am sure that it will not be long before you are reappointed as a Deputy Speaker. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that we shall have many debates in the wonderful surroundings of Westminster Hall, as well as on the Floor of the House.
Following the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on Tuesday, I shall not make too many points. The matter is not controversial. No one present would argue that we do not need road safety, that everything is hunky dory and that there is no cause for concern.
Hon. Members, and in particular my hon. Friends, mentioned the importance of having this debate now. It is always worth bearing it in mind that, up to the age of 18—I use the fact sparingly—the likelihood of dying in a road accident is much greater than the likelihood of dying in any other way. When I hear about attacks and other things that can happen to our children, I try to remind people that the most likely way in which a child will die is either in a car crash or, more likely, by being knocked down by a car. That is a salutary lesson that we must always recall.
I start with a couple of points that I am not sure have been covered; if they have, l emphasise my own position. The idea that there is an urban road safety issue and a rural one, and that they are different, is a false dichotomy and involves false conclusions. The vast majority of motorists drive between urban centres for much of their motoring, and even in urban centres people encounter different conditions, some of which, although they are not rural, involve different traffic speeds, for example. I should like to nail the lie that motorists drive in different ways and that that leads to different road safety problems.
I welcome the production of the Government's rural road hierarchy, whenever that may be. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked for a definite date. I do not believe that it can come too soon, because, although urban casualties have declined, there has been a blip upwards in rural road casualties. We all know why: people tend to substitute what they consider to be slower routes in more urban parts by going through more rural rat runs, which can lead to accidents. That is certainly true in my area.
Hon. Members have already discussed many of the issues that I wanted to cover, such as safer routes to schools, and home zones. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), I ask the Minister for further clarification, particularly regarding local authorities and the prioritising of home zones. Local authorities must full). understand the procedures and act on them as expeditiously as possible. As always there is some confusion, which often, unfortunately, leads to delay. Advice and information should be exchanged between central and local government.
Other hon. Members have dealt with cyclists and pedestrians. We are all pedestrians and most of us are cyclists. I am a keen cyclist and often cycle around my constituency, despite its hills. It would be good to have many more cycle ways, but one feels relatively safe. Nine out of 10 drivers are patient and uncle' standing towards
22WH
cyclists. I shall not comment on the one in 10, but anyone who has cycled will have experienced them. The problem is that people who do not cycle forget what it is like to be on a bike. Maintaining distance and being able to cut in front of a cyclist are important to drivers, but cyclists find it most annoying to be cut up by a car on the brow of a hill. Occasional re-education of motorists in the experience of using one's own power to travel around would not go amiss.
We have a good record on cycle training for younger people. It does not have to be for young people, but we tend to concentrate on them because we can easily gain access to them through the school system, and our efforts are important. Only about 18 per cent. of cyclists wear helmets, yet the chances of surviving a crash are vastly improved by wearing one, which is why it was made compulsory for motor cyclists. We should look into the possibility of giving out helmets at school. It may be costly and it may not be de rigueur to wear a helmet, but everyone should wear one on a bicycle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who is now a member of the Government, introduced a Bill on the compulsory addition of bells to bikes. I cannot recall what happened, but it did not become a key part of the Government's legislative programme during the previous Session and it did not feature in the Labour party's manifesto this year. I trust that he will pursue the policy, albeit from a more distant position than in the past.
Mr. Kidney: Just to help my hon. Friend, I recall that towards the end of the previous Parliament, the Deputy Prime Minister made an announcement about the compulsory fitting bells on new bicycles.
Mr. Drew: I am not sure how to answer that, but I am pleased to hear it.
I am pleased that we have a strategy for pedestrians. It is sometimes viewed as bizarre, but there are important reasons why we are always in the game of education. A couple of weeks ago, during road safety week, I visited Little Angels, one of my nurseries and pre-school units, in Eastington, not far from where I live. It was good to see the children being trained to cross the road. I was involved in the role play and my foot was driven over more than once by a tiny car. Education is not discrete: it is an on-going process. We must ensure that all road users understand the need to be tolerant, not only of similar users—car drivers being tolerant of other car drivers—but of different types of user.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister came to Gloucester; I will invite him to Stroud so that he can see the other side of things. From the objective evidence of the letter columns of the local paper, I can say that there is no more popular subject than the safer city project. Most of the letters are very critical, seeing those responsible for the project as nothing less than fascists who are removing people's right to drive in whatever direction they want at the speed they think appropriate. The critics view all the impositions as unfair. I occasionally feel hot under the collar and want to respond to them, but I have to bite my tongue because the project is not in my constituency and is not directly my responsibility, although many of my constituents drive through the wonderful streets of Gloucester. There

23WH
is a view—I am sure that it is a minority one and hope that it is held by a tiny minority—that all the money spent on the project is wasted and that much more could be done with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said, our roads need resurfacing. We need to ensure that people understand what we are doing and why, and that there would be many more casualties if we did not do it. Again, the issue is important and we must keep banging on about it.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister comment on progress on seat belts on coaches? There is a timetable for their installation, and it cannot be implemented a moment too soon because there is a need to ensure the proper protection of school children travelling on coaches. There has been disagreement with some of the safety organisations about what type of seat belt should be fitted. I have in my constituency an active campaigner who is not totally happy with our achievement—which I think is a good one—of making the fitting of seat belts on new coaches compulsory. On the general safety of coaches, when the police or traffic engineers do a purge, it is worrying how many coaches dismally fail the road safety requirements.
Hon. Members have covered the issue of motor cycling and they have been fair. We must try to strike the right balance between encouraging people to use that important alternative to the car, and laying down safety requirements for motor cyclists. On drink-driving, a handful of constituents have come to me who, as part of the requirement of getting back a licence, have to undergo a medical test; they are, to use the term used earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) heavy drinkers. In two of the cases I dealt with it was unclear why they were being asked for a test. Perhaps those people were not telling me the whole truth, but it is important that we have clear criteria for when a medical test is required to get a licence back.
The safety strategy mentions the difficult issue of older drivers. I have a vested interest here, because I persuaded my father to give up driving at the age of 88 four years ago, although he saw himself as a pretty safe motorist and did not have a terribly bad record. One of my local GPs said that he was very concerned when older motorists asked him to give a statement that they were safe to drive. He is unclear about the degree of knowledge that he is expected to demand from an older driver and, more particularly, about whether he is taking a risk, so we need to look into that.
I have a mini-question about illegal taxi-ing, which has not been mentioned so far, but is certainly a problem in my area and not unknown in London. There seems to be a growth industry involving people who turn their cars into taxis on Friday nights and take enormous risks. Unfortunately, other people take those risks with them, and we should perhaps consider that aspect of road safety.
I welcome the chance to take part in the debate. I said that I would mention the safety Bill, which I presume will relate largely to rail safety and may include air safety. I hope that it will consolidate road safety measures, because there is a need for that. We must ensure that we know what else needs to be done.
24WH
The use of hand-held mobile phones in cars has been mentioned, and I am not sure what the legal position is. Some people have been satisfactorily prosecuted, but that is not having the desired impact. People on bikes or in cars at roundabouts increasingly have difficulty in judging whether drivers have seen them, because they are more interested in receiving a telephone call than in driving their cars. We need therefore to tighten up legislation if we are to have our place in the sun.
4.12 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: I shall dwell mainly on the issue of cameras this afternoon, because I think that there is deep uncertainty in the Government's mind about their use, and I believe that they could support a road safety strategy. I am particularly interested in hidden cameras and those that link to computerised systems for the gathering of information about where vehicles are. Among other things, they allow us to check whether some vehicles should be on the road, on the basis that information picked up by a camera sometimes requires the police to be alerted.
Cameras are the most important of the road safety devices available to us. Although people often talk about the cost of installing a camera, they say too little about the benefits of such an installation. At least one contribution this afternoon has characterised my position on traffic calming as not very positive. In fact, Hemel Hempstead has a mature traffic-calming system involving about 50 roads. It is interesting that there are about 20 different designs for traffic calming. That is partly because every time a road is affected, its residents complain bitterly, so another style of traffic calming is tried the next time.
I shall give two examples, which show why it would have been better not to introduce traffic-calming measures. The village of Nettleden in my constituency was cut in half by speeding vehicles, so something had to be done. A pinch point was put at each end of the hamlet, so vehicles have to move over at the beginning of the system so that they can drive through the village. That sounds as though it will make the cars go slower, but in the mornings nearly everyone is going south and in the evenings they are going north, so there is not much traffic in the opposite direction. When vehicles arrive at one pinch point and see, 150 yd away, that the other is clear, they promptly step on the gas to try to get through it, in case there is a vehicle coming round the corner a bit further on which will then approach the chicane. The measures have made virtually no difference, and five cameras could have been installed for the same cost.
There should be a hidden camera in Nettleden to record the speed of cars so that drivers who travel faster than the 30 mph limit can be prosecuted. However, in an old village where the houses are right on the road, even the 30 mph limit is too high when children might come straight out of their front doors and on to the road. Like other hon. Members, I believe that the limit would more suitably be set at 20 mph. Just up the road from Nettleden is a road on which cars are driven at absurd speeds. There should be no motor vehicles on that road at all, let alone fast cars, so that bicycles and pedestrians can have the joy of it.
That raises a question about ownership of the roads, which are not only for motorists. Other people may have rights that have been given far too little consideration.

25WH
All over the country there are vehicles travelling towards a collision at 120 mph. One of the Government's research papers, which was commissioned for the speeding review carried out in March 2000, stated that having a speed limit of 60 mph on a single carriageway road was as appropriate as continuing with open sewerage systems in the middle of the road. But it is far unhealthier than that; the general speed limit of 60 mph on single carriageway roads is obscene. I do not say that there are not some roads where it is appropriate—I can think of some in Lincolnshire, for example, where there is a clear sightline for many miles. However, local motor cyclists traverse those roads at nearer 120 mph because they are great places for a burn-up; there is little enforcement and there are no cameras. Those roads have some of the highest death rates on single carriageway roads in the country.
The issue is what measures we believe are appropriate. A report by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions states that there are four different categories of response to cameras, and people who slow down just as they go past and speed up afterwards are in the third category, called "manipulators". That was matched only by the category called "defiers", who took no notice of the cameras whatever. Visible cameras play a major role, but not in altering standard driver behaviour. Driver behaviour alters in the proximity of the camera, That is not the case for all drivers, but it is enough to lower speeds at a 50 mph camera by as much as 5 or 6 mph.
Hidden cameras are important. They could be much more effective in ensuring that motorists travel at the speed that is deemed to be safe. At the moment we assume that if we have a limit of 20 mph. everyone will whistle through at 32 mph anyway. I do not see why we should permit that. Motorists have the right to know that there are hidden cameras, but often they do not know where they are. We could have a signposting system. In my Adjournment debate on Tuesday, I suggested a speed limit sign with a double red ring around it to denote strict enforcement of the limit, possibly or probably with a hidden camera. That would have some effect on speed.
Ms Drown: Is my hon. Friend aware of the research done on the Nottingham pilot which showed that digital cameras have effectively eliminated speeding in the areas in which they are used because they catch every driver? Drivers get to know that they simply cannot speed there.
Mr. McWalter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware of that. I am also aware of the Norfolk experiment in which the signs are sensitive to the speed of the car. At the moment they simply tell the car as it approaches to slow down. Those signs are not linked to anything else and will not result in a prosecution, yet they are effective because drivers do not want to be embarrassed in front of other drivers by having a sign flashing at them. Again, as with many of these measures, the tolerance level is set very high. The police take the view that otherwise the sign would flash so often that people would ignore it completely. It is a difficult balancing act.
Such devices could be extremely powerful weapons. The trouble is that the Government still lack the will to take action. I will be interested to hear what my hon.
26WH
Friend the Minister has to say about that. Perhaps I should intervene on myself here: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. I forgot to do so during my Adjournment debate because I was rather short of time, and I hope that he will accept my welcome now. I also thank him for the spirited way in which he set about his duties.
It is difficult for the Government to find the will to take action because they do not want to be seen as being against the motorist, and they have good reasons for taking that view. I note what my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) says about the differences between the sexes in their attitudes to motor vehicles. Most members of the male sex are extremely interested in motor vehicles in a way that is often just short of, and sometimes even greater than, love. The car is a fantastic invention. It is a tremendous testimony to human creative, imaginative and engineering powers. Just to appreciate vehicles is perfectly natural, and people's desire to enjoy their vehicle and motoring is an important part of their general attitude to vehicles.
Through the all-party motor cycle group, I have been involved in trying to promote GCSE and more advanced examinations in motor vehicles and road user studies, which is available as a GCSE in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom. The approach should be generalised because it is important for young people to develop an understanding of motor vehicles, what they can do and their limitations, and the circumstances that give rise to danger. That echoes some of the comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). Included in the syllabus is the field examination of road configurations to assess the extent to which they pose danger and threat. That allows young people who learn about motor vehicles to see the relationship between their driving and the road in a more constructive way. Other parts of the paper deal with the law and other matters.
I want to see such education as part of our general shift. I have put that already to the Department for Education and Skills, asking for specialist schools with dedicated facilities for familiarising people with motor vehicles before they become motorists. I have so far had an interesting response.
Mr. Drew: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there are courses about car crime. However, the basic problem is that there is no parallel elsewhere and that many people see driving as a right rather than a privilege. Unless we return to the idea that it is a privilege, many of the problems that he has talked about will continue.
Mr. McWalter: I hear what my hon. Friend says but the difficulty is that driving is a necessity in many areas, so it must be a right. Many people live in villages that are cut off from the outside world because they do not have a bus or train service. If they did not have access to vehicles, their life prospects and available choices would be so significantly reduced that it would be hard to see how some communities could subsist. Although I understand his comments, I believe that there are two elements. First, the motor vehicle is a fantastic testimony to human creativity, which we rightly admire—especially those of us who are interested in

27WH
engineering sciences. Secondly, the car is a necessity, albeit a dangerous one. We must deal with the subject on that basis.
If the Government have no plans to reduce the 60 mph speed limit on single carriageways, why not? Why was there no specific mention of hidden cameras in the speeding document? I have checked carefully with the Ministers concerned on that point, and it is because the Government do not want to be seen as anti-motorist, as they would be if they introduced a whole raft of regulations, perhaps taking the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and significantly reducing the blood alcohol limit so that people could have only half a glass of wine with dinner, for example, or lowering speed limits dramatically. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, there is no reason in principle why the speed limit for some road situations should not be zero.
One great safety invention was based on the view that there are road situations in which it is appropriate for the speed limit to be zero. That invention was the work of Leslie Hore-Belisha in the 1930s, who said that drivers could not as of right cross a piece of road identified by an orange globe and black and white markings on the road. Anyone near that piece of road had the right to cross it before the driver, who had to stop. That philosophy is very interesting. We replaced Belisha beacons and zebra crossings with a system of pelican crossings, in which vehicles may proceed but, for 17 or 18 seconds, must give priority to somebody else. The pedestrian must start off and get across while the indicator is beeping, and at the end of that time, the road becomes the motorist's again. We must remember Belisha's courageous and exciting approach, and we should generalise it.
I am not wildly impressed when people talk to me about a 20 mph limit for home zones, because the chances of serious injury to a child who is hit at 20 mph are substantial indeed. If we took a more Belisha-like approach to home zones, we would say, "Hang on a minute, these are places where children play." Children come out through a front door with a ball and kick it around, and mothers can watch them from a window. Perhaps a car goes by occasionally. Church road in Flamstead in my constituency is a nice little road, and it is perfectly reasonable for children to play on it. A car should travel at no more than 5 mph on it. It should be clearly understood that it is a road in which children are in charge.
At the moment, it is difficult for us to incorporate such a philosophy. Throughout Hertfordshire, which has been proactive about road safety partnerships, roads are painted red. There is elaborate signing and there are pinch points, humps and everything else. The result is confusion for people in the locality. They no longer know what they are meant to do. There is still a prevailing philosophy that the road is for the motorist, albeit for a motorist who is the equivalent of a runner who has had his right leg kicked in so that he has to hobble rather than run. To start with, we need an understanding that some roads are not for the motorist. If their primary use is for children's play, let that be clear, limit the speed to 5 mph, and install a camera to
28WH
ensure that people honour the limit and do not zoom around at 15 mph. Let us be clear about what those roads are for.
I did not take much pleasure in hearing the Minister say that cycle injuries have decreased, because I believe that the reason is that cyclists have been terrified off the roads by vehicles converging at 60 mph from the north and 60 mph from the south. Sandwich cycling is not appealing. I am now unable to use my bicycle on country lanes. I sometimes cycle to my local paper shop, which is not down a country lane, but I am denied a proper, decent bike ride because that road is completely dominated by the motorist.
On a standard country lane, 45 mph is probably appropriate, and I do not know of any reason why there should not be a lower limit at hazards. If 45 mph is appropriate on the nice, straight bit where the driver can see exactly what is ahead, there is no reason why there should not be a speed limit for going round a corner. If a bend sign can be put on a road, a sign can be put underneath not to advise but to instruct people to go round it at 25 mph. There could be a hidden camera to ensure that if they go above 25 mph, they risk prosecution. That is very important, and if it happened. I could return to the country roads near my house on my bicycle. I could take out my seven-year-old daughter, who has never been on the road, on her bicycle, rather than be terrified by motorists who go along that road as if it were a motorway, particularly during rush hour.
The Government have been unwilling to confront those issues because they do not want to come across as being an enemy of the motorist, which I can understand and, to an extent, sympathise with. However, it is important for us to be imaginative about how we can meet motorists' demands more reasonably. If we ask people to do 5 mph here, 20 mph there, and 45 mph where previously they went at 60 mph, and we strictly enforce that with hidden cameras, we shall lose many people from the road, including some for whom a car is a necessity.
We are also responding to the motorists' agenda. One way in which we can do that is by thinking again about the speed limit on motorways. At present, 4 per cent. of deaths are caused on motorways and 54 per cent. on single carriageway roads where the bedlam speed is still the limit. There is no argument about which roads are the safest. Consider, first, a car proceeding along a road at 60 mph with another car coming at 60 mph in the other direction, as happens on many single carriageway roads. They will pass each other within a matter of a yard. If anything goes wrong, such as a tyre blow-out, there will be a crash with a collision speed of 120 mph, or if they are both going round a corner in a country lane at 45 mph, a crash at 90 mph. It is unlikely that anyone will emerge alive from such a collision.
Secondly, consider a car going along a motorway at 120 mph. It has an intelligent speed assessment unit fitted in it that sends a signal to a global positioning satellite. If that car gets too close to the car in front, it will be automatically slowed to a speed consistent with stopping safely by a signal to the engine management system. Some would call that scenario science fiction, but we already have the technology and some trial vehicles.

29WH
Other things being equal, there is no reason why the Government should not announce in principle that they would be happy to see an increase in the speed limit under the appropriate circumstances given that the current limit is disobeyed at any given time by 55 per cent. of motorists, and periodically by a larger percentage than that. The current limits bring the law into disrepute in the sense that most people do not believe that it is sensible or feasible to obey them. We could keep the current limit, but announce that we are willing to consider increasing it subject to conditions such as strict compliance with whatever new limit we decide and new technology.
The Minister mentioned on Tuesday that tyre noise on urban motorways was a problem. We, therefore, need a limit that reflects the current state of motorway road surfaces and tyre technology. They must be factored into whatever limit applies. The Government could send out a signal to the motorist by saying, "We are thinking about those of you whose enjoy your car and want to use it safely at faster speeds, and we would like to meet your demand if we possibly can." That would lead to a much greater willingness on the part of the motorist to comply with the harsher regime that I envisage should be introduced for children's play spaces, roads with cyclist and equestrian priority and rural roads policed by hidden cameras.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I thought that my hon. Friend was speaking with the voice of sweet reason—until he advanced the last part of his argument. Those Members who have been involved in transport safety for a very long time have always felt that speed is one of the greatest dangers. Every time the speed limit is raised, people travel that much faster than the new limit. If a limit is raised to 80 mph, they travel at 90 or 95 mph, and so on. The 55 mph limit that was established in the United States led to a win-win situation all round. It proved environmentally better for this fragile earth and reduced road deaths substantially. I advise my hon. Friend against relinquishing the fight against motorway speeding. We must be very cautious,
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Order. I frown upon over—lengthy interventions.
Mr. McWalter: I hear what my esteemed colleague says, but because the Government have not wanted to appear to be anti-motorist and bemuse nearly all the measures associated with an improved safety regime appear anti-motorist, many good things that should be done have not been done. I am simply asking whether there is a way in which motorists' aspirations to enjoy motoring at speeds that sometimes exceed our current limits can be factored into encouraging the responsible use of vehicles in all circumstances.
One can think solely about safety. One can regard cars simply as objects that pollute the planet. There are ways of approaching the subject that could lead to a very repressive regime indeed. The Government's own publication on speeding states that there is a trade—off between those factors. It quickly dismisses the idea of increasing the motorway speed limit, but the issue is whether we can develop an overall package that will gain people's respect. There is no computer model available from PACTS, for example, that shows how we
30WH
Can change people's mentality so that they will understand that it is vital to drive at no more than 5 mph down Church road, Flamstead. Such thinking might be more achievable through my approach than through a 20-point package, every single one of which appears to have been designed by those who think that cars are polluting and dangerous, and that their use is best minimised.
I want us to send the right signal, and I am doing that in part through my recommendations in respect of the study of motor vehicles. In Great Britain, at least, one can study vehicle engineering at graduate and post-graduate level, but not at GCSE or A-level. We must make it clear that we understand and are responding to the problem, and that we would be willing to agree to a trade-off, as it were, in the appropriate circumstances.
Like my hon. Friend, I am interested in lowering the average actual speed of vehicles on the road. Let me make it clear that I very much want to see that happen. To give a random example, if there were a strict limit of 80 mph on the motorway as opposed to the current, widely disobeyed limit of 70 mph, I do not think that the average speed would go up. It might possibly go down. We would certainly not be seeing a law ignored by almost everybody subject to it, so brought into disrepute. Such a situation is not sensible.
It is perfectly consistent to say that overall speeds can be lowered within a varied package. My points do not apply only to motorway speed limits. A road in my constituency has an advisory speed of 35 mph. It is not a strict speed limit. It is a very sensible speed in snow or sleet, or when strong sunshine has followed a downfall of rain, but otherwise it is ludicrously low. It is a little bit of road that leads to the Ml, and anyone going round it at 35 mph would be shunted up the back by a 20-tonne or 38-tonne truck. It would be dangerous to go round it at that speed.
The problem is that local authorities are so keen on caution that they set limits that even the most responsible of motorists finds unreasonable. Once that happens, people get used to the idea that if the limit is 70 mph, they can add 10 per cent. to make 77 mph and then a couple for luck, to give 79 mph. Then they think, "As long as I'm doing 79, they won't do anything to me. At 80 they might pull me in if they're being narky, but otherwise they won't."
An awful lot of motorists are making such calculations, even on roads with 30 mph limits. They add 10 per cent. to make 33 mph and a couple more for luck, which is 35 mph. We have worked out that there are many, many roads in Britain with a 30 mph limit where serious or mortal injury is likely. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon has been very eloquent about the problem outside our country's schools, where it is ludicrous to have a speed limit of 30 mph.
Another example will illustrate even more clearly that speeds much lower than 30 mph are dangerous. [Interruption.] I am in your hands, Mr. Winterton. Is the debate due to end at half—past five?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Indeed it is. I was becoming slightly concerned that the Minister might not have the opportunity to reply. The hon.

31WH
Gentleman has spoken for nearly 35 minutes, which is the longest speech this afternoon. I hope that he might draw his remarks to an end.
Mr. McWalter: I am sorry. I have outrun my time, so I will not describe another traffic-calming experiment in my constituency that has nearly resulted in children being killed every morning. I hope that I have given the Minister not a farrago of questions, but some thoughts that he might develop.
4.49 pm
Mr. Jamieson: With permission, Mr. Winterton, I shall endeavour to reply to what has been a full debate.
I said at the beginning that I was looking forward to hon. Members' contributions, and I have enjoyed listening to the deep concern and thoughtful insights that so many of them have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), with whom I had the pleasure of debating on Tuesday night, mentioned Belisha crossings. He may or may not know that one of my predecessors in Plymouth, Devonport was the same Hore-Belisha, a Minister of Transport in the 1930s who later filled other Government posts. Apparently he was well known, in the late July-August period, for going out and doing a bit of what we nowadays call showboating to get himself into the press, which was not much known in those days. I do not know whether I will be able to emulate some of those aspects of his contribution to road safety. Despite being a Liberal, he was an extremely thoughtful, intelligent and able man who thought carefully about these issues.
One of the overriding themes that emerged in the debate, especially in the helpful and thoughtful comments of my hon. Friend, was the need for us to change the culture of the way in which people think about driving and using the roads. It is not just a matter of enforcing laws. I am reminded of my days in higher education back in the 1960s. I well recall the debates in the junior common room, one of which was on the motion, "This house believes that the drink-driving laws are an affront to individual liberty." I was struck by the passion with which people said that they should have the individual liberty to drink as much alcohol as they wanted to and then to drive their car or motor bike. We had similar debates about seat belts, in which people said, "How dare Big Brother Government or the nanny state tell people whether they should wear seat belts." If one met those same people today and presented them with the same arguments, very few would say that it is socially acceptable to drink and drive. People's attitudes are changing, as my hon. Friend said, but we must still challenge some of their attitudes towards speeding, road use and the consideration that we show to one another.
I shall endeavour to respond to as many points as possible. That is a formidable task, but I shall try in some small measure to be equal to it. Sadly, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) could not stay for the rest of the debate; I believe that he is driving carefully back to his constituency as we speak. I appreciated his kind welcoming of me to my post and his consensual approach to road safety. It is important to find that
32WH
consensual approach. He referred to road safety in the context of the Tory party's "recent very popular manifesto". I wonder what would have happened to the Conservative party had its manifesto been unpopular. Perhaps the new leader will be reflecting on that in the coming months and years.
The hon. Gentleman introduced the concept of a road casualty investigation branch and how it might work. There are some difficulties with that. Many of the problems that we have discussed are local problems, and the solutions need to be owned largely by people in their own localities. As was said during the debate on Tuesday night, there are often local solutions to local problems. The other difficulty with his idea is that it could duplicate the work of other bodies such as the Commission for Integrated Transport, the Audit Commission and the best value regime. Creating a roads inspectorate could he a major distraction from other priorities in the 10-year plan.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members mentioned drink-driving. The main issue is that we must drive down hard on the small hard core of people who would still support that motion from the 1960s and who still think that drink-driving is acceptable. They are a hard core who put other road users at risk, whether it be pedestrians or car drivers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) gave a passionate and quietly compelling speech today. He made effective comparisons between the death and injury rates of different modes of transport. Anything we do regarding road safety must not distract us from safety in other areas, such as rail and air. When accidents happen on rail, in the air, or at sea, they can be catastrophic events, which cause considerable public concern.
My hon. Friend referred to the cross-party approach of successive Governments, and we must all recognise that. Over a long period, there has been a reduction in road incidents coupled with a massive increase in road use. He talked about traffic calming in the context of finding engineering solutions to problems. I am attracted to such ideas, in general, because they do not involve enforcement, which is often expensive and can be distracting for the police when enforcing the law in other areas. He was intervened on by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, who said that people in his area objected to some of the traffic-calming schemes and engineering solutions. However, the real test of such schemes is how much they improve road safety and contribute to a safer environment. There will be objections, but generally they will not come from the people living in the area who, along with their children, have been put at risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford also referred to school buses. In Toronto, I saw the effect when a yellow school bus turned on all its lights on an eight-lane highway. Every other vehicle came to a standstill, under the threat—I believe—of imprisonment, and of having a licence withdrawn if the bus's signal was ignored. To see two or three small children walk across that urban motorway in total safety was a compelling sight. That idea is attractive and the Government are examining the use of school buses. Perhaps we can gain something from the experience in the United States and Canada.

33WH
My hon. Friend also mentioned rear seat belts, as have other hon. Members. The campaign, which the Department undertook last year, used an advertisement showing a teenage boy in the back seat, and talked about his mother meeting her killer. It turned out that the son, who was not belted in, was the killer. That had a considerable impact on the public. Sometimes such advertisements are shocking, but perhaps we need that on occasion. It had a profound effect on me—I have fairly grown-up children and I reflected on the issue very carefully. It was an effective campaign. In the European Union we are considering tightening rules for seat belt use by children in all vehicles. Announcements will be made in the not too distant future.
My hon. Friend also mentioned a driving test for older people. I trembled for a moment because I had heard that those over 50 might have to take a re-test. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) nods—he is somewhat younger than me The evidence shows that older, more mature drivers are far safer on the roads, and insurance policies reflect that. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has a fine record on road safety, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead and I would have something to say if a new regime were introduced for the over-50s, and we would want to be assured that it was a major contributor to road safety. I have yet to be convinced of those arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned summer time. If I stray too deeply into that, I may exceed my brief, but some evidence supports his comments about road accidents occurring at certain times of year and about how darkness, especially in relation to children travelling to school, affects road safety.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) welcomed the debate. He made several interesting points. He mentioned cameras and how they can contribute to slowing people down and, like others, mentioned people driving towards the camera, slowing down and then speeding up. Cameras are often placed in blackspots, and even if people do that, the cameras contribute to road safety. Feedback on the Gloucester scheme, which the hon. Gentleman may not have had an opportunity to read, contains details of experiments in which an average speed was taken over a length of road. A camera takes an image of a number plate, records the speed at the beginning and end of a journey along a piece of road, and calculates the average speed. That is intelligent thinking, as in such circumstances people cannot get away with slowing only in a particular part. They can get away with driving faster and stopping just before the next light, but I do not believe that many people would choose that option if they were in a hurry to reach their destination.
The hon. Gentleman discussed traffic calming, which he said some people consider an impediment to driving. I am sure that he would agree that traffic calming is generally an impediment to dangerous driving. The hon. Gentleman also discussed cycling and asked whether schools receive any best practice guidance. Key stage 3 curriculum guidance on children's personal, social and health education contains general guidance on safety, and we may revisit that aspect.
34WH
The hon. Gentleman then moved from being constructive to being slightly grudging and churlish, although it may have been merely the tone of his voice. I believe that he said that he would ask me three questions, but I stopped counting at 10. I shall endeavour to respond to some of the points that he quite properly made.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the rural roads report, which I am told will be available in November. He also asked whether it will be delivered by 2001; the answer is yes. He asked when a progress report on speed cameras and their effectiveness will be available. That report will be available shortly; I hope in weeks rather than months.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the European directive on car design and whether we should opt for regulation or agreement. We are considering whether a voluntary agreement can be struck with car manufacturers. The attraction of such an agreement is that it can be implemented fairly rapidly, and we can monitor its progress. As he knows, the difficulty with a directive is that it takes time, as the democratic process in the European Union takes time, and it could be two, three or even more years before agreement is reached on a directive. We must decide whether to go for the quick option of a voluntary agreement or to opt for a directive that would probably be effective but might take longer to implement.
Tom Brake: If the Government decide to take the voluntary route, can the Minister give hon. Members an undertaking that action will ultimately be taken if the voluntary agreement does not achieve the 20 per cent. cut in pedestrian deaths and serious injuries that the directive will apparently achieve?
Mr. Jamieson: Clearly, if the voluntary agreement were ineffective, it would be absolutely right for my Department to revisit it and consider further measures. I believe that it has been suggested in some quarters that the two may run in parallel. However, we must consider those matters with our partners in Europe. We are mindful of the hon. Gentleman's points.
Mr. Sheerman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I could not be here earlier because I was chairing a meeting in another part of the Palace, as I am chairman of the global road safety partnership of the World bank. I apologise to my hon. Friend and to you, Mr. Winterton. Twenty years ago, we were shown a soft body design by certain car manufacturers. However, cars today are still designed in a way that kills pedestrians in a pretty awful way. They still have all those sharp corners and hardness of impact. Relying on the motor industry for voluntary agreements is not always the best way. I am a little impatient with the EU at the moment.
Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend. I bow to his enormous experience in this field. Many of us share his impatience. We will look at that carefully. It is not easy, as he will know, to design the front of a car to lessen the impact on pedestrians. One design will suit adults, another will suit larger children and yet another will suit smaller children. It is a complex engineering area. Nevertheless, I accept the thrust of his remarks.

35WH
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about the Gloucester safer cities initiative and whether it could be extended to rural areas. The answer is yes; it will be extended in due course. He asked whether more police officers would be required for some of the schemes that we mentioned. That is a matter for the Home Secretary, but my Department is in close liaison with the Home Office on those important matters. He asked also about the support for dropping the charge of careless driving. A review of road traffic penalties is under consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about enlarging the role of victim support to road casualties. Representatives of RoadPeace met Lord Whitty and we have available in the Department the record of their discussions. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that a consultative document allows us to go down the routes about which he asked. He asked also whether cycling was increasing or decreasing. It is difficult to collect the statistics, and he will know why. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead also mentioned that. The feeling is that the numbers of people cycling are probably static, but that is not a wholly accurate statistic.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) made a passionate and extremely well-informed contribution to the debate. She gave a full description of many aspects of road safety. I agreed with much of what she said. I liked her comment about speedometers. My first car was a 1934 Austin 10 and I was delighted to see that the speedometer went up to 80 mph. I soon discovered that at anything above 40 mph the car felt like it was about to disintegrate and was desperately dangerous. I therefore had to learn to drive within the capability of that car. Its brakes and steering were limited and it could not pull up as quickly as modern cars can and could not corner. Our general theme, and the point where I came in on this debate, is that we have to drive within the limits of the road and the limits of the vehicle. That is where intelligent thinking by the driver is important.
Mr. McWalter: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sweet patch at 68?
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend has more experience of these things than I do, and so I shall pass on to my next point.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon made some good points about motorists feeling safe in their cocooned environment and not paying proper attention to what is outside it. That is a powerful argument. One part of the Think! campaign, which we launched yesterday, draws drivers' attention to speed limits so that they think about what is happening outside their little cocoon. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, 5 mph extra above 30 mph leads to 21 ft or 6.5 m extra in braking distance. Braking distance increases exponentially at higher speeds—one needs a far longer braking distance at 40 mph. Those campaigns are about making drivers aware that, although they are in the cocooned confines of their vehicles, they must think about things that are happening outside.
36WH
My hon. Friend mentioned safety outside schools. It is important that we consider road safety, especially when pupils go in and out of school. It is difficult to talk of one solution to that problem because schools and roads differ, but my hon. Friend raised some important points. Schemes such as the one providing for safer journeys to schools and local authority initiatives such as improving signing outside schools and putting in calming measures have been successful. I can assure her that road safety for the 24.000 schools in this country is an important issue that will be in our minds and hearts during the coming months and years.
My hon. Friend made a sexist remark when she distinguished between the driving capabilities of men and women. Unfortunately, she has statistics on her side in that men do have a worse record of accidents than women, so I shall swiftly move on from that subject.
My hon. Friend mentioned bus lanes and their importance in road safety. Provisions on their use are enforced in different ways in different parts of the country because on that issue local people are making local decisions. In some areas, taxis are permitted to use them and in one or two areas motor cycles are also allowed. However, we shall be monitoring bus lanes carefully. Indeed, we are looking for a pilot scheme area for motor cycles, so if my hon. Friend sees me afterwards we may be able to assist her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud always makes a thoughtful contribution to debates on this subject. He particularly stressed the need for proper education and for people to show tolerance. Indeed, a general theme in today's debate is that thoughtfulness and tolerance are as important as the enforcement of the law.
My hon. Friend raised some issues connected with cycle helmets. The Department's evidence clearly shows that wearing cycle helmets reduces the severity of injuries, particularly for children. However, we shall take his comments on board.
My hon. Friend referred to the safer cities project in Gloucester. If he does not already have the relevant document, he may want to acquire a copy from the Department because some of the statistics relating to roads are really impressive. The document openly points out those measures that were unpopular and ineffective. However, the project generally improved road safety in the area. For example, in Barton road, which passes through a fairly rundown area of Gloucester, there were 81 accidents in the three years before the scheme was introduced. However, in the time the scheme was running, there was a 24 per cent. reduction in those accidents.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of seat belts on coaches. He will be pleased to know that it will soon become compulsory to fit lap belts on coaches, if he would like further details on that matter, the Department can provide him with more information.
My hon. Friend asked whether we could take up with the DVLA the issue of medical tests for people who persistently drink and drive. if repeat offenders and those people found to have more than 200 mg per 100 ml refuse to take a test, they must have a medical to get their

37WH
licence back. He asked whether the Bill on safety will contain elements of road safety. I assure him that it will contain some elements of the road safety strategy.
Mr. Kidney: At one point, my hon. Friend attributed to me an argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), so I waited to see whether my hon. Friend the Minister would give him the answer to my one outstanding question. That was about blood-alcohol levels, and whether the Government accept that a lower limit of 50 mg mould save lives and will adopt that level.
Mr. Jamieson: I assure my hon. Friend that that idea is under active and close consideration, but it must be carefully scrutinised. We must consider enforcement, and whether it will contribute to road safety, the only important criterion by which we can judge it. It will be discussed in that context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead repeatedly talked about the Government not seeming to be anti-motorist. I assure him tint the Government are not anti-motorist. I am not anti-motorist. We are pro-motorist, but, equally, we are pro-cyclist, pro-pedestrian and pro-safe use of the roads. That is a better way of looking at the matter. The people who are most at risk from dangerous motoring are other motorists. The pressure for better standards on the roads comes largely from people who drive cars because they want to drive in a safe environment where they are not threatened by people who are speeding or have consumed an excess amount of alcohol. We are pro-motoring, but that is safe motoring. Our environmental targets and targets on noise also have to be considered.
My hon. Friend mentioned creating safer environments for children to play in and graphically described the environment that he would want for his own and his constituents' children to play in. I strongly subscribe to that. There are areas in many of our cities, and even villages, where it is difficult for children to play outside and have proper recreation because there are no back gardens, and flats and houses are small.
There was, I think, some confusion between my hon. Friend's description of home zones and the 20 mph limits. The home zones are concerned not only with the speed of vehicles but with the whole quality of the environment in that area. That might refer to housing, safety on the road or crime-reducing measures, such as installing proper lights and widening pavements. As I said to him on Tuesday night, the 20 mph limits are matters for local authorities. If he wishes to pursue them in parts of his constituency, he must take that up with his local highway authority.
Mr. McWalter: One implication of what I said was that, instead of having powers only to ask local authorities to set speed limits of between 20 and 70 mph, the Government could empower them to have, among other things, substantially lower speed limits. Is the Minister willing to instruct local authorities accordingly?
Mr. Jamieson: If my hon. Friend. is suggesting that speed limits go below 20 mph, I should say that some engineered solutions that I have seen make it difficult to
38WH
drive faster than 10 or 15 mph. Those are not enforced speed limits; in some home zones, matters have been so engineered that it is exceedingly difficult to drive at all.
We must also consider the needs of the people living in those roads and their own sensible, intelligent car use. We must balance all factors in drawing up, and consulting on, such schemes. They can be controversial, because people in the area do not always have a coalescence of view on how best to make progress.
As to increasing the speed limit to 80 mph or beyond—on Tuesday night we were steaming along at 120 mph in a 1.2 litre Vauxhall Corsa—I do not find it an attractive option. All the evidence suggests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said, that increased speed limits lead to increased accidents on the road. I also oppose it on environmental grounds. The pollutants per mile—exhaust and noise emissions—are substantially greater for every 10 mph increase in speed. I have seen nothing to convince me that we need to move on from the 70 mph limit, let alone to an 80, 90 or 120 mph limit.
Mr. McWalter: As my hon. Friend is aware, that applies only when there is an intelligent speed interface with a global positioning system. It is a futuristic example, but I take his point.
Mr. Jamieson: I accept that. My hon. Friend may be suggesting that, as science develops rapidly, it may not be so futuristic. Some car manufacturers are examining the possibilities of having intelligence devices in vehicles. However, we have to take other factors—the catastrophic failure of a tyre or an engine, for example—into account. The result at 120 mph will be very different from that at 60 mph. A vehicle can be brought under control after a catastrophic blowout of a tyre at 60 mph, but that would be impossible at 120 mph and would almost certainly lead to a major crash.
I have endeavoured to answer the questions put to me and I appreciate your strictures, Mr. Winterton, on some hon. Members. We have had a thoughtful and interesting debate, which has reinforced the cross-party consensus on many issues raised today. I am pleased to have initiated the debate and I assure everyone that road safety will be central to the Government's strategy on improving life for motorists and pedestrians and enhancing the liveability of some of our communities. It has been a well-tempered debate under your excellent chairmanship, Mr. Winterton, and I look forward to returning to our subject in the not-too-distant future.
5.25 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), I must say that I frown on hon. Members arriving extremely late for debates and expecting to be called. A few moments remain and I do not have to adjourn the sitting until 5.30 pm, so—exceptionally—I
call the hon. Member.
Mr. Bottomley: You have taken the words out of my mouth, Mr. Winterton. I would have preferred to be able to speak earlier, but that is life. I was not present

39WH
until now because one of my constituents broke his wrist while walking down the street and faced a section 5 charge under the Public Order Act: I was expected to be a witness in Chichester court. I am pleased to have arrived in time to hear the Minister's winding-up speech. I apologise for missing the rest of his remarks: he has a natural gift for the subject and I hope that he enjoys his ministerial responsibilities.
I join the Minister in paying tribute to the blue light users—the police, the ambulance and the fire service who have to cope with the consequences of our mistakes. None of the 3,400 road deaths a year is a pure accident. All have causes and most have consequences. We should pay tribute to those who are called out—day or night, in good or bad weather—and have the awful job of knocking on a stranger's house to say that someone will not be coming home. The reason for involvement in road casualty reduction is minimisation of avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap.
Safety developments for coaches are important. When, sadly, there has been a coach crash involving fatalities, the media should say whether the people killed were sitting in the exposed seats. If we could get people to avoid those seats—the unprotected seats beside the driver and the middle seat in the back row—or to wear seat belts, the number of deaths in coach crashes would, I believe, be cut by 75 per cent. overnight. The media, however, do not report that. I ask them kindly to say whether those who have died in crashes were wearing seat belts. The present situation is about as ludicrous as that of people who die in early middle age because they smoke. The media and coroners conceal that fact, but we should be far more open about the factors, not necessarily causes, associated with deaths that are often unnecessary.
I suggest that when the courts process drink-driving charges, especially when people are significantly above the legal limit—which is by no means a safe limit, although it may not be right to change it—the places where they have been drinking and their drinking companions should become publicly known. A bar owner or host of a party should not necessarily be charged, but such people should not get away without publicity if they knowingly supplied a driver with a significant amount of drink. Equally, people's drinking
40WH
companions should become known, because we are responsible. We set the peer group pressure and influence the culture, which matters.
I suspect that most Ministers would want to duck my final point, because it is controversial. As we move from a glorious summer to autumn, changing the clocks will lead to an excess of deaths of between 80 and 120 people—about twice the total number of deaths from variant CJD. The reason for that may be publicity in Scotland, although in practice even people in the central populated belt of Scotland would gain by not changing the clocks in autumn. If that is so and the only people who can conceivably be adversely affected are those living up in Caithness and Sutherland, why do we not have an open debate and have the Scottish Parliament consider the issue for the benefit of Scotland as a whole as well as the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman has made interesting points in the little time that was left, and I will certainly take that into consideration. Let me also place on the record our appreciation and a tribute to him for the contribution to road safety that he has made over a long time. I had hoped to be able to say that earlier.
Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the Minister and I end by repeating my apology to you, Mr. Winterton, and to other hon. Members. At the Royal Society discussion on scientific advice to the Government, I said that the only thing that I had done when a junior Minister with responsibility for road casualties was to take the advice of the interdepartmental committee. I think that its members were quite pleased that a Minister was willing to read what they had written, to do what they had suggested and not to do things that were justified by the argument that if it saves only one life, it is worth while.
Despite all the good measures that have been taken, 3,400 lives have been lost, so we must do more than save just one life. We must influence the hundreds and thousands of people who take actions with the risk of one in 100. That mathematics leads to deaths, tragedy and misery, most of which we agree is avoidable.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members present when I say that we accept the hon. Gentleman's apology and respect the serious way in which he deals with constituency matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Numbers
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers and civilian staff there are(a) in total and (b) in each police force in England and Wales on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [1459]

  Police strength

  Fte

  Strength

  Change

  GOR/Police force

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  30 September 2000

  31 March 2001

  March 1997 to March 2001(Number)

  March 2000 to March 2001(Number)

  North East

  6,597

  6,749

  6,820

  6,859

  262

  110

  Cleveland

  1,459

  1,404

  1,421

  1,407

  -52

  3

  Durham

  1,461

  1,558

  1,581

  1,595

  135

  37

  Northumbria

  3,677

  3,788

  3,818

  3,857

  180

  69

  North West

  17,588

  17,153

  17,110

  17,295

  -293

  142

  Cheshire

  2,046

  2,011

  2,000

  2,002

  -44

  -9

  Cumbria

  1,144

  1,084

  1,048

  1,048

  -96

  -36

  Greater Manchester

  6,922

  6,795

  6,767

  6,909

  -13

  115

  Lancashire

  3,247

  3,179

  3,215

  3,255

  8

  76

  Merseyside

  4,230

  4,085

  4,081

  4,081

  -149

  -4

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  11,750

  11,200

  11,189

  11,234

  -516

  34

  Humberside

  2,045

  1,932

  1,905

  1,907

  -128

  -15

  North Yorkshire

  1,338

  1,283

  1,293

  1,305

  -33

  22

  South Yorkshire

  3,159

  3,163

  3,184

  3,197

  38

  34

  West Yorkshire

  5,209

  4,822

  4,806

  4,815

  -394

  -7

  East Midlands

  8,436

  8,206

  8,350

  8,427

  -9

  221

  Derbyshire

  1,791

  1,777

  1,780

  1,823

  32

  46

  Leicestershire

  1,949

  1,993

  2,010

  2,033

  84

  40

  Lincolnshire

  1,196

  1,115

  1,162

  1,202

  6

  87

  Northamptonshire

  1,177

  1,117

  1,166

  1,157

  -20

  40

  Nottinghamshire

  2,323

  2,204

  2,232

  2,212

  -111

  8

  West Midlands

  12,290

  12,151

  12,324

  12,429

  139

  279

  Staffordshire

  2,211

  2,170

  2,157

  2,129

  -82

  -41

  Warwickshire

  926

  900

  912

  926

  0

  26

  West Mercia

  2,040

  1,887

  1,906

  1,951

  -89

  64

  West Midlands

  7,113

  7,194

  7,350

  7,423

  310

  229

  Eastern

  9,727

  9,364

  9,515

  9,694

  -33

  330

  Bedfordshire

  1,094

  1,028

  1,006

  1,036

  -58

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  1,302

  1,237

  1,266

  1,296

  -6

  59

  Essex1

  2,961

  2,806

  2,780

  2,887

  -74

  81

  Hertfordshire1

  1,759

  1,767

  1,961

  1,922

  163

  155

  Norfolk

  1,432

  1,381

  1,387

  1,420

  -12

  39

  Suffolk

  1,180

  1,145

  1,115

  1,133

  -47

  -12

  London

  27,536

  26,216

  25,415

  25,581

  1,955

  -635

  City of London

  859

  732

  720

  703

  -156

  -29

  Metropolitan Police1

  26,677

  25,485

  24,695

  24,878

  -1,799

  -607

  120W
  Mr. Blunkett
  The tables show, for March 1997, March 2000, September 2000 and March 2001, total numbers of police officers and civilians for each police authority area in England and Wales, together with changes in numbers since March 1997 and March 2000.

  On 31 March 2001 total police numbers, including secondments, in England and Wales were 125,519, an increase of 1,349 or 1.1 per cent., compared with the end of March 2000. This is the largest annual increase in police numbers since 1988–89

  Between 31 March 2000 and 31 March 2001 the number of civilian support staff increased by 1,361, or 2.6 per cent., to 54,588.

  In total, there were 180,107 police officers and civilian support staff compared with 180,169 in March 1997.

  The substantial investment we are putting into the police service is delivering the improvements that we promised. The increase in police numbers since March 2000 is a direct result of the extra funding available to forces via the Crime Fighting Fund since April 2000
  121W

  Police strength

  Fte

  Strength

  Change

  GOR/Police force

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  30 September 2000

  31 March 2001

  March 1997 to March 2001(Number)

  March 2000 to March 2001(Number)

  South East

  15,111

  14,971

  15,347

  15,378

  267

  407

  Hampshire

  3,452

  3,419

  3,435

  3,435

  -17

  16

  Kent

  3,260

  3,204

  3,239

  3,319

  59

  115

  Surrey1

  1,620

  1,785

  2,113

  2,066

  446

  281

  Sussex

  3,085

  2,822

  2,812

  2,855

  -230

  33

  Thames Valley

  3,695

  3,740

  3,748

  3,703

  8

  -37

  South West

  9,424

  9,313

  9,354

  9,541

  117

  228

  Avon and Somerset

  2,989

  2,934

  2,941

  2,960

  -29

  26

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,865

  2,841

  2,873

  2,934

  70

  93

  Dorset

  1,284

  1,306

  1,299

  1,354

  70

  48

  Gloucestershire

  1,133

  1,114

  1,142

  1,173

  40

  59

  Wiltshire

  1,154

  1,118

  1,099

  1,120

  -34

  2

  Wales

  6,592

  6,632

  6,738

  6,873

  281

  241

  Dyfed Powys

  1,005

  1,040

  1,045

  1,055

  51

  15

  Gwent

  1,243

  1,264

  1,271

  1,274

  31

  10

  North Wales

  1,369

  1,403

  1,393

  1,444

  75

  41

  South Wales

  2,976

  2,926

  3,029

  3,100

  124

  174

  England and Wales2

  125,051

  121,956

  122,163

  123,313

  -1,738

  1,357

  Total secondments

  2,107

  2,214

  2,384

  2,206

  99

  -8

  Total3

  127,158

  124,170

  124,547

  125,519

  -1,621

  1,349

  1 As of April 2000, the Metropolitan police force was reduced in size by a transfer of responsibility for policing some areas to the surrounding forces of Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. These changes need to be borne in mind when comparing figures for these forces before and after April 2000

  2 Excluding secondments

  3 Including secondments

  Note

  Because to routing, constituent part may necessarily sum to the totals.

  Civilian staff1

  Fte

  Strength

  Change

  GOR/Police force

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  30 September 2000

  31 March 2001

  March 1997 to March 2001(Number)

  March 2000 to March 2001(Number)

  North East

  2,557

  2,603

  2,583

  2,568

  11

  -35

  Cleveland

  609

  595

  598

  586

  -23

  -9

  Durham

  583

  590

  573

  566

  -17

  -24

  Northumbria

  1,365

  1,417

  1,413

  1,416

  51

  -1

  North West

  6,267

  6,994

  7,007

  7,066

  799

  72

  Cheshire

  735

  823

  870

  833

  98

  10

  Cumbria

  451

  469

  505

  588

  137

  119

  Greater Manchester

  2,612

  2,822

  2,845

  2,858

  246

  36

  Lancashire

  1,126

  1,422

  1,351

  1,369

  243

  -53

  Merseyside

  1,343

  1,458

  1,437

  1,418

  75

  -40

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  4,762

  4,922

  4,923

  4,939

  177

  17

  Humberside

  718

  840

  783

  808

  90

  -32

  North Yorkshire

  519

  492

  533

  591

  72

  99

  South Yorkshire

  1,291

  1,391

  1,399

  1,312

  22

  -79

  West Yorkshire

  2,234

  2,199

  2,208

  2,228

  -6

  29

  East Midlands

  3,555

  3,769

  4,039

  3,975

  420

  206

  Derbyshire

  723

  826

  865

  875

  152

  49

  Leicestershire

  755

  805

  808

  806

  51

  2

  Lincolnshire

  521

  516

  554

  561

  40

  45

  Northamptonshire

  554

  599

  648

  694

  141

  95

  Nottinghamshire

  1,003

  1,024

  987

  1,039

  36

  15

  122W 123W

  Civilian staff1

  Fte

  Strength

  Change

  GOR/Police force

  31 March 1997

  31 March 2000

  30 September 2000

  31 March 2001

  March 1997 to March 2001(Number)

  March 2000 to March 2001(Number)

  West Midlands

  4,819

  4991

  5,132

  5,261

  442

  270

  Staffordshire

  763

  858

  897

  935

  173

  77

  Warwickshire

  376

  394

  388

  412

  36

  18

  West Mercia

  942

  1,043

  1,026

  1,095

  153

  52

  West Midlands

  2,739

  2,695

  2,821

  2,819

  81

  124

  Eastern

  4,234

  4,485

  4,699

  4,802

  568

  317

  Bedfordshire

  484

  490

  488

  491

  7

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  607

  503

  543

  614

  7

  111

  Essex2

  1,199

  1,348

  1,472

  1,447

  248

  99

  Hertfordshire2

  818

  890

  948

  935

  117

  45

  Norfolk

  603

  655

  651

  694

  91

  39

  Suffolk

  522

  600

  592

  621

  99

  21

  London

  13,840

  10,890

  10,382

  10,273

  -3,567

  -617

  City of London

  347

  285

  235

  233

  -114

  -52

  Metropolitan Police2

  13,493

  10,605

  10,147

  10,040

  -3,453

  -565

  South East

  6,399

  6,966

  7,292

  7,520

  1,121

  554

  Hampshire

  1,316

  1,443

  1,467

  1,482

  166

  39

  Kent

  1,384

  1,647

  1,670

  1,796

  412

  149

  Surrey2

  727

  762

  865

  897

  170

  135

  Sussex

  1,149

  1,328

  1,405

  1,454

  305

  127

  Thames Valley

  1,825

  1,786

  1,890

  1,891

  66

  105

  South West

  4,122

  4,512

  4,581

  4,715

  593

  203

  Avon and Somerset

  1,438

  1,436

  1,437

  1,452

  14

  16

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,159

  1,343

  1,391

  1,453

  294

  110

  Dorset

  615

  686

  681

  682

  67

  -4

  Gloucestershire

  435

  484

  498

  506

  71

  22

  Wiltshire

  475

  563

  574

  622

  147

  59

  Wales

  2,455

  2,457

  2,686

  2,706

  251

  249

  Dyfed Powys

  322

  359

  393

  401

  79

  42

  Gwent

  452

  498

  490

  537

  85

  39

  North Wales

  476

  519

  511

  498

  23

  -21

  South Wales

  1,206

  1,081

  1,293

  1,270

  65

  189

  England and Wales3,4

  53,011

  52,588

  53,147

  53,823

  812

  1,235

  Total secondments

  n/a

  639

  708

  765

  n/a

  126

  Total4,5

  53,011

  53,227

  53,856

  54,588

  1,577

  1,361

  1 Excluding traffic wardens

  2 As of April 2000, the Metropolitan police force was reduced in size by a transfer of responsibility for policing some areas to the surrounding forces of Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. These changes need to be borne in mind when comparing figures for these forces before and after April 2000.

  3 Excluding secondments.

  4 In the March 1997 figures, civilian secondments are counted within the figures for the forces from which they were seconded. The increase of 1,577 civilians between March 1997 and March 2001 take account of this.

  5 Including secondments.

  Note:

  Because of rounding, constituent parts may not necessarily sum to the totals.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the Departmental Expenditure Limit and administration costs limit within his responsibility. [1794]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Supplementary to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL), which covers Request for Resources 1 (Building a safe, just and tolerant society) and Request for Resources 2 (Protecting the 124W
  public by holding prisoners in decent conditions and reducing re-offending after release), will be increased by £72,762,000 from £9,714,633,000 to £9,787,395,000. The administration costs limit will be reduced by £1,391,000 from £2,599,850,000 to £2,598,459,000.

  The changes are the net effect of the following transfers: £297,000 from the Invest to Save Budget to deliver web orientated modular substance misuse training for communities and professionals; £700,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund to extend the existing chipping of goods scheme to a further three demonstrator

  125W
  projects; £8,900,000 from the DEL Reserve to combat organized crime involving trafficking of Class A drugs and people trafficking; £3,600,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund to purchase scanning equipment for the detection of people seeking to enter the United Kingdom illegally by clandestine means; £3,200,000 from the DEL Reserve to meet the costs of publicity for the 2001 parliamentary election; £5,000,000 to the Department for Education and Skills for the provision of education to young offenders in custody; £1,391,000 to the Department for Education and Skills for the provision of education to young offenders in custody; £1,391,000 to the Department for Education and Skills for the transfer of education services' staff and other changes to the Prisoners Learning and Skills Partnership; the reclassification of £15,656,000 receipts from the Youth Justice Board as Annually Managed Expenditure; and £46,800,000 from the DEL Reserve for non-Voted expenditure on the 2001 parliamentary election.

  The reduction of the Department's administration costs limit is the effect of the transfer of £1,391,000 to the Department for Education and Skills for the transfer of education services' staff and other changes to the Prisoners Learning and Skills partnership.

  These changes will be offset by transfers or a charge to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Deaths in Custody
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths were recorded(a) in prison, (b) in young offender establishments and (c) in other places of custody in each of the last 10 years; how many in each category were suicides; and how many deaths in custody in each of the last 10 years have resulted in disciplinary proceedings being brought against custodial officers. [1585]

  Beverley Hughes
  I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Satpal Ram
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant permission for Mr. Satpal Ram, of HMP Wellingborough, to visit his mother in hospital each day. [1172]

  Number

  Responsibility changes

  From

  To

  HQ Directorate

  In

  Out

  Work permits

  Formerly Department of Education and Employment

  Home Office

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  255

  0

  UK Anti-drugs Co-ordination

  Cabinet Office

  Home Office

  Policing and Crime Reduction Group

  30

  0

  Liquor licensing

  Home Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate/Legal Adviser's Branch

  0

  6

  Gambling and Horseracing

  Home Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  9

  Planning for the Queen's Golden Jubilee

  Home Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  10

  Functions relating to film and video licensing1

  Home Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Criminal Policy Group

  0

  0

  126W
  Beverley Hughes
  All applications for temporary release or escorted absences for prisoners to visit sick relatives are carefully and sympathetically considered. Mr. Satpal Ram—a life sentence prisoner now at Littlehey prison—has been allowed escorted visits to his mother on a number of occasions. The Governor of Littlehey will keep this under review and allow visits as appropriate.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the situation of asylum seekers Mr. and Mrs. Eric Moussavou, placed in the Palace Hotel, Southend on 16 May 2000 by the London Borough of Barnet; and for what reason letters from their solicitors to his Department on 6 February and 23 May have not been replied to. [1095]

  Angela Eagle
  Mr. Eric Moussavou applied for asylum "in country" in May 2000 and will therefore be supported by his local authority under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999. Local authorities providing support to asylum seekers may choose to disperse the asylum seeker under the voluntary dispersal arrangements which came into effect on 6 December 1999.

  The delay in the consideration of Mr. Moussavou's asylum application and in replying to his solicitors' letters of 6 February 2001 and 23 May 2001 are regrettable. Unfortunately, the applicant's papers were incorrectly filed. In view of the consequent delay in processing his asylum claim, arrangements will be made to invite the applicant to attend an interview at the earliest opportunity

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department tow many staff from each directorate in his Department are to be transferred to other Departments as a result of the transfer of responsibilities to other Departments. [240]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The responsibilities and numbers of staff transferred are set out in the table. Some minor adjustments to the staffing numbers may arise as a result of the final arrangements agreed between my Department and the other departments involved.
  127W

  Number

  Responsibility changes

  From

  To

  HQ Directorate

  In

  Out

  Fire Services

  Home Office

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Fire and Emergency Planning Directorate/Research

  0

  144

  Development and statistics Directorate Fire Service College, Home Office Agency

  0

  188

  Contingency/Emergency planning (except Chair of Civil Contingency Committee)

  Home Office

  Unified in Cabinet Office with Home Secretary remaining Chair of the Civil Contingencies Committee

  Fire and Emergency Planning Directorate

  0

  71

  Byelaws

  Home Office

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  3

  Electoral Law

  Home Office

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  6

  Open Government, Freedom of Information, Data protection and Developing policy on National Identity cards

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate/Legal Adviser's Branch

  0

  14

  Channel Islands/Isle of Man, Royal and Church matters, Hereditary Peers and Lord Lieutenants

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  20

  Human Rights

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  5

  Animal Welfare

  Home Office

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  2

  Sunday trading, Summer time, Easter1

  Home Office

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  0

  Total

  285

  478

  1 No transfer of staff as there was less than one full-time person working on these functions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the areas of responsibility that have(a) been transferred from his Department to other Departments and (b) been transferred to his Department from other Departments since 8 June. [246]

  Number

  Responsibility changes

  From

  To

  HO Directorate

  In

  Out

  Work permits

  Formerly Department of Education and Employment

  Home Office

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  255

  0

  UK Anti-drugs Co-ordination

  Cabinet Office

  Home Office

  Policing and Crime Reduction Group

  30

  0

  Liquor licensing

  Home Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate/Legal Adviser's Branch

  0

  6

  Gambling and Horseracing

  Home Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  9

  Planning for the Queen's Golden Jubilee

  Home Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  10

  Functions relating to film and video licensing1

  Home Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Criminal Policy Group

  0

  0

  Fire Services

  Home Office

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Fire and Emergency Planning Directorate/Research Development and Statistics Directorate

  0

  144

  Fire Service College, Home Office Agency

  0

  188

  Contingency/Emergency planning (except Chair of Civil Contingency Committee)

  Home Office

  Unified in Cabinet Office with Home Secretary remaining Chair of the Civil Contingencies Committee

  Fire and Emergency Planning Directorate

  0

  71

  128W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The responsibilities and numbers of staff transferred are set out in the table. Some minor adjustments to the staffing numbers may arise as a result of the final arrangements agreed between my Department and the other Departments involved.
  129W

  Number

  Responsibility changes

  From

  To

  HO Directorate

  In

  Out

  Byelaws

  Home Office

  Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  3

  Electoral Law

  Home Office

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  6

  Open Government, Freedom of Information, Data protection and Developing policy on National Identity cards

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate/Legal Adviser's Branch

  0

  14

  Channel Islands/Isle of Man. Royal and Church matters, Hereditary Peers and Lord Lieutenants

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  20

  Human Rights

  Home Office

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  5

  Animal Welfare

  Home Office

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  2

  Sunday trading, Summer time, Easter1

  Home Office

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  0

  0

  Totals

  285

  478

  1 No transfer of staff as there was less than one full time person working on these functions.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were brought(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully under (i) the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and (ii) the Dogs Act 1871, broken down by police authority, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [57]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, by police force area, England and Wales 1997

  Dogs Act 1871

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

  Police force area

  Defendants prosecuted

  Defendants convicted

  Defendants prosecuted

  Defendants convicted

  Avon and Somerset

  19

  1

  1

  1

  Bedfordshire

  7

  2

  2

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  4

  —

  5

  3

  Cheshire

  9

  —

  10

  6

  Cleveland

  6

  2

  9

  2

  Cumbria

  2

  —

  3

  1

  Derbyshire

  14

  4

  2

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  24

  2

  16

  8

  Dorset

  6

  —

  11

  6

  Durham

  16

  10

  6

  5

  Essex

  29

  9

  22

  5

  Gloucestershire

  15

  —

  3

  2

  Greater Manchester

  23

  6

  22

  13

  Hampshire

  14

  3

  34

  20

  Hertfordshire

  3

  —

  1

  1

  Humberside

  5

  2

  2

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  6

  —

  30

  14

  Leicestershire

  9

  —

  9

  8

  Lincolnshire

  25

  16

  2

  1

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  2

  1

  12

  5

  Metropolitan police

  24

  4

  80

  42

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Northamptonshire

  2

  —

  6

  1

  Northumbria

  17

  3

  35

  10

  North Yorkshire

  13

  —

  11

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  12

  —

  6

  6

  South Yorkshire

  2

  1

  19

  8

  Staffordshire

  4

  —

  13

  6

  Suffolk

  7

  1

  5

  2

  Surrey

  2

  1

  4

  3

  Sussex

  4

  2

  25

  12

  Thames Valley

  10

  1

  15

  7

  130W
  The following table contains the readily available information from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database.

  It shows, for 1997, 1998 and 1999, the number of defendants proceeded against and those found guilty of offences under the Dogs Act 1871 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in England and Wales by police force area.

  Information for 2000 is not yet available.
  131W

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, by police force area, England and Wales 1997

  Dogs Act 1871

  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

  Police force area

  Defendants prosecuted

  Defendants convicted

  Defendants prosecuted

  Defendants convicted

  Warwickshire

  1

  —

  3

  2

  West Mercia

  13

  4

  14

  4

  West Midlands

  7

  1

  16

  10

  West Yorkshire

  33

  2

  14

  6

  Wiltshire

  6

  5

  5

  3

  Dyfed Powys

  7

  —

  15

  5

  Gwent

  18

  8

  1

  —

  North Wales

  58

  5

  1

  —

  South Wales

  14

  2

  10

  4

  England and Wales

  492

  98

  504

  241

  Source:

  Crime and Criminal Justice Unit, Home Office

DEFENCE

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the private-public partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [1701]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement I made in the House on 24 July 2000.Official Report, columns 778–79, about our decision to implement the Core Competence model for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) public-private partnership. Under Core Competence, around three quarters of the current DERA organisation will be turned into a company with the registered name of QinetiQ plc. For strategic reasons, the remainder, known as the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), will be retained within the Ministry of Defence to carry out functions that could not appropriately be transferred to the private sector.

  Since the announcement in July, work has focused on achieving the legal separation of DERA into the two entities: QinetiQ and Dstl. This work has included the enactment of secondary legislation as outlined in Statutory Instrument 1246/2001 (made on 28 March 2001). This instrument will result in DERA being renamed Dstl and net assets attributable to QinetiQ being removed from the Trading Fund and transferred to the new company.

  Subject to final legal drafting and contractual negotiations, I intend to vest QinetiQ plc with its assets and liabilities with effect from 1 July 2001. At that point, QinetiQ will remain a wholly Government-owned plc. Thereafter work will continue on preparation for its eventual sale.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the change of specification was that led to the decision not to publish the October 1999 report of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council on the injury potential of the L21A1 plastic baton round at the 1-metre minimum range of engagement. [1097]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), on 132W
  11 May 2001, Official Report, column 417W, and to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Statement of Defence Scientific Advisory Council placed in the Library of the House on 2 April 2001.

  Pensions (Politically Sensitive Cases)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason war pensions assessors were issued with guidance to discuss cases with political sensitivities with an executive case worker. [364]

  Dr. Moonie
  War pension is awarded for disablement causally linked to service. The intent of the guidance issued to assessors is to explain that some contended service links are relatively straightforward but that others are more complex, requiring careful consideration and perhaps some discussion with an expert caseworker who is a particularly experienced medical adviser. It is accepted that the wording of this guidance was open to misunderstanding and it has now been amended.

  Leslie John Douglas
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcome was of the investigation into the shooting of Leslie John Douglas on 13 June 2000; and what actions he has taken subsequently. [1038]

  Dr. Moonie
  The investigation into the shooting of Leslie John Douglas is not yet complete. The Special Investigations Branch (SIB) of the Royal Military Police are, however, nearing completion of their inquiries although they still have to carry out a number of interviews and produce their final report. It is in everyone's interests that the investigations are completed and that they are thorough. The Ministry of Defence will continue to keep the Douglas family informed of developments.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's officials are employed to conduct the comprehensive survey of the service volunteer programme at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down announced on 1 May; from which branches of his Department these officials are drawn; and what the total budget is for the survey. [990]
  133W
  Dr. Moonie
  The historical survey is currently being undertaken by a Principal (Grade B2) working for the Gulf Veterans Illness Unit. The historical survey is financed through the Gulf Veterans Illnesses Unit and has no fixed budget.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aspect of the comprehensive survey of the service volunteer programme at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, announced on 1 May will be conducted in public. [1002]

  Dr. Moonie
  The historical survey of the Porton Down volunteer programme will gather information from available documentary source material and recollections from former volunteers. The survey is expected to report in the summer of 2002 and the findings will be published.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence from the Medical Research Council confirming that the Council is looking at the feasibility of carrying out an independent epidemiological study of Porton Down volunteers. [988]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Medical Research Council has agreed that an epidemiological study of Porton Down Veterans is feasible. Confirmation of this can be found in the advertisements placed by the Medical Research Council in the scientific press on 21 and 23 June 2001, inviting expressions of interest from the research community.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel who took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, have been referred to the Medical Assessment Programme since 21 November 2000; and how many of these have been seen by the Medical Assessment Programme. [999]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the period 21 November 2000 to 27 June 2001, 78 former Porton Down volunteers have been referred to the Medical Assessment Programme. Of this number, 49 have been seen.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates officials from his Department and the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, held meetings with the Medical Research Council since 5 April, regarding its advice on an independent epidemiological study for Porton Down volunteers. [1005]

  Dr. Moonie
  A working meeting took place on 30 May 2001 between one member of Ministry of Defence staff and one member of the Medical Research Council staff at which practical details relating to an independent epidemiological study of Porton Down Volunteers were discussed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes to make available the annual report for 2000–01 of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [1795]
  134W
  Dr. John Reid
  Copies of the Chief Constable's annual report for 2000–01 will be placed in the Library tomorrow. It is a general report on the carrying out by the RUC of their functions during 2000–01 financial year which is submitted to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and also to me for laying before Parliament in accordance with sections 48 and 49 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teachers (Essex)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were employed in(a) Essex and (b) the Boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea in each year from 1995 to 2000 inclusive. [1071]

  Mr. Timms
  The full-time equivalents of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) employed in the maintained schools sector were as follows:

  January

  Essex

  Thurrock

  Southend-on-Sea

  Total

  19951

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  11,850

  19961

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12,430

  19971

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12,580

  19981

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12,560

  1999

  10,580

  1,060

  1,270

  12,910

  2000

  10,1000

  1,110

  1,380

  12,890

  1 Essex local authority was affected by local government re-organisation (LGR) on 1 April 1998, when it became three authorities; Essex, Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea. Figures for 1995 to 1998 are for the Essex local authority prior to LGR.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Finsbury Park Single Regeneration Budget
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the total allocation of funds for the Finsbury Park Single Regeneration Budget for its lifetime; and how much has been spent to date. [1047]

  Ms Keeble
  The Finsbury Park Single Regeneration Budget scheme was approved on 1 December 1999. Total Government expenditure over the seven year life of the scheme is estimated at ƒ25 million. The projected Government expenditure for the financial year 2001–02 is ƒ4,986,000. Government expenditure on this scheme to the end of 2000–01 was ƒ2,846,000.

  Social Housing
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what studies his Department is undertaking as to the accountability of registered social landlords; and if he will make a statement. [1080]

  Ms Keeble
  None. Registered social landlords are regulated by the Housing Corporation, an Executive NDPB of my Department, through published performance standards covering, governance, finance, lettings, tenant involvement, development and management. Registered
  135W
  social landlords are expected to meet these standards. Where they do not, the Housing Corporation has regulatory powers to enforce compliance.

  The Housing Corporation is currently implementing a programme of changes to revise its regulatory framework for registered social landlords. Through this programme, the Housing Corporation is reviewing performance standards, encouraging a best value approach by registered social landlords and introducing a new inspection service to examine the services landlords provide. The new framework will be in place by April 2002.

  Registered social landlords are also accountable to their governing bodies, whose members act on a voluntary basis and who are drawn from a broad range of backgrounds. For example, the governing bodies of those registered social landlords which are set up as local housing companies (the most popular choice in recent years of registered social landlord for large scale voluntary transfers of properties from local councils)

  Year

  Local authority housing revenue account spending on repairs(£ million)

  Local authority capital expenditure on council dwellings(£ million)

  Repairs expenditure per dwelling(£)

  Capital expenditure per dwelling(£)

  1996–97

  2,262

  1,581

  657

  459

  1997–98

  2,211

  1,502

  657

  446

  1998–99

  2,201

  1,594

  677

  490

  1999–2000

  2,126

  1,484

  686

  479

  2000–011

  2,113

  21,824

  726

  627

  1 Provisional

  2 Based on authorities planned expenditure for 2000–01, submitted to the Department in summer 2000

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local government and the. Regions how many(a) dwellings were completed, (b) new council properties there were, (c) new housing association properties there were and (d) new co-operative properties there were in each London borough for each of the last five years. [1050]

  Ms Keeble
  The available figures are given in the table. The data collected by the Department do not distinguish completions for co-operative properties.

  Housebuilding: Permanent dwellings completed by tenure

  London borough/ Year

  Private enterprise

  Registered social landlords

  Local authority

  All dwellings

  Barking and Dagenham

  1996–97

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1999–2000

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Barnet

  1996–97

  436

  79

  0

  515

  1997–98

  459

  178

  0

  637

  1998–99

  629

  74

  0

  703

  1999–2000

  720

  98

  0

  818

  2000–01

  488

  168

  0

  656

  Bexley

  1996–97

  387

  63

  0

  450

  1997–98

  405

  48

  0

  453

  1998–99

  189

  19

  0

  208

  1999–2000

  179

  27

  0

  206

  2000–01

  384

  98

  0

  482

  136W
  comprise at least a third of elected tenant representatives, with council nominees and independent members typically each having a third of places also.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the expenditure from central Government sources was on(a) repairs to council properties and (b) capital improvements to council properties in each of the last five years and for the current year. [1048]

  Ms Keeble
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table shows actual expenditure, as reported to the Department, by local authorities in England on repairs and capital improvements to their housing stock in each of the last five years. Support for local authority housing from central Government has not generally been earmarked for particular purposes, so it is not possible to show separately the central Government contribution to this expenditure. Spending over this period has been affected by a fall in the number of local authority dwellings so the table also shows spending in per dwelling terms. Expenditure figures for 2001–02 are not available

  Housebuilding: Permanent dwellings completed by tenure

  London borough/ Year

  Private enterprise

  Registered social landlords

  Local authority

  All dwellings

  Brent

  1996–97

  56

  0

  0

  56

  1997–98

  29

  1

  0

  30

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1999–2000

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Bromley

  1996–97

  307

  137

  0

  444

  1997–98

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1999–2000

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Camden

  1996–97

  238

  279

  0

  517

  1997–98

  99

  138

  0

  237

  1998–99

  366

  85

  0

  451

  1999–2000

  157

  166

  0

  323

  2000–01

  149

  256

  0

  405

  City of London

  1996–97

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1997–98

  235

  0

  0

  235

  1998–99

  163

  0

  0

  163

  1999–2000

  280

  21

  0

  301

  2000–01

  165

  0

  0

  165

  Croydon

  1996–97

  256

  200

  0

  456

  1997–98

  213

  362

  0

  575

  1998–99

  161

  221

  0

  382

  1999–2000

  138

  194

  0

  332

  2000–01

  165

  77

  0

  242

  137W

  Housebuilding: Permanent dwellings completed by tenure

  London borough/ Year

  Private enterprise

  Registered social landlords

  Local authority

  All dwellings

  Ealing

  1996–97

  263

  0

  0

  263

  1997–98

  761

  12

  0

  773

  1998–99

  331

  125

  0

  456

  1999–2000

  148

  125

  0

  273

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Enfield

  1996–97

  324

  258

  0

  582

  1997–98

  549

  51

  0

  600

  1998–99

  172

  139

  0

  311

  1999–2000

  105

  84

  0

  189

  2000–01

  576

  344

  0

  920

  Greenwich

  1996–97

  156

  69

  0

  225

  1997–98

  205

  226

  0

  431

  1998–99

  403

  133

  0

  536

  1999–2000

  916

  64

  0

  980

  2000–01

  439

  147

  0

  586

  Hackney

  1996–97

  64

  406

  22

  492

  1997–98

  157

  517

  34

  708

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1999–2000

  349

  91

  0

  440

  2000–01

  765

  112

  0

  877

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1996–97

  29

  14

  0

  43

  1997–98

  146

  74

  0

  220

  1998–99

  122

  22

  0

  144

  1999–2000

  83

  23

  0

  106

  2000–01

  75

  0

  0

  75

  Haringey

  1996–97

  52

  199

  0

  251

  1997–98

  68

  131

  0

  199

  1998–99

  25

  63

  0

  88

  1999–20002

  34

  75

  0

  109

  2000–01

  126

  59

  0

  185

  Harrow

  1996–97

  49

  83

  0

  132

  1997–98

  119

  66

  0

  185

  1998–99

  146

  5

  0

  151

  1999–2000

  94

  3

  0

  97

  2000–01

  110

  0

  0

  110

  Havering

  1996–97

  234

  65

  0

  299

  1997–98

  99

  39

  0

  138

  1998–99

  225

  25

  0

  250

  1999–2000

  237

  47

  0

  284

  2000–01

  246

  28

  0

  274

  Hillingdon

  1996–97

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  97

  293

  2

  392

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1999–20003

  322

  137

  0

  459

  2000–013

  270

  286

  0

  556

  Hounslow

  1996–97

  598

  0

  0

  598

  1997–98

  373

  38

  0

  411

  1998–99

  611

  21

  0

  632

  1999–2000

  260

  0

  0

  260

  2000–01

  240

  24

  0

  264

  Islington

  1996–97

  49

  17

  0

  66

  1997–98

  151

  0

  0

  151

  1998–99

  309

  65

  0

  374

  1999–2000

  424

  27

  0

  451

  2000–013

  213

  44

  0

  257

  138W

  Housebuilding: Permanent dwellings completed by tenure

  London borough/ Year

  Private enterprise

  Registered social landlords

  Local authority

  All dwellings

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1996–97

  206

  255

  0

  461

  1997–98

  184

  0

  0

  184

  1998–99

  155

  41

  0

  196

  1999–20003

  208

  20

  0

  228

  2000–01

  101

  55

  0

  156

  Kingston upon Thames

  1996–97

  169

  87

  0

  256

  1997–98

  816

  22

  0

  838

  1998–99

  444

  2

  0

  446

  1999–2000

  331

  45

  0

  376

  2000–013

  230

  41

  0

  271

  Lambeth

  1996–97

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1999–2000

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Lewisham

  1996–97

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  108

  345

  0

  453

  1998–99

  193

  167

  0

  360

  1999–2000

  156

  95

  0

  251

  2000–01

  1

  150

  0

  151

  Merton

  1996–97

  204

  133

  0

  337

  1997–98

  69

  39

  0

  108

  1998–99

  108

  129

  0

  237

  1999–2000

  204

  149

  0

  353

  2000–01

  120

  51

  0

  171

  Newham

  1996–97

  105

  296

  0

  401

  1997–98

  261

  103

  0

  364

  1998–99

  132

  180

  0

  312

  1999–2000

  398

  120

  0

  518

  2000–01

  346

  138

  0

  484

  Redbridge

  1996–97

  458

  50

  0

  508

  1997–98

  360

  22

  0

  382

  1998–99

  95

  5

  0

  100

  1999–2000

  462

  39

  0

  501

  2000–01

  120

  39

  0

  159

  Richmond upon Thames

  1996–97

  48

  23

  0

  71

  1997–98

  195

  6

  0

  201

  1998–99

  617

  8

  0

  625

  1999–2000

  145

  30

  0

  175

  2000–01

  137

  20

  0

  157

  Southwark

  1996–97

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1999–2000

  323

  13

  0

  336

  2000–012;0P

  248

  26

  0

  274

  Sutton

  1996–97

  479

  215

  0

  694

  1997–98

  306

  32

  0

  338

  1998–99

  283

  19

  0

  302

  1999–2000

  135

  122

  0

  257

  2000–01

  280

  161

  0

  441

  Tower Hamlets

  1996–97

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1997–98

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1999–2000

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2000–01

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  139W

  Housebuilding: Permanent dwellings completed by tenure

  London borough/Year

  Private enterprise

  Registered social landlords

  Local authority

  All dwellings

  Waltham Forest

  1996–97

  370

  439

  0

  809

  1997–98

  103

  743

  0

  846

  1998–99

  259

  716

  0

  975

  1999–2000

  10

  186

  0

  196

  2000–01

  216

  257

  260

  733

  Wandsworth

  1996–97

  320

  1

  0

  321

  1997–98

  231

  33

  0

  264

  1998–99

  515

  36

  0

  551

  1999–2000

  541

  76

  0

  617

  2000–01

  209

  3

  0

  212

  Westminster

  1996–97

  513

  394

  0

  907

  1997–98

  560

  111

  0

  671

  1998–99

  631

  113

  0

  744

  1999–2000

  600

  207

  0

  807

  2000–013

  957

  358

  0

  1,315

  1 Data not available because the local authority has reported for nine months or less in the year

  2 Local authority has reported for only 10 months in the year

  3 Local authority has reported for only 11 months in the year

  Planning Controls (Fast-food Restaurants)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the question of planning controls on the conversion of public houses to fast food restaurants. [597]

  Ms Keeble
  In the last 12 months, my Department has received centrally three letters from Members of Parliament and eight letters from members of the public about planning controls on the conversion of public houses to fast food restaurants and takeaways.

  Nutts Farm Caravan Site
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will conduct an inquiry into the sale of Nutts Farm caravan site by Swale borough council; and if he will make a statement. [1147]

  Ms Keeble
  It is for the local authority to decide whether and to whom to dispose of their land. Authorities should normally dispose of property for the best obtainable consideration, which is normally its market value. If a local authority wishes to accept a bid for less than the best consideration, they must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State either through a general consent or a specific consent.

  I understand that Swale borough council took the decision to sell the caravan site as the result of a best value review. Under best value the authority is required to consult local people, businesses and voluntary organisations. It is, however, for the local authority to decide exactly whom to consult and how to carry out such consultations. Moreover, it will be the responsibility of elected members to weigh the different points of view revealed by consultation exercises.
  140W
  If local people believe that consultations were not carried out properly, they can make representations to the auditor, who audits the best value performance plan, or the Best Value Inspection Service, which carries out inspections of the services provided by the authority.

  Community Transport Schemes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial support his Department has given in the current financial year to community transport schemes. [11]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department supports the community transport sector through funding the Community Transport Association's Information and Advice Service. That Service, which will receive £100,000 in funding this financial year, provides support and advice to community transport schemes and local authorities across the country.

  In direct support for community transport schemes, the local transport capital settlement for 2001–02 provided £559 million (including reserves) of capital funding for local authorities in England, outside London, for use on small scale integrated transport measures. Authorities have discretion in the expenditure of such resources that may be used as capital support for community transport schemes in line with the priorities established within their local transport plans.

  We have also made available £10 million in the current financial year for those and other transport projects in rural areas through the Rural Transport Partnership and the Parish Transport Grant schemes administered by the Countryside Agency.

  Awards to be made later this year to bids successful in this year's Rural and Urban Bus Challenge schemes will also include significant new financial support for community transport services. This will be in addition to support already being given as a result of earlier rounds of the Rural Bus Challenge. Many of the existing 150 challenge awards involve community transport provision.

  My Department has already consulted relevant organisations on plans to extend eligibility for fuel duty rebate to a wider range of community transport services, which will be implemented in this financial year.

  Rural Housing
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent initiatives have been taken in order to provide affordable housing in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [27]

  Ms Keeble
  Our proposals for increasing the supply of affordable housing in rural areas are set out in Chapter 5 of "Our countryside: the future—A fair deal for rural England", a White Paper (Cm 4909) published in November 2000. In summary, they are: doubling funding for the Housing Corporation between 2000 and 2003 to benefit both rural and urban areas; doubling the size of the Housing Corporation's programme in small rural settlements from 800 to 1,600 homes per year; local authorities to be able to charge the full rate of council tax on second homes and retain the extra revenue (subject to consultation); and a package of VAT reforms to encourage additional conversions of properties for residential use.
  141W
  We have also reminded local authorities of existing powers to limit the resale of council homes, bought under the Right to Buy scheme, to local people. This can be done in rural areas that meet certain criteria.

  Details of all these measures are set out more fully in the Rural White Paper.

  Aviation Policy
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the results of his consultation on aviation policy. [1030]

  Mr. Spellar
  We plan to publish a summary of the responses to the consultation document, "The Future of Aviation", later this summer. We will give careful consideration to the responses and take them into account in deciding policies for the new air transport White Paper, which we hope to publish next year. All responses (except those from respondents who requested confidentiality) can be viewed by the public, in the Department's Library.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to introduce a mandatory 20 mph zone in areas close to schools. [1069]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government have given local authorities the power to introduce 20 mph zones. Our Road Safety Strategy encourages their use in the areas where the most vulnerable are present, like the areas around schools.

  £ million

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  (a) Amount raised for good causes

  1,789

  1,752

  1,939

  1,974

  (b) Amount allocated to good causes

  1,789

  1,752

  1939

  1,974

  (c) Amount received by good causes

  1,855

  1,908

  1,831

  1,087

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to review the process of awarding the contract to operate the National Lottery. [89]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I remain committed to reviewing the process by which the National Lottery operating licence is awarded to see if there is scope for improving the present system. I will be making a further announcement about the review in due course.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she will take in the event of the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium not proceeding to recover public funds invested in the project. [106]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]Under the terms of the lottery funding agreement, Sport England are able to initiate action to recover the lottery grant.

  Housing
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of council housing stock in Stockton, South has been sold since 1979. [1093]

  Ms Keeble
  In the period 1 April 1979 to 31 December 2000, Stockton-on-Tees unitary authority (and the predecessor borough council) reported 6,875 sales of council housing stock. This represents some 32 per cent. of the council's reported stock in April 1979.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport if she will list the amount of National Lottery money(a) raised for good causes, (b) allocated to good causes and (c) received by good causes in each of the last four years. [70]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]The net proceeds of the National Lottery are paid into the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF). After meeting the costs of the National Lottery Commission (the Lottery regulator), the costs incurred in exercising my duties under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (as amended), and the costs incurred by the National Debt Commissioners in investing the balance of the NLDF, all of the money in the NLDF is immediately allocated to good causes. The amount raised for good causes is therefore equal to the amount allocated to good causes. These figures are shown in rows(a) and (b) of the table. The money raised for good causes is distributed by the 15 bodies listed in section 23 of the Act. These bodies draw down money as needed and the amounts drawn down are shown in row (c).
  committed to the Wembley project, should Wembley National Stadium Ltd. be unable to develop a new stadium at Wembley.

  Religious Broadcasting
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will ensure that religious organisations are given the opportunity to obtain local digital radio broadcasting licences. [983]

  Dr. Howells
  The White Paper "A New Future for Communications" announced that the Government will bring forward legislation to allow religious bodies to hold a local terrestrial digital licence.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the compatibility of the Broadcasting Act 1996 with the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. [985]
  143W
  Dr. Howells
  The courts decide whether legislative provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. No declaration of incompatibility has been made in the domestic courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 as regards any provision of the Broadcasting Act 1996; nor has there been any finding of incompatibility in respect of that legislation by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if non-religious radio stations can automatically renew analogue licences by applying for digital licences. [984]

  Dr. Howells
  An application is not sufficient. There is provision for automatic renewal of analogue radio licences only if the licence holder is providing (or is committed to provide) a programme service on a relevant digital multiplex. Religious organisations are disqualified from holding digital radio licences and so cannot take advantage of these provisions.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when applications for the last digital radio licence in London will be determined. [982]

  Dr. Howells
  The award of the third and final digital multiplex licence for Greater London was made by the Radio Authority on 6 June.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Public Accounts Commission
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission who will be answering questions on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission. [1709]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  I was elected Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission at its meeting on 26 June and will normally expect to answer questions on behalf of the Commission. In the event of my unavoidable absence, questions will be answered by ft y hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Secondees
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the name, company, grade, directorate, start and end dates and brief description of responsibilities for each person presently seconded into her Department from the private sector. [1706]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are 104 individuals currently on secondment to the Department. The details requested are given in the table, which has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Antarctica
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's expenditure was on Antarctica in each of the past five years. [1054]

  Mr. Wilson
  The expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry through the Science Budget on the British Antarctic Survey is given in the table.144W

  £000

  Science budget expenditure

  1996–97

  26,823

  1997–98

  26,550

  1998–99

  26,523

  1999–2000

  29,892

  2000–01

  39,556

  Deregulation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Minister within her Department has responsibility for deregulation; and if she will list deregulation measures enacted since May 1997. [745]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]Ensuring that regulation is effective and not burdensome is a key issue for business, and therefore for my Department. We will be working closely with the Cabinet Office and the Better Regulation Task Force to ensure that business concerns are understood and that my Department regulates only where necessary and with a light touch. The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), will have specific responsibility for regulatory reform within my Department.

  Key measures enacted since May 1997 for which this Department is responsible which have resulted in cost savings for business are as follows

  The Companies Act 1985 (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 raised to £1 million the turnover threshold before companies are subject to an annual external statutory audit of their accounts.

  The Companies Act 1985 (Electronic Communications) Order 2000 removed restrictions on companies' use of electronic media when communicating with their members and with Companies House.

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Short Range Devices) (Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 removed certain radio equipment from licensing requirements.

  The Hallmarking (Hallmarking Act Amendment) Order 1998 extended the category of articles exempted from hallmarking requirements to articles produced before 1920. rather than 1900.

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Exemption) Regulations 1999 exempted certain radio equipment from licensing requirements.

  The Consumer Credit (Exempt Agreements) (Amendment) Order 1999 exempted credit unions and other non-commercial fixed-rate low-cost loan providers from regulation.

  The Companies (Forms) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 removed the requirement to include certain information in companies' returns to Companies House, including former names and directors' other directorships.

  The Gas Act 1986 (Gas Storage) (Exemptions) Order 1999 and two subsidiary Orders exempted persons operating certain types of gas storage facility from the need to have a Public Gas Transporter licence.

  The Companies (Investment Companies) (Distribution of Profits) Regulations 1999 removed restrictions on companies which prevented them from using capital profits to repurchase their own shares.

  The Consumer Credit (Content of Quotations) and Consumer Credit (Advertisements) (Amendments) Regulations 1999 removed the requirement for warning statements to be included in TV. cinema, and radio advertisements for credit involving taking on a mortgage.

  The Partnerships (Unrestricted Size) No. 14 Regulations exempted Chartered Surveyors from the law restricting the number of partners in a given firm to 20.

  145W

  The Insolvency (Amendment) Regulations 2000 enabled members of the Insolvency Services Account to pay and receive moneys by electronic transfer.

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Citizens Band Amateur Apparatus) (Various Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2000 removed all restrictions on the import and manufacture of citizens' band radio equipment.

  The Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a License) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2000 allowed more owners of small power stations to generate electricity without needing a licence.

  The Merger (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 exempt small and medium-sized firms engaged in merger activity from the requirement to pay a fee where the merger falls to be scrutinised by the Office of Fair Trading.

  Competition Law
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost of the review of UK competition policy conducted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers was; and what her Department's response is to the policy recommendations made. [751]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]PriceWaterhouseCoopers were selected to undertake the Peer Review of the UK Competition Policy Regime after a competitive tender was held in accordance with the DTI's procurement rules. The cost of the contract was £70,000 (excl. VAT).

  Table 1

  Merger referred

  Date referred

  National Express Group/Central Trains

  May 1997

  National Express Group/ScotRail

  May 1997

  Priory Hospitals/Charter

  June 1997

  Capital Radio/Virgin Radio

  July 1997

  Mirror Group/Midland Independent Newspapers

  July 1997

  Pacificorp/Energy Group

  August 1997

  Fresenius/Caremark

  December 1997

  Johnston Press/Home Counties Newspapers Holdings

  February 1998

  Ladbroke/Corals

  March 1998

  Tomkins/Kerry Group

  April 1998

  New Decaux/More Group

  May 1998

  Arriva/Lutonian Buses

  July 1998

  Cendant/RAC Motoring Services

  September 1998

  IMS Health/PMSI

  October 1998

  BSkyB/Manchester United

  October 1998

  Rockwool/Owens Corning

  December 1998

  British Airways/CityFlyer Express

  January 1999

  Johnston Press/Portsmouth and Sunderland Newspapers

  February 1999

  News Communications and Media/Portsmouth and Sunderland Newspapers

  February 1999

  Newsquest/Portsmouth and Sunderland Newspapers

  February 1999

  Air Products/DeVilbiss Medequip

  February 1999

  Hepworth/Naylor Industries

  March 1999

  Trinity/Mirror Group

  March 1999

  Regional Independent Media Holdings/Mirror Group

  March 1999

  NTL/Newcastle United

  April 1999

  Whitbread/Allied Domecq

  July 1999

  Alanod Aluminium/Metalloxyd

  July 1999

  Universal Foods/Pointing Holdings

  August 1999

  CHC Helicopter Corporation/Helicopter Services Group

  September 1999

  NTL/CWC

  November 1999

  Vivendi/BSkyB

  November 1999

  Newsquest/News Communications and Media

  December 1999

  Johnston Press/News Communications and Media

  December 1999

  Trinity Mirror/News Communications and Media

  December 1999

  Carlton/United News and Media

  February 2000

  Granada/Carlton Communications

  February 2000

  Granada/United News and Media

  February 2000

  Independent News and Media/Belfast Telegraph

  March 2000

  Air Canada/Canadian Airlines

  May 2000

  Sylvan International/Locker Group

  June 2000

  146W
  The Peer Review Report is published on the DTI website and will inform decisions made in the context of the Enterprise Bill. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the cases since May 1997(a) where her predecessors referred mergers to the Competition Commission (i) on the advice of and (ii) against the advice of the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading and (b) where Ministers have not followed merger recommendations by the Competition Commission. [750]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]Table 1 lists all the merger cases which have been referred to the Competition Commission (previously known as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission) since May 1997. The Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) does not advise on newspaper mergers. With the exception of NEG/ScotRail, NEG/Central Trains, Pacificorp/Energy Group, and NTL/CWC, all other references were made in accordance with the advice of the DGFT.

  Table 2 lists the cases since May 1997 where Ministers have not followed merger recommendations by the Competition Commission/Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
  147W

  Table 1

  Merger referred

  Date referred

  BUPA/Community Hospitals Group

  June 2000

  Nutreco/Hydro Seafood

  July 2000

  Gannett UK/Regional Independent Media Holdings

  July 2000

  Johnston Press/Regional Independent Media Holdings

  July 2000

  Guardian Media Group/Regional Independent Media Holdings

  July 2000

  Interbrew/Bass

  September 2000

  Grundfos Holdings/Myson Pumps

  October 2000

  CAIK Holding/Icopal AS

  November 2000

  Adtranz/Railcare

  November 2000

  City Technology/Marconi Applied Technologies

  December 2000

  BASF/Takeda Chemicals

  December 2000

  SCR Sibelco/assets of Anglo Pacific

  January 2001

  Lloyds TSB/Abbey National

  February 2001

  Reed Elsevier/Harcourt

  February 2001

  General Healthcare Group/Community Hospitals Group

  March 2001

  Octagon Motorsports/assets of British Racing Drivers Club

  April 2001

  Blockbuster/Apollo Video

  May 2001

  Table 2

  Merger report

  Date report published

  Bass/Carlsberg Tetley

  June 1997

  British Airways/CityFlyer Express

  July 1999

  Trinity/Mirror Group

  July 1999

  Sylvan International/Locker Group

  November 2000

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce criminal sanctions for breaches of competition law. [749]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]We have announced our intention to consult on proposals that there should be a new criminal offence for individuals who engage in cartels. These proposals will be published in July.

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council on 30 and 31 May. [1705]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Deputy Permanent Representative Bill Stow represented the UK at the Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council ("IMCT") in Brussels on 30 and 31 May.

  The Council reached agreement on Directives on Fair Value Accounting, Life Assurance and Short-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins.

  The proposed amendment to the Cosmetics Directive was referred back for further negotiation in the light of numerous remaining reserves. On the Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive, which sets out minimum standards for information to be provided by financial services providers, it was not possible to reach a qualified majority. On the proposed Directive on Food Supplements (vitamins and minerals) which aims to harmonise rules on their authorisation, marketing and labelling, there was also no agreement as there was no qualified majority.

  Agreement was reached on a Common Approach to the key issues on the Community Patent. This defines the principles under which work can be taken forward. The
  148W
  Presidency is now able to ask the European Patent Organisation to prepare for a diplomatic conference to revise the European Patent Convention.

  There was general support for a common approach on Food Law and the establishment of the European Food Authority, which would guide future work with a view to possible political agreement in June.

  The Commission gave an update on its plans to review the Consumer Credit Directive and agreement was reached on a progress report on two draft Directives covering solvency margins for life assurance and non-life assurance undertakings. These aim to enhance the protection of policyholders by strengthening solvency margin requirements. The Council took note of a progress report on negotiation of the draft public procurement directives. The Presidency concluded that the Council remained committed to reaching agreement by the end of the year.

  The draft report on the Integration of Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development into Internal Market Policy for the European Council was adopted without discussion and the Draft Council Conclusions on the Commission's 2001 review of the Internal Market Strategy were approved. The draft Council Resolution on a strategy for the Customs Union, which is intended to improve standards of customs services throughout the EU, taking account of changes such as enlargement, e-commerce and customs related fraud, was adopted without discussion. The draft Council Resolution on eEurope: Information and Network Security was agreed with minimal discussion.

  There was a Presidency report of the discussions held at the informal Ministerial in Lund which dealt with key items of consumer interest in the Internal Market and the Commission commented on the debate on the General Regulatory Framework on Good Market Behaviour or "Duty to Trade Fairly".

  There was an exchange of information on the state of play of preparations for preparing consumers for the introduction of euro notes and coins. Belgium and Spain outlined priorities for their Presidencies (the Joint Work Programme) and the Commission presented its latest

  149W
  version of the Single Market Scoreboard, which records member states' performance in transposing Single Market Directives.

  Over lunch on 31 May, the Council discussed joint action on the single market between EU and Russia, the Community Design Regulation and International Exhaustion of Trademarks (Parallel Trade).

  Flexible Working Hours
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the terms of reference are for the taskforce that is to consider how to give parents of young children a right to make a request to work flexible hours. [1707]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Work and Parents Taskforce will look at how to meet parents' desire for more flexible work patterns in a way which is compatible with business efficiency. It will look at how best to encourage and enable employers to create additional opportunities for parents of young children to work flexibly, for the benefit of employers, employees and their children.

  The Taskforce will:

  building on best practice, design a light-touch legislative approach to giving parents of young children a right to make a request to work flexible hours and to have this request considered seriously by the employer;

  take fully into account the particular needs of small employers in designing such a solution, including whether they should be subject to special conditions;

  integrate existing best practice and the reasonable operational needs of business;

  put the emphasis on resolving requests within the business rather than through applications to employment tribunals;

  consider whether other changes to the law are needed to remove any legal or institutional impediments to flexible working;

  consider what further support would help employers and employees to make and consider cases for flexible working; and

  consider whether extra help with the training and development of people working flexibly is needed.

  The Taskforce will report in November 2001. It will be chaired by Professor Sir George Bain. Other members of the Work and Parents Taskforce will be:

  Members

  Fiona Cannon

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Kay Carberry

  Trades Union Congress

  John Cridland

  Confederation of British Industry

  Martin Gayle

  Martin Gayle at Aveda

  Mike Griffin

  King's College Hospital Trust

  Anne Minto OBE

  Smiths Industries

  Sue Monk

  Parents at Work, Chief Executive

  Maureen Rooney

  Trades Union Congress

  Simon Topman

  J. E. Hudson & Co. (ACME Whistles)

  British Trade International
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes will be made to the resource departmental expenditure limit of British Trade International. [1704]
  150W
  Ms Hewitt
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the voted element of the Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit for British Trade International will be increased by £2,000,000, from £84,634,000 to £86,643,000.

  This increase, which will be made to the net provision of British Trade International, will be offset by a transfer of £2,000,000 in resources from the Department of Trade and Industry to fund the Enterprise Scholarships and Entrepreneurs Pilot programmes.

  Gas Processing Industry
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to provide advice to owners of onshore gas processing infrastructure in relation to their statutory obligations to publish their main commercial conditions for access to infrastructure. [1708]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has today issued guidance to owners of onshore gas processing facilities and relevant pipelines to assist them in meeting their obligations under tin Gas Act 1995 and the Pipelines Act 1962 to publish their main commercial conditions for access.

  We have also published today the first element of the departmental response to its consultation on "Oil and Gas Infrastructure: Access Provisions and Voluntary Arrangements"; this response relates to the content of the guidance on main commercial conditions.

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

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes will be made to the departmental expenditure limit and administration costs limit for her Department. [1703]

  Ms Hewitt
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by £62,805,000, to £4,549,049,000 from £4,486,244,000. In addition the gross running costs limit will be reduced by £69,000, from £412,007,000 to £411,938,000.

  These changes result from:

  (i) the take up of £1,710,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for projects to develop Novel Recycling Techniques and to establish a UK Oil Portal;

  (ii) the transfer of £12,000,000 in resources to British Trade International for the administration of enterprise scholarships and pilot programmes for entrepreneurs;

  (iii) the transfer of £105,000 in administration costs from the Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs to the Small Business Service for the administration of the Farm Business Advice Service;

  (iv) a receipt from the Department for the Environment, Food. and Rural Affairs of £14,150,000 in programme expenditure for the delivery by the Small Business Service (SBS) of the Farm Business Advice Service, which will offset an equivalent increase in the gross expenditure provision;

  (v) the transfer of £350,000 from programme to administration costs in respect of implementation of the Postal Services Act 2000;

  151W

  (vi) the reclassification from administration costs to programme of the provision of £524,000 from the Invest to Save budget for the development of a video link between a Court and an Official Receiver's Office, and of debt advice pilots;

  (vii) the take up of £31,500,000 from the unused balance of the Department's end-year flexibility entitlement from 1999–2000, as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 4812) for the Rolls Royce Trent (600 and 900 projects

  (viii) the provision of £31,500,000 from the Reserve for the Rolls Royce Trent 600 and 900 projects.

  All of the above increases will either be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Energy and Industry Council
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Energy and Industry Council on 14 am 15 May. [1702]

  Mr. Wilson
  The council considered several matters of interest to the United Kingdom.

  An exchange of views and adoption of Council conclusions on the Green Paper: Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply, and a policy debate on the internal market in electricity and gas formed the center-piece of this energy council.

  On security of supply, the discussion was structured around a series of questions set by the Presidency: the need for a more co-ordinated approach; Community level measures that could be envisaged; the contribution of demand side measures and the development of new technologies; and the need to reinforce the dialogue with supplier countries. The UK welcomed the Green Paper as a good basis for debate, and said that market liberalisation was essential to the improvement of security of supply within the European Union and that a single market would provide the necessary investment signals. As far as indigenous resources were concerned the UK said it would continue to ensure that the North Sea was fully exploited. The UK supported measures to provide more effective control of demand; particularly in the areas of energy efficiency and fuel efficiency and in this respect we welcomed the proposed directive on energy performance in buildings. In response to the discussion on use of fiscal measures, the UK recalled that the reference to fiscal instruments in the Green Paper did not alter the requirement for unanimity in fiscal matters. Furthermore, the UK did not see any need for tax harmonisation measures in this area. Dialogue with supplier countries was important but the focus should not be exclusively on Russia. The aim should be to encourage a sound investment climate in supplier countries and avoid creating the impression that the EU was in a weak position by implying that we were desperate for fuel supplies. The conclusions were adopted.

  On the discussion on the internal market, the UK welcomed both the draft Directive to accelerate the completion of the internal market in electricity and gas, and the draft Regulation on cross-border electricity trading, which should be treated as a single package. On the draft directive the UK stressed the need for legal separation of transmission and distribution operations, regulated third party access, independent regulation and 100 per cent. market opening as soon as possible. We supported the Netherlands' idea of a workshop to move
  152W
  council discussion forward quickly. We also urged the Commission to continue its work on cross-border tariffication and congestion management but at the same time indicated the need to consider carefully the scope of the proposed Regulation. We said that public service obligations were best met within an efficiently functioning competitive market, as the final version of the DTI study of the UK's experience (copies of which were distributed) demonstrates. We supported the general agreement that the Florence and Madrid processes were useful and that they should continue but within a more formal legal structure. The UK also supported the widespread agreement that Trans-European Energy Networks (TENS) should be exploited further to help solve potential network problems.

  In addition, the council resolution on a strategy for integrating environmental aspects and sustainable development into energy policy was adopted without discussion. The council also noted Commission presentations on a new proposal for a Directive on energy performance of buildings, enhancing Euro-Mediterranean Co-operation, the Northern Dimension: Energy Sector, and the Energy Charter Treaty.

  On industry, the council held a debate on the proposed modernisation of the application of the treaty's competition provisions. There was good support for the principle of the reforms, although some caution over legal certainty of the role of competition authorities. There was general support for measures on structural remedies and, for allowing the Commission to accept commitments. Structural remedies allow authorities to remove the underlying incentive for companies to breach competition law, while the proposed regulation contains provisions which would make legally enforceable companies' commitments to the Commission to change practices in order to avoid a potential infringement. The Commission also presented its latest annual report on Competition Policy.

  There was a discussion on the Commission's White Paper on Chemicals. The council stressed the need to maintain competitiveness in a global industry as well as protect public health and the environment, and the need for a cost effective, transparent and flexible regime. The council highlighted the need to use the dossier to reinforce the internal market; the importance of compliance with WTO rules; and the importance of producing a system that promoted innovation. The Presidency undertook to pass these messages to the Environment Council.

  The Commission presented its fourth report on the world shipbuilding market, which indicated that the past year had seen significant growth in new ship orders, mostly to the benefit of South Korean yards. There was continued evidence of Korean yards selling below an economically viable level. The Commission had announced (on 8 May) that failing a bilateral solution with Korea by 30 June, it intended to launch a WTO case and to propose a selective subsidy mechanism to defend EU yards. A defence mechanism should be seen as an exceptional step, and that it was important that it should be carefully targeted on those sectors where there was direct unfair competition from Korea. The council adopted conclusions strongly supporting the intention to launch a WTO case and noting the intention to propose a new subsidy mechanism.
  153W
  The council adopted conclusions welcoming the Commission's "Go-Digital" initiative, designed to increase awareness among SMEs of e-commerce and break down the barriers that exist to their take-up of e-business.

  There was a discussion on the proposals to allow European Coal and Steel Community funds to transfer to the Community when the Treaty expires in 2002. Member states had agreed at Nice to a protocol to provide a legal base allowing the ECSC assets to continue to be used for research to benefit those companies who had contributed to the assets. The protocol needed to be ratified as part of the Nice package before formal decisions could be taken, but the Presidency had taken work forward on some outstanding issues.

  Most outstanding issues were resolved at the council: apart from a Danish Parliamentary Scrutiny reserve, all member states were able to support the texts. The Commission also presented its latest report on the monitoring of the Article 95 Steel Aid Cases.

  Finally, the council adopted conclusions on the integration of sustainable development and enterprise policy. This recommends progress towards the integration of environment policy into enterprise policy, and that a positive environmental approach could reinforce competitiveness.

  Embedded Generation
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to take forward the recommendations of the Ofgem/DTI working party on embedded generation published in January 2001; and if she will make a statement. [1109]

  Mr. Wilson
  The report of the embedded generation working group set out a number of important recommendations which the Government are keen to see progressed as quickly as possible. I therefore intend to establish a co-ordination group to ensure that the detailed recommendations of the report, many of which are for Ofgem and the industry to pursue, are addressed in a timely and co-ordinated fashion, which recognises the interdependent nature of the issues involved. It is hoped that the co-ordination group can begin its work in September and preparatory work is in hand to enable the group to move quickly once it is established.

  The DTI Energy Policy Directorate designated embedded generation website at www.dti.gov.uk/energy/ egwg/index.htm will continue to publish information on future developments as the group is established.

  Cleaner Fuels
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she is supporting into less polluting fuels. [410]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government support a wide range of research into cleaner fuels.

  The Department of Trade and Industry spent £11.3 million last year and has a budget of £18 million for this financial year for its programme to support research
  154W
  and development of new and renewable energy. This includes work on stationary and transport applications of fuel cells including consideration of the fuelling issues.

  Following the results of the Green Fuel Challenge announced in Budget 2001, the Government will shortly invite bids for duty exemptions or reductions for pilot projects for fuels including hydrogen, bio-ethanol, methanol and biogas.

  The Government are fully engaged in international developments in this area, and actively involved in research sponsored by international organisations, such as the European Commission and the International Energy Agency.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help tackle long-term unemployment in Nottingham, North constituency. [1943]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  From July 2001 the Nottingham Employment Zone will be extended to cover Bulwell East and Bulwell West in my hon. Friend's constituency. From January 2002 the Nottingham Action Team for Jobs will also be extended so that these two wards will be brought within its scope.

  Fraud
  Brian White
  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 Lambeth. [1944]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report was published today in respect of the London borough of Lambeth 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.

  BFI inspectors found that the council's administration of these benefits is very poor, and that radical improvements are heeded in all but a few areas.

  The benefits service has been outsourced to a contractor and, although inspectors consider the terms of the contract are acceptable, the council's management of it has been poor. As a result, the council has failed to eradicate its longstanding, and now, substantial, backlog of work. BFI considers this failure underlies many of the problems that the council now faces.

  BFI found that the council compounds its problems by failing to monitor quality, depriving itself of the management information that is needed for improvement.

  The report notes the Chief Executive's willingness to accept and implement our recommendations for change demonstrates a commitment to improvement. More recently Lambeth has requested assistance to address its problems from the DWP funded expect help team. The

  155W
  expert help teams will be working with Lambeth to ensure that they have robust plans for achieving a significantly improved benefits service.

  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.

  Paul Goggins
  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 Manchester City Council. [1945]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Manchester City council 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.

  Inspectors found that Manchester City council provided a very poor service to claimants, particularly in the time taken to process new claims and changes of circumstances. Considerable backlogs of work had developed, although the report notes the council took steps to deal with the backlog and the situation improved.

  The report notes some weaknesses in the verification of new claims and in renewal cases the council focused on ensuring that payment was made rather than making sure that the determination was correct.

  Inspectors found weaknesses in the council's counter fraud strategy and concluded that the counter fraud team was under resourced. There were also weaknesses in the identification and classification of overpayments, and the recovery of overpayments was very poor.

  Inspectors consider a good number of the problems would have been avoided if the council had planned and managed better the major changes it made in 1999–2000 and earlier.

  However, the reports notes the council has said that it has made management and operational changes to address the weaknesses identified by the inspection, especially in work prioritization, structure, communications and recruitment.

  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.

  Mr. Todd
  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 Lincoln City council. [1946]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Lincoln City council 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.
  156W
  Inspectors found that Lincoln City Council was providing a satisfactory gateway to the benefit systems by ensuring that appropriate verification action was taken before determining claims.

  However, there were several areas where the council was not providing a satisfactory or secure service. BFI considers many weaknesses were the result of a long standing backlog of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit work and a lack of good quality management information. Weaknesses included renewal claims not being dealt with promptly, benefit periods being incorrectly set and referrals to the Rent Officer being delayed.

  The report notes the council has a prosecution policy but fails to adhere to it. Management and control of counter fraud work was weak, and inspectors found that the council was over-claiming weekly benefit savings.

  Apart from the lack of a strategy to clear the backlog of work, the BFI found the council had no clear strategies covering overpayment recovery or its visiting programme.

  The report concludes that the council must tackle the backlog of work by producing a clear strategy based on sound management information.

  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.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much was spent on countering fraud in Family Credit, and what the estimated savings were in the last three years; [1149]

  (2) what his Department spent countering fraud in (a)Income Support and (b)Jobseeker's Allowance, in nominal terms and expressed as a percentage of the relevant benefit expenditure, in the last three years. [1150]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department set out its strategy for tackling fraud and error in the paper—A new contract for welfare: Safeguarding Social Security (CM 4276)—published on 23 March 1999. The overall aim of the strategy is to have a benefit system which is secure from first claim to final payment.

  The implementation of this strategy means that an anti-fraud focus is integral to the work of the Department, as is dealing with the wider agenda of error and incorrectness in benefit payments. It is therefore not possible to account for the cost of anti-fraud work separately.

  Family Credit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999. This Tax Credit is administered by the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the checks made on continuing claims for benefit with respect to National Insurance are done through access to Inland Revenue records. [1153]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The checks referred to in my noble Friend the then Minister for State's written answer on 11 May 2001,Official Report, columns 387–88W are

  157W
  conducted by Benefits Agency staff on continuing claims to Income Support (IS) or Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). Requests for verification are made either to the claimant for documentary evidence in the form of wage slips or pay statements or to the employer or pension provider directly with the claimant's consent. This provides written confirmation of gross pay, details of deductions for tax and National Insurance (NI) and net pay. Where there appears to be a discrepancy in the amount of deductions taken, further inquiries are made to the customer or employer/pension provider.

  There are no formal arrangements for the Department to access or check Inland Revenue records.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out his strategy for identifying those who have failed to claim their entitlement for Winter Fuel Payments in the winters of(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and if he will set out the reasons for which a deadline was applied to claims for winter 2000–01. [1158]

  Mr. McCartney
  An information campaign, beginning in April 2000, aimed to ensure that existing and potential customers were aware of the changes to the scheme and what, if any, action was required. It has included: advertisements in national and local press; a leaflet and poster, made available in a variety of venues, including local social security offices, post offices, supermarkets and doctors' surgeries; a dedicated Winter Fuel Payment Helpline; and information on the internet. A mailshot was also undertaken, beginning in early May 2000, to people we could identify as being newly eligible, with an invitation to make a claim.

  The deadline imposed for winter 2000 payments allowed a period for claiming of almost a year from when the information campaign began, it is not unreasonable to assume that those who want to claim have claimed.

  Legislation covering Winter Fuel Payments states that for winter 2000–01 claims had to be made before 31 March 2001. This does not apply to the retrospective years 1997–98, 1998–99,1999–2000.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the value of unclaimed Winter Fuel Payments for the winter of 2000–01 and the number of entitled recipients who failed to claim their entitlement by the 31 March deadline. [1159]

  Mr. McCartney
  We received and paid around 1.3 million Winter Fuel Payment claims for last winter. We estimated that up to 1.5 million people could have been eligible who would need to claim. Because this figure is an estimate, it is not possible to provide a reliable figure of either the value of unclaimed payments, or of those who did not claim.

  Overall, including those made automatically, over 11 million payments were made last winter.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out the basis for his oral statement of 25 June 2001,Official Report, column 372, about the number of pensioners who will benefit from the proposed
  158W
  pension credit; and if that total includes pensioners with no private pension income who receive the minimum income guarantee. [1160]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to "The Pension Credit: A consultation paper" (Nov 2000, Cm 4900).

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much it is expected to cost to establish the Pension Service [370]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government's current spending plans (Spending Review 2000: New Public Spending Plans 2001–04 Cm4807) provide funds for extensive improvements to the services this Department offers to its customers. Establishing the new Pension Service will form a key part of this modernisation programme.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have bought a stakeholder pension in each month since they first became available; and what proportion of these were bought on behalf of someone else. [376]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service will have their own dedicated websites. [369]

  Mr. McCartney
  Jobcentre Plus and the Pension Service will have their own dedicated websites.

  Information about both organisations is already available through either the Department's or the Employment Service's websites.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people who claim minimum income guarantee as a result of the take-up campaign. [919]

  Mr. McCartney
  The take-up campaign has so far resulted in 110,286 successful claims to the minimum income guarantee. The average additional income is £20 per week.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how people in long-term residential care who are(a) state-funded and (b) self-funded will benefit from the introduction of the pension credit. [1260]

  Mr. McCartney
  The pension credit forms a key part of the Government's overall strategy for tackling pensioner poverty.

  We are in the process of completing the design of the credit and will publish details of our proposals when the Bill is introduced.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many claims were made for Severe Disablement Allowance in each of the 12 months up to and including March 2001; [1157]

  (2) how many (a)claims and (b)awards have been made for Severe Disablement Allowance in each of the 12 months up to and including March 2001. [1161]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is set out in the table.

  New claims to Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

  Severe Disablement Allowance awards

  April 2000

  3,459

  1,100

  May 2000

  3,884

  800

  June 2000

  3,966

  1,300

  July 2000

  3,830

  1,200

  August 2000

  4,172

  900

  September 2000

  4,226

  1,000

  October 2000

  4,418

  1,000

  November 2000

  4,537

  800

  December 2000

  3,122

  1,000

  January 2001

  4,022

  900

  February 2001

  3,962

  700

  March 2001

  4,788

  n/a

  n/a = Not available

  Note:

  Information on the number of awards commencing in March 2001 is not yet available as these figures are derived from quarterly data, not due to be released until September 2001

  Source:

  New claims figures are from 100 per cent. counts supplied by the Central Data Unit and are subject to change

  Figures for SDA awards are taken from 5 per cent. samples of the PSCS(INCAP) benefit computer system, and exclude a small number of cases held clerically. These figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Housing Benefit
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimates he has made of the administrative costs of Housing Benefit for each London borough for each of the past three years. [1046]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The annual expenditure on Housing Benefit administration reported by London local authorities for the last three years for which figures are available are given in the table.

  £000

  Local authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  496

  654

  935

  Barnet

  1,869

  2,086

  1,665

  Bexley

  506

  457

  494

  Brent

  3,670

  3,820

  3,528

  Bromley

  1,778

  1,680

  1,561

  Camden

  3,291

  3,169

  3,274

  City of London

  232

  263

  204

  Croydon

  1,998

  2,050

  2,223

  Ealing

  3,745

  4,177

  3,807

  Enfield

  2,571

  2,382

  2,433

  Greenwich

  4,739

  3,881

  4,256

  Hackney

  5,600

  4,529

  5,069

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,935

  2,832

  2,821

  Haringey

  5,428

  5,634

  7,243

  Harrow

  985

  1,191

  1,122

  Havering

  915

  1,021

  1,059

  Hillingdon

  1,538

  1,143

  1,151

  160W

  £000

  Local authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Hounslow

  1,104

  1,235

  1,455

  Islington

  3,814

  1,586

  2,839

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,690

  3,090

  2,750

  Kingston upon Thames

  485

  484

  548

  Lambeth

  5,052

  3,679

  3,938

  Lewisham

  6,167

  7,227

  6,138

  Merton

  664

  684

  946

  Newham

  7,363

  7,691

  5,581

  Redbridge

  1,932

  2,538

  2,031

  Richmond upon Thames

  976

  853

  845

  Southwark

  3,915

  5,447

  6,638

  Sutton

  1,209

  1,190

  1,280

  Tower Hamlets

  2,275

  2,658

  2,752

  Waltham Forest

  1,639

  1,897

  3,323

  Wandsworth

  2,096

  2,101

  2,447

  Westminster

  4,886

  4,986

  4,618

  Source:

  Reported expenditure to the DTLR on form R04.

  Jobcenter Plus
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much it is expected to cost to establish Jobcenter Plus; and how much revenue is expected to be raised by selling off premises that are vacated as a result of the merger between the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency. [650]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our plans for introducing Jobcenter Plus are still developing. For this reason the information requested is not yet available.

  Benefits Expenditure
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's most recent estimates are for expenditure on(a) Disability Living Allowance, (b) Attendance Allowance, (c) Severe Disablement Allowance, (d) the short-term component of Incapacity Benefit, (e) the long-term component of Incapacity Benefit and (f) the earnings-related component of Incapacity Benefit for (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii)2002–03.

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Government expenditure plans 2000–01 to 2002–03

  £million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Disability Living Allowance

  6,044

  6,511

  6,877

  Attendance Allowance

  2,946

  3,094

  3,174

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  1,014

  1,020

  959

  Incapacity Benefit—short term

  563

  546

  570

  Incapacity Benefit—long term

  5,329

  5,430

  5,532

  Incapacity Benefit—AP

  644

  552

  474

  Note:

  Figures are consistent with Departmental Report 2001

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's original forecasts were for expenditure on(a) Disability Living Allowance, (b) Attendance Allowance, (c) Severe Disablement Allowance, (d) the short-term component of Incapacity Benefit, (e) the long-term component of Incapacity Benefit and (f) the earnings-related component of Incapacity Benefit for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01, (iii) 2001–02 (iv)2002–03. [1162]
  161W
  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Government expenditure plans 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  £million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Disability Living Allowance

  5,630

  5,823

  6,282

  Attendance Allowance

  2,841

  2,916

  3,078

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  1,011

  1,017

  1,029

  Incapacity Benefit

  Short-term

  560

  557

  510

  Long-term

  5,564

  5,579

  5,836

  AP

  751

  641

  563

  Notes:

  1. Figures are consistent with Departmental Report 2000.

  2. No projected expenditure for 2002–03 was made in Departmental Report 2000

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's actual expenditure was on(a) Disability Living Allowance, (b) Attendance Allowance, (c) Severe Disablement Allowance, (d) the short-term component of Incapacity Benefit, (e) the long-term component of Incapacity Benefit and (f) the earnings-related component of Incapacity Benefit for (i) 1999–2001 and (ii) 2000–01. [1163]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Government expenditure 1999–2000 to 2000–01

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Disability Living Allowance

  5,660

  6,044

  Attendance Allowance

  2,823

  2,946

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  1,006

  1,014

  Incapacity Benefit

  Short-term

  547

  563

  Long-term

  5,492

  5,329

  AP

  753

  644

  Notes:

  1. Figures are consistent with Departmental Report 2001.

  2. Figures for 1999–2000 are outturn.

  3. Figures for 2000–01 are estimated outturn.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will produce an updated set of tables in the same terms as those at the back of the last DSS departmental report (Cm 4614) to outline the future expenditure plans of his new Department. [373]

  Mr. Darling
  The creation of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) brings together former Department of Social Security spending plans, less that relating to War Pensions, with those for the employment functions of the former Department for Employment and Education (DfEE) (including the whole of the Employment Service). Work is continuing to quantify precise funding, particularly in relation to administration, and full details will be published in the next Departmental Report. However, previously published information relating to benefit expenditure (to be found in the Department of Social Security Departmental Report, Cm 5115, and in additional information placed in the Library, and on 1 May 2001,Official Report, column 594W remains correct except for war pensions, which are transferred to the Ministry of Defence.
  162W
  DWP will assume responsibility from DfEE for some £2.3 billion funding. including around £0.8 billion from the Employment Opportunities Fund. Further details are on page 148 of the DfEE Departmental Report (Cm 5102). In addition there will be transfers from DfEE in respect of headquarters staff.

  DWP will also be transferring some £24 million to the Ministry of Defence in relation to the administration of war pensions, including the cost of the War Pensions Agency.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) the deadline dates for submission of UK periodic report obligations under the United Nations system and (b) the expected dates and location of sessions of supervisory and reporting bodies are for each of the next five years. [1146]

  Peter Hain
  As part of its commitment to promote human rights, the UK takes seriously its obligations to submit regular and comprehensive reports to the six UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies. Wherever possible, the UK submits reports which cover the Metropolitan Territories, as well as the Crown Dependent Territories and the Overseas Territories.

  The UK's Fifth Periodic Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was submitted to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in August 1999. The UK's Sixth Report is due in August 2004.

  The UK's Fourth Periodic Report under the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights (ICESCR) was submitted to the OHCHR in December 2000. The UK's Fifth Report is due in 2005—a specific deadline has not yet been set by the OHCHR.

  The UK's Third Periodic Report under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) was submitted in April 1998. Government Departments are currently compiling the UK's Fourth Report which is due in January 2002.

  The UK's Fifteenth Periodic Report under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) was submitted in August 1999. A separate report covering the Overseas Territories was submitted in February 2000. The UK's Sixteenth Report (which will be an update on the Fifteenth Report) is currently being compiled and is due to be submitted in August 2001.

  The UK's Second Periodic Report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was submitted in August 1999. The UK's Third Periodic Report is due in September 2004.

  The UK's Fourth Periodic Report under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was submitted in January 1999. The UK's Fifth Report is due to he submitted in May 2003.
  163W
  The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has so far only published a calendar covering Human Rights Committee meetings in 2001. By the end of the year:

  The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) will have met three times in Geneva (8–26 January; 21 May-8 June; 24 September-12 October.

  The Human Rights Committee (HRC) will have met three times, once in New York and twice in Geneva (19 March-6 April, New York; 9–27 July, Geneva; 15 October-2 November, Genevia

  The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) will have met three times in Geneva (23 April-11 May; 13–31 August; 12–30 November).

  The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) will have met twice in New York (15 January-2 April; 2–20 July.

  The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination (CERD) will have met twice in Geneva (5–23 Mar 30 July-17 August.

  The Committee Against Torture (CAT) will have met twice in Geneva (30 April-18 May; 12–23 November.

  Full details of 2002 meetings will be published on the OHCHR website www.unhchr.ch later in the year.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list his special advisers and their division of responsibilities; [254]

  (2) if he will list the special advisers in his Department together with their date of appointment and their responsibilities; which of them are authorised to speak to the media; and if he will make a statement. [251]

  Mr. Straw
  The FCO Special Advisers are Ed Owen and Michael Williams. They were appointed on 19 June 2001 and are authorised to speak to the media.

  Their areas of policy responsibility are:

  Ed Owen

  European Union

  Central and Eastern Europe

  Russia

  Cyprus and Turkey

  Gibraltar and Overseas Territories

  Global Environment

  Dr. Michael C. Williams

  International Security Policy—including NATO and peacekeeping United Nations

  The Balkans

  Africa Middle East

  North, South and Central America

  South and East Asia

  Australasia

  Human Rights

  The Commonwealth

  Arms Control and Disarmament

  Arms Embargoes
  Mr.Lloyd
  The ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the expiry of the UN and EU arms embargoes against Ethiopia and Eritrea. [1711]
  164W
  Peter Hain
  The arms embargo and ban on related technical assistance and training imposed by the United Nations Security Council resolution 1298 (2000) against Ethiopia and Eritrea expired on 16 May 2001. The EU arms embargo imposed against Ethiopia and Eritrea by Common Position 99/206/CFSP expired on 31 May 2001. HMG were content to support the expiry of both the UN and EU embargoes in recognition of the progress made by both parties in the implementation of the Algiers Peace Agreements, including the establishment of the Temporary Security Zone.

  From 1 June 2001, the Government will consider all applications for a licence to export goods and technology on the Military List on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria which I announced on 26 October 2000, Official Report,columns 199–203W. It remains our policy only to sell arms which will not be used for external aggression or internal oppression.

  Export Controls (Afghanistan)
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which goods subject to strategic export controls have recently been approved for export to Afghanistan. [1712]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department of Trade and Industry recently issued an export licence for mine-clearance equipment for use by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance (UNOCHA) to assist their demanding activities in Afghanistan. The goods are rated as Military Listed. UNSCR 1333 (2000) which imposes inter alia an arms embargo on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan provides scope for the UN Sanctions Committee to approve of non-lethal military equipment intended solely for humanitarian or protective use to Taliban-controlled territory. The Sanctions Committee has given its approval in this case.

  The granting of this export licence is fully consistent with the UN Security Council resolutions and does not affect the Government's continued support for the EU common position on arms exports to Afghanistan.

  Chagos Islands
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the environmental impact assessment study of the Chagos Islands to be completed and published. [1052]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on 23 April 2001,Official Report, column 124W. Phase 2 studies, which will include general but not specific environmental impact assessments, are expected to be completed within a year.

  Antarctic Environmental Protocol
  Jeremy corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and commonwealth Affairs what actions are being taken by his department to establish a permanent secretariat for the Antarctic environmental Protocol signatories. [1056]
  165W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are in discussions with a number of Antarctic Treaty Parties on the question of a Secretariat. This is a matter which may arise at the forthcoming Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (9–20 July 2001, St. Petersburg, Russia), though the agenda for that meeting has not yet been confirmed.

  General Pinochet
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of the legal proceedings against General Pinochet in Chile is being undertaken by his Department. [1051]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our Embassy in Santiago is keeping the Department informed of developments in the legal proceedings against General Pinochet.

  Diego Garcia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has held with the US Government concerning the right of return of the Ilois people to Diego Garcia. [1053]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), gave to him on 26 April 2001,Official Report, columns 337–38W.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the responsibilities of the Minister for Trade. [850]

  Mr. Straw
  Under exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, information about internal discussions is not disclosed.

  Future of Europe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to launch the UK consultation process for the Future of Europe debate. [851]

  Peter Hain
  There is already a lively UK debate on the future of Europe. The Government welcome this. As the Prime Minister said in Warsaw in October 2000, the challenge now is to reform the EU so that it delivers real benefits to the people of Europe, addressing the priorities they want addressed; and does so in a way which has their consent and support.

  A number of Government initiatives have already been taken to sustain and develop this debate:

  The Prime Minister's Warsaw speech laid out the overall approach of the UK Government, inviting others to contribute to the debate. Ministers have regularly addressed EU issues in media appearances and contacts with the public.

  The EU section of the Foreign Office website has made available a substantial amount of material on the EU and the UK's place in it, and hosts regular online debates on topical EU issues.

  The Government have held a series of parliamentary debates on the EU. There will be further such opportunities as Parliament considers the Bill to ratify the Nice Treaty.

  The Government have organised or sponsored a number of public events to solicit the views of academics, civil society and the general public.

  166W
  The Government's efforts to provide information and seek the public's views will continue in the coming months.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to continue the "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign; and what budget has been set for this initiative. [852]

  Peter Hain
  The FCO will continue to meet its public service commitment to inform the UK public about the EU. The costs of this will be met from within the FCO's central budget.

  Middle East
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he discussed the proposals for peace in the middle east put forward by the director of the CIA during his recent visit to Gothenburg. [853]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ongoing efforts to build on the fragile ceasefire in the middle east featured prominently in discussion at both the EU-US summit on 14 June and the European Council on 15–16 June in Gothenburg. The UK welcomes the agreement by the parties to CIA Director Tenet's proposals for consolidating the ceasefire, and making progress on security issues. It is now essential that the ceasefire and further security measures be followed swiftly by work on confidence-building measures and the renewal of a political process, which together form the complete package of the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee

  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the EU and the US on the issue of ballistic missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [854]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed issues related to ballistic missile defence with his US and other NATO counterparts at the special meeting of the North Atlantic Council on June 13. Alliance leaders welcomed the extensive programme of consultations undertaken by the US on how best to counter the emerging threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their missile delivery systems.

  Rebuttal Unit
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of his Department's rebuttal unit on EU issues. [856]

  Peter Hain
  Government Ministers will continue to write letters aimed at correcting press articles on Europe which are misleading and/or factually inaccurate, just as they would do on any other issue.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had during his recent visit to Gothenburg regarding the situation in Macedonia. [857]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has wide-ranging discussions on Macedonia with colleagues both during the European Council and the preceding EU/US summit in Gothenburg. The European Council decided to appoint a high level EU representative to be resident in Macedonia under the authority of EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana. The Conclusions of the Gothenburg Council, including the Declaration on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Annexe II), were placed in the Library of the House on Monday 18 June.

  Nice Treaty
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the conclusions of the Gothenburg Summit as they relate to the Irish referendum on the Nice treaty and (b) how the process of enlargement will be pursued. [858]

  Peter Hain
  The 11 June General Affairs Council expressed regret at the result of the Irish referendum on the Treaty of Nice, while respecting the will of the Irish people. The GAC noted that the Irish Government are deeply and firmly committed to the EU and to the ratification of the Treaty of Nice. The Fourteen expressed their readiness to contribute in every possible way to help the Irish Government find a way forward, taking into account the concerns reflected by this result, without reopening the text of the Nice treaty.

  The Gothenburg European Council confirmed these conclusions, and reaffirmed that the ratification process for the Treaty of Nice will continue so that the Union is in a position to welcome new member states from the end of 2002.

  Heads of State and Government also agreed that, provided progress towards meeting the accession criteria continues at an unabated pace, the enlargement road map should make it possible to complete negotiations by the end of 2002 for those candidate countries that are ready. The objective is that they should participate in the 2004 European Parliament elections as members.

  Ministerial Meetings (Europe)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had since his appointment with(a) the President of the European Commission and (b) representatives of the forthcoming Belgian EU Presidency, and if he will make a statement. [859]

  Peter Hain
  At the General Affairs Council of 11–12 June and the Gothenburg European Council of 15–16 June, the Secretary of State had useful discussions with the President of the Commission and with the Belgian Foreign Minister. The Secretary of State also held a bilateral meeting with the Belgian Foreign Minister in London on 26 June: they discussed a range of issues likely 168W
  to feature during the forthcoming Belgian Presidency of the European Union. I have also held bilateral talks with my Belgian counterpart to discuss Presidency issues.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it remains the Government's policy that qualified majority voting should not be extended to border controls, defence, taxation, social security, own resources matters and treaty amendments. [956]

  Peter Hain
  As our manifesto made clear, we shall keep the veto on vital matters of national sovereignty.

HEALTH

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need to empower hospitals to restrict the movement of infectious in-patients suffering from TB; and if he will make a statement. [59]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department of Health has published recommendations on the requirement for managing patients—including isolation—with tuberculosis and drug resistant tuberculosis in two documents. One was published in June 1996 entitled "Recommendations for the prevention and control of tuberculosis at local level" and, again, in September 1998 recommendations were made in the document entitled "UK guidance on the prevention and control of transmission of HIV-related tuberculosis and Drug-resistant, including Multiple Drug-resistant tuberculosis". Both of these publications are available in the Library.

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he will give to the NHS Appointments Commission to ensure that suitable nominations are received from the voluntary sector. [13]

  Jacqui Smith
  Experience in the voluntary sector is valued on National Health Service boards and we remain keen to encourage people with such expertise to apply.

  I understand that the NHS Appointments Commission will be routinely writing to appropriate councils for voluntary service with copies of its recruitment advertisements and asking them to draw these to the attention of their member organisations.

  NHS (Surrey)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current financial deficit of Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [145]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust reported a provisional income and expenditure deficit of £1.5 million at the end of March 2001 (this figure is subject to confirmation in the trust's final accounts). In order to secure financial balance the trust has to address this deficit and meet a
  169W
  savings target. This means that the trust is reporting a provisional income and expenditure deficit at the beginning of this financial year of £4.0 million.

  The South East Regional Office, East Surrey health authority and local primary care groups are working with the trust to agree a plan which will deliver long-term financial stability and ensure access targets are met.

  Pithing Ban
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the pithing ban. [211]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the ban on pithing came into force on 1 April 2001 in Great Britain and on 11 June 2001 in Northern Ireland, where pithing has not been practiced for some years.

  The ban is enforced in Great Britain by the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS). The FSA has asked the MHS to monitor compliance with the ban and to report any potential closure of abattoirs arising from it. The MHS reports that, as at 11 June 2001, only 13 abattoirs were still pithing. Of these, 10 are expected to cease pithing by 1 July. Officials of the MHS and the Meat and Livestock Commission have met operators who believe they are unable to comply with the ban and have provided advice on how premises and working practices may be adapted to enable them to do so. The MHS has not received any reports of increased incidence of worker injury since the ban came into effect.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of total funds available to the cancer screening programme are available to the cervical cancer screening programme; and what that proportion is in cash terms. [302]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 26 June 2001]In 1998, the National Audit Office (NAO) estimated that the National Health Service cervical screening programme in England costs around £132 million per year, around £34 per woman screened1.

  It is estimated by the Department of Health that the NHS breast cancer screening programme costs £52 million per year.

  There are currently no other national NHS programmes for cancer screening. The NHS plan stated that we will introduce new screening programmes for other cancers, as evidence about their effectiveness and benefit is confirmed.

  1 Source:

  NAO "The performance of the NHS cervical screening programme in England"; report by the Comptroller and Auditor General; HC678 session 1997–98; 22 April 1998

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the ninth annual report of the National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit. [1710]
  170W
  Mr. Milburn
  The National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit's ninth annual report will be published tomorrow. The report documents the Unit's findings in relation to sporadic familial and iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), and also variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), up to 31 December 2000. Copies will be placed in the Library, and made available on the Unit's website at www.cjd.ed.ac.uk.

  General Social Care Council
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the General Social Care Council will publish the time-scales for registering each category of social care worker; [1177]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2001, Official Report,column 24W, on the General Social Care Council, if he will list each category of social care worker it is planned to register and how many (a) there are in total in each category and (b) are qualified; [1262]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2001, Official Report,column 24W, on the General Social Care Council, if he will set out his reasons for not requiring the General Social Care Council to develop an interim register that covers all unqualified social care workers. [1261]

  Jacqui Smith
  The General Social Care Council will begin its work in October 2001. It is our intention to ask the Council to register qualified social workers first, beginning in 2002–03, followed by residential childcare workers and managers of care homes.

  The council will specify any levels of training expected of registrants other than social workers. It will need to consider the priorities for registration and the likely overall timetable.

  Registration of the work force is only one strand in our plans to raise standards social care and improving public protection. The GSCC will be publishing codes of practice for social care workers and their employers. Compliance with the code is required of all staff and employers whether registered with the council or not. Compliance with the codes will be a first step towards achieving registration

  There are an estimated one million people working in social care and 80 per cent. of them are thought not to have any qualifications. 60 per cent. of the work force are in the independent sector working for around 25,000 employers, many of whom are very small. We do not hold information about the numbers in any particular group.

  Food Labelling
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in improving food labelling. [594]

  Yvette Cooper
  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.
  171W
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the regulations covering the clarity of food labelling. [595]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are committed to giving consumers more choice by improving food labelling. The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 require key labelling information to be easily visible, easy to understand, legible and indelible.

  The Food Standards Agency has established a working group to advise on ways of making labels clearer and easier to use. The working group is currently analyzing

  Regulatory Bodies contact details

  Regulatory Body

  Address

  Contact

  Contact

  UKCC—United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing

  23 Portland Place, London WIN 4JT

  CE/Registrar: Sue Norman

  President: Alison Norman

  GMC—General Medical Council

  178 Great Portland Street, London W1N 6JE

  President: Sir Donald Irvine

  Registrar: Finally Scott

  RPSGB—Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  1 Lambeth High Street, London SE1 7IN

  Secretary/Registrar: Anne Lewis

  President: Mr. P. L. Marshall Davies

  CPSM—Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  Park House, 184 Kennington Park Load, London SE11 4BU

  Chair Professor: Brian Edwards

  Registrar: Mike Hall

  GDC—General Dental Council

  37 Wimpole Street, London W1M 8DQ

  President: Professor Nairn Wilson

  CE/Registrar: Antony Townsend

  GOC—General Optical Council

  41 Harley Street, London WIG 8DJ

  Chair: Rosie Varley

  Registrar (from 2 January 2000): Peter Coe

  ROstC—Royal Osteopathic Council

  Osteopathy House, 176 Tower Bridge, London SE1 3LU

  Chair: Nigel Clarke

  CE/Registrar: Madeleine Graggs

  GChC—General Chiropractic Council

  3rd Floor North, 344–354 Grays Inn Read, London WC1X 8BP

  Chair: Norma Morris

  Registrar: Margaret Coats

  Organ Register
  Mr. Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he Will break down by region for each of the last 12 months the additions to the organ register. [236]

  New applications to the Organ Doctor Register where signature date between 1 June 2000–31 May 2001, by NHS region

  Thousand

  Month of registration

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Trent

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  2000

  June

  13.3

  11.1

  12.4

  14.7

  20.4

  July

  18.4

  9.9

  10.6

  12.9

  17.3

  August

  21.1

  5.9

  7.9

  10.3

  19.2

  September

  32.0

  21.8

  23.2

  24.8

  50.7

  October

  17.9

  15.5

  17.5

  19.4

  29.4

  November

  12.1

  10.3

  11.3

  13.5

  17.8

  December

  9.1

  8.5

  9.0

  10.2

  13.5

  2001

  January

  13.2

  12.1

  13.9

  15.0

  20.7

  February

  12.4

  10.4

  13.5

  13.0

  18.0

  March

  14.3

  12.1

  15.6

  15.7

  22.3

  April

  10.4

  9.0

  11.2

  11.4

  16.5

  May

  10.0

  8.8

  10.2

  11.3

  15.9

  Total number

  184.2

  135.4

  156.3

  172.2

  261.7

  Percentage of new applications

  11.8

  8.6

  10.0

  11.0

  16.7

  Percentage of ODR total

  10.0

  8.8

  9.4

  10.9

  14.8

  Percentage population

  10.8

  8.7

  9.0

  12.0

  14.5

  172W
  information about consumer needs and discussing options for improvements with a view to drawing up advice on best practice.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the countries of origin of staff first employed by the NHS in the past year. [1152]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally. Information on the countries of origin of staff registered to work as healthcare professionals is held by the relevant regulatory body. A list of regulatory bodies is in the table.

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is sown in the table.
  173W

  Month of registration

  South West

  West Midlands

  North West

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  2000

  June

  13.5

  9.8

  13.1

  4.9

  12.6

  0.2

  July

  11.5

  8.6

  11.7

  4.3

  10.5

  0.4

  August

  16.3

  5.3

  7.8

  2.5

  7.2

  0.2

  September

  35.7

  16.9

  26.7

  8.6

  18.7

  0.2

  October

  21.0

  14.1

  17.3

  6.7

  16.5

  1.0

  November

  12.3

  8.7

  11.3

  4.2

  10.6

  0.8

  December

  8.8

  6.5

  8.3

  3.1

  8.3

  0.5

  2001

  January

  13.3

  10.1

  13.0

  4.8

  12.2

  0.5

  February

  12.4

  9.0

  11.6

  4.1

  10.6

  0.4

  March

  17.7

  13.3

  16.5

  5.2

  12.2

  0.9

  April

  11.1

  9.2

  11.2

  3.5

  10.2

  0.4

  May

  10.5

  7.7

  9.5

  3.4

  8.1

  0.2

  Total number

  184.1

  119.2

  158.0

  55.3

  137.7

  5.7

  Percentage of new applications

  11.7

  7.6

  10.1

  3.5

  8.8

  0.4

  Percentage of ODR total

  10.1

  7.4

  11.0

  5.4

  9.6

  1.7

  Percentage population

  8.3

  9.0

  11.2

  5.0

  8.7

  2.8

  Notes:

  1. NHS region has been defined by postcode and figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Total number of registrations on Organ Donor Register at 25 June 2001 is 8.8 million.

  Work-related Stress Disorders
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further action the Government are intending to take to tackle work-related stress disorders. [415]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Commission has a comprehensive strategy and programme of work to prevent work-related stress and hence the disorders arising from it.

  In partnership with other agencies, both within Government and outside, it will develop clear, agreed standards of good management practice for preventing a range of work-related stressors; better equip health and safety inspectors to handle the issue in their routine work; facilitate a more comprehensive approach to managing work-related stress; run a publicity drive to help educate employers about what they can and should be doing to prevent work-related stress; and develop yardsticks against which employers' performance can be measured.

  As part of this strategy, new guidance from the Health and Safety Executive called "Tackling Work-related Stress—a Managers' Guide to Improving and Maintaining Employee Health and Well-being", was published on 25 June 2001. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Low-sulphur Fuel
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of the recent cut in duty on low sulphur petrol and cut in ultra-low sulphur diesel. [606]
  174W
  Mr. Boateng
  Environmental impacts of the duty cuts for ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP) and ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD) announced in Budget 2001 are summarised in Table 6.2 of the 'Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2001". Further information about the promotion of low sulphur fuels through fiscal measures is to be found in the Customs and Excise paper, "Using the tax system to encourage cleaner fuels: the experience of ultra-low sulphur diesel", published in November 2000.

SCOTLAND

  Constituency Boundaries
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Boundary Commission for Scotland has decided when to start a general review of constituencies in Scotland. [1796]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires the Boundary Commission for Scotland to submit its next general report between December 2002 and December 2006 and within these limits the Commission has discretion when to start a general review. The Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, will give notice in the Edinburgh Gazette tomorrow, 29 June 2001, of its intention to commence forthwith a general review of constituencies in Scotland.

  Regulation of Care (Scotland Bill)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to use her powers of intervention under the Scotland Act 1998 in relation to the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill. [1920]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scottish Parliament made a number of amendments to other enactments at Stage 2 of the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill, including an amendment to the Finance Act 2000. That amendment relates to a reserved matter, and is outwith the
  175W
  Parliament's legislative competence. I will rectify this by means of an Order to be made shortly under Section 107 of the Scotland Act. The use of this approach has the full agreement of the First Minister of Scotland.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on foot and mouth. [584]

  Margaret Beckett
  The outbreak continues in a small number of areas in the country and the average number of confirmed outbreaks is now between four to five cases per day. It is vitally important that we continue to bear down on the disease and that all concerned maintain the highest standards of biosecurity on and around farms.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the impact of recent foot and mouth outbreaks on the rural economy of the North Yorkshire moors with special reference to the measures proposed to regenerate small local businesses in the North Yorkshire national park. [589]

  Margaret Beckett
  As I saw on my visit to North Yorkshire earlier this week, foot and mouth disease has had a major impact on the wider rural economy, and particularly on important tourist areas such as the North Yorkshire Moors. We are helping small rural businesses in these areas through deferral of tax and VAT, hardship rate relief and through the regional development agency Business Recovery Fund.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the total sum of money made available in compensation payments, to date, to farmers as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. [603]

  Margaret Beckett
  Up to 21 June, a total of £803 million has been paid out to farmers in Great Britain in compensation for slaughter of animals and destruction of other items, as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to establish a public inquiry into the Government's handling of foot and mouth disease. [604]

  Margaret Beckett
  It is right that we consider carefully the issues connected with the foot and mouth outbreak. The question of whether there should be a public inquiry as such, is one for the Prime Minister.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many premises classified as infected with foot and mouth disease in each county of(a) England and (b) Scotland have proved not to be infected; and how many cattle and sheep were involved. [785]

  Mr. Morley
  An infected premises is one where foot and mouth disease has either been diagnosed by a vet on the farm, supported by convincing clinical evidence, or where disease is found after testing. However, a negative 176W
  laboratory result does not necessarily mean that the disease was not present and does not change the status of an infected premises confirmed on clinical diagnosis.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the foot and mouth crisis on the veterinary sector. [344]

  Mr. Morley
  No formal assessment has been made, but it is evident that the situation is mixed. Some veterinary surgeons operating in large animal practices will have been unable to carry out much of their normal work because of foot and mouth disease restrictions. However, many of those affected will have carried out work related to the outbreak on behalf of this Department.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will commission an inquiry into the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. [574]

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will initiate a public inquiry into the cause and handling of the foot and mouth epidemic. [586]

  Mrs. Beckett
  It is right that we consider very carefully the issues connected with the foot and mouth outbreak. The question of whether there should be a public inquiry as such, is one for the Prime Minister.

  Tenant Farmers
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with representatives of tenant farmers on the situation in agriculture; and if she will make a statement. [585]

  Mr. Morley
  Since her appointment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to have specific discussions with representatives of tenant farmers, but my noble Friend Lord Whitty met tenant farmers last week to discuss various issues.

  Recycling
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to include the recovery and recycling of wood in the packaging waste regulations. [587]

  Mr. Morley
  From 1 January 2000 all packaging materials, including wood, were covered by the requirements of the Regulations. For wood there is a recovery obligation only. This can be met by recycling, composting or incineration with energy recovery.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the US Administration on the Kyoto targets. [591]

  Margaret Beckett
  We have discussed the issue of climate change with the US at all levels. The Prime Minister discussed climate change with President Bush
  177W
  and EU colleagues in Gothenburg. The Summit agreed to establish a high level group of representatives to consider how the EU and US can co-operate on climate change.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental consequences of the Kyoto protocol not being ratified by the United States Government. [599]

  Margaret Beckett
  Kyoto without the US is clearly a second best option. But Kyoto remains the best framework for global action. It will of course be important to keep the door open to the US to come on board later.

  Pollution
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she intends to introduce to reduce pollution in industrialised areas. [592]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are determined to tackle pollution from industry in a cost-effective and proportionate way. Emissions to air, water and land from major industrial sources are tightly controlled under the Integrated Pollution Control system and the new Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control system. Strong new rules are now in place to make sure that companies take proper responsibility for dealing with legacies of land contamination from the past.

  Food Surplus (EU Expansion)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on food surplus production of the proposed expansion of the EU. [596]

  Margaret Beckett
  The impact of EU enlargement on agricultural production and consumption will depend on a number of different factors including the terms of accession, which have yet to be negotiated. But, in very general terms, surplus production would be expected to rise. This would strengthen the case for further CAP reform.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the prospects for the pig industry. [600]

  Mr. Morley
  Like all livestock sectors, the pig industry is going through a difficult time, mainly as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. Once exports markets are open, and if the industry makes full use of the assistance provided by the Ongoers element of the Government's Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme, the medium term prospects will look more promising.

  Farming Support
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the value for money obtained for support to the farming industry in each of the last five years. [601]
  178W
  Margaret Beckett
  Funding in support of the Action Plan for Farming will be subject to evaluation in partnership with our rural, farming, food and retail industry stakeholders. The England Rural Development Programme will receive a mid-term evaluation in 2003. An annual programme of evaluations is carried out of different policy programmes; details and copies of reports are on DEFRA's website http://www.defra.gov.uk/

  However the vast majority of support to farmers over the last five years has been through CAP direct payments. Despite the achievements of the Agenda 2000 agreement, the Government do not believe that the CAP offers good value for money either to taxpayers, consumers or to the UK economy. We want to see further radical reform to secure a more economically rational CAP which is sustainable in relation to the countryside environment and rural economies.

  Rural Economy
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the role will be of the proposed independent commission on the rural economy. [602]

  Mr. Morley
  The Labour Party manifesto gave a commitment to set up an Independent Commission to advise on how we create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector within a thriving rural economy which enhances environmental, health and animal welfare goals. An announcement will be made on the role and terms of reference when decisions have been taken.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her responsibilities for the rural economy. [608]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's objective is to facilitate the development of dynamic, competitive and sustainable economies in the countryside, tackling poverty in rural areas and this is a key priority for my Department. We will be working closely with the Regional Development Agencies, the Countryside Agency, local authorities and other partners including the food and farming industries to achieve this.

  Cod Recovery Programme
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on policy relating to the next year of the cod recovery programme. [605]

  Mr. Morley
  In view of the advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas the United Kingdom is fully supportive of the need to develop recovery programmes for North Sea cod, West of Scotland cod, Irish Sea cod as well as for Northern hake. Most recently the European Commission (on behalf of the Member States) reached an agreement with Norway on the steps to be taken for the second stage of the North Sea cod recovery programme. A copy of the Agreed Record dated 21 June 2001 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Livestock Markets (Wales)
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the National Assembly for Wales about the reopening of the livestock markets in Wales. [609]

  Margaret Beckett
  I shall shortly be meeting Ministers from the devolved Administrations. My officials are in ongoing contact with the National Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Developments on a wide range of foot and mouth disease issues, including their impact of the disease on the livestock and related sectors.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to issue regulations to amend the Conservation (Natural —Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 in the light of the provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; and when she intends to issue regulations for the appeals which may arise on sites of special scientific interest. [1797]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today issued two consultation papers, firstly about amendments to the Habitats Regulations and secondly proposing new appeals regulations, following commencement of Part III of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000. In what is largely a technical amendment, the 1994 Habitats Regulations are to be brought in line with the provisions of the Act for protection of SSSIs. Ministers also promised the House that they would prepare regulations for the appeals that may arise on SSSIs (against refusal of consent, management notices and stop notices). These will set out a clear procedure for the conduct of appeals, so that they may be processed efficiently.

  The consultation period for both documents ends on 23 August 2001. Copies will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Departmental Title Change Costs
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the expenditure incurred in introducing the title of her Department. [392]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 June 2001]: Expenditure incurred to date in introducing the title of the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is as follows:

  Title

  £1

  Conceptual design, graphics and photography

  7,177

  Design/production/installation of signs and graphic panels

  19,560

  Printing

  21,804

  Miscellaneous

  950

  1 All figures are exclusive of VAT

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abattoirs closed in each of the last 20 years. [66]
  180W
  Mr. Morley
  The numbers of licensed red meat abattoirs in England in 1980–2000 were:

  Number of licensed red meat abattoirs in England

  1980

  960

  1981

  910

  1982

  840

  1983

  875

  1984

  860

  1985

  850

  1986

  815

  1987

  795

  1988

  780

  1989

  690

  1990

  645

  1991

  595

  1992

  540

  1993

  434

  1994

  424

  1995

  402

  1996

  384

  1997

  375

  1998

  360

  1999

  339

  2000

  316

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to reply to the letter to her predecessor from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, dated 3 May about compensation in respect of pigs for Mr. I. Thompson, of Red Row, Morpeth. [1174]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on 26 June 2001.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on further plans to encourage countryside conservation and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. [R] [590]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department will have a crucial role in promoting conservation of the countryside. Under the England Rural Development Programme our spending on the Countryside Stewardship Scheme is projected to rise from around £51 million in the current financial year to £126 million in 2006–07.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes are proposed to the departmental expenditure limit for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board for 2001–02. [1799]

  Mr. Morley
  Despite the formation of the new Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs, Supplementary Estimates must still be made in the name of the former Ministry until such time as its functions can be transferred by ways of Transfer of Functions Orders. Any changes to the MAFF DEL necessary as a result of the Machinery of Government changes announced
  181W
  following the general election on 7 June will be effected later in the year when any necessary Transfer of Functions Orders or other administrative actions are in force.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the Supplementary Estimates the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board's joint Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £547,638,000, from £1,185,144,000 to £1,732,782,000.

  MAFF's Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) increases by £168,972,000, from £1,059,515,000 to £1,228,487,000 of which resources will increase by £145,182,000 and capital by £23,790,000. There will be a movement from the non-voted element of the DEL of £3,000,000 to the Voted Capital DEL.

  For MAFF there is an increase in the administration costs limit of £35,386,000, from £369,799,000 to £405,185,000 and a claim on the DEL Reserve of £188,838,000. This latter comprises the take-up of £42,200,000 resources on administration costs, £69,100,000 resources on programme expenditure, and £7,500,000 capital expenditure for measures to eradicate foot and mouth disease; the take-up of £2,000,000 resources on programme expenditure, and £15,000,000 capital expenditure for flood defence works—being part of the £51 million Flood Defence package announced on 23 November 2000—and £6,600,000 resources on programme expenditure, being part of the £11,6 million package announced on 27 January 2001; the take up of £15,000,000 additional resources on programme
  182W
  expenditure for the payment of legal costs relating to an European Court of Justice judgment against the UK (Factortame); the take-up of £1,538,000 additional resources on administration costs from the Modernisation Fund in respect of successful projects; the take-up of £14,600,000 resources on programme expenditure in respect of the Agrimonetary Compensation scheme for Livestock Payments announced on 6 March 2001; and the take-up of £640,000 resources on administration costs, £13,810,000 resources on programme expenditure and £850,000 capital expenditure for testing of fallen stock, as an additional BSE control measure.

  In addition MAFF is transferring £7,308,000 of non-voted DUP (Departmental Unallocated Provision) to the Food Standards Agency for a small abattoirs scheme. This does not appear in the Estimate.

  For the Intervention Board there is an increase in the administration costs limit of £17,181,000, from £35,031,000 to £52,212,000 and a claim on the DEL Reserve of £366,230,000. This latter comprises £300,000,000 for the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme (£293,500,000 programme costs and £6,500,000 administration costs) related to foot and mouth disease; the take-up of £39,500,000 for Dairy Agrimonetary Compensation and (£26,730,000 to fund BSE testing of fallen stock (£24,485,000 programme costs and £2,245,000 administration costs).

  The above increases will be offset by savings or charged to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to planned total of public expenditure.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Scotland: Parliamentary Constituencies
3.3 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholmasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have requested the Boundary Commission to ensure that new parliamentary constituencies in Scotland are ready before the next general election.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a matter for the Boundary Commission itself when it next reports, within the statutory framework which requires it to submit a report to the Secretary of State for Scotland between December 2002 and December 2006.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The 1986 Act was passed 13 years before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Matters have moved on and are rather more urgent. Is the Minister aware that, on 6th October 1998, the Minister in charge of the Scotland Bill made it clear (at col. 359) that, under the terms of the 1986 Act, the earliest that the Boundary Commission could report would be 2002, but that it was more likely to take three years because it was a major reorganisation? Why is the timetable slipping? It looks as though it will take three general elections before the Government fulfil the promises set out in the 1986 Act.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the timetable is not slipping. The 1986 Act requires that the report should be submitted between December 2002 and December 2006. I have every expectation that the Boundary Commission, which is independent of government, will accord with the 1986 Act.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the knock-on effect that a reduction in the number of MSPs would have on the much-acclaimed committee system of the Scottish Parliament? I believe that the pool of committee members would be reduced by 17. Will the Minister assure the House that he will bring forward amendments to Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act to prevent such damage to the committee system occurring?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl is a jump ahead of the Boundary Commission.
472
The commission's responsibility is to report as regards the Westminster Parliament; and that is what it will do. That was the basis of the original Question. On Tuesday, we debated to some extent the matter of any knock-on effect on the Scottish Parliament. I made it clear then, in the presence of the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, that, so far as concerns any representations that may be made in relation to the Boundary Commission's report, the Government have an open mind as to the consequential effect on the committee structure of the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that at this stage, or even ever, it is a matter for this Government.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the Scotland Act was a carefully balanced piece of legislation? It followed years of discussion in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The pact, as it were, between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament was agreed before the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. I ask the Minister not to listen to the siren voices of those in the Scottish Parliament who now want to protect their own interests and cast aside willy-nilly their solemnly accepted agreements.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not intend to go any further than I have done in saying that the Government have an open mind as regards any representations that might be received, whether they are "siren voices" or not.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an air of cynicism on the part of English people in this country? We understood it to be settled policy that when devolution came about there would be a "replacement" policy; that is, that the numbers of Scottish MPs at Westminster would be reduced, and indeed that there would be a reduction in the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know about any air of cynicism among English people. The Scotland Act states that the number of MPs in Scottish seats in the Westminster Parliament will be reduced, and it will be. That is the remit of the Boundary Commission. I have already replied several times on the hypothetical question of what representations might be made by the Scottish Parliament about its own size. I do not believe that there is any cynicism—and I speak as one who is half English and half Scots by origin.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, most people in the north of England do not in any way begrudge the degree of home rule that Scotland now has, or indeed the very real benefits that have come from that home rule for the people of Scotland—not least due to the actions of my colleagues in Scotland.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Greaves: Well, my Lords, more than "not least". However, will not people get very fed up indeed

473
if the strong over-representation of Scotland in the House of Commons continues after the next election? Does the Minister understand that it will be seen, at least by people in the north of England, as blatant gerrymandering on behalf of the Labour Party?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord presumes too much in two directions: first, in claiming credit for the Scotland Act when it was a Labour government who enacted the legislation; and secondly, in assuming that this Government have, or should have, any influence on the way in which the Boundary Commission conducts its work. There is a window of four years in which the commission is to work. It would be a constitutional outrage—a phrase commonly used in this House in the previous Parliament—if the Government were to intervene in any way either to speed up or to slow down the work of the independent Boundary Commission. It would be even more of an outrage coming from this House than it would coming from an elected Chamber.
Lord Monson: My Lords, pending the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, does the Minister agree that it would be a welcome move if Scottish MPs were voluntarily to abstain from voting upon purely English domestic matters?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is talking about Members sitting for Scottish seats in the Westminster Parliament. The Government have always made it clear that their view is that all Members of Parliament are equal.

US Missile Defence Plans
3.10 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
How far the plans for missile defence as spelt out by the United States Administration to their allies in recent weeks depend on British co-operation in making early warning systems available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, we welcome the extensive recent consultation of NATO allies, and others, by the United States on missile defence and related issues. However, it remains the case that the US has not yet decided how it wishes to proceed with missile defence. Therefore, we do not know the extent of British co-operation that might be proposed. It remains premature to indicate how we would respond to any specific requests.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he give an assurance that the House will be informed if this "missile defence system"—as we must now learn to call it—does require the use of sovereign bases on British territory? There are large issues of British sovereignty involved here.
474
Such bases are operating on British soil under effective American control according to a secret agreement which, so far as I am aware, has never been reported to this Parliament. It would be good to have an assurance from the Government that they will provide a report at that stage, rather than, as has happened so often in security relations in the past, waiting for information to leak out in Washington as the US Administration tell Congress things that the British Government will not tell their own Parliament.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, when the Government determine their strategy on the matter, will my noble friend ensure that the risk of proliferation internationally is taken into very careful account?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we understand why the United States of America is concerned about the threat from weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We take those concerns most seriously; as, indeed, we must. Weapons of mass destruction proliferation is also a real concern for us, not least when we deploy forces to certain parts of the world. Although we currently see no significant threats to the British Isles from these weapons, we believe that it is important for all responsible nations to try to tackle the potential threat. We also believe that it is important to tackle the potential threat with a comprehensive strategy that includes non-proliferation and counter-proliferation measures, diplomacy and deterrents as well as defensive measures. We shall continue to work closely with the United States, and other allies and friends, in these areas.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while it is true that the Americans have made no firm proposals— indeed, they have not settled finally on the successful technology path—is it not the position that, if this whole project about which the Americans are very serious is to go forward, very active support and cooperation will be required from us in relation to the forward detecting stations at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill? Can the noble Lord assure the House that support has already been offered to the Americans on the basis that if they go forward, they will receive full co-operation from us in those respects?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we have said that we wish to be helpful to our closest ally, the United States. However, it appears that the US may not be envisaging the use of United Kingdom facilities in its thinking on a range of short-term issues. The Bush Administration have not yet fleshed out their ideas on specific proposals. Therefore, it would be dangerous to make a categorical statement at this time. It is our understanding that the United States' thinking includes examining options for the early deployment of airborne and sea-base systems. However, other options are being considered. As I say, the

475
US Administration have as yet made no firm decisions. When that Administration do make firm decisions, that will be the time for me to answer the noble Lord's question more directly.

Afghan Appellant "Number 19"
3.13 p.m.
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider the decision to apply for judicial review of the tribunal decision in the case of the Afghan appellant "Number 19".
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, it was decided to seek judicial review of the tribunal's adjournment of the case of "Number 19" after very careful consideration of its determination and all the options available. We do not consider the appellants involved in this case to be refugees. The adjudicators upheld this decision on appeal. It remains our intention to remove them as soon as circumstances allow.
Our view is that the appellants are entitled to have the refusal of asylum considered by the tribunal expeditiously. If successful, they may qualify for refugee status. Taxpayers are also entitled to have the appeal determined, as they remain responsible for supporting these appellants until that happens. We believe that the tribunal's decision to adjourn the appeals indefinitely was wrong, and that it raises an important legal issue. It would not be in the public interest, or that of the appellants, for this application to be withdrawn.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, although I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his full reply, does he agree that, if the Secretary of State is successful in his application for judicial review, the case initially returns to the tribunal and then, if the appellant is unsuccessful there, he can ask for leave to apply to the Court of Appeal; thereafter, if that is refused, he can then go direct to the Court of Appeal? Surely that means that there would be four separate hearings of a judicial character before a decision is finally reached.
Bearing in mind that it has already cost the Secretary of State £14 million (according to the Independent) to fend off the applications for asylum in the United Kingdom by "Number 19" and his fellow passengers on the Ariana Afghan Airlines hijacked plane, does the noble Lord really think that that is a sensible use of resources when there are so many other urgent needs for the expenditure of public money? Why does not the Secretary of State just give in and grant these people exceptional leave to remain?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is a most unusual case; indeed, there are no other cases of this kind at the present time. Only two hijacked aircraft have landed in this country in the past three years. The one in question occurred on 7th February last year. There are important points to consider. We do not believe that it
476
is right to withdraw the application for judicial review. As I said, we do not accept that people who are victims of a hijack, quite outwith everything else, have the right to claim asylum when they are landed. The two issues are not connected at all. We have to look into the matter. Obviously many people are affected in this case, although half of them have already gone hack. It would not be justifiable.
For the sake of clarity as regards those listening to these proceedings, perhaps I may point out that we do not normally refer to human beings by numbers. However, in this exceptional case, none of these people is being named by the authorities. That is the reason for the use of numbers. Moreover, although the noble Lord has not approached me personally about this, we have been considering other aspects of this case, as well as the accommodation. It has come to my attention that the noble Lord has, in some respects, stood surety for some of these people. As far as concerns the Immigration Service, I have given instructions for his surety to be withdrawn. We shall not pursue it; it will be laid aside. If there are other matters in respect of which the noble Lord has sureties with the appellate authorities, it will be up to them, not myself, to take that decision.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we have all agreed in the past on the desirability of making decisions as quickly as possible in cases of this character. Indeed, that theme ran through some of the phraseology used by the Minister. However, can the noble Lord give us any guidance as to when we might now expect a final decision in these cases?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer as regards the judicial review decision. However, that is only part of the issues involved. There is also the criminal prosecution of the hijackers. as opposed to those who were the refugees claiming asylum—in other words, the passengers. That case collapsed earlier this year. I understand that there are plans for a re-trial but that that will not start before October. It will commence this year, but the process is incredibly slow. I apologise for that, as, indeed, I have to apologise in other respects for the slowness of the legal profession. I accept that this is probably not the right place to say that, but nevertheless that is the reality. We cannot shortcut such issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, there are several stages in the process. Given the unique situation of the case, it would not be right to take shortcuts. However, it would also not be right for undue delay to continue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what representations the Government have received from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on this case?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords; I cannot do so in detail. Obviously, this is a case where the 170 passengers, 81 of whom have returned, find themselves in different stages of the process. They are not being treated as a block: some are dependent, some are

477
children and some are hijackers. As is known, we do not return people to Afghanistan in any event, even if an application for asylum is refused. There is a policy enunciated in that respect. I am not aware of any recent representations from UNHCR—at least, not since I took office.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify one further point. In his first reply he said that it was the intention ultimately to send these passengers back to Afghanistan. However, he has just said that, at present, no one is sent back to that country. Can he tell the House what the benefit is of these proceedings if, at the end of the day, he is not going to send these people back? Indeed, why is it necessary to go through all these legal procedures to contest the right of these people to stay here?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect, I did not use the words that the noble Lord attributes to me. I said that it was our intention to remove the people we are discussing. I did not say that we intended to remove them to Afghanistan. We have a policy not to return refugees to that country, which is run by a terrible regime. In fact, the regime is not running that country as it is in a state of anarchy. There is complete disregard for human rights and civil liberties. It would be quite wrong for us to return people to that country. We intend to examine these cases as we do those of other asylum seekers. There is no justification for treating them differently from others who seek asylum. It is better to follow due process in these cases rather than take shortcuts. To shortcut the process would set a terrible precedent. If we are seen to shortcut our normal judicial procedures in this respect, that might lead to changes in people's behaviour around the world.

Race Riots in Northern England
3.21 p.m.
Lord Greavesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent the spread of unrest and disorder from Oldham and Burnley to other multi-racial towns in the north of England.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have sought the views of the Commission for Racial Equality on common elements in the disturbances in recent weeks. Where there may be concerns that the factors which have given rise to disturbances in Oldham and Burnley may also exist elsewhere, it will be important for the police, community and voluntary organisations and local authorities to seek ways of addressing the underlying issues. The Government will obviously support and assist this process.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply which was on the right lines but rather vague. I live only a few miles from the Stoneyholme and Daneshouse districts of Burnley where the riots erupted last weekend. That is obviously
478
a matter of great concern to everyone in the area. Is it not the case that in virtually all the places where these riots have occurred—Oldham, Leeds and Burnley—they have caused shock and surprise in local communities where people generally believed that community relations were quite good? While the causes may be complex, it is clear that there are many other towns in the north of England which share many of the characteristics of Oldham and Burnley, as the Minister said. Ought not the Government to give much more specific advice to people in these areas as to the immediate short-term measures which should be taken to bring people together and in particular to engage the young males in all communities who have been involved in the riots? A general statement of support is not enough; the Government should give firm, strong advice to all the agencies and all the people in the towns I have mentioned.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's question but the last thing that would achieve good community relations is for any Member of this House, Minister or not, to list towns which may have problems as a result of the disturbances which have already occurred. That would set alight fires that need not be set alight. The noble Lord is right to say that we have to work with the voluntary sector and, of course, with the police authorities. I accept that I gave a generalised Answer. However, active steps are being taken to deal with the criminal elements involved. Some 43 arrests have occurred and there is much activity on the ground. The Government cannot solve this problem. In 1985 someone tried to set alight part of my former constituency and there were serious disturbances. Half the people who were subsequently arrested did not live in the area concerned and half of them had well-paid jobs. To argue that one riots just because one is unemployed is a slur on unemployed people who live in deprived areas. We are addressing that situation. The Government have a whole list of programmes from neighbourhood renewal to community relations. We shall address those programmes in detail in all the affected areas. However, we shall not list towns that may be affected by disturbances as that would be counter-productive.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, whom I so well remember from another place. Is it not time for the Government to do what they can to remove these distressing conflicts by intensifying immigration control, including a closer watch on bogus asylum seekers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the initial comment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There are successful and failed asylum seekers. We do not use the tabloid term "bogus" asylum seekers. I ask noble Lords to accept that the vast majority of people living in the towns and cities we are discussing were born there. They are not immigrants. These British citizens are as British as I am.
We must address the fact that the situation is exacerbated by the forces of darkness and Right wing extremists who attack people because of the colour of

479
their skin or their religion. Over a few years, due to disturbances elsewhere in the world, large numbers of people have sought asylum in this country. However, I do not think that anyone can accuse this Government of relaxing immigration controls; indeed, the opposite is the case. We seek actively to deter people from entering this country illegally. Where they have done so and their claims for asylum fail, we are removing them at a faster rate than has ever been achieved hitherto.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the BNP has distributed anti-Muslim literature in Oldham and Burnley? Does he agree that it is time for the Government to consider introducing religious discrimination laws? Do the Government accept that a judicial inquiry is required into the racial attacks and also into the riots that have occurred m those towns?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend said. However, there is no justification for a judicial inquiry into those incidents. Such an inquiry would take years to complete and nothing would result from it. There have been judicial inquiries in the past. Perhaps it is time to take the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman— perhaps people have not read that recently— from the bookshelf and learn lessons from that. I am not saying that it constitutes the Holy Grail and has all the answers. However, we do not have to reinvent the wheel in this respect. Many of these issues have already been examined and have been dealt with successfully by many authorities in this country. We can tackle head on the forces of racism, root out inequality and deprivation and re-introduce tranquillity and harmony to our communities. That can be done and has been done in many towns and cities throughout the country without recourse to judicial review.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that he is a vast improvement on his predecessor?
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Onslow: Does he also accept that he is providing answers which I believe many of us on this side of the House of a more liberal tendency find deeply attractive? Is he not right to point out that the majority of the people who rioted are not first generation immigrants? Second generation immigrants are caught in a terrible culture clash and it is difficult for first generation immigrants toadapt. We should address that matter to help to ensure that these disturbances do not recur.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot for one moment accept the noble Earl's opening remark. There were, rightly, cheers from all sides of the House for my predecessor. I shall not permit any division to arise between myself and my noble friend. Therefore, I reject outright the noble Earl's comment. That makes it much more difficult for me to give the noble Earl a decent reply to the other comments he made, which deserve such a reply.
480
I refer to the different generations of immigrants. In my former constituency I witnessed the village culture among the older immigrants, who still believe that that culture has not changed from the time they left their respective countries some 30 years ago. However, the second generation immigrants know that that is not the case. The different generations of immigrants hold different views. The immigrants born in this country may want to maintain the culture of their families and their communities. However, that is not always easily achieved. We must do what we can to make that process easier and not to create divisions in society. I believe that that is possible through the moderate use of language and through targeting resources to cover everyone so that no group is deprived and can claim to be mistreated and left out because of its race or colour. We must ensure that such a situation does not occur anywhere.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I accept the Minister's statement that a judicial inquiry may not be appropriate. Does he accept that some wild literature is being published by the National Front and the British National Party? Who in government is monitoring it? Why have we not seen any action to date with regard to incitement of racial hatred which is a breach of race legislation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not a legal expert. However, prosecutions are not a matter for government. Therefore, if complaints are made to the appropriate authorities they will be dealt with; they will not be shelved or ignored. If such literature is in circulation it should be put before local authorities. If they do not take action, I would expect the issues to be raised here and in another place.
We are actively on the case. We know that there are people fomenting trouble. I can inform your Lordships that an application delivered in the past hour by the police and local authority for a month-long ban on marches in Burnley is being considered by the Home Secretary, David Blunkett.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I agree that in some respects it would be impertinent of the Government to advise authorities in towns such as Blackburn, which has a similar problem to that of Burnley, Oldham and elsewhere. We are aware of the situation. We seek to encourage common sense between all parties within the local authority. The only thing the Government can do is to support us when we ask for help. It is not for the Government to impose help upon us.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I put the matter in a slightly different way. We should look at deprivation and diversity as challenges rather than a problem. We can give chapter and verse of examples throughout the country where past difficulties have been successfully dealt with. The local authority has drawn in all sections of the local community. It has not blocked people out because of their origin. Those people may not be a homogeneous group. They resent being

481
lumped as homogeneous groups when they are not. There is targeting by racist groups of particular religions. Islamophobia is a serious problem. It has to be addressed, not ignored. Therefore, we shall tackle the problem head on. Where literature is being distributed which is contrary to the law, action must be taken by the appropriate authorities.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, there have been good race relations in east Lancashire—an area of which I have particular knowledge—but deprivation has an effect. There has been a run-down of the textile and manufacturing industry, and a falling population. I am sure that the people of Burnley would welcome the visit of a senior Cabinet Minister to discuss these problems.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot promise visits. We are getting around the country. With regard to industry and deprivation, one of the reasons we have a census is to gain accurate information on the issue. We are still working with the census of 10 years ago; as far as I am aware, there was no mid-term census. In that way the Government and local authorities can target resources in those areas.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a matter of great constitutional importance bearing, as it does, on the matter of your Lordships' expenses.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday next to enable the Motion in the name of the Lord Privy Seal to be taken before the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [HL].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Animals in Scientific Procedures: Select Committee
  Constitution Committee: Select Committee
    Economic Affairs: Select Committee
      Liaison Committee: Select Committee
        Privileges: Select Committee
          Science and Technology: Select Committee
            Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)

              Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
              The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, perhaps I may draw attention to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has been made Chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee. I am sure that that will be welcome throughout the House.
              This completes the list of committees, save for the committee on the Chinook helicopter crash about which I am sure that some noble Lord will ask me if I do not tell the House now. The answer is that I hope to be able to move a similar Motion on Monday setting up that Select Committee.
              Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on issues respecting animals in scientific procedures in the United Kingdom, including—

              (1) the working of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986:

              (2) the effectiveness of and justification for animal experiments, particularly in:

              (i) medicine

              (ii) education

              (iii) defence

              (iv) product testing; and

              (3) the development and use of alternatives to animal procedures; and in all the foregoing considerations to pay regard to:

              public attitudes, availability of information, labelling and consumer issues;

              developments in biotechnology, and the likely future demand for animal procedures;

              the effect of any changes on the economy and the science base;

              EU and international law and practice;

              That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

              L. Brennan,

              B. Eccles of Moulton,

              L. Hunt of Chesterton,

              L. Lucas,

              B. Nicol,

              E. Onslow,

              B. Richardson of Calow,

              L. Smith of Clifton (Chairman),

              L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

              L. Taverne,

              B. Warnock;

              That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
              That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
              That the minutes of evidence taken before the Animals in Scientific Procedures Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee.
              Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the constitutional implications of all public Bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution;
              That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

              L. Acton,

              V. Cranborne,

              L. Fellowes,

              L. Holme of Cheltenham,

              B. Howells of St. Davids,

              L. Lang of Monkton,

              E. Mar and Kellie,

              L. Morgan,

              L. Norton of Louth (Chairman),

              L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

              L. Weatherill,

              B. Young;

              That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
              That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
              That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
              That the minutes of evidence taken before the Constitution Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee.
              Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider economic affairs;
              That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

              L. Barnett,

              L. Burns,

              L. Cuckney,

              L. Elder,

              B. Hogg,

              L. Newby,

              L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay,

              B. O'Cathain,

              L. Paul,

              L. Peston (Chairman),

              L. Roll of Ipsden,

              L. Vinson;

              That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
              That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
              That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
              That the minutes of evidence taken before the Economic Affairs Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee.
              Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with
              484
              recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
              That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

              L. Clinton-Davis,

              V. Colville of Culross,

              L. Craig of Radley,

              B. Pitkeathley,

              L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

              L. Roper,

              L. Strathclyde,

              B. Wilcox,

              L. Williams of Mostyn,

              B. Young;

              That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
              That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.
              Moved, That a Committee for Privileges be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the committee:

              L. Allen of Abbeydale,

              L. Carter,

              L. Craig of Radley,

              V. Cranborne,

              L. Graham of Edmonton,

              L. Henley,

              L. Mackay of Clashfern,

              L. Marsh,

              L. Mayhew of Twysden,

              L. Merlyn-Rees,

              L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

              L. Strabolgi,

              L. Strathclyde,

              L. Wigoder,

              L. Williams of Mostyn;

              That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees and that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman;
              That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on any sub-committee.
              Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

              L. Haskel,

              L. Lewis of Newnham,

              L. McColl of Dulwich,

              L. Methuen,

              L. Oxburgh (Chairman),

              L. Patel,

              L. Quirk,

              L. Rea,

              L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

              L. Turnberg,

              L. Wade of Chorlton,

              485

              B. Walmsley,

              B. Warwick of Undercliffe,

              B. Wilcox;

              That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees and that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees;
              That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the committee or any sub-committee;
              That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
              That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
              That the committee and any sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
              That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out.
              Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):

              E. Erroll,

              L. Flowers,

              L. Oxburgh,

              L. Winston.

              Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):

              L. Burnham,

              L. Paul,

              L. Thomson of Monifieth,

              L. Tordoff.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

              On Question, Motions agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.26 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Lord Archer of Sandwell—namely, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to open this debate on foreign affairs, international development and defence. These topics cover an extraordinarily large amount of ground and were I to attempt to do justice to even half the issues, noble Lords would still be listening to my dulcet tones
486
late next week. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if my opening remarks are brief and are intended to set the general scene. My noble friendwill cover the detailed issues in her closing remarks, which I hope will be tonight rather than tomorrow morning.
However, I should like to begin by expressing my very great pleasure—and, if I am frank with the House, perhaps my slight surprise—on being appointed to the Ministry of Defence with ministerial responsibility for defence procurement. As must be obvious, I have been in the post for only a couple of weeks—just long enough to realise how complex and difficult the job is. I hope that the House will show me some of its traditional tolerance if my grasp of some of the details is not as good as I should like. In one sense, I am unfortunate in having to follow in the footsteps of my noble predecessor, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who has set me such a daunting example of excellence. But in another way I am fortunate. I am consoled by her presence beside me on the Front Bench and by the fact that the more onerous burden of closing the debate falls to her. I wish her well in her new capacity—perhaps I should say new capacities—because she has the honour of serving in two departments although she has three jobs, including Deputy Leader of this House, without, I fear, the pleasure of being paid twice!
We in Britain have long benefited from the closeness of our contacts with other countries. We export more per capita than either the United States or Japan. We are the world's fifth largest trading nation, the second largest investor abroad, and the second largest recipient of foreign investment. The City of London is the world's most international financial centre, with more trade in foreign exchange, more foreign banks and more foreign companies listed on its Stock Exchange than any of its rivals.
It is simple common sense to recognise that the wellbeing of the British people depends on active engagement in its widest sense with the international community. This in turn demands a government who work to enhance the respect and influence in global society that we currently enjoy. It also demands a government prepared to meet the challenges of global change through joint action with those who share our outlook, interests and values—a government, moreover, prepared in the last resort to take hard decisions about the use of force. And a government with the foresight and determination to ensure that when force is required we are able to act promptly, effectively and in concert with our international partners.
The tragic history of the Balkans over the last decade and most recently in Kosovo has provided ample evidence of the necessity for this. The Government continue to be concerned about instability in the Balkans and, in particular, in Macedonia. We have been closely involved with NATO military planning and stand ready with our allies to help in Macedonia itself if necessary.
We are also playing a leading role with our European partners across a wide range of international co-operative projects, notably in justice

487
and home affairs, over European defence and NATO enlargement and in promoting market-friendly reforms. When British Ministers go to Nice or Gothenburg for a European Council, they earn respect and win arguments because they work for Britain by working with Europe, not against it. EU summits are not about Britain versus Europe—we are past all that. Rather, they are about Britain acting with its partners against common enemies: instability, drugs, pollution, poverty and unemployment.
The EU is a unique achievement and we should be proud of our contribution to it. It has made all of us richer, safer and stronger. Our people can live, work and travel anywhere within the borders of the world's largest single market. The EU has also become a major player on the world stage. All that has been achieved while preserving the central role of the nation state.
However, our support for the EU does not mean that we are blind to its limitations. On the contrary, it is those who most support the EU who are most in favour of reforms. It is because we know how much Britain needs a successful EU that we demand the reforms that will make it more efficient and more in touch with the people. Only by becoming more accountable and more transparent will the EU earn the trust of its people.
Reform of the common agricultural policy will therefore be a high priority for this Government. At the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference, we need to take a long, hard look at Europe's institutions to ensure that they are built around delivering the people's priorities effectively and accountably.
It is also time to raise the level of debate about Europe in this country and to accept that for most people in the United Kingdom a commitment to Europe is a fact of life—in the jobs they do, the places they visit and the products they buy. They do not want us out of Europe; they want us in a Europe that works for them. We are proud to be practical Europeans.
Europe is now and will always be precisely what we make it. The EU's powers were not taken by stealth, but rather conferred by treaties agreed unanimously by the member states and implemented according to their individual constitutional procedures. In the UK, that means by Acts of Parliament. Other countries have their own procedures. The "No" vote in Ireland was a decision for the Irish people. We respect that decision and we recognise the need to do much more to communicate the aims and objectives of the EU to ordinary people.
At the recent European Council in Gothenburg, all the member states agreed that we would stand ready to help the Irish Government address the concerns of their people so that they could win support for ratification. We also agreed that there was no justification for holding up our own ratification process as in other member states. Parliament will decide whether to accept the results that the Government secured for the British people at Nice, including the first ever increase in the UK's voting weight. The UK remains a firm champion of EU enlargement, which we believe will enhance security
488
within Europe, allow us to tackle international issues such as crime more effectively and provide greater economic opportunities for all members.
Although relations with the EU are vital to our national interest, it is misleading to represent the debate as a choice between the EU and the United States. It is not a zero-sum game. That is well illustrated by our plans to strengthen Europe's defence capabilities and, crucially, its contribution to NATO. The EU has the resources and skills to engage in the prevention and management of conflict It is a significant actor on the world stage. It therefore makes perfect sense to capitalise on the additional political will and momentum that the EU can generate by giving it the capability to mobilise a military response. The logic of that was recognised by President Bush during his visit to NATO earlier this month, when he said:
"It is in NATO's interests for the EU to develop a rapid reaction capability".
Moreover, we must always be aware of the acute need for European states to contribute more to their own security—to be able to carry out the Petersberg tasks—as well as to engage in humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and crisis management. That means improvements in military capability, new equipment, better training and enhanced interoperability. It was to secure such improvements in military capability that the Prime Minister launched the European Defence Initiative in 1998.
Since then we have made real progress. The permanent bodies within the EU for managing EU-led crisis management operations have been established. EU member states are working to achieve the headline goal of being able to deploy rapidly and sustain in theatre 50,000 to 60,000 ground troops, with associated naval and air support. However, we recognise that we still have some way to go. That is why the EU will be holding a capability improvements conference in November 2001, at which member states will be invited to make concrete improvements to remedy identified shortcomings on issues such as force restructuring, new equipment, and improved co-operation between partners.
None of us here could fail to be well aware of the serious concerns raised in this House that those proposals weaken NATO by establishing a wasteful, duplicate infrastructure, and even that they threaten to undermine NATO and weaken our relationship with the United States. I should be surprised if we did not hear more on those concerns during today's debate. However, I would like to stress, as my noble friend Lady Symons has done so often in the House, that there is no intention of creating a European Army or of doing anything that threatens the integrity of our intelligence relationship with the US. Rather, we and our European partners are seeking to create and enhance the operational muscles necessary if Europe is to play its proper role in contributing to its own security. Those capabilities will be brought together only when the circumstances demand it and, crucially, when NATO as a whole is not engaged. That will meet

489
our objective of strengthening the European pillar of NATO, strengthening the transatlantic link and strengthening NATO as a whole.
I emphasise that NATO remains the cornerstone of European security. We believe that there is no divergence between what Europe and NATO are trying to achieve. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, the Secretary-General of NATO:
"The West needs options other than 'NATO or nothing"'.
It is also untrue to suggest that by strengthening the EU we are neglecting the reform of NATO. The aims of the headline goal process are closely matched by those of NATO's defence capabilities initiative. The two initiatives are self-reinforcing. In addition, we remain a consistent and strong supporter of NATO enlargement. Correctly handled, it can only contribute to building lasting Euro-Atlantic security.
Nor do our plans threaten the position of the US as our most important ally. Last year, we sold £28 billion of goods there. Britain is the biggest investor in the US, providing 1 million American jobs. Some 5,600 American companies have invested in the UK. It is ridiculous to suggest we can move closer to the United States by moving away from the EU. On the contrary, the stronger we are in Europe, the stronger our voice is in America, just as our influence in the EU is buttressed by our close ties with the US.
It is appropriate at this point to mention missile defence—a subject on which many of your Lordships have strong and differing views. Let me reiterate our position. We have made it clear that we understand the role that such systems might play. As the Prime Minister stated recently, we have to look at all the different ways in which we can deal with a real threat.
We strongly welcome the fact that this month President Bush, the US Secretary of State and the US Secretary of Defense have all come to Europe and discussed the issue. We also welcome the US dialogue with Russia and China, which we hope will eventually produce positive results. The most important thing is that all parties are committed to taking forward a serious debate. We will continue with active and constructive engagement in discussions with the US as close allies with common strategic interests.
However, we need to distinguish between the general debate and specific United States proposals. The Americans have not yet decided what sort of system they will ultimately seek to deploy. We do not know whether it will envisage the use of sites in the United Kingdom, and we have received no requests to that effect. It therefore remains premature to indicate how we would respond to a request when we do not know what form the request might take nor the circumstances in which it might be made.
We live, of course, in a rapidly changing world. It is one in which this country plays a pivotal role, not limited to our relations with the United States or the European Union. History has given our country the benefit of being at the centre of the world's most influential networks—NATO, the United Nations Security Council, the G8 and, of course, the
490
Commonwealth. Our position in each reinforces the influence that we are able to wield in the others. That gives us an inherent weight in world affairs. It is for the government of the day to use that weight as effectively and responsibly as possible.
For the past four years we have used our position to help to confront tyranny, oppression, conflict and human suffering. We shall continue to uphold the common values that underpin our own security and prosperity and that of our allies: justice, human rights and democracy. This is not mere altruism, although it would be worth it on that basis alone. We promote human rights and democracy in every continent not simply because they are morally right but also because that is the best way to preserve those benefits for our people. Globalisation increases our mutual dependence. The more we travel, trade and invest overseas, the more we need stable, secure partners at the other end. Global society is like every other society—if some lose out, we all lose out.
Rhetoric and setting a good example are not enough to nurture those values. It is simply unacceptable that one in five people on this small planet lives in extreme poverty. Our targets remain tightly focused on reaching the millennium goals, particularly on halving by 2015 the proportion of the world's population that lives in abject poverty. In the financial year 1999–2000, expenditure by DfID totalled £2.5 billion—the highest ever level in real terms.
In December last year, we published a second White Paper entitled, Eliminating Global Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor. This builds on an earlier White Paper and sets out how globalisation can be managed in a way that will accelerate the systematic reduction of global poverty. The paper argues for the involvement of efficient and vibrant private sectors, effective government, and strong and reformed international institutions. It outlines the policy measures that need to be adopted by developing countries, other developed countries, the international institutions, civil society and the private sector in order systematically to reduce poverty.
As a government, we remain committed to the International Development Bill, which fell at the end of the previous Parliament. It was reintroduced in the House of Lords on 21st June and the Second Reading is scheduled for 2nd July. The main purpose of the Bill is to establish in legislation poverty reduction as the central aim of UK development assistance. It will allow the Government to support civil organisations undertaking development awareness activities and to engage more effectively with the private sector by taking shareholdings in companies and using convertible instruments, options and guarantees. Those powers will ensure that the Government can take full advantage of the enormous contribution that civil society and the private sector can make to the reduction of poverty.
Coherence in government policy on all issues affecting developing countries is crucial if we are to make an effective contribution to the reduction of poverty. We shall continue our efforts to ensure that

491
such coherence becomes an everyday reality. In particular, DfID will continue to work closely with the Treasury on the debt relief initiative. We are extremely pleased that under that initiative 22 countries became eligible by the end of last year. Personally, I am convinced that the Government's contribution to the issue of debt relief will come to be regarded as one of their main achievements in their first term in office.
I have at least touched on the main points of the Government's defence, foreign and development policies. I have done no more than that. However, before I sit down, perhaps I may pay a personal tribute to the men and women of our armed services. Sometimes it is too easy to perceive security issues in impersonal terms, as in the acquisition of new equipment or the implementation of a particular strategy initiative. We cannot, and must not, forget that in the final resort it may come down to our servicemen and women putting their lives on the line.
We have repeatedly seen real examples where, sadly, that has been required. Today, United Kingdom forces continue to undertake difficult and often dangerous activities, notably in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Iraq. The world is a dangerous place and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. However, I am certain, and I am sure that the House agrees, that it is less dangerous because of the outstanding role played by our Armed Forces. I believe that we can all be justly proud of the dedication, professionalism and sheer excellence shown by our servicemen and women. I am sure that I speak for the House when I express my unreserved gratitude and admiration for their devotion to duty.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the Armed Forces. Does he agree that the Royal Air Force has demonstrated in the many operations that it has undertaken since the end of the Cold War that it has a vital role to play, that there can be no question that the days of that service are numbered or that it has outlived its vital role?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I believe that I know to what the noble and gallant Lord refers. When I had my breakfast this morning and read The Times, I read a letter that surprised me, to say the least. It obviously surprised the noble and gallant Lord. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear from this Dispatch Box that the answer to the question is, of course, yes, and that the Government believe that the RAF has in the past, is now and will in the future play a crucial role, along with the other services, in defending our country.
I was talking about the gratitude that we owed. But that gratitude is cheap; it does not cost anything. However, it comes with the heavy obligation to support our forces with the right resources and the right equipment. Therefore, I am very pleased that, for the first time in over a decade, there is a sustained, planned real-terms increase in the size of the defence budget—£1.25 billion of new money in real terms over the current three-year period. That allows us to continue our massive programme of investment in new equipment.
492
Our programme for the Royal Navy involves building more than 30 new ships over the next 15 to 20 years. It will be the largest shipbuilding programme by this country in decades. As the Secretary of State made clear in the other place last Friday, it includes the construction of two new aircraft carriers, planned to be the largest vessels ever built for the Navy. We are also committed to projects to enhance our strategic airlift capability, to provide our future joint combat aircraft (the JSF) and to improve our amphibious and expeditionary capability. Those projects are the envy of many of our partners. I believe that in this programme, and in the innovative smart acquisition reforms introduced to achieve it, the United Kingdom is setting the best possible example of how to adapt to a complex, multi-faceted environment.
Equally, we realise that we cannot, and must not, neglect human factors. That is why we are making such great efforts to reduce the level of operational commitment faced by our Armed Forces. That will continue to be a high priority. This past year has seen continuing recovery from the exceptionally high operational tempo of two years ago—1999. Average intervals between operational tours for units in the principal elements of the Army—the infantry, artillery and armoured corps—are all showing significant improvements. That has been helped by improvements in retention. Outflow from the regular forces decreased in 2000–01 by 6.3 per cent in comparison with the previous year. In the current buoyant economy we are still finding recruitment and retention a serious challenge, but we are working hard to address that matter.
We also continue to improve our support to service personnel and their families. A new £60 million package of welfare support for personnel deployed on operations abroad has been introduced, including better communications, leisure and hygiene facilities. We are also seeking to improve living accommodation for service personnel; our programme has made a good start. New funding amounting to more than £50 million a year has been made available to improve families' accommodation abroad and single living accommodation.
Shortness of time—I have taken more of your Lordships' time than I had planned—forced me to range widely. However, I am sure that many of these points will be debated in greater detail during the next few hours.
4 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I begin by adding to the good wishes that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, received yesterday in this House on his new appointment at the giant Ministry of Defence. I also thank him for his comprehensive speech. If he and other noble Lords will forgive me, I shall leave some of the more detailed defence issues to my noble friend Lord Burnham, who will speak at the end of the evening. I shall concentrate on the broader aspects of foreign and global affairs.

493
I also extend my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who will respond at the end of the evening, on acquiring an amazing triple crown: she is the Deputy Leader of the House, Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry and Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As an ignorant reader of the newspapers it seems to me that she will be involved in massive reforms in all three capacities. I read that the DTI is about to embark on a huge review; the FCO, as we know, has reviews every 20 minutes and is no doubt about to embark on another; and, as all in your Lordships' House grimly know, we are about to be reformed whether we like it or not. Many of those reforms will be in the noble Baroness's hands—and they are very capable hands indeed. Heaven knows how she will manage it all but I am sure that she will. She is also concerned, I gather, with the massive issue of inward investment and foreign direct investment in this country, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, reminded us, is going extremely well. In fact, it has never gone better. To add a provocative note, I believe that it will continue to go extremely well so long as we stay clear of the "euro vortex", but that is another matter.
I briefly take this opportunity to welcome the new Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, whom I have long very much admired, to his new position. I am glad that he has moved to the Foreign Office and brought his vast abilities to it. I make no comparisons with his predecessor, Mr Cook, who was always extremely courteous to me personally and who displayed great energies in his work. It is no business of mine to comment on moves inside government. However, Mr Cook is a brilliant House of Commons man and his energies will be very well deployed reforming the other place.
All that I want to say on the past period of foreign policy is that it is perhaps time to draw a line under the concept of ethical foreign policy, not because it was badly motivated but because all foreign policy needs to be as ethical as possible. Trying to make a special thing of it very nearly ended of tears. But enough of that.
Having said that I admire Jack Straw, I have to embark straightaway on a curmudgeonly note and say that I found his first speech, which he delivered in the other place last Friday in the debate on the gracious Speech, rather disappointing. It was obsessed—I hope that that is the right phrase—by Europe. Some have accused my own defeated party of having too much concern with Europe, but almost all of the new Foreign Secretary's speech was concerned with Eurocentric considerations and Europe's effect on this country. It was very disappointing that he was not able to go wider. I felt and still feel that I should offer to be his speech writer; I know that I could do a very much better job than the people who put together the speech that he delivered on Friday. However, I expect that my offer will not be accepted.
My hope was and still is that the new Foreign Secretary and his spokesmen will define with much greater clarity and national confidence than hitherto
494
this nation's interests. They should do so in a narrower sense, which involves our territorial security—the narrowest sense of all, but still very important—in terms of our commercial advantage, and in relation to our true friends. They should also do so in a broader sense, which involves the best way in which to make a practical and effective contribution to the international order and to global stability through the transgovernmental network.
Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary said that he had,
"no time…for a comprehensive survey of our policies towards the wider world".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/01; col. 289.]
I hope that he will soon find time to do so. Most of what he said was about the European Union, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred several times, and to which I shall turn in a moment.
Before I do so, it is worth noting that the texture of international relations shows that the linkages between countries are no longer confined so much to officialdom and formal relations between foreign ministries. If we are to discuss foreign affairs in your Lordships' House, we need to go wider. Today, international relations consist of a mass of connections between public, semi-public, non-governmental, voluntary and private bodies, all of which combine with their opposite numbers in other countries and at supranational level for various international purposes. All such bodies are usually firmly connected to their home nations and to opinion-calling and account-calling structures within those nations.
That understanding of international relations and the new premium on network relations very much favours organisations such as the Commonwealth. That got a small passing mention from the Foreign Secretary and one small mention from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, but not much else. The truth is that members of the Commonwealth form the perfect intergovernmental and voluntary network of the most modern kind. Under that umbrella literally hundreds of non-governmental bodies and agencies create a web of common purpose that is unequalled anywhere else in the world. Those connections stretch right across the hemispheres into 53 states and into the everyday lives of millions of people and thousands of local communities. I am very glad that there is mention in the gracious Speech of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh going to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October. But—I address this question to the Government, the Foreign Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Bach—where are the policies and initiatives to exploit that new resource? We have made a little progress over the years but nothing like what we could and should be achieving to adjust to the network potential of the Commonwealth, which is a vast resource.
The second general point that I want to make is that these days foreign policy faces a deepening dilemma. Human beings are co-operating—or trying to do so—on a far larger scale than ever before and in relation to a whole range of issues, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred. Those issues include human rights, anti-terrorism, drug control, pollution, and curbing

495
new weapons of mass destruction and the hideous threat of biological warfare. Such weapons may be in the hands of rogue states or dangerous organisations. To address those global issues requires increasingly lofty international bodies, agencies and fora.
The link or thread between individual people at the grass roots level and the elected and accountable authorities has never been more treasured or more in need of strengthening. That is the dilemma. In my view, liberal democracies will become less tolerant of the usurpation of authority by international bodies. If one wants evidence of that, one simply needs to turn to the grim signs of protest—they were very efficiently "e-enabled" protests—at Gothenburg, Prague, Seattle, the City of London, Washington, Davos and wherever else international authorities have gathered together. We have reached the point at which protest is inevitably and immediately mobilised on an incoherent: but nevertheless massive and extremely visible and voluble scale. We shall see much more of such protests. What has happened is only the beginning of a form of protest against present patterns of international order, held by many people, rightly or wrongly, to lack legitimacy and democratic accountability.
Nowhere is that issue of legitimacy and connection more vivid than in the European Union, to which I now turn. We are going to be asked to legislate on the ratification of the Nice Treaty. Indeed, the Bill is to start its passage in the other place very soon. The issue is turning into a bit of a mess. After the Irish referendum, the Gothenburg conclusion was, "No renegotiation. We'll patch it up somehow with the Irish". I wonder whether that is the right approach. It seems to me that in the end there will be a need to recognise some hard truths about the Nice Treaty. It did not carry forward the unity and momentum of the European Union in the way that many people hoped.
I am interested that some commentators and think tanks are beginning to talk about the need for two-tier treaties: one set of treaties to deal with the administrative requirements, in particular, the administrative requirements of enlargement, the reform commission and so on, and the weighting of votes; and another set of treaties to deal with what degree of integration and forward momentum in this direction or that may be required by some countries in the Union.
Certainly, my own party was told very firmly, when it expressed doubts about the Nice Treaty before the recent election, that it was the key to enlargement and that any objection to it would mean that enlargement was impossibly postponed to the great detriment of all the applicant countries. That is what we were told then. Now we are told the opposite. Now we have, with charming innocence, Mr Prodi coming right out with it—the Nice Treaty is not essential to enlargement. Apparently it can go forward anyway. I am not so sure that that is what he was briefed to say but that is what he did say. The Foreign Secretary, in his speech on Friday, appeared to indicate also that it would be possible to go ahead with a treaty of accession, a treaty
496
authorising the change in machinery for enlargement, without having to take on board the Nice Treaty with the good bits and the bad bits.
So the situation is not clear, and I wonder whether it makes sense to bring forward the ratification legislation quite so quickly. I gather that your Lordships' House might be required to look at it possibly in the overspill period when we come back in October. It does not really meet the needs of Europe. The needs of Europe and the reform needs of Europe were not addressed, in my view—and it is a view that I hold more strongly than before—by the Nice Treaty. We are not alone on this side of the House in holding that view.
It is not just a question of reforming the common agricultural policy. We are all in favour of that. The noble Lord said he was in favour of that in his opening speech. Forward-thinking and genuine Europeans—in contrast to some of the automatic pilot supporters, the knee-jerk supporters of the Brussels line, of the rather dilapidated euro, of crude centralisation and integration—should now be thinking about new models of governance for Europe and a replacement of the Community method.
Why is that? It is because enlargement changes everything. There are those who say that even to utter such phrases is somehow anti-European. Indeed, the shallow perception is widely trumpeted by the narrower-thinking Europhiles that to criticise the European Union procedures and goals, because we do not like some of them, is somehow anti-European. I must put on record that I regard that as a profound and nauseating insult, especially to those with families who have given their lives and their blood that Europe might be free. There is nothing anti-European about suggesting that European unity can be achieved in better ways than those laid out in the margins and codicils of tedious and massive treaties such as the Treaty of Nice.
I even heard the suggestion that my party treats our European neighbours as enemies. That is pathetic rubbish. We should hear no more of such patronising travesties. As the Minister rightly said, the choice is not and never was between isolation and engagement. It is about how best to tackle the practical tasks of governance in the European region.
We are all very concerned, throughout the whole political scene, about the euro question. I believe that more enlightened and reflective thinkers are right to question whether the rigid monetary union we now have, or that the euro-zone has, is the pattern of the future. At this moment, the euro-zone is haemorrhaging capital. It has done so faster in the past four months than it did this time last year. It is no wonder that the poor euro is ever sagging downwards when all the experts say it should be rising. The City of London is thriving outside the euro-zone, as the Minister has rightly conceded.
The truth is that an enormous amount is happening in the real world, which we must be allowed to debate, at least in this House, to undermine the traditional Community methods, the traditional bloc mentality

497
and all the paraphernalia of regulations and directives. Those matters are being replaced by soft legislation. Policy initiatives are moving away from the Commission and going to the Council of Ministers which is still, deplorably, a very secret body. We should certainly be urging that it be opened up. The European Commission is losing its pivotal role, which I personally think is inevitable and even welcome. The reforms which are being pushed through by Commissioner Kinnock, whom I greatly admire and for whom I have a lot of time, are getting nowhere because he is receiving no support from the other Commissioners or from President Prodi at all. The so-called Commission was meant to be—and this was believed by some governments of the European Union—to be a service to the Community. But is not performing its role. It is not a service but a circus and some would cruelly say that President Prodi is its chief clown.
In this country, I urge the Government to put forward detailed proposals to create a more careful and open legislative process in which national parliaments should have an earlier and more initiating role. That is what we should be doing and it should be our priority.
As regards European foreign policy, there, too, I am afraid my heart sinks even when I hear the phrase. Too often it seems to be associated with self-aggrandisement and talk about Europe's destiny. It chills me. The Prime Minister uses the phrase "superpower" which I do not accept at all. The aim seems to be too often to score one up on the Americans. For example, there was the absurd decision to send a delegation to North Korea. There is also the ill judged anti-Bush rhetoric. It is dawning on European leaders—I hope it may not be too late—that anti-missile defence is the new order of things, as Bush painstakingly explained. It is not just a question of dealing with Saddam and the rogue states but beginning to sketch out the basis of an entirely new structure of deterrence and nuclear stability. Clinging to the ABM Treaty is, in my view, out of date. Thinkers in Europe should have spotted that a lot earlier than they did.
My noble friend will say something later about the rapid reaction force. I understand where the Government now stand. They do not want it to be separate from NATO. They do not want separate intelligence links. They do not want a separate command and planning structure. But that is not what was said at the beginning, and other things were said at the beginning. But the Government have changed and changed in a wise way, so I welcome the prodigal. But it has been quite a dangerous episode.
I am slightly reassured by all that because I now sense that even the best generals in France are saying that it will never work on the basis on which it was originally put forward and that the original idea merely got in the way of European co-operation within NATO and Anglo-French co-operation. So I think that reality will prevail although it has been a worrying time. We need to design defence structures in Europe
498
to share the burden but aimed at the next crisis and not the last crisis, which is the wont of staff and general planners.
Macedonia is a new disaster unfolding before us. There is a real danger that legitimacy is to be conferred on Albanian rebels who are trying to destroy what is a democratic nation, the democratic nation of Macedonia. I am not convinced that the European Union policy is correct or that Mr Solana has been all that helpful, let alone Mr Léotard with his call yesterday, which I thought was really quite disastrous, for a consensus to be achieved between the Albanian rebels and the Macedonian legitimate government. When we start having a consensus call between the fire and the fire brigade, we know where that leads to. Of course we want to see the killing stopped. But that kind of posture will not stop the killing, only perpetuate it.
I have gone on about Europe, casting some mild criticism on the excellent new Foreign Secretary. But it is a matter that bears on all our considerations. I certainly do not want to go to the opposite extreme and take the advice of some who say, "Stop talking about Europe completely; drop it because it is not popular on the doorstep". That is facile advice, typical of focus-group politics. In your Lordships' House I hope that we are more sensible. We have the opportunity to speak about this great issue and to settle the matter correctly so that we can turn to the wider interests for which, last Friday, the Foreign Secretary found he did not have time.
Those wider interests are large indeed. As the Minister said, vast interests lie outside Europe. Four-fifths of our overseas investment is not in the eurozone. According to the latest figures, 57 per cent of our trade is not conducted with the rest of the EU; 81 per cent of our exports are not even denominated in euros; and leading economists tell us that the importance of Europe in world trade may have peaked and over the next few years may decline. Of course, Europe is vitally important. We have always been and always will be Europeans, but the activities of the vast world out there are of direct interest to our people. We ignore them at our peril.
I too do not have time to discuss rising Asia; or our best friend, Japan, to whom we never give enough attention. Taiwan, which is a brilliant island, also does not receive enough sympathy from us. Hong Kong, the true gateway to China, was not even mentioned last Friday or today. After America, it is the second destination for all our investments and it is the gateway to the biggest market of the future. We promised that we would not forget the people of Hong Kong. Have we forgotten them? Are we monitoring how they are faring? I doubt it.
I turn to Africa and the situation in Zimbabwe which is going from bad to worse. A journalist has now been thrown out and even Mbeki admits that his policy was ineffectual. Everyone is urging the South African Government to change the policy, if they have one still, and to insist upon a tougher Commonwealth approach. That should help not only the

499
Commonwealth and the poor people of Zimbabwe; it may also help to stabilise South Africa which does not appear to be in very good shape at all.
Others will speak about development issues, including my noble friend Lady Rawlings, but a Bill on the subject is to be laid before the House which I hope will help. However, I am more and more convinced that our aid programme is best handled as much as possible by ourselves and as little as possible by the European Union. That view is shared by a number of Ministers in the present Government. I expect that my noble friend Lord Burnham will speak about our brave soldiers and the task, which is not always clear, that they are carrying out in Sierra Leone.
People say that the nation state is finished, it is too large for the regions; and it is too small for global activity. I fully agree that governments have lost power to markets, to regions, in our case to the European Union, to globalisation and to all sorts of other forces. But I also believe that the nation state is coming to the rescue of the international order and that the state remains the principal institutional site of the whole political experience. In my view the more that the new Foreign Secretary remembers that as he weaves through the plethora of international gatherings, summits, councils and so on, the better chance he will have of not going too far wrong.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Ministers to their various new appointments, singular or plural as the case may be. I hope that the fact that a Minister has three responsibilities entitles him to a slightly larger office space within the House of Lords. We shall watch with interest to see what happens.
I also welcome our new Foreign Secretary. I believe that it is particularly desirable to have a Foreign Secretary who, over the past few years as Home Secretary, has dealt with issues such as migration, and the weak states from which migrants come, and the huge demographic explosion in the South. Those are matters that need to be at the heart of foreign policy. On a personal point, for three years I have been chair of one of the European Union Sub-Committees, and dealing with Jack Straw as Home Secretary was a delight. He was one of the most co-operative Ministers that I can imagine and I trust that in his new post he will continue to be so.
I welcome the more relaxed European tone of the Government that we heard in the speeches made last week in the other place and in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. It is easier for the Government to be a little more relaxed thanks to the absurdly anti-European rhetoric of Conservative spokesmen in the general election campaign and the clear absence of response to that from the public. The Sun did not win that part of the general election.
The key to British foreign policy and to British defence policy is the European context. Without a clear sense of British objectives in relation to our major European partners, no coherent British foreign policy
500
is possible. I am sorry that that is a truth that the Conservatives appear to have forgotten over the past 15 or 20 years, although I realise that in saying that I lay myself open to the charge from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I am being Eurocentric.
The principle is not new. After all, British history has been shaped by relations with France, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and Denmark and by the interaction between the nations in these isles and our continental neighbours. I remember some years ago the then Mrs Thatcher asking for a new study into how to teach British history in British schools. The first report of that inquiry concluded that one could not teach British history, as opposed to English history, without putting it into its European context because the historical relationship between Scotland and England and between Ireland and England cannot be explained without bringing in France, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany.
An excellent new study about Britain in Europe has been carried out by the Irish Institute of European Affairs—by Garret Fitzgerald and others—with an explicit concern that the emergence of a Eurosceptic government, resting on an English majority, would threaten a breach with a more Euro-friendly Scotland, which in turn may destabilise the delicate politics of Ireland, North and South. Those matters that Conservatives in England appear not to see are perhaps seen a little more clearly from Dublin.
The European continent of which we are a part is now clearly changing fast. From next January the euro will be in use and it will also start to circulate as a second currency within Britain. It will become steadily harder for Her Majesty's Government to avoid the issue of British membership, or for them to continue drifting for a further two to four years of indecision. On these Benches, we shall not wait for the Government. We intend to campaign vigorously for British membership and British interests.
The enlargement of the European Union and NATO is very much on the agenda. Next year it is likely, both in NATO and in the European Union, that major decisions will be taken on potential enlargement of both organisations in 2004. That means that the British Government and other European governments, as well as the United States, have to consider the impact of that enlargement on relations with the neighbours who will not come in this time: Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and the dependent countries of the southern Mediterranean.
NATO enlargement must not be seen as an anti-Russian device. It has to be negotiated as spreading European security eastwards, not as a hostile act towards Russia. That means that we have to reconsider the purpose of the Atlantic alliance in a post-Cold War world. No longer will it be an alliance in the old-fashioned military sense, nor I hope simply a vehicle for the projection of American power, but a framework for US/European partnership and a European security organisation which thus rationally ought to have a close relationship with Russia as well. I welcome the attention that the European Union has

501
paid in that context to how we manage our common frontier with Russia and how we manage the problem of Kaliningrad. They are practical problems that we need to discuss.
I am less happy about the amount of attention paid to relations with Turkey. Turkey is going through a delicate process of economic and political reform. In an ill-thought-out set of decisions, tactically taken by the British Government and others in Helsinki, it was promised that it would become a candidate for membership without any idea of how fast that would move. The issue of Cyprus is drifting. While EU negotiations are moving ahead rapidly, there is no progress whatever on a settlement between the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities. I urge the Government to give that matter higher level political attention. They should pay more attention to relations with Ankara and for a short time less attention to relations with Moscow. This is not for Britain alone; it is an area in which Britain with other leading western governments has a major responsibility.
The Treaty of Nice was a messy treaty. Like the Treaty of Amsterdam, it was an unsatisfactory compromise which we nevertheless must accept. But we should learn from the failings of recent intergovernmental conferences in preparing for the next. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bach, say that it was time to raise the level of debate on this matter in Britain. It is high time that we should do so and we look forward to hearing from the Government—that is, in Britain and not merely in occasional prime ministerial speeches in Warsaw—that they are intending to educate the British public about the choices. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister will tell us when we might expect a Green or White Paper which will raise the level of the British debate.
We are also moving on the European security and defence policy about which I shall say more in a moment. I want first to touch on the trans-Atlantic relationship. We on these Benches believe that it is extremely important but must be seen within a European context. The United States remains a European power and we all very much want to maintain the American commitment to Europe. However, we must recognise that in Washington it is much more difficult to defend the depth of the American commitment to Europe. If I were a senator from a mid-western state, I would not defend the continued commitment of 120,000 US troops to Europe; I would say that the Europeans can pay for them themselves. That is part of the dialogue which we must continue to have about the European contribution to NATO and the American contribution to European security in the widest sense.
America has other concerns and priorities, so European governments must be even more active in Washington. The divisions within the Washington debate and the number of reasonable and responsible people engaged in the current US foreign policy debate, alongside some, frankly, "wild" men, gives us an additional incentive for getting actively involved.
502
All of those changes argue the case for stronger European capabilities, not out of any soft-headed European idealism but in pursuit of hard British interests. That also extends to North Korea and to China and we need strongly to argue against the undertone in Washington which wants to present China as an enemy. Gestures towards closer relations with China and help with the Korean situation are part of that.
The appointment of Mr Solana and his staff, now with continuing EU special envoys, is a useful step forward, but it is also evident that the division of functions between Mr Solana and Commissioner Patten does not work well, despite their good personal relationships. The six-monthly rotation of the Council presidency is a severe weakness in foreign policy. We shall need some stronger institutions in Brussels in order to cope with the foreign policy needs of an enlarged European Union. British foreign policy should be pursued through active partnership with other European governments. Britain's voice in Washington is strongest when it is heard in harmony with those of our European partners, not attempting to sing a solo on our own.
As regards defence, we see ESDP the necessary and sensible context for British defence planning, given that it is unlikely in the extreme that we shall find ourselves undertaking any major operations outside Britain on our own. It was extraordinary that last November, two years after the St Malo declaration, there was sudden hysteria on the Conservative Benches and in the press over ESDP, as if they had suddenly discovered that something was happening. I want to remind the Conservatives here and in the party that the origins of ESDP lie under the previous Conservative government in the Franco-British defence dialogue initiated by Michael Portillo when he was Secretary of State for Defence. The logic which pushed Michael Portillo in that direction is the same logic which has pushed this Government further down the road to closer European co-operation.
There are choices for British defence spending. If we are to maintain a worthwhile capability, we can either increase substantially the amount we pay, or we can go faster down the road towards sharing within a European framework. I say that for hard-headed British interests, not for any starry-eyed Euro-idealism. I heard Iain Duncan Smith being asked whether he was willing to pledge the additional 0.5 to 1 per cent of GDP needed to maintain an effective British defence capability autonomously; he refused to answer. If that is the case, closer co-operation is the logical way forward. I suggest a joint fleet for long-range air transport and, incidentally, why not a joint fleet for long-range aircraft refuelling, which is not at present planned by the Government?
Furthermore, are we seriously planning to procure two aircraft carriers, and when we need a fleet of three, without consulting more closely with our partners over complementarities of effort and of equipment? There is further usefully to go in gaining more effective power projection through closer co-operation. While we are talking about defence, will the Government consider

503
trying to explain to the British people why it is worth while? There has been no effort to explain the position to the British public. President de Gaulle and President Adenauer did a huge amount to change public perceptions in France and Germany by joint military parades; by symbolising the change in their relationship. Why cannot we have members of the British-Dutch amphibious force on guard outside Buckingham Palace? Why cannot we have a British Guards regiment marching down the Champs Elysée on 14th July? It happened on 14th July 1938. Could it not happen on 14th July 2002 or 2003?
My noble friend Lord Redesdale will talk more about missile defence, but I want to say a little about the treaty and the idea that the ABM Treaty can be torn up because it no longer fits. The ABM Treaty is 23 years younger than the NATO Treaty. The NATO Treaty is also a Cold War treaty but it nevertheless continues to serve a useful purpose. Treaties are to be observed pacta sunt servanda,not to be torn up when one side believes that they no longer serve a useful purpose. Within the right wing of the United States there is a very worrying tendency to argue that America's special responsibilities entitle the United States to have a special opt-out from the international legal obligations which other states must observe. We must resist that argument.
Furthermore as regards defence, it is time that the UK-USA agreement, a child of the earliest stages of the Cold War and one of the most extensive intrusions into British sovereignty which we have yet accepted with foreign military personnel operating autonomously on British soil, ought now to be reported to Parliament. Twelve years after the end of the Cold War, we are entitled to a little more transparency. We may not accept everything that the European Parliament has stated in the Echelon report about what is alleged to be heard from eavesdropping stations in this country, but some more respect to Parliament: about the operations of US listening stations in this country is, I suggest, strongly desirable and necessary.
Then there is the wider world about which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, spoke usefully. We on these Benches welcome the transformation of the Department for International Development into a very active department of government. We also welcome its excellent globalisation White Paper, a model in terms of educating Parliament and the public.
We see the need to strengthen international institutions, above all the United Nations but certainly also bodies like the World Trade Organisation; the UN High Commission for Refugees, which at the moment suffers badly from a shortage of funds, including funding from the British Government; the World Health Organisation, in terms of global co-operation to fight disease; and the developing international regime to limit climate change.
We in Britain and in Europe are more concerned about the weak states than the "rogue states" with which the Americans are over-preoccupied. Weak states cause problems as violence, organised crime and
504
migration spill over on to their neighbours and beyond. The underlying problems of the South are poverty, corruption and the threat of disorder. I refer, for example, to Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Congo and Sierra Leone, where we are already engaged. None of those problems can be solved by Britain alone, but we can make a useful contribution in co-operation with our partners and neighbours: first, within Europe, because we are a European country; secondly, across the Atlantic; and, thirdly, within the wide]: English-speaking Commonwealth and with our many friends across the world.
4.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, first I must give my apologies to the House and the Minister. Due to a special church service this evening I am, sadly, unable to stay to the end of the debate. My justification for wanting, nevertheless, to contribute is that the subject of development is of crucial concern to the Church of England and to all Christian Churches. It is very good to know that in the gracious Speech there are three references to development and I should like to focus on just one: the Government's commitment to,
"work for an early and comprehensive world trade round which will benefit industrialised and developing countries alike".
I shall also make a brief comment on arms exports.
The debate on trade—free trade as opposed to various forms of protectionism—has gone on for centuries. The assumption behind the Government's White Paper on globalisation and poverty is that free trade and the removal of tariffs and other barriers will benefit the poorest countries in the world. While it is true that the majority of the 18 poor countries which have benefited most from the liberalisation or trade are those in south east Asia, it is also good that countries such as Bangladesh and Uganda also appear on that list. Therefore, clearly the liberalisation of trade can help the poorest countries in the world.
One important feature of the Government's White Paper is that it frankly acknowledges the difficulties. First, it admits:
"There are substantial inequalities in the existing international trading system".
It also acknowledges that the World Trade Organisation, as a product of the post-World War II agreement and GATT, is still heavily dominated by northern industrialised states.
There are many excellent features of the White Paper. It recognises not only the current state of affairs but also the goals which need to be achieved and the Government's intention to achieve them. All that said, it is important to highlight some of the difficulties. First, while liberalisation of trade might bring long-term benefits to the poorest countries of the world, in the short and medium term this can have a detrimental effect upon them. The evidence that the Church encounters at a local level in its day-to-day ministry within the Anglican communion of 70 million members world-wide suggests that globalisation is

505
often associated with a reduction in welfare expenditure, inequality, social fragmentation, poverty and a widening gap between countries.
The public perception is that at the moment globalisation produces losers as well as winners. According to the World Bank's development report for 2000–01, the average income in the richest 20 countries is 37 times that in the poorest 20. That gap has doubled in the past 20 years. Furthermore, although poor countries as a whole have shared in the increasing prosperity brought about by globalisation, that is on average. Where there is an average, inevitably there are those who do better and those who do worse. Some countries have done a great deal worse than the average.
All in all, the Churches and the aid agencies are less optimistic than the Government about the benefits offered to poor people by greater trade liberalisation. It is, therefore, important that a fairer trade system goes together with other policies associated with development and an awareness of the underlying economic and political realities which sometimes make countries and the elite within them resistant to change—for it by no means follows that if a poor country gets a fairer share of the international cake all those benefits will flow to those within that country who are most in need.
It is good that the Government are committed to strengthening the role of the WTO in relation to developing countries. Although more countries have been brought into its councils in recent years, and more help is being offered them, supported by Her Majesty's Government, to make their voice heard, their view is still unequally represented. At Seattle, for example, there were more American lawyers present than lawyers from all the developing world put together.
If we are serious about this subject we need to recognise that inevitably there are always vested interests, both countries and companies, which press to protect their present advantageous position. This means that we must be vigilant and uncompromising on behalf of those who are least able to stand up for their own concerns. Politics is of course the art of the possible and compromise is part of that art. But the Churches, aid agencies and many other people on all sides of this House are concerned that those compromises should not always be made at the expense of the poorest.
Recently we have had the European Commission's Everything But Arms proposal. Under it all exports from least developed countries, except those associated with the arms trade, would be allowed into the European Union duty free. However, there has been extensive lobbying from certain quarters so that the original proposals are severely watered down. For the moment, three sensitive products—sugar, rice and bananas—have been exempted. The amended proposals have disappointed those pushing for greater access for least developed countries to the European Union's markets and have led some to dub the proposals "Everything But Farms".
506
The Churches consider that the proposal to extend market free access to least developed countries in the European Union without equivocation or dilution was a modest one that would have carried relatively small costs to European Union countries while having the potential to bring significant benefits to some of the poorest countries in the world. While the final agreement is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, delays in the elimination of duties and quotas for least developed countries' exports of bananas, rice and sugar show that the European Union still has a long way to go to ensure that rhetoric matches reality in making globalisation work for the poor.
Another example of diversity of interest and the difficulty of reaching a fair agreement concerns negotiations between the European Union and South Africa over port, sherry, ouzo and grappa. It has been said that,
"these negotiations showed clearly the gulf between the supportive rhetoric and the harsh realities of the actual negotiating process".
The Government readily acknowledge that liberalisation of trade is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for development. We might also wonder whether it is really relevant to some of the world's poorest communities. There is a very interesting table in the Government's White Paper which relates poverty to remoteness. For example, nearly 50 per cent of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than 1 dollar a day, and that is related to the fact that 80 per cent of the population lives more than 100 kilometres from a coast or ocean-navigable river.
The White Paper calls for better routes, rural transport and more modern docks. One is inclined to say: yes, but what about the effect on the environment, pollution and so on? Communities may need to explore other routes out of poverty for they may never have much to export and there will always be transport costs which do not make their exports economically viable.
Issues of trade as they impact on developing countries cannot but include control of the export of arms and technology. As is now widely accepted, the victims of conflict are predominantly civilians who may represent anything up to 80 per cent of casualties. The Government are to be congratulated on their role in securing a UN conference on the illicit use of trade in small arms next month.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London had intended to take part in today's debate on these very points but regrettably is unable to be here. He has indicated to me his gratitude to the Government for their proposals on arms export controls, foreshadowed in their draft Bill at the end of March, and their commitment to legislation in the Queen's Speech. He and I welcome very much, as have many of the non-governmental organisations most closely involved with this issue, the complete overhaul that the Government have proposed for the statutory framework controlling the export of arms and dual-use technology. The draft Bill promises major improvements in that area.

507
However, as the noble Baroness will be aware, there remain a number of concerns shared by some of us in the Church of England and by NGOs. We hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and her colleagues will take on board proposals for ensuring that controls are extended to shippers as well as agents, and to consider the proposals made by the Quadripartite Committee of Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry in another place for prior scrutiny of some licence applications. There is also the proposal for the extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction in this area of UK brokers operating wholly abroad. As the noble Baroness is aware, there are precedents for extraterritorial jurisdiction.
To sum up, the Church of England welcomes warmly the Government's commitment to try to ensure that under trade liberalisation the poorest countries of the world really will benefit and that this action will be a reality and not just rhetoric. It is particularly important to welcome this decision with regard to the relationship between the European Union and its trading partners. Also to be welcomed is the commitment to make the World Trade Organisation a more effective voice which will really serve the concerns of the poor. But, in order to ensure these highly worth-while goals, it will be necessary for everyone who has a concern about the issues to be vigilant, persevering and uncompromising in standing up for those who are least able to work the system for themselves.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I first express my gratitude to those who arrange matters for placing my name so early on the list. We all know that in debates such as these there is a danger that by the time one comes to speak everything that could be said has been said; although that does not necessarily deter Members of your Lordships' House. So my commiseration to those who will speak later.
I want to speak briefly and generally about NATO and EU enlargement. No one would pretend that these are anything but difficult and complex issues. But behind them stands the simple objective of realising a secure pluralist democratic Europe. That is a prize that is worth pursuing.
Anyone who has been following the debate on the process of NATO enlargement particularly would wish to pay tribute to the work—I was going to say "my noble friend", but as he sits on the Cross Benches he is not technically my noble friend, although he is both noble and an old friend of mine—of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. I believe that it is generally recognised that he has brought considerable energy, skill and, above all, authority to the task. I can think of no one better who could do that.
My concern is that if momentum is lost on enlargement, in the context both of NATO and the European Union, there is a real risk that a dangerous degree of disillusionment will develop. That will cause unpredictable political consequences.
508
It is difficult for those of us who became politically active in the 1960s—particularly as student politicians and activists—to appreciate the importance that the governments of so many central European countries attach to achieving membership of NATO. All those years ago I would have thought it extremely unlikely that I would ever be confronted by a demonstration in favour of NATO membership, yet that was the case recently on a visit to Lithuania where people were demonstrating under the banner " Molotov-Ribbentrop must be buried". That may seem arcane, but in a way that slogan encapsulates the old Europe that we want to—and must—leave behind.
The countries of central Europe see NATO membership as not only providing security in a changing world—important as that is—but as a means by which democratic institutions become embedded in their political systems, and, just as importantly, as a badge of legitimacy of respectability which encourages foreign investors to invest and help develop the economies of those countries. That is an outcome that is devoutly to be wished.
Decisions on NATO enlargement will, according to the timetable, be taken at Prague next year. The real question is not so much whether there will be enlargement but how far it will go. I believe that it is widely recognised that extending membership to Slovenia and Slovakia will not raise any new issues. There are no fundamental issues of policy raised by extending membership of NATO to those two countries. If enlargement is limited to Slovenia and Slovakia, that will be a profoundly disappointing minimalist outcome.
In this context, it is not possible to ignore the question of the Baltic states. We all recognise the difficulties that arise from their recent history and their geography and especially the special problem of Kaliningrad. It is not absolutely clear what signals are coming from Russia and from the comments of President Putin. One of my more depressing recent experiences was a meeting with members of the Russian Duma where ultra-nationalists, in talking about the Baltic countries, reminded me of a rather ineffective and irritable school teacher who was just about to lose control of a wayward class. I do not believe that the reaction from Russia is sufficient reason to turn away from the problems of the Baltic states. I hope and trust that, despite their difficulties, the government will not shy away from the challenge of mapping a way forward for the Baltic countries.
If next year Prague is to see some resolution of NATO membership, EU enlargement, on the other hand, is proving a long process. Given the distance that needed to be travelled, perhaps that is understandable. But we need to recognise that many of the governments and the peoples of central Europe have paid and are paying a heavy economic price in preparing for EU membership.
The heady days when EU membership was seen as a panacea, almost a "get rich quick" fix, are over. But, given the price that has been paid, there is a real danger that prolonged delay will result in a cynicism and

509
disillusionment that may have unpredictable and dangerous political consequences. I say this in as gentle and understated a way as possible, but I believe that we need to look at history and recognise that many central European countries have in their recent political past characteristics of an unattractive form of extreme right-wing nationalism. It would be a tragedy if a failure to move forward on enlargement because of a squabble over issues such as structural funds, labour mobility and the common agricultural policy—although anything that brings about a radical reform of it is something devoutly to be wished—were to lead not only to a missed opportunity to help to build a new Europe, but actually gave rise to extreme political movements borne out of frustration in those countries.
In negotiations of this kind, and in European negotiations generally, altruism is not always evident. Those who have attended meetings of the Council of Ministers know and appreciate that to their cost. Nevertheless, in previous rounds of enlargement, political considerations with regard to underpinning democratic institutions have been as important as economic considerations. Surely, in this period of debate, that should be a primary consideration as well.
There is as much danger in being too cautious as there is in taking the informed risk that significant enlargement involves. The prize of a secure, democratic, pluralist Europe is now within our grasp. I hope that the Government will argue strongly for major enlargement, both in the context of NATO and of the European Union. I suspect that that may serve our interests because I believe that the type of EU the candidate countries wish to see is perhaps closer to the model that Her Majesty's Government wish to see than is the case today.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I warmly welcome the new Minister, and I am sure that the noble Baroness will wear her triple hat with panache.
That Britain is valued by the European Union and respected as an ally by the US is chiefly due to its admirable and professional Armed Forces. Yet the Government continue to fail to relate resources to commitments. Our Armed Forces are being used as a political tool with little regard to the consequences for their central task of defending the realm. The Government call their policy "an expeditionary strategy", and their peacekeeping and conflict management in the context of the Petersberg tasks, as the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said in the House on 22nd November last year,
"imply a greater degree of engagement in conflict than mere peacekeeping".—[Official Report, 22/11//00; col. 863]
Indeed, one of the four Petersberg tasks is defined by the MoD as,
"separation of parties by force".
That is relevant to the Common Position on Africa, which was signed by the Government in May with no possible chance of scrutiny by this House.
510
We are still very much present in Bosnia, Kosovo and in the Gulf, and the Secretary of State has recently spoken of a possible sizeable commitment of troops to Macedonia. All these are open-ended commitments. None relates to the defence of the realm. All are making it increasingly difficult for the services to find the time, men and money to train and exercise for that central task and to retain their people. In the summer of 1999, as I believe the Minister himself said, 47 per cent of the Army was committed to operations. Meanwhile Northern Ireland is beginning once again to become a problem.
What are the resources allocated to defence? What other department of state is required to pay 3 per cent efficiency savings on its total budget back to the Treasury each year when it is already seriously underfunded for the tasks it has to do? The Government argue, with truth, that they are putting money into procurement—we had some good news today—but that takes years. Shall we still have the skilled and experienced men to use that equipment at the cutting edge or will they all have turned into a virtual force of peacekeepers?
My second concern is the growing deficit in accountability, transparency and scrutiny which is apparent in defence issues in the EU. The Common Position on Africa was considered and agreed by the General Council on 14th May and signed by the Minister for Europe. The letter forwarding the draft to the committees of this House had been dated 4th May and could not have reached the House before 8th May because there was a bank holiday on 7th May and the House rose on 10th May. There had been no possible chance of scrutiny. Article 5 of the Common Position says that the EU will consider deploying its own operational means for conflict prevention and crisis management in Africa, taking into account the scope of capability developed under the European headline goals. Article 1 speaks of the prevention, management and resolution of violent conflict in Africa, Article 2 of EU action to cover addressing acute failures of conflict and supporting initiatives for containing violent conflict. Is that not our old friend separation of parties by force?
The EU will analyse how best to co-ordinate member states' efforts in areas of training, equipment and exercises and will take into consideration the Brahimi report on UN peace operations, including inter-operability of troops and command and control structures. Does that sound like drawing on NATO's planning and training capacities? Is it something that should have been signed off without scrutiny?
We shall be reminded by the noble Baroness the Minister that on matters of defence we have a veto. However, under Article 24(3) of the Treaty of Nice,
"when the agreement is envisaged in order to implement a joint action or common position, the Council shall act by a Qualified Majority in accordance with Article 23(2)".
I remind the House that we and the French will necessarily always be required to provide the largest contingent. For instance, even the admirable Norwegians envisaged a contribution of only 1,400 men to the Petersberg tasks. As Africa is, I believe,

511
outside the scope of normal NATO operations, we shall presumably also have to provide the strategic lift and the sea power.
It may be relevant that according to the FCO the budget for the UN force in Sierra Leone, UNAMSIL, for 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2001, based on the cost of a force of 13,000, was £504,400,000 and now that the force is to be increased to 17,500 the cost will go up by a further 30 per cent. So far it has achieved absolutely nothing, unlike our own tiny force. Should the EU therefore decide to intervene in a similarly sized conflict in Africa, the cost would hardly be less.
The Belgian presidency, secure in the belief that according to "a recent Euro barometer" public opinion favours a further development of Europe's own defence identity, has said that it wishes to bring about a greater involvement of the EU in the peace process in central Africa and the region of the Great Lakes and will produce an action plan. Let us hope that this relates solely to economic aid, but as it has said it in the context of its views on EU defence we cannot be sure of that. It has of course also said at another time, in discussing the capability goals, that it would not envisage supplying troops for more than six months— very helpful basis for operations. The Belgian presidency also says that the EU conference of December 2001 must declare the EU operational in terms of crisis management. I hope that refers only to the structure of committees.
Reverting to costs, the explanatory memorandum from the FCO claims that the Common Position on Africa will have no financial costs. It states:
"It will however open the way to EU partners agreeing joint action that will have financial costs. Any joint action will be submitted individually for parliamentary scrutiny".
It would be useful to know how that squares will the inter-institutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on provision regarding the financing of the CFSP, an agreement attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam though not part of the treaty. It was finalised in July 1997 and its provisions are now in force. At what point would national parliaments be consulted, I wonder. Mr Solana, in his confidential report to the Council on common strategies, is fully aware of the need to identify the budgetary means of implementing them.
We must watch the gradual, uncontrolled, often unperceived transfer of power from national parliaments to the EU in the fields of foreign policy and defence. We really have to take a grip and make things work better. The whole process is as slippery as a jellyfish and as difficult to grasp. Javier Solana reminded the Council that the treaty,
"requires common strategies to set out their objectives, duration and the means to be made available to the Union and member states",
commenting that this gives them,
"an operational nature going well beyond declarations of policy. The Common strategy",
he reminds us,
"provides automatically for adoption by Qualified Majority of any implementing Act".
512
Thus we would have no choice if the EU decided, for instance, to intervene in an active war in Africa. Can noble Lords imagine the Government saying at that point that we would rather opt out? They would deem that politically impossible, whatever the demands it would make on our already over-committed forces. We should never forget that although the Government are accountable to Parliament for decisions to deploy UK forces in EU-led operations, that accountability is retrospective.
The common position on Africa is an example of an EU decision taken by QMV and never submitted to scrutiny which could have important consequences in terms of defence and of costs. What was the point of securing a six-week interval for scrutiny in the Amsterdam Treaty if we are not to insist that it operates? It is evident that Ministers are not prepared to fight this issue and Parliament should ensure that they do.
I am equally concerned about transparency and the degree of control, if any, that we can exercise on the continuing exchanges between the EU and Russia under the common strategy on Russia. This is a critical time in our relations with the United States for it is important to do all we can to prevent the Russians driving a wedge between us. The EU has so far developed its common strategy on Russia that Mr Solana and the troika have for some tine been talking about regularly, not only about Russia's possible contribution to future Petersberg tasks, which is reasonable, but about defence and security, including a Russian NMR-type proposal which is mysteriously respectable whereas the US proposal is not. According to Moscow, the Russians have proposed a European system of missile defence which could be raised with the EU as soon as European countries are ready to pool their efforts in favour of Mr Putin's initiative.
As I told the House on 2nd May, the EU now has specific consultations within the CFSP framework with Russia on security and defence matters. including disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation—and this is the country which is selling weapon:; of mass destruction to rogue states and still has not destroyed its 40 tonnes of chemical weapons.
Three or four years ago we set up the NATO Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Co-operation and Security between NATO and Russia precisely to discuss such issues. It is surely vital that such exchanges, in which the US is deeply concerned, should continue on the NATO net. But the EU has deliberately embarked on the same agenda while agreeing with Russia that it deplores NMR. The Russians have said that they believe that,
"the EU can become a more promising partner than NATO"—
(not surprisingly, perhaps, since apparently they expect to take part in equipping the EU defence forces) and although in February, Ivanov said that agreement had been reached that military issues would he discussed in a Russia/NATO dialogue, while political ones would be discussed primarily with the EU, both the Stockholm presidency and the EU/Russia summit in May continued to discuss security with Russia.

513
The Americans have accepted our assurances that the CFSP's object, through the capability goals, is to increase Europe's contribution to its own defence and that it is not there to rival or to diminish NATO, but to add value. That hardly squares with what is in fact happening. The interesting thing is that there has never been any publicity about this. It is not mentioned, apart from one sentence, in the presidential report on the Nice Treaty. The proceedings at the EU/Russia summit, despite the importance of their contents, are confined to minor press communiqués.
I am all for close relations between the EU and Russia on everything but defence, and one cannot blame the Russians for using the relationship to their own advantage. But relations on defence should be conducted either through NATO or bilaterally. This is a subject too important to leave to Mr Solana. We do not know what commitments are being made in our name. We have many years' experience of negotiating with the Russians, as do the Americans. I am not convinced that the Brussels hierarchy has that experience and I do not forget that there is a common strategy on Russia within which any implementation of decisions will be under the treaty by QMV. We shall not be able to exercise our veto. I retain an old-fashioned prejudice in favour of defence decisions in particular being taken by the Government so that they reflect our national interest. That is particularly the case since our national contribution will be among the largest and it is our men who will be taking the risks.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on his position as the new Minister for defence in this House, and to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, to her new portfolio. I congratulate her on her well-deserved elevation. She has moved away from defence topics. Today, so shall I, but I hope that I may still engage her interest in what I shall say in response to the gracious Speech.
Last Thursday, I attended a meeting hosted at the Malaysian High Commission at which His Excellency Professor George Kirya, the Ugandan High Commissioner, and a number of other High Commissioners were present. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss, together with key private sector individuals, preparations for the Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management (CPTM) Dialogue to be hosted in Kampala by President Museveni of Uganda in August.
This will be the latest in a series of such dialogues which have been held successfully by CPTM in Malaysia, Barbados, Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique over the past six years. I have been privileged to attend three such gatherings, in Langkawi, Maputo and at Victoria Falls. I have now accepted President Museveni's personal invitation to join him at the Kampala Dialogue in August—I am a Fellow (unremunerated) of CPTM.
514
Each event attracts 250–300 participants from government, private sector businesses, labour, academia and the media from around the Commonwealth and beyond. Attending for the three or four days of all these dialogues are as many as a dozen heads of state or government from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Such high-level and enthusiastic commitment, over a period of several years, underlines the importance and value that is derived by the busy attendees who very actively support and participate in these meetings.
At each and every dialogue, all participants have an opportunity to mix and take part, formally and informally. A variety of themes and issues affecting the interests and business activities in the region and further afield are highlighted and discussed. Over the years, CPTM has developed a remarkable networking and "smart partnership" approach to tackling common concerns and problems, in particular in the emerging economies of the Commonwealth. The aim has been to create a climate of co-operation rather than confrontation between the various groups, a willingness to resolve problems together and collectively, rather than alone.
CPTM itself was launched by CHOGM in Auckland in 1995 as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. It has received positive endorsement at CHOGM 1997 and again at CHOGM 1999 in Durban. Over the past six years, CPTM has evolved a rich variety of ways of disseminating best practice in technology and related management issues. It has successfully promoted its unique "smart partnership" concept of working co-operatively as "smart partners" to achieve common goals. CPTM itself has a mandate to,
"enhance national capabilities for the creation of, and participation in, global wealth through sound management of technology, using public/private sector partnerships".
Its operations are controlled through a small central headquarters or "hub" in London, interacting with other hubs in the Caribbean, southern Africa and South-East Asia.
One of CPTM's unique strengths is the quality and ability of its networkers, who come from both the public and the private sectors. They freely offer knowledge, experience, flexibility and a willingness to adapt rapidly to changing circumstances. Although CPTM's paid staff is very small, by acting as a catalyst or triggering mechanism, CPTM achieves a multiplying effect far in excess of the resources put in. One of the main attractions of CPTM, both to governments and to the private sector in the emerging economies, is exposure to and membership of a worldwide "best practice club"—a club through which, both individually and collectively, representatives can explore and capitalise on the experience of others, dealing with complex global issues, like WTO rounds and the explosive impact of electronic and other technologies on all our lives.
Examples of CPTM's efforts leading to positive and practical results are growing apace. Outcomes include a quality management network in 10 islands of the

515
Caribbean. One organisation has completed the requirements of ISO 9000 certification and is now certified. Two others are well on the way.
The ICT strategy in Grenada is being developed with the assistance of a CPTM-organised team. In Ghana, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has brought in private sector involvement so that joint public/private sector SMEs have improved access to technology know-how.
In Malaysia, the highly acclaimed MIGHT formation also brings together the public and private sectors of the Malaysian industry. It spearheads new joint public/private sector ventures—for example, the Electroplating Park, Malaysia, which co-locates several small companies involved in metal finishing industries so that all their highly polluting effluents can be properly treated and decontaminated in one place before safe release in the environment.
In Mauritius, its Research Council and its Vision 2020—a long-term perspective document for strategic guidance—have been adopted by its government and will be used for organising present and future investments. In Zimbabwe, a Scientific and Industrial Research and Development Council has been established, with effective research facilities, charged to bring public and private sectors together in new R&D ventures.
CPTM Fellows and staff have had a hand in all of these developments. They have also recently been advising the Shell corporation, at its request, on Shell's approach to identifying future global challenges for the company.
By no means is this an exhaustive list, but it helps to demonstrate the global width and variety of CPTM's contributions to tackling the complex modern problems that face governments and the private sector in many parts of the developing world.
At the meeting last Thursday with the Ugandan High Commissioner, we were briefed by Tan Sri Kamarul Ariffin, the executive chairman of the best known media and news group in Malaysia, on one of the latest and novel developments called Smart Partners News Network, another initiative derived from discussions at the CPTM dialogues in Maputo and Langkawi. This network, which owes a great deal to the drive and imagination of Tan Sri Kamarul, will be available on the world wide web. It is to be launched formally at the forthcoming dialogue in Kampala. It will combine in one website, www.southnewsnetwork.com, articles and factual reports on technology, management and other related topics from the subscriber countries. These already include Malaysia, South Africa, Namibia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Zimbabwe, and more are preparing to participate.
One of the understandable feelings aired at several of the CPTM dialogues, particularly when considering the issues of global trade and activities, is that media coverage is often dominated by reports coming from developed countries underlining their global economy approach. These may not always fully reflect the issues as viewed from within the developing nations;
516
www.southnewsnetwork.com will give a regional perception. This is a further example of a practical CPTM encouraged product.
The remarkable thing about CPTM is that it has so quickly established itself as a most valuable, even indispensable, group within the Commonwealth. It has, uniquely, also pioneered ways of spreading sound management and best practice even more widely, to friendly countries and businesses beyond the Commonwealth itself. That it has continued to attract such sustained and dedicated personal support from heads of states and governments over a period of years is itself a most favourable endorsement of its value.
It has developed a very special niche within the Commonwealth family and deserves to be enabled to continue its excellent work. CPTM's only source of income is from government grants and some money from private sector organisations. It seems to be able to achieve a great deal for less than £750,000 a year, but its recent income is nowhere near to reaching even this relatively modest sum. Not all of the more developed Commonwealth countries now give it their support. Its future will depend greatly on the view taken at the Brisbane CHOGM and by the High Level Review Group.
A number of heads of state and government who will be attending Brisbane have already written to the Australian Prime Minister to express their desire that CPTM and its future will be specifically discussed during his chairmanship of CHOGM at Brisbane. Dr Mahathir, the Malaysian Prime Minister and a key founding figure and Fellow of CPTM, wrote to Mr Tony Blair only last month to express his views about the future for CPTM and drawing attention to the dwindling support that some of the older Commonwealth countries are giving to CPTM. I expect that there will be a further report: and message about CPTM sent to CHOGM by CPTM Fellows following the dialogue in Kampala.
If CPTM is to continue its work for good, it needs to have a firmer financial standing than it has enjoyed thus far. Now that its performance and value can be judged, it is time to give CPTM the right backing. I urge Her Majesty's Government to set the example and to be as forthcoming as they were when they first came to office in 1997 with practical and increased financial support.
The DTI is the sponsor for our Government's contribution. If ever there was a candidate for joined-up inter-departmental support, CPTM is it. I am therefore particularly pleased that the noble Baroness is to respond. Her new trans-departmental responsibilities make her uniquely well placed to consider all that CPTM has achieved and can achieve in the years ahead. I am more than willing to brief her further. I urge Her Majesty's Government to give positive and practical support to CPTM, and to respond to the points that will be raised at Brisbane.
The theme for Brisbane is to reinvigorate the Commonwealth. CPTM has developed unique skills and methods that can assist in vitalising life for many Commonwealth people. It is a force for good in the

517
Commonwealth. It deserves a boost to its financial fortunes to allow it to continue its really excellent work.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, it is a pleasure to find that I am following a serious and valuable speech on the subject of the Commonwealth, which I have come to see as the most neglected asset available to this country's influence and diplomacy in the world. If Ministers were able to positively respond and work out an agenda for the CHOGM taking place in Australia later this year, they would be doing a great service, both to this country and to the 50 or so countries in all parts of the world which are members of that great association.
Having said that, I am very conscious that today's debate is the first in this new Parliament. With a new Parliament, a new team of Ministers—one of whom I see is not exactly a new member of the team, but we are very glad that she is still here—and a massively changing world situation, I hope that the Government can begin to think, creatively and deeply, about the future in a way that has not been obvious for many years past.
I welcome very much—I hope that this will not do him any damage—the excellent speech of the noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. It deserves serious study.
I wish the new team well, obviously. I am glad to see that in the Queen's Speech—and, indeed, in the manifesto from which the Queen's Speech was drawn—there are indications that matters such as development, world poverty, international defence and security have not escaped the Government's notice. Nevertheless, the Government, I am afraid, are still overshadowed by the European connection in all that they do and think. I shall devote most of my remarks to that issue with a sense of regret. There are massive concerns that we in this country should have with the rest of the world, but they are reduced, as it were, by this almost obsession that we have with things European.
With respect, I say to the Government that it is necessary, first, to get rid of a number of delusions—that is to put it as kindly as I can. One is that the objective of British policy, regardless of whether it is actually in our interest, is to be at the heart of Europe. No one who has undertaken any serious study of the case for joining the euro could fail to reach a negative conclusion. The case is contemptibly weak on economic grounds. It is not contemptibly weak on political grounds; indeed, it is a very serious case. It is that which tempts the Government, although they dare not quite say it, even now—although I note a slight change in the strength of the vocabulary in favour of the euro at the beginning of this new Parliament. Long may that continue. I hope that a "considered and cautious" approach will indeed be pursued. The trouble is that the Government believe
518
that they must be "leading the pack" in Europe, and joining the euro is simply part of that. It leads them to misdirect themselves as to the national interest.
Secondly, perhaps I may offer the Government some advice. They may say that their approach has paid off politically. Intellectually, however, they can no longer go on pretending that the debate is about "inward-looking chauvinism versus sensible Europeanism", people "turning their backs on Europe" and wanting to "huddle into a corner out of touch with reality". That kind of language is fine for the hustings. But the kind of xenophobic noises about which my colleagues on the Front Bench often complain are confined to a very small minority of those who are involved in the debate. No; the real debate is between the "little Europeans"—with whom, I am afraid, the Government are aligning themselves— and those who believe that because we live in a wider world, a genuinely global world, we cannot afford to be absorbed within a regional continental bloc; that we must think and act internationally and retain our freedom of action to do so.
Thirdly, the Government must clear their minds and be more serious about exactly what we are a member of, and what it is trying to become. I have in front of me a quotation from the 1997 Labour manifesto. The key sentence about Europe is this:
"Our vision of Europe is of an alliance of independent nations choosing to co-operate to achieve goals they cannot achieve alone".
That idea is contemptibly far from the reality. My noble friends are far too intelligent to believe such nonsense.
In the Labour manifesto that was presented to the nation a few weeks ago there was an advance—and we should all cherish this. The belief is no longer merely in an alliance of states, but in,
"a Europe made up of nation states and offering a unique blend of inter-governmental co-operation where possible and integration where necessary".
Now we are getting a little bit closer to the reality. It is indeed both those things. I believe that my noble friends would like to stress the intergovernmental side of things more than they would the integration side. Nevertheless, the integration side is very powerful. Nothing could be more integrationist than the euro—to abandon separate national currencies and to turn your own national bank into a subsidiary of a European bank in Frankfurt. That is integration.
The other problem with the intergovernmental co-operation side is that, increasingly, such decisions are made by qualified majority voting. So the Government are hemmed in on both sides. There is the side of the supra-national Commission, the European Parliament—legislation, supreme court and all of that; and on the intergovernmental side there is the European Council of Ministers and the great Council of Europe—ever increasingly deciding what to do by qualified majority voting.
To pretend that this is the same kind of relationship as we have with other countries—the treaties that we sign and the obligations that we enter into—is to

519
delude ourselves. I very much hope that the new team at the Foreign Office will have the intellectual courage and honesty seriously to address the question of what it is that we have joined, and what it is programmed to become.
I am not absolutely certain about the matter. I agree that there is a question mark as to the final destination. But the recent manifesto dismisses the evidence of that destination with the statement:
"Together with virtually all other European countries we do not support a United States of Europe".
I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that they are wrong if they believe that. I do not think that they do believe it. They know that it may fall just a little bit short of a federal state; and they know very well that the whole great debate that will open up over the next four years following the Treaty of Nice is to delimit the federal nature of the European Union and to define clearly the upper federal level which will make those decisions on our behalf and those rights that are left to individual states.
If we cannot face these matters and talk about them honestly, if we merely "rubbish" people who raise "difficult" questions, I fear for this country. But I do not really fear for it. I know that there are people of great intelligence and good will on all sides, and that they will turn their minds to these major problems.
I turn to the area of foreign and defence policy about which my noble friend spoke. I welcome some of the proposals—I refer to the aircraft carriers and the resolve that my colleagues have that NATO will have the first and last word. The trouble is that my noble friends can speak only for Britain. It is not the intention of many of our allies in the European Union that they should subordinate themselves to NATO for a clay longer than they can get away with. We know very well that a structure is being built up which will, indeed, duplicate, and—worse—rival NATO in terms of military arrangements. Somehow, no one mentions the sudden militarisation of the whole European Union. Well, it is just "treaty creep"—you have one treaty, followed by another bit and then another bit more. Suddenly you find that a civil enterprise that you joined 25 years ago turns itself into a military pact with a separate foreign policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, spoke most seriously and properly about that. Like the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, I believe this to be a great worry.
I am not at all happy that there is great wisdom in the European Council in its dealings in the Balkans, whether it be Kosovo or, more recently, Macedonia. I am not at all sure that its approach is wiser. I am very worried that we going along with the kind of first steps towards qualified majority voting in these areas. I know that that does not quite involve the use of troops, but there are all the other issues to consider. Indeed, I worry about that a great deal. Frankly, I do not trust the Council's judgment when it turns to the Middle East—Israel and the uninhibited championing of the Palestinian cause. I have in mind the lack of balance, sobriety and maturity in its dealings with that matter.
520
Do we really want to be locked ever more closely into this area, or do we hope for something better? The idea that we are antagonistic towards Europe is rubbish. We have yet to define the relationship with Europe in a way which is as satisfactory for us with our very different world commitments as it for the neighbours of Germany—still huddled together by their horrible historical experience—who see the best solution in a fully integrated European state in which their problem, as it were, would be for ever overcome. But we have to think much more about Europe, and especially about the enormous changes that are shortly to take place.
We have an opportunity here, if only we have the imagination and the will to seize it. There are a further 11 countries wishing to join the EU. It is absurd to try to impose upon them the kind of obligations contained in the 31 chapters of the acquis communautaire. They cannot meet them; nor can Europe afford to great them with the generosity that is required. Cannot we envisage a very different kind of Europe, and work for it? There are many models in this respect. We began with the best of them all—namely, ourselves—when we formed the Council of Europe in 1949. It had the two crucial elements: first, you had to be democratic; and, secondly, you had to obey and observe a minimum charter of human rights. That is good enough for me. Beyond that, there was a forum in which not only could the parliamentarians of European countries meet together but so, also, could their Ministers. In my view, that was a fine beginning. What a pity it is that we now find ourselves with something, which, as a result of treaty creep, is very nearly a European federal state. There is plenty that both we and others could find in common that would allow all of us to live more comfortably with each other. It is one of the great tests of British statesmanship to find a voice and to give a lead in that endeavour.
Finally, let us throw away the kind of self-deprecation, inferiority complex and what we lack according to Commissioner Patten—our sense of identity or the fact that we do not know who we are, and so on. Perhaps I may quote the very last paragraph but one of the speech made by the Secretary of State, Mr Straw, in the House of Commons a few days ago. He sort of summed us up by saying:
"We export more per capita than the United States or Japan"—
we do, we export more—
"We are the fourth largest trading nation in the world, the fifth largest economy, the second largest investor abroad and the second largest home for foreign investment".
It does not sound to me like a poor, dependent nation and one that is lacking resource. Mr Straw went on to say:
"We benefit hugely from belonging to the world's most influential networks: NATO, the United Nations Security Council, the G8, the Commonwealth and the European Union".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/06/01; col. 292.]
Let us be quite clear: we are members of those organisations and we have all those interests and assets. It is a great folly for us to entrap ourselves within a regional, continental bloc.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may endorse the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to our Armed Forces, which, unfortunately, as I hope he will understand, is one of the few aspects of his speech that I am able to endorse. I join in the congratulations extended to the noble Baroness who now sports three feathers in her hat—the former emblem of the Prince Regent, now used by the Carlton Club.
At the outset, perhaps I may endorse everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Howell in his speech, which, frankly, I thought was a masterpiece. His erudite appreciation of foreign affairs in context with defence—a sort of tour d'horizon—is wholly supported. The hope is that it shall serve as a blueprint for the defence policy of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Many of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, who is always a difficult speaker to follow because one's speech is always far less interesting than his, are not imaginary; they are real. Any committed Europhile, such as I have been—indeed, long before accession to the EEC—who values, as I do and have always done, the United States' contribution to the defence and the security not only of our country but also of Europe, would, having read this gracious Speech, suggest that some noble Lords in this House should step on the brake lest this EU bandwagon, driven by the likes of Romano Prodi, Lionel Jospin, and others, including some members of your Lordships' House, should hit the buffers.
I turn to the proposed enlargement of the EU and of NATO. This is the time for diplomacy, as between the member states of the European Union, the United States and Russia. Negotiations between the US and Russia on missile defence, of which there is no reference in the gracious Speech, must be allowed to seek resolution, especially having regard to the security meetings to which my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth referred between the EU and Russia; and to which the noble Baroness has drawn the attention of the House. Furthermore, rules of engagement on armed combat with regard to the Petersberg tasks have to be settled. Account must be taken of the open-ended commitments to which the noble Baroness referred in the Province, the Balkans, Sierra Leone and many foreseeable armed rescue operations.
Account must also be taken of the fact that control of our Armed Forces remains within the remit of the Crown, albeit exercised by Parliament, which in the exercise of the treaty-making power may conclude alliances and withdraw from alliances without derogation from our residual sovereignty. The peoples of Europe now demand a referendum before ratification of EU alliances such as the Treaty of Nice or the euro. The concept of ever closer union was not related to defence; it was excluded. It is a concept of imprecise aspiration which does not permit the tentacles of Brussels to grab hold of defence. One has to take account of making adequate provision for our
522
Armed Forces. That was once the bane of the monarch but is now the burden of our Parliament, but a Parliament which has control of its own budget. Perhaps that is why, wisely in my view, the euro has been put on the back burner by government.
One also has to take account of the fact that the peoples of Europe have no wish to set up a European superstate to challenge the United States or any other state and that in all these circumstances it is not appropriate that we should hasten into unilateral action of any kind but rather that there should be a moratorium on ratification of alliances referred to in the gracious Speech unless and until they are accepted by the peoples of the EU in a referendum.
The gracious Speech affirms that NATO is the cornerstone of our national security. However, it is also the basis of the EU's security, a security which is wholly dependent on United States support. That is not acknowledged in the gracious Speech and, as I understand it—I am subject to correction—is not acknowledged by the Government or the party opposite.
There is no reference to missile defence, upon which the United Kingdom or the EU is also wholly dependent on the United States. The United States' contribution to defence of the United Kingdom and the EU has to be assessed as a whole and settled by diplomacy within the remit of foreign affairs. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, agrees with that. The independent force outside NATO with its own intelligence gathering arm constitutes, frankly, a bad nightmare and that has now been recognised. But how could it ever have been proposed if the due process of diplomacy had been adopted? It would disturb defence relations between the United States, the United Kingdom and NATO.
An enlarged EU of at least 27 states—it could be more—towards the east will change the whole structure of defence. I agree very much with the analysis of this matter of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. That enlargement could well involve a complex conflict of interest between the United States and Russia as well as a conflict of interest on missile defence.
It is not in the interests of our nation or of the EU that as regards defence the Government should do other than to tread warily and walk within hand touch of the United States. Is it not manifestly apparent that the future of defence policy lies within the remit of foreign affairs and that pre-emption of diplomacy would be wholly misconceived? Is it not fortunate that the noble Baroness speaks for the Government on both defence and foreign affairs?
As a statement of government defence policy the gracious Speech is neither sound, satisfactory or acceptable. It ignores the findings of Sub-Committee C of your Lordships Select Committee on the EU in paper 101 of 25th July. Those findings were not called in question in the Government's response of October 2000 or in the debate on the committee's report in your Lordships' House, reported in the Official Report of 14th December at cols. 520–564. That debate was

523
concerned with the deployment of EU military forces on Petersberg tasks as defined in paragraph 29 of the report which includes armed operations in peacekeeping and peacemaking. There is no reference to that in the gracious Speech.
It was found by the committee that any such force would be wholly dependent upon the United States for intelligence gathering, heavy lift by sea or air, operational logistic support, command control, communications, computers, surveillance and reconnaissance; that no mission should be undertaken without the good will and tacit support of the United States; that NATO should be given the choice to lead any such mission and that a large increase in expenditure of most European states would be requisite in any event.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, acknowledged— as stated in the report—that the United States Government had an effective veto over EU operations because of its position in NATO and superior capabilities. The Secretary of State for Defence also stated in the report that he could not foresee a situation in which a major commitment such as the Balkans could be undertaken without the active support of the United States. The sub-committee concluded that it could not express too strongly its anxiety at the danger that the common European defence policy on security and defence could turn into a damp squib and that a consequent serious deterioration of our relations with the United States would ensue.
The sub-committee also found that defence was the responsibility of national governments and parliaments. It added that provision for our armed services lies within the exclusive province of our Parliament.
Field commanders engaged in the armed Petersberg task—the armed operation short of war of an international character in public international law—are concerned that there should be common rules of engagement for those who serve. War crimes under the Geneva Convention applicable to such armed operations as incorporated in Article 8 of the ICC statute warrant clarification and review. A seven year opt-out of Article 8 on ratification of the statute would afford an opportunity to establish such rules of engagement on the Petersberg tasks.
There is also very serious concern about the defence shield against missile attack which was set up by President Reagan in the 1980s. This shield today could be penetrated by an updated Russian Topol M missile which is made to wobble during atmospheric re-entry. And now (as propounded by Professor Gormley in a paper published by our International Institute for Strategic Studies) we face the threat of a new generation of missiles: a modern kit aircraft fitted out with navigational aids and warheads, total cost £70,000, with a guidance system generated by 15 toy Playstation game consoles configured together which guide the missiles to bug the ground flying at about 60 miles per hour. It is difficult to detect and destroy in flight using extant technology. Those are discharged
524
from mobile launchers which experience in the Gulf and the Balkans has shown are all but impossible to take out.
The United States is committed to spending £44 billion on its new star wars defence shield project. Unless the United States keeps ahead of the field, in about 10 to 15 years' time there could be an equilibrium of terror akin to that in the Cold War.
In conclusion, of the 40 countries which already possess working cruise missile technology, only 22 are signatories to the missile technology convent ion. As to that form of defence, we are wholly dependent on the United States. The concerns of this speech were truly not addressed in the gracious Speech or the candy floss election so massively shunned by the electorate. Assuredly they cannot be addressed today, but perhaps some interim measure of assurance may be given pending a full debate on defence and foreign affairs.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I, too, congratulate Members of the Government Front Bench on ascending to even higher office than before. I also wish them well because with high office comes an even greater burden of responsibility. In the politics of today there is little time to think and reflect on the decisions that have to be made. There are perhaps no parts of government which require clearer analysis and thoughtful decision-making than those of foreign affairs, defence and international development. Decisions made often continue to have effect for a long period of time. Decisions in the domestic field can be repaired more easily.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred to the over-concentration on Europe in the speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. However, the over-concentration in recent times has not been so much on Europe itself—it is an extraordinarily important matter as even those who disagree with the Government nevertheless agree—as on the economic aspects of Europe. Almost all the discussion recently has been about monetary union and the euro. That is important. It is a proper matter for debate and discussion. As a somewhat younger Member of your Lordships' House—despite the increasing number of grey hairs in my beard—I fear that my generation now thinks of Europe in almost nothing but economic terms. For them, we entered the Common Market: the European Economic Community. There is now debate on the euro and European monetary union. That was not the fundamental purpose of European union. Economics were the instrument adopted, but they were not the purpose of the founders of the Union.
On 1st July we come to yet another crisis in Northern Ireland. The 1st July is, and will be, remembered with far greater historic resonances than the events of this weekend. The 1st July is remembered because tens of thousands of young men from the Ulster Division and the Irish Division set aside the debates in your Lordships' House over Home Rule

525
and went to fight and die for freedom in Europe—not freedom in Ireland or these islands, but freedom in Europe.
If we go by the old calendar, 1st July was the date of the Battle of the Boyne. In 1690 a Dutch prince fought with an English king backed by French troops on an Irish river. The Dutch prince won and the outcome was celebrated by an Italian pope with a Te Deum in the German-speaking city of Vienna. We have always been Europeans.
It has been a Europe of conflict. During 1,000 years, not a generation passed in which there was not a war between countries which now form the European Union. My generation has begun to forget that the greatest achievement of the European Union is not that we can travel on holidays with less difficulty at the border; the greatest achievement is that my generation has lived without a major war between the European nations. No generation for 100 generations has ever known that. We must not forget that the fundamental purpose of what we do in Europe is to prevent war or conflict.
I have listened carefully to noble Lords who indicate how that might be achieved simply by nation states working together. It is an easy answer. What are the nation states of which we speak? Throughout the whole existence of this Chamber there has been a constant and consistent debate about the boundaries of the British state, particularly as they relate to the island from which I come. The settlement, even at a constitutional level, is one on which we are still working. The European Union helped to settle some of the boundary questions between France and Germany and between Germany and Denmark. If it were not for the European Union, issues in the Basque country might well be creating more difficulty between France and Spain than is currently the case. We have our own little difference with Spain still to resolve in the context of the European Union.
It is not easy to define what a nation state is and where its boundaries are. With one or two possible exceptions, such as Portugal, nation states are not homogenous entities of nations bounded by states. They are historical entities, almost all of which contain minorities, which are often the cause or the subject of conflict and difficulty. The big problem for Europe in the next 10 or 20 years will not be economic issues or the euro, but how we deal with our minorities. That is the opportunity that Europe gives and it is the challenge before us as Europeans in these islands and throughout our continent.
The peace process in Northern Ireland did not start with the talks in 1991, 1992 and 1993; it started on the day in 1973 when the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland together joined the European Union. The issue for Northern Ireland began to be less whether we were part of the United Kingdom or of a united Ireland and more whether we were all part of a united Europe and what the configuration of that united Europe might eventually begin to be. That is what brought Ministers from Her Majesty's
526
Government personally closer to Ministers of the Government of the Republic of Ireland and built relationships that had been sadly fractured.
I hope that, as well as stopping conflict among its member states, Europe has also begun to heal some conflicts that have been there all along. I do not know whether the Minister can say anything about this, but I harbour the hope that the increasing possibility of Cyprus, and perhaps even Turkey, eventually joining the European Union may begin to bring hope for another divided island. Britain has historically played its part in Cyprus. Perhaps we may also play a part in the future from our experience in helping to resolve the difficulties in Northern Ireland.
There may be a feeling that such problems are insoluble. The differences certainly cannot be resolved to please everyone. Other conflicts may sometimes be thought to have come out of the blue, but they rarely do. When I visited Macedonia two or three years ago, I knew that there would be trouble, because I saw exactly the same things there that I had seen in Northern Ireland in the 1960s.
What happened in Kosovo was also no surprise. Many of my colleagues had been warning for two or three years that what eventually happened there was bound to happen. Why? Because all the ancient rivalries were there and had only ever been held in check by an external structure—the imperial structure of the Ottomans or the socialist structure of Yugoslavia. I believe that only in the solidity of a liberal democratic European structure will it ever be possible to hold those ancient hatreds together. We have a responsibility there.
Given the painful and substantial experience that Her Majesty's Government and their officers have accumulated in the past 20 or 30 years, I hope that there will be a little more reflection on what can be learnt. If I have one criticism of governments and their officials over a number of years, it is that as they live, so they judge their neighbours. That is often said in a reproving way. I say it slightly differently. Those who come from peaceful, democratic countries with a liberal democracy and the rule of law are often naively upbeat about the prospects in areas of conflict. Conflict creates a new dynamic, different ways of thinking, different agendas and a different politics. I often find well meaning, good people from substantially stable societies coming to the wrong conclusions in their attempts to do good in divided and conflict-ridden societies. At times it is important to sit back, listen, reflect and be a little sceptical and a little tough in one's thinking. Sometimes we need to think ill rather than to think well when people are involved in conflict for a long time. Conflict does not continue by accident. It is maintained for reasons—not always good ones.
I hope and trust that the experience that this country and the international community have developed will be reflected on, thought about, used and digested to ensure that over the next 20 or 30 years we address conflicts on the basis of thoughtful reflection, not wishful thinking that things might be better than they are.

527
I have listened to comments about the enormous wider issues of ballistic missiles and missile defence. There is no doubt about the importance of those issues, but in the past 20 years, the vast majority of conflicts have not been major intercontinental ones, but internal conflicts within countries over minority groups who feel or are grossly abused. I suspect that the same will be true of the next 20 years. If we are to make our contribution, it will be not just on the bigger issues, but on those horrible little wars that cause so much tragedy and despair.
In dealing with those conflicts, we should not just look for new ways and new sets of relationships. I sometimes feel that we forget our old friends who have been able to help us. Europe helped us in Northern Ireland, but so did the United States of America and our Commonwealth friends. We turned to South Africa and Canada, because we speak the same language, we have familiarity with similar kinds of conflicts and we have the same kind of parliamentary structure and democracy. We have had to turn to people such as John de Chastelain and Cyril Ramaphosa. Even the conflict-ridden Northern Ireland Assembly applied to join the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, because unionists, nationalists, republicans and loyalists all realised how much we had to learn from—and, on occasions, to give to—our Commonwealth friends. As the Foreign Secretary mentioned the Commonwealth in his speech, I hope that we will see evidence of an increasing commitment to it and all that it can give in so many parts of the world.
We should not forget other resources, such as the BBC World Service, which is enormously influential and valuable. I commend the Government on the increase in finance that they have given to the British Council. However, that remarkable organisation, under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, will achieve its full and substantial opportunities and possibilities only if Her Majesty's Government continue to increase the resources that it has at its disposal.
I trust that your Lordships will forgive me for concentrating on the issue of conflict, given the background from which I come. However, I believe that it is the most important aspect of foreign policy. While private citizens and private companies can get on with investment, wealth creation, trade and the international economy, it is the responsibility of government to maintain the law at home and abroad, to protect against conflict and its ravages and to promote—as the Government have said is their full intent—human rights and the resolution of conflict throughout our world.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the gracious Speech has much to offer for that span of linked concerns about Britain's place in the world and the nature of our own society, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, described by my noble and learned friend
528
Lord Archer of Sandwell in his notable speech proposing the Loyal Address, and amplified by my noble friend the Minister earlier today.
There are proposals in the gracious Speech which take the idea of an inclusive society beyond our island boundaries, rather as described this morning by Sir Christopher Patten, for those of us who heard his lecture, acknowledging the world context in which we operate and targeting major obstacles to a fairer and more prosperous world. We shall have the opportunity to debate the International Development Bill next Monday, so I want to make, if I may, three points about other development matters.
The first is to welcome legislation to outlaw the bribery of foreign public officials. I have previously mentioned to your Lordships' House my membership of Transparency International UK's advisory council. This Bill will have wide approval outside your Lordships' House and, indeed, throughout the OECD. The group vice-president of BP, Richard Newton, said:
"Corruption is the dry rot undermining aid. It destroys development, it frightens away genuine foreign investors, it perverts societies".
Consider a country where development aid accounts for 90 per cent of public investment and 30 per cent of recurrent expenditure—not unusual in a sub-Saharan country. Large, unaccounted-for segments of these funds disappear or have no useful outcomes. The effect on public welfare—indeed, on life expectation itself—is deep. The World Bank once asked civil servants from central Europe, Africa and other regions to estimate how much had been lost through corruption in development aid as a percentage of project cost. Their figures ranged from 10 to 15 per cent. On the basis at that time of perhaps £3 billion aid annually for development aid to Africa, I leave your Lordships to work out the telephone number costs of corruption to the world aid budget.
But let us not rest easy on the assumption that corruption is mainly a poor country problem. The bribes which skew public service investment are paid largely by Western contractors. This does not exclude our own companies, slipping down in the index of countries perceived to pay foreign bribes. Effective aid needs a robust anti-corruption framework and it needs it soon. I hope for an early Bill which will improve on the model provided by the Law Commission, splendid for domestic issues, but which could put more beyond doubt the offence of bribing a foreign official.
I hope that the Bill will enable the full gathering of evidence and put a halt to the tax deductibility of bribes. And we might think again about whether prosecution should be only by consent of the Attorney-General, which is rather wide of the OECD framework. The promised money-laundering law is also part of the fight against corruption and is welcome in that connection, as well as in tackling organised crime in general.
The next thing that I particularly welcome in the Government's international work is the initiative planned by my right honourable friends the

529
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development to tackle serious health problems. These health problems together make up an urgent crisis but one which has systemic causes.
The elements of the urgent crisis are well known. All over the developing world the working population is being decimated by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other infectious diseases. Millions of people are killed every year by the big three diseases and millions more debilitated and incapacitated. Families are left uncared for and national health budgets are almost entirely swallowed up. The real development gains of the past 50 years are being reversed by the advance of disease.
The systemic causes of the crisis include poverty and poor living conditions, inadequate health delivery systems, governments' refusal to resource effective and explicit campaigns, in part, the Western-fixed price of treatment, often buoyed up by patent rules, and the imbalance in research between spending on the diseases of the few in the developed West and the diseases of the many in the developing world.
No one wants to see the financing of medical research undercut or invention and discovery unprotected and unrewarded. But the scale of the health problem means that new approaches must be taken to enable poor governments to buy treatment, which they then must also deliver effectively.
The Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit is publishing a report tomorrow, Tackling the Diseases of Poverty. I think it is unusual for a Cabinet Office policy unit to go so far outside our national boundaries, albeit with a major contribution from the Department for International Development; and I applaud this example of joined-up government.
The report recommends (it is already on the Internet) a global health fund—now part of the UN agenda—which can also make an advance purchase commitment to buy new products as they come on to the market as an incentive for research; work to make patent-controlled drugs affordable to developing countries; support for a tiered pricing system which also prevents lower-priced drugs intended for poor countries being reimported to higher-price markets; and support for basic and applied research and harmonised regulations to speed up approval and licensing of new products.
I congratulate my right honourable friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development on their rapid implementation of the recommendation for a global drugs fund with a UK pledge of £75 million, which is now being increased to £200 million, and of the recommendation to set up tax breaks as incentives for research. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can say how the Government will implement the rest of the report.
It is now also necessary for the trans-national pharmaceutical companies to play their part, as they have begun to do in South Africa by withdrawing, under pressure from the Socially Responsible Investment movement, from the case brought against
530
them by the Government. And a few weeks ago GlaxoSmithKline bowed to pressure from Oxfam and cut the price of drugs in 63 developing countries.
But the UN discussions on the global health fund are off to a fairly rocky start. Today marks the close of the initial session. What can our Government do to advance a useful agreement? I ask my noble friend the Minister for her assessment of progress, and particularly what form UK participation will take when the global fund is discussed by the G8 in Genoa next month.
The signs from the WTO session last week on drug patent flexibility were not reassuring. Will my noble friend the Minister encourage the Government of the United States to continue the relaxation of patent protection which they have begun with Brazil? And what part is the Commission on Intellectual Property set up by DfID to play?
I hope that the Minister will join me in congratulating Botswana on its progress, with the help of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in training and treatment to tackle AIDS—in stark contrast to South Africa, which has so many more cases of AIDS.
The last thing I put before your Lordships is that aid to developing countries is hugely supplemented by another source of funding—the remittances from the families of people in developing countries who work abroad. Our immigrants and indeed our citizens whose family origins are in developing countries are good earners. They add to UK tax revenues and they also send out probably at least matching funds to what goes out in official aid. When the IMF last looked at the subject, migrants' remittances exceeded by about 20 billion dollars all official assistance from donor governments. We should not forget these positive links between immigration and development.
In conclusion, some of those voters who seem to be getting turned off politics, particularly younger ones, can take heart from the broad and imaginative sweep that the gracious Speech shows over the leading part that Britain can play in the world context.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, both of whom made extremely interesting speeches. I shall take a slightly different line in this wide-ranging debate.
We are possibly facing a global recession and it is certainly true that there is currently a lack of investor confidence that is quite different from the tune—or mood music—of the past few years. At the same time, this is a strange moment in foreign affairs. There is a new Administration in the United States who are clearly feeling their way. Given the President's antecedents, the Administration are likely to be more isolationist and they will tend to look inwards, southwards towards Latin America and westwards to the Pacific; they are unlikely easily to look eastwards towards Europe.

531
There is also an as yet unproven Administration in Russia. They are still trying to cope with massive economic weakness and, dangerously, they are trading weapons and nuclear knowledge with rogue states, partly in order to boost their overseas earnings. In China, too, there are huge economic problems and uncertainty about the role it will play in this new century. After all, Jiang Zemin is due to retire next year from the presidency, and it is not clear whether Zhu Rongji, the other leading politician, statesman and economist in China, will seek to replace him. That creates an air of uncertainty in yet another of the world's major countries.
It is right to look at the United Kingdom's position against the background of those uncertainties. We have a new government and we are in a new millennium; where does our future lie? Does it lie exclusively within NATO in defence terms? Should we concentrate on trying to keep our special relationship westward across the Atlantic? Or does there have to be muted acceptance of the fact that the United States will slowly wish to get less involved in Europe, particularly in relation to humanitarian and peacekeeping exercises that western European countries think are necessary? Frankly, such exercises mean little to someone living in Kansas, Nebraska or Dallas, Texas.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in particular spoke about the Balkans. Unlike him, I have not been to Macedonia. I have twice been to Sarajevo—on one occasion I went there to open a British Council office—and I spent more than a week in Albania last year, where my younger son was working for the BBC World Service. From that I got a tremendous feeling that peace in the Balkans—an ability to make the Serbs live with the Croats or the Bosnians and the Muslims to live with the Orthodox Christians—is every bit as difficult to achieve as peace and harmony in Northern Ireland. One substantial difference is that the conflict in the Balkans goes back at least 600 years whereas that in Ireland goes back only 300 years.
The war after the break-up of the Yugoslav federation, following Tito's death, would not have been solved without the involvement of the Americans. It took American forces and its artillery, tanks and intelligence to bring that conflict to an end. However, the war has not in fact ended. The situation in Kosovo is now, if anything, even more difficult. So long as Milosevic was in power in Serbia, everyone sympathised with Kosovo. Now that Milosevic has gone, many people do not quite know what to do with Kosovo. If it becomes autonomous, clearly the Serbs will object, but if it does not become autonomous and independent, the Albanians will object and—possibly—many of them will leave and go to Macedonia, which, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, is a tragedy. What will happen in Macedonia now? None of us knows. All that is certain is that there is a rising violence or volume of hatred between the Slavs and the ethnic Albanians, and no one knows how to control it.
I state all that in order to ask: are the Americans really prepared to become more involved in the Balkan situation in future? If not—as I suspect is the
532
case—how effective can a European rapid reaction force be without American weapons, B52s and, above all, American intelligence? That is the real conundrum—the paradox—that faces us. Personally, I am not against a European rapid reaction force but we have to be extremely tactful about the way in which we move the matter forward so that NATO and the rapid reaction force can genuinely be seen to complement each other; that must be accepted.
In that regard, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, the Secretary-General of NATO. I have a lot of time for the noble Lord, not least because he was my "pair" in the House of Commons for many years. However, he always made it clear that he was prepared to be paired with me because I had a Scots wife and not for any particular qualities of my own! The noble Lord has shown a great capacity as a "peacemaker" and he has kept the different sides together within NATO. He has tried to carry forward this difficult argument—or discussion—about the rapid reaction force.
In that regard and in relation to the United States, NATO, the EU and the rapid reaction force, it is important for leaders of political parties not to take static, determined positions. We have to be able to rejig situations and treat problems and formulae as being subject to change. The situation is not static, although mutual understanding of each other's needs is absolutely essential.
The anti-ballistic missile shield changes the balance of global defence power. It confirms the United States in this field as the number one—as the numero uno—in a major way. It has yet to be worked out whether that can be acceptable to us in western Europe, to Russia and, in the long run, to China.
I was struck by an article in the Economist of 23rd June. It had a good headline, which asked:
"Can George Bush and Vladimir Putin agree to disagree constructively?".
That is a marvellous oxymoron and it is not yet resolved. So far, it is clear that the Americans and the Russians are no longer enemies, but they have not yet in any way found an entente cordiale on such major issues as security, missiles, knowledge about the nuclear industry or diplomacy.
It is against that background that I place the second half of my remarks. I come to the question of our involvement in the EU.
I say straightaway, as someone who has come to your Lordships' House from the House of Commons and who has always been on the pro-European side of my party, that I find the position of the UK Independence Party reasonably understandable. I do not agree with it at all. However, if you really feel that because it is moving towards a single federal state life in the European Union is intolerable, there is a case for "doing a Norway" and getting out. However, there is not a case for thinking that all the old treaties can be renegotiated because that simply will not happen.
I must say too, with great respect, that I believe that a phrase like "In Europe but not run by Europe" is simply a silly catchphrase. It sounds nice but it means nothing. It is against that background that I have to

533
say that if you wish to be a serious influence in Europe, if you wish to be at the heart of Europe, you cannot indefinitely stand aside from the biggest project and enterprise in which the European Union is involved and by that I mean the European Central Bank, a single Central Bank interest rate and the launch of the euro with coins and notes coming onto the market in just six months' time.
I believe that we could stand aside for a few more years. I do not believe that the negotiating position of the Government up until now has been at all bad, following on from the negotiating position of John Major's government. But our influence is surely bound to diminish as long as we do not finalise our decision as regards whether or not we join the euro.
I believe that after initial difficulties, the issue of euro coins and euro notes will be extremely successful. It will greatly reduce transaction costs throughout the EU countries. There will be a transparency of pricing that will be very significant in a market of 350 million. Even British tourists travelling on the Newhaven to Dieppe back-in-a-day ferry, as I sometimes do to replenish my wine cellar, will find that not losing 10 per cent to Thomas Cook is extremely pleasant. I shall keep some money in euros all the time.
But I accept that the decision as to whether or not we join the single currency is very serious. What is lacking at the moment is a sense of confidence among the British in our approach to that argument.
There were others present this morning, like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, who heard Chris Patten, the European Commissioner for External Relations, speaking in the Royal Gallery. I should like to quote two passages from his speech. In the first, speaking very wisely, as he does, he said:
"There is so much to be proud of in Britain that we should have the confidence to share our sovereignty with others in the certain knowledge that that is the best way to preserve real sovereignty rather than the notional kind. We would be able, for example, to lead the present debate in Europe about how to distinguish between what should really be done at the European level and what at the national, and about how to make the institutions which manage policy at the European level more accountable to national electorates. We could make Europe more as we would wish it to be, if only we could treat it as it really is"—
I would add, in brackets, not as Christopher Booker treats it—
"not as we fear it may be, and if we would see our own place in the world more honestly, more clearly."
Secondly, he said,
"Of course, it is true, as Jean Monnet argued in his memoirs, that Britain's greatest contributions to civilisation were respect for liberty, habeas corpus and democratic institutions. Provided we do not assume that we have a monopoly of virtue in this area, our record ensures that others will listen to us in the debate on Europe's future".
I am a great friend of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford sitting on our Front Bench. He has been a friend of my wife and myself for a very long time. But I take a different attitude from that which he takes. I believe that the European Union can go forward and
534
will go forward and that we should go forward as part of it. The sooner the debate opens up on whether we have a referendum or not, the better.
Finally, I very much hope that when the referendum comes, and the debate before it, leaders of all the main parties—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat—will allow members of their parties, Ministers and shadow Ministers to campaign for and against just as they individually wish. It is far too big an issue to be whipped. We should repeat what Harold Wilson did with bravery in 1975 when he allowed his Ministers to go off and take an opposite line. That is the way in which there can be free and fair discussion about what I accept is an extraordinarily important matter. We should put the issues before the British people fairly, honestly and on an all-party basis without being totally bogged down in party politics.
6.46 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, am delighted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to international affairs and to wish the noble Baroness well in her new, joined-up dual portfolio, which must be a little like sitting astride a catamaran, but I hope not as bumpy as that. She will have to exercise similar acrobatics when she is winding up this debate.
Perhaps I may briefly express a personal wish on the subject of the reform of our proceedings. It is that we resist the temptation to indulge annually in unlimited discussion of every aspect of the Queen's Speech. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned that last night. Either we have timed debates, we limit the subjects or perhaps we even limit ourselves. But with more noble Lords taking an interest, it is simply not possible for us to, for example, link between different days on single themes; for example, UK agriculture and international trade. The formulation of the Queen's Speech requires great care and it would be misleading to interpret every syllable as a foretaste of the Government's intentions like a manifesto. However, as has been said from all sides, it is unfortunate that rural affairs were omitted and it was a disappointment to me that world poverty is left to the very end.
But while there remains some uncertainty about the Government's desire to restore confidence to the farming world, there is no doubt in my mind that the Cabinet is committed to debt relief, poverty reduction and the provision of health and education, if not to the degree that some of us would like.
To that extent, it is a surprise that No. 10 did not give a little more prominence in the gracious Speech to the great international campaign against poverty, as I had expected, for which the Government received a powerful public mandate.
I look forward to the reintroduction of the International Development Bill next week and the establishment of aid for poverty reduction for the first time not just as an add-on or a hand-out but a formally established programme approved by our legislature. For too long, international development has been left to the end, to the whim of political parties. Aid cuts have been an all too frequent recourse of all

535
governments of all colours strapped for cash. Now that the economy is reasonably healthy, despite the global warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the aid ministry secure and fully represented at Cabinet level, with firm Treasury backing, those who have fought for a fair deal for the world's poor can look forward to at least four years of secure funding, and probably more.
However, in terms of achieving results in international development, both in reaching the UN GNP figure and meeting the international targets, we are still a long way from where we should be.
Bringing the least developed countries closer to the advantages offered by globalisation and technological change must be the greatest challenge facing governments as a whole, not just departments responsible for aid. I do not need to repeat the statistics of poverty or the ever-widening gap between rich and poor nations which have already been outlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. The point is that it is not money for aid programmes which will make a difference so much as enabling those countries to play a part in negotiations affecting their ability to increase revenue from exports, reduce the burden of their debt and thereby apply resources to their development.
In the course of the debate on rural affairs several noble Lords, including the Minister, mentioned the urgency of CAP reform, saying how important it is for us to secure agreement in time for EU enlargement. Today the Countryside Agency has made a strong statement on the subject. There is a potential for consensus—even in Germany which has recently been ambivalent on green issues—on the necessity to switch towards environmental support for all European farmers.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that the CAP was a high priority. However, all we have is words. We have heard them many times before and we are still far from agreement on CAP reform in Brussels. We owe it to our stricken rural population and to the third world farmers, who still face a wall of European subsidies, to get on with the common position that can be negotiated fairly with our trading partners.
The noble Baroness is bound to mention the good things that the EU is doing, like the Cotonou agreement I recognise that Brussels holds the line on much of the portfolio. I hope that during her term of office she will receive tangible good news on fundament al agricultural reform as well.
In the debate on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said that we should pay more attention to the role of the WTO, as others have said. As a parliament, and not just as a government, we should be more focused on this supposedly more democratic world body that will have a profound influence on us and the future of poor countries. Public awareness of trade is growing fast, largely as a result of NGO activity, most of which I believe is constructive. As governments prepare for the next WTO meeting in Doha in November, parliaments, even those like ours that benefit from specialised select committees, are in danger of being sidelined.
536
Three weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Brett, and I attended an IPU conference in Geneva, the first ever parliamentary conference on trade. We were among 240 members of parliament from all over the world. Of course, we were lectured by our hosts at the WTO on the importance of launching a new trade round. Most noble Lords would agree that it is imperative that the world takes a few bold steps towards compromise if globalisation is not to descend into a Seattle farce again.
Members of parliament from Argentina, Egypt and elsewhere were not so easily persuaded. They listed all the clever tactics of the developed world: agricultural subsidies always come first; labour standards; and tariffs and anti-dumping measures that have kept the world's poorer nations out of the world trading system. They argued that if the northern countries will not budge on such fundamental issues and will not focus on development, how can they expect any agreement? The ghosts of the MAI—the attempted multi-lateral agreement on investment—still haunts the WTO negotiating table. In many parts of the developed world, the current drive towards rules-based globalisation, much as we applaud it here, is still seen as a threat rather than an opportunity. We must take note of that.
An MP from Jordan said that in the popular view globalisation would lead to poverty as surely as smoking leads to cancer and that it is a sickness that can easily suffocate the poorest countries. It is important for rich countries to appreciate that perception of world trade negotiations: a table dominated by the powerful at the expense of the very poor.
Our Government often talk about capacity building and there is a need to help the poorer countries to build up their negotiating skills. However, it is not enough for us to sit beside other countries at the WTO handing out our own solutions and recipes. We also have to appreciate the special position of the poorest countries and to understand that changes in our society and trade concessions in their favour are a means of enabling them to escape poverty so that they can trade on more equal terms. We cannot easily look at the matter in that way, but I believe that we have to.
Through changes to the CAP, that are already forced on us by enlargement, and through fairer trade and commodity agreements, we shall not just be doing a deal for ourselves, but we shall be seizing an opportunity to solve the acute problems of those countries. Ultimately, it will be to our advantage if we have helped to create a stable environment for our investments and the development of new markets for our technology and our products. One also has to consider the jobs that are generated in those countries.
I turn briefly to HIV/AIDS, which has already been well covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I believe that it is a good illustration of the link between poverty and trade. It demonstrates the potential common ground between the needs of the third world and industrialised countries. We have already heard of the examples of South Africa where

537
pharmaceutical companies have backed down on the anti-retrovirals, and most recently of Brazil where US manufacturers have also seen reason and advantage in modifying their patent laws. On intellectual property, as on tax law and certain commodities, the WTO's dispute settlement procedures are being severely tested, as it is right that they should be.
I should declare an interest because Christian Aid, of which I am a trustee, has taken a particular position on the proposed new AIDS fund. It deplores the lack of international commitment to the fund and argues that governments may be missing a unique opportunity through the UN and national AIDS programmes to create a major new programme of preventive healthcare. I know that the Secretary of State has said that she does not appreciate that attitude; nevertheless it is true in terms of that particular fund. Worse, the fund may be biased towards an expensive drugs programme, even allowing for the reduced costs of drugs that have been achieved in countries like India.
In January 1998, after visiting Uganda to see the work of three charities, I initiated a debate on HIV/ AIDS and the huge human toll in its wake. I regret to say that, despite some successes, this pandemic is still gathering pace. Millions have died; over 4 million of them children. UNICEF reports that young people account for half of all new infections and a child is orphaned every 14 seconds. In areas without centralised government there are many appalling violations, like the Congolese woman who was raped in front of her children at successive checkpoints by soldiers carrying the virus. In such conditions there seems to be little hope beyond the care of NGOs and churches.
However, in the majority of countries, such as Uganda, Senegal and Thailand, even in remoter rural areas, the overwhelming evidence is positive. Awareness and education, coupled with sensible family planning and primary healthcare, are by far the most cost-effective forms of prevention. Of course, every country would like the ability to produce low-cost drugs, as Brazil aims to do, but there are still doubts about the cost as well as the effectiveness of drugs even in our developed societies. Too much concentration on treatment will condemn whole communities, which will never have access to anti-retrovirals, to unredeemed poverty and to vulnerability to AIDS in perpetuity.
I understand that DfID is not behind the new shift at the UN away from fundamental poverty reduction, which may be why it is cautious about funding. I hope that the noble Baroness can confirm that that is the reason. A sum of 200 million dollars is not much in the context of the seven billion to ten billion dollars that the Secretary-General says will be required. I believe it is important that that point is answered.
In conclusion, I look forward to further debate on the intractable subjects of Sudan and Zimbabwe. On Sudan, which is a less well covered subject in this House, the people of the southern Sudan are still waiting with infinite patience for this Government to
538
make a contribution to development in areas relatively free from civil war. We have a historic responsibility in that country. I know that our ambassador has been active during the latest initiatives and that there is some hope from the United States at the moment. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will reconvene a promised meeting of interested parliamentarians as soon as Macedonia and other issues allow.
7 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I welcome what is said in the gracious Speech about NATO and the pledge to work to enable the European Union to act where NATO chooses not to do so and to improve the European Union's capacity and capability for humanitarian, peacekeeping and crisis management tasks.
In my maiden speech in this House in November 1996, I said that it gave me no pleasure to have to say that I sometimes despaired of any European issue ever being discussed intelligently, rationally and calmly in this country. But it gives me even less pleasure to have to say, some four and a half years later, that I cannot see that things have got any better!
Nowhere is that more true than in looking at the issues raised with regard to the EU initiatives in the field of security and defence and the interface with NATO. If only the media and commentators would deal with facts rather than myths—and I put on the same level of validity as the hoary old Euromyths of square strawberries and hairnets for fishermen the new Euromyths about setting up a European army, an alternative to NATO, and thereby shattering the trans-Atlantic alliance. Let us, in the name of all that is rational, at least in this House deal with the facts.
The European Union's common foreign and security policy (CFSP) was introduced in 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty. Five fundamental principles lie behind the CFSP: to safeguard the fundamental interests and independence of the Union; to strengthen the security of the Union; to preserve peace and strengthen international security; to promote international co-operation; and to consolidate democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
Since 1993, the Council of Ministers has adopted some 70 common positions on foreign policy issues, ranging from the Balkans to East Timor, from non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to counter-terrorism. During the same period, the Council agreed some 50 common actions, such as demining operations in Africa and elsewhere and sending EU special envoys to crisis areas such as the Balkans and the Middle East.
The Amsterdam Treaty of 1999 improved CFSP decision making and provided for common strategies in areas where members share important interests. It also introduced more focused policy formulation and an early warning mechanism through the creation of a policy unit working for the Council of Ministers. This has been strengthened with the addition of a political

539
and security committee and a parallel military committee to advise governments on crisis management.
The presidency report to the recent Gothenburg European Council on European security and defence policy shows how far the EU has come in its practical development to meet its aims. It is a long and substantial document and I commend it to your Lordships, who will no doubt be relieved to hear that I do not intend to deal with the detail in it at any great length. However, there are some very pertinent points which I wish to draw specially to your attention.
In discussing the European Union's capacity to act, it states clearly that it is where NATO as a whole is not engaged that it will be involved and,
"This does not involve the establishment of a European army. The commitment of national resources by Member States to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions".
There are detailed paragraphs on co-operation, first and foremost with NATO but also with international organisations, with the non-EU NATO members, with other countries which are candidates for EU accession, and with other potential partners such as Russia and the Ukraine. This is an outward-looking, not an exclusive, exercise.
What is said about the co-operation with NATO is specially worthy of note. It is stated that the development of a permanent and effective relationship with NATO is a critical element of the European security and defence policy. An exchange of letters between the Swedish presidency and the NATO Secretary-General confirmed permanent arrangements for consultation and co-operation between the EU and NATO and the first formal EU/ NATO ministerial meeting took place in Budapest on 30th May. Other meetings at a more technical level have taken place. The EU and NATO have entered into close co-operation on issues of crisis management in the Western Balkans.
Here we should note that, whatever is speculated in the press, the actual position of President Bush on his recent visit to Europe, as reported by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is that the President welcomed the enhanced role for the European Union in providing for the security of Europe, so long as the EU role was properly integrated in NATO—something it very clearly is.
Let us deal here with a topic which arouses much emotion in this area; that is, the Rapid Reaction Force. EU member states have this as a headline goal. It is set out in detail, but it can be summed up in a kind of shorthand as establishing a capability by the year 2003 to deploy rapidly, and within 60 days, a force of up to 15 brigades, or 50,000 to 60,000 persons, which should be able to be deployed for at least one year.
We should note in parenthesis that there are also plans for rapid reaction mechanisms in the impressive EU programme for civilian crisis management, including police and other non-military deployment. While in parenthesis, I should like to say how much I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of
540
Oxford when he spoke with approval of the EU's "Anything but Arms" project. Just to prove that Eurocrats have a sense of humour, that project is now referred to in Brussels as the "Venus de Milo" project!
As the NATO Secretary-General, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has said more than once, the logic of enhancing Europe's role as a security actor is clear. We need to demonstrate to the United States that Europe is willing and able to take a fair share of the security burden. But also Europe needs to be able to react when the US or NATO does not wish to do so. In the post-Cold War world there is simply no guarantee that the US or NATO will want to get involved in every security crisis in Europe. In a speech introducing the debate, my noble friend Lord Bach quoted the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and it bears repeating,
"There has to be another option to 'NATO or nothing'".
Reading some British commentators one would be forgiven for thinking that we were heading for a breakdown in NATO/EU relationships. However, in recent speeches, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has made it clear that the opposite is true. I should like to take this opportunity to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, in praising the superb work of the noble Lord in this regard. Relationships between the EU and NATO are improving by the day and the proof is seen where it matters—on the ground. The European Union's High Representative, Xavier Solana, and the NATO Secretary-General have co-ordinated their efforts in responding to a variety of security challenges in the Balkans, and are doing so as we speak, in order to try to avert calamity in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
I speak as a former chair of the Atlantic Council of the United Kingdom and someone who is deeply committed to NATO and its values: the defence of freedom, human rights and democracy. I am proud of NATO's history and its foundation by great statesmen like Ernest Bevin and of the outstanding service provided by British secretaries-general, such as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my old friend Lord Robertson. I am also proud of NATO's plans for its future—of enlargement and changing its role to meet the new challenges of our time.
There is no contradiction in being a passionate supporter of NATO and also welcoming enthusiastically the EU initiatives in the field of security and defence; the two go hand in hand.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. She spoke with great command of her subject. I hope that she will forgive me if I turn to a different topic; namely, the Commonwealth. In his speech last Friday the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said:
"We shall use our influence in the world to help confront tyranny, oppression, poverty, conflict and human suffering".
All those five scourges exist in Zimbabwe, which I believe is a Commonwealth problem that has not yet been properly understood.

541
It is exactly a year this week since the ZANU-PF Party won a majority of seats in the parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe. It won those seats by organised murder, rape, intimidation, brutality and corruption. The pretext for that reign of terror was the imbalance in the ownership of farmland between the black and white populations, but it is fairly clear that the reason was the determination of Mr Mugabe to retain power at all costs and his perception that the issue of land was tinder for his purpose.
The situation in Zimbabwe now is probably more shocking than most noble Lords realise. The reign of terror has continued for the past year. Supporters of the opposition party are still being killed. Two million people out of a population of 14 million, obviously most of them black, have fled the country. The turmoil has spread from the countryside to the towns. Urban businesses are being attacked. Further, 300,000 jobs have been lost in the past 18 months. They include 130,000 out of the 350,000 jobs in the countryside. More than 50 per cent of food must now be imported into what should be a food-exporting country. The production of gold has fallen to less than 50 per cent of what it should be. More than 70 per cent of total government revenue is used to service debt, which is an astonishing figure.
Over 50 per cent of adult women who attend antenatal classes are HIV positive, and 10 per cent of the workforce dies annually. Life expectancy falls by one year each year. There is a serious prospect of the country running out of food by Christmas. The price of mealie meal—the staple food of much of the population—has risen by 40 per cent in the past six weeks. Forty per cent of the population is homeless. In spite of the collapse of its economy, Zimbabwe has 16,000 troops fighting in the Congo.
In the face of intimidation the conduct of many judges has been exemplary and courageous. Independent journalists have shown great bravery in the face of threats and even torture. The restraint and self-discipline of the main opposition party, the MDC, including its leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, are beyond praise.
What I and many others find surprising is how little has been done by other governments about this situation. All the reports by independent observers of the elections last year declared that they were not free and fair, but nothing of any significance was done. More recently, the International Bar Association sent a high-powered team of judges and barristers from the Commonwealth and the United States to Zimbabwe. It declared that,
"conduct committed or encouraged by government Ministers has put the rule of law in Zimbabwe in the gravest peril and the very fabric of democracy at risk".
It went on to say:
"This cannot be justified by the need for social justice".
Her Majesty's Government and, more recently, the new US Secretary of State and other governments of the European Union have been critical. But, apart from the withdrawal of the British military team, there
542
has not been much action from governments. As far as I am aware, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth has not said one word of criticism of the Government of Zimbabwe, although recently he has been openly critical of General Musharraf of Pakistan where the situation, albeit unacceptable, appears to be a good deal less serious than in Zimbabwe.
I turn to the question of action. Some weeks ago the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group decided to send a fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe. I understand that Zimbabwe refused to accept it. The European Union also started an initiative under the Cotonou agreement between the ACP countries and the EU. I do not know whether that came to anything. I have heard very little about it in recent months.
Last week it was reported unofficially that Mr Mugabe had agreed to accept a top-level group of Commonwealth Ministers to help resolve Zimbabwe's worsening economic and political crisis and that that initiative had been discussed between our Prime Minister and Mr Mbeki, President of South Africa, when the latter was here. If there is such an initiative can we be told more about it?
I believe that a resolution of the crisis in Zimbabwe is very important for the future of the Commonwealth. Interestingly, the 1991 Harare declaration of the principles of the Commonwealth, which restated and updated the Singapore declaration of 20 years before, said:
"We believe in the liberty of the individual under the law, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief and in the individual's inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political process in framing the society in which he lives".
The declaration also refers to the political values of the Commonwealth: democracy, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and just and honest government. Yet it is impossible to reconcile the situation in Zimbabwe which I have just described with those principles of the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe has been flagrantly in breach of those principles and values for some time. I believe that if the Commonwealth turns a blind eye it will be a very serious blow to the reputation and worth of that body and the perception of its own members of its value.
I can understand why some African leaders, particularly those in southern Africa, have been cautious about taking action, but if the problem is allowed to continue to fester it will be even more destabilising for that part of the world than it is already. I cannot believe that Commonwealth leaders, especially those from Africa, will be happy to go to the heads of government meeting in October with this problem in its present poisonous state. This is, therefore, the right time for the Commonwealth itself to take action.
The problem is too vast for me to put the questions that I should like the noble Baroness to deal with in her reply. I am delighted that she resumes a role in connection with foreign and commonwealth affairs in addition to her other important responsibilities. However, I should like to put a number of matters.

543
First, are practical steps being taken now to prepare for the supervision of the presidential elections which take place next March? Such supervision should start at the latest in January for elections in March. It is no good leaving it until the elections occur. The arrangements need to be carefully made and effectively carried out if we are not to see a repeat of the ineffectiveness of the so-called supervision which took place at the time of the parliamentary elections a year ago.
Secondly, are the Government or the Commonwealth doing anything about land reform? That is a key issue. There have been reports recently on the submission of new land reform proposals by the commercial farmers to the Government. If there is scope for movement in connection with land reform, could that be an incentive towards the holding of free and fair elections?
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some encouragement on these matters, or at least some hope of forward movement. If the world, and the Commonwealth in particular, does not take the Zimbabwe problem seriously soon, we may face another humanitarian catastrophe and the Commonwealth will risk not only a failure but a humiliation.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, on the importance of the crisis in Zimbabwe to the future of the Commonwealth and indeed Africa as a whole. I also agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord that the priority in our strategy for coping with this crisis should be to look to the March presidential elections. It is extremely difficult to envisage any concrete measures which could be taken either unilaterally by Great Britain or by the Commonwealth as a whole that would bring about an amelioration of the system in Zimbabwe as long as Mr Mugabe remains in charge. His removal by the electorate is the solution to that crisis.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said, we must take every possible step to see that on this occasion the elections are held as freely and fairly as possible. Even with the fairly substantial amount of intimidation that has occurred in the by-elections, I believe that the writing is on the wall for the Mugabe regime and that the people will make the decision for themselves that they wish to regain their freedom and restore the democracy which at one time was the envy of many other countries in Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, also referred to the speech made by the Foreign Secretary on Friday in which he said that the objective of the Government was to combat tyranny and oppression wherever it is. I refer to the sentence in the gracious Speech which states:
"My Government will work to encourage universal observance of human rights, including throughout the Commonwealth".
544
I should like to ask the Minister a question. That statement in the gracious Speech is not as far reaching as that which we had in the mission statement a the FCO immediately after the Labour Government came into office in 1997. That stated:
"We shall work through our international forums and bilateral relationships to spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy which we demand for ourselves".
It may be that the formulation of the gracious Speech was intended to be a shortened version of that commitment. However, it would be useful to have it on the record that the Government stand by the terms of the mission statement as originally promulgated. What we demand for ourselves goes much further than the Universal Declaration, which could be all that is meant by the sentence in the gracious Speech. We have elaborate systems in this country for promoting the human rights of individuals and groups and for reconciling them with one another when they seem to be in conflict. So there is a positive obligation on states and public authorities, as we recognised in the last Parliament when we passed the Human Rights Act and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. The mission statement commits us to spreading those ideas and not merely persuading friendly states to sign up to human rights instruments and holding national elections.
Amnesty International has reservations about the methodology the Government have chosen for pursuing their human rights agenda of "critical engagement", which is sometimes accompanied by human rights dialogues. It says that there is a danger that formal procedures of this kind may be used as a cover for business as usual, and that dialogue can work only where there is willingness to acknowledge that problems exist, and a genuine commitment to addressing them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, pointed out, that situation is completely absent in the case of Zimbabwe. We do not seem to be making much progress either in the case of China, for example, which thought it was appropriate to mark the UN anti-drugs day by publicly executing 50 alleged drug traffickers sentenced at mass rallies in a number of cities. Another example is the violent repression of the peaceful Falun Gong. At the same time, however, we are keen to start a dialogue with Burma. That regime has been even less amenable to friendly persuasion. We should make some attempt to assess the benefits of dialogue, which we have had with these places in the past, but we should take a long view and persevere even when there is no discernible improvement over a number of years.
The Commonwealth, as is frequently pointed out, is an association of diverse peoples belonging to many different religions, ethnic, linguistic and cultural groups. At the level of Commonwealth institutions and meetings, such as the CHOGM to be held at Brisbane, agreements are reached across all these boundaries for the benefit of member states. But within each of the states there are tensions of varying degrees of severity between the groups. Perhaps I may ask the Minister who is to reply whether the Commonwealth could develop its own expertise in

545
conflict resolution and prevention, and whether it could develop model laws and procedures for the promotion of equality between different groups within member states. If it could do that, would it not be a practical contribution to the work of the UN Year World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which is to be held at the beginning of September in Durban?
I rather agree with the right honourable Clare Short that these UN jamborees tend to cost a great deal of money for very little in the way of measurable results. These evils of racism and xenophobia need to be attacked, but holding a world conference that siphons off money and human resources that could otherwise be employed in direct action is not particularly sensible. Of course nothing can be done about that at this late stage with the world conference only three months away, but looking ahead to 2002 we have the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Second World Assembly on Ageing, and the High Level Intergovernmental Event on Financing for Development. These are important subjects, but are they best pursued by collecting people from the four corners of the earth to read papers at each other, or would the money that is devoted to these international jamborees be better devoted to encouraging individual initiatives within member states?
The draft resolution for the Durban meeting recognises that people may experience discrimination on grounds of their gender, age, disability, genetic condition, language, religion, sexual orientation, economic status or social origin. People may suffer multiple discrimination and disadvantage from a combination of those characteristics. I hope that the UK will support an integrated approach to the elimination of discrimination and disadvantage internationally, just as we hope that the Government will adopt a comprehensive approach in attacking all forms of discrimination at home. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, in many parts of the world there are conflicts which arise from perceived differences between one group of human beings and another. Those conflicts should be seen as extreme manifestations of racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance with which we are attempting to grapple.
The problem with the very ambitious Durban programme is that it will cost a great deal of money. Many of the recommendations are addressed to states, but quite a few are directed at agencies of the UN, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights who is directed to undertake research on the use of the Internet for the purpose of preventing inciting racial hatred, for example, and to organise a database containing information about the struggle against racism that states and NGOs can access on the web.
Where are the resources for these additional tasks to come from? In the past few years, the number of mandates assigned to the high commissioner has expanded enormously, with a proliferation of experts on particular territories and thematic issues, most of
546
them concerning economic and cultural rights, watering down the commission's main remit of tackling violations of civil and political rights. In many cases, the work could and should be undertaken by NGOs and universities on behalf of the commission, if they were given the money, helping to build up lasting expertise and capacity in civil society. In others cases, the relevance of the mandate is doubtful, and it may be suspected that some member states are deliberately trying to sabotage the work of the commission by overloading it with inappropriate tasks.
The difficulties of the commission have been compounded in the past few years by the fact that the UN budget has been frozen, presumably because of the refusal of the US to pay its contribution. That means that any increase in the share of expenditure by the OHCHR has to be matched by a decrease in some other area of UN expenditure. Will the Government insist that, if the world conference does impose additional tasks on the high commissioner, a realistic budget is presented by the Secretary-General, and that none of the tasks is undertaken until the money has been found from resources elsewhere in the UN? Otherwise, either the existing mandates are squeezed or additional voluntary contributions will have to be solicited from member states.
Already, the share of OHCHR's expenditure coming from the UN regular budget has fallen from 58 per cent to 29 per cent over the past seven years. The office's spending has been rising over that period, so that voluntary contributions made by member states have increased to cover 70 per cent of the budget. The high commissioner herself is concerned that this is not a secure foundation, and if there is an economic downturn, or there are changes of government in donor states so that they become less sympathetic to the work of the office, there could be serious financial problems.
We have a good record of contributions to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Britain is the fourth largest contributor and we are working to identify areas of the UN regular budget in which savings could be made and are looking at a comparison between the UN and other organisations to see whether more efficient systems could be adopted. Those are all valuable initiatives, but they are not enough. Why do we not ask the General Assembly to agree to a levy on member states, in proportion to their contributions to the regular budget, to pay for the whole of the human rights work of the UN? That would eliminate the need to raise voluntary contributions and ensure that every state paid a reasonable amount based on its capacity to pay, and not on its enthusiasm for human rights.
As my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire pointed out, the UNHCR has also had to pass around the begging bowl because of the financial crisis at the UN and is in an even more precarious situation than the OHCHR. Only 50 million dollars of its spending this year comes out of the UN regular budget. It is asking donors for 918 million dollars for 2001. The same

547
principle should apply here. Mandatory contributions should be levied on member states in proportion to their regular payments to the UN.
In his previous incarnation, the Foreign Secretary said that developed countries spend 10 billion dollars a year assessing claims for asylum but only 1 billion dollars on the whole of UNHCR's operations, including protection and humanitarian aid for refugees in their regions of origin. He went on to say that neither the UK alone nor the EU as a whole could redress this balance of effort, and of course we need to deal with the crises that generate refugees collectively. But there ought to be more joined-up thinking within our own Government on the connection between "complex emergencies", as the UN describes the disasters which provoke large displacements of people, and the flow of asylum seekers into the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said that no one knows how to contain the violence in Macedonia. We have no idea of how to do it in Angola, Sudan, Maluku, Aceh, Kashmir, Sierra Leone, Guinea or the Philippines. But we have to make increasing efforts to deal with those dreadful situations. Not surprisingly, the complex emergencies we see happening in the world generate the flows of refugees into this country. That is why we need the joined-up approach about which I think the Foreign Secretary was talking in his speech to the IPPR.
The number one asylum generator at the moment is Afghanistan. It is also at the top of the list of the UN's complex emergencies. One of the consequences of imposing sanctions on the Taliban last December was that they repudiated the UN's efforts to mediate between them and the United Front of Rabbani and Massoud, while the United Front insisted that the UN had to be present even if some other party such as the government of Uzbekistan were to assume the role of mediator. The net result of that was that the process of mediation fell apart. Now there is intense fighting in the country, leading to more suffering in Afghanistan and more refugees pouring out of the country. The UN Secretary-General's latest report estimates that in the past few months half a million more people have become internally displaced and a further 200,000 have fled across international frontiers, 170,000 of them into Pakistan.
It was not wise in those circumstances to impose sanctions on Afghanistan, when there was a desperate need to increase humanitarian aid, and it was irrational to cut off the funding of NGO activities involving UK nationals at the very time when the need was more acute than ever. There was a change in this policy, in the direction of looking at funding on a case-by-case basis, subject to what were called "appropriate security arrangements", but that still meant bureaucratic obstacles in the way of an increased effort. If Jack Straw's precept had been followed, we would have stepped up humanitarian aid to the populations affected by war and drought, both inside the country and in Afghanistan and Iran. That should not be affected by our natural dislike of the Taliban and their medieval policies.
548
The sanctions, and the treatment of the Taliban as pariahs by the international community generally, force them even further into their seventh century time capsule, contrary to the long-term interests of this country. Since the sanctions were imposed last December, the Taliban have boycotted UN-sponsored peace negotiations and rejected any idea of mediation for the settlement of the Afghan problem.
Last year we gave £3 million towards helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran. That is less than £1 a head, and it may be compared with the £14 million spent by Mr Straw, when he was Home Secretary, on trying to keep 32 Afghans out of this country. I hope that in his new role he will see the need for joined-up government in tackling the formidable problem of refugees fleeing conflict and natural disaster, not only in Afghanistan but in all the other complex emergencies listed by the UN throughout the world.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I shall not follow my noble kinsman in what he was saying to the House. I shall instead return to the issue of the ESDP, which has been a theme of today's debate.
For the past four years I have been a delegate to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. When I first went on that delegation, I attended a meeting with the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook. I asked him whether I was wasting my time in becoming a delegate to those two institutions. His answer was clear. In the case of the Council of Europe he said that it had an important role in building new democracies and international human rights and that parliamentarians could make an important contribution to its work. However, he was equally clear in the case of the Western European Union. He said that I probably was wasting my time. While my right honourable friend was quite right about the Council of Europe, he was only partially right about the work of the Western European Union. I can tell the House that over the past four years I have learnt just as much from that institution as I have through my membership of any other.
I wish to discuss my support for the ESDP in the light of my experiences at the WEU. We know that the Cold War is now 10 years behind us. The world has changed and we now know from experience the nature of the diverse challenges which we face nationally, regionally and globally. Multinational coalitions are changing as well. That means that the UN is changing, NATO is being modernised and, in particular within Europe, a new capability is being developed in order to try to contribute towards security within the European region. A point which has been repeated by the Minister on the Front Bench but one which has been largely ignored by the party opposite is that the ESDP seeks to enable a capacity to carry out so-called Petersberg missions and that those missions are of a low-level, peacekeeping nature.
It is worth reciting to the House what such missions have been. In 1987, a mine clearing operation was carried out in the Gulf, followed by a logistical support

549
operation in 1990. An embargo operation in the Adriatic commenced in 1993 and in the same year a customs operation was set up in the Danube region involving around 250 police officers and customs officials. In 1994, the Mostar police training school was set up using 182 police officers, and in 1997 a police training school was established in Tirana, Albania, using around 150 police officers.
I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that, while such missions are important, they are hardly of a nature that potentially is going to challenge the supremacy of NATO. That is a completely ridiculous assertion. It is worth pointing out that the United Kingdom did not participate in any way in a number of the missions to which I have just referred. Rather, they were coalitions of the willing; other countries taking a lead because they had a more direct interest in the matter at hand. Some missions were not even noticed to any degree by politicians in this country, yet the decision-making process within the WEU is pretty much the same kind of process, using similar staffing levels, as is now proving so controversial within the EU.
But of course those who indulge in the rhetoric about European armies do not question certain fundamental facts. They do not question the fact that Europe should do more to defend itself and should take on more of the burden. So far as I am aware, they do not question the Petersberg missions themselves. Furthermore, they do not question that the Western European Union was an institution which needed radical change if it was to become relevant to the current situation.
No, those who indulge in rhetoric about European armies are more concerned with probing the limits of the ESDP than questioning what will be happening on the ground. That may be a legitimate political tactic, but it does not address the reality of the missions for which Europe rightly should take responsibility. I am sorry to say that I have yet to hear noble Lords opposite address the missions themselves.
I wish to turn to another, separate matter, one with which I know my noble friend on the Front Bench will be familiar; that is, the question of the parliamentary assembly of the Western European Union. The current position is wholly unsatisfactory. National parliaments have a scrutiny role for the CFDP and the ESDP. The European Parliament has no locus in these matters, although the chairman of the EP foreign affairs committee, Mr Brok, is looking to expand his empire in this regard. Furthermore, the WEU Assembly has been so marginalised by recent developments that it retains a role only in scrutinising the provisions of the modified Brussels treaty.
For my part, there are three main arguments in support of an enhanced role for the WEU Assembly. Two of those arguments were advanced by the Prime Minister in Warsaw in October last year. He argued that a second chamber—as he put it for the European Union would reconnect national parliaments and national parliamentarians with Brussels. He went on to argue that a second chamber
550
could provide a solution to the perennial problem of defining the limits of EU competence. But there is a third argument which I would advance: an expanded second chamber established along the lines of the current WEU Assembly could scrutinise the provisions of the ESDP and bring in those countries which are outside the European Union but which have an active and historical interest in Petersberg missions. We should not forget that many of the countries which are active in such missions are not members of the European Union but they have a legitimate interest in those activities.
I have set out a number of concrete arguments with which I know that my noble friend will be familiar. But we must consider another factor which I consider to be equally important. I refer to the general level of information available to parliamentarians. I say in complete honesty that I found the debates on the Balkans and related issues held in the Assembly of the WEU to be of an extremely high quality. That should not be surprising because many of those contributing to the debates come from the countries directly affected or surrounding territories. They have an immediate appreciation of the issues involved. As I have said, it is no surprise that the quality of the debate is so high.
I have to say that the irony is not lost on my parliamentary friends from eastern Europe. At the same time as we are encouraging them to consolidate civilian control of their armed forces, in western Europe we are reducing the effective scrutiny of our own arrangements. Turkey is a particularly unfortunate example. That country is an important member of NATO. It, too, has been active in Petersberg tasks. At present it feels cut out not only from the decision-making process, but also from the scrutiny process within Europe. That is an unfortunate development.
I hope that my noble friend will take this issue seriously. I have raised the matter on a number of occasions and I know that parliamentary colleagues in another place have also raised it. Perhaps I may put a final argument. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so does parliamentary scrutiny. If national parliamentarians are not given a greater role in scrutinising the ESDP, then Mr Brok and his committee in Brussels will take on that role for themselves, whether or not national governments like it. I have attended meetings where he has made that completely clear. I believe that that development will further alienate our new friends in eastern Europe.
I, too, have made a number of visits to Macedonia and Kosovo where I have had similar experiences to those described by other noble Lords. I make only one observation. If I have learnt only one thing, I know that we are now embarking on a very long-term game. We need to put in place within Europe concrete mechanisms for playing that long-term game. I believe that the ESDP is an extremely important step along that road.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that I agree with every word that was said by my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to know that we are now exactly halfway through this great debate and that, if we finish at around midnight, we shall sustain the remarkable image gained by your Lordships' House as the longest-sitting parliament in the world. In the small hours of the morning it attracts, by means of digital television and the new parliamentary channel access, a remarkably wide audience of students encouraged by tutors to view debates such as this and our Wednesday debates, and then to analyse them in full.
I find also that, for the first time, I am confronted today by an overwhelming superiority among the female of the species, who have always shown more tolerance, more patience and more understanding than their male colleagues—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, whom I have always regarded as the Gatling gun of the Labour Party.
In my contribution today I wish to refer to three aspects of the gracious Speech: first, economic stability and investment; secondly, the desire to make Europe the most competitive information-based economy in the world; and, thirdly, the need to encourage the EU to be more flexible and more active in crisis management, peacekeeping and so on.
My life has been in trade, industry and finance. This has inevitably led to the international politics of trade and matters of that kind that border on defence. Although the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made a very positive, encouraging and moderate speech—which could have been delivered by Ministers from any party who have sat on those Benches over the past 15 years— there are certain points that I need to raise.
My first point relates to economic stability, which is now a cornerstone rather than a linchpin. We seem to have moved away from linchpins, which could be pulled out and the wheels would fall off, to cornerstones, which are always the last thing to be knocked down. We do have a stable economy—one of the most stable economies in the world—which has been gained over many years at considerable pain to numerous people and numerous sectors.
One of the sadnesses of this lies in the fact that investment has not been made in some of the most important aspects of the economy. Your Lordships will know that we now have the most expensive transport costs per kilometre, or per mile, in the developed world because of under-investment. I shall not comment further on that, but it is a pity because once we had almost the best transport infrastructure in the world. We now have, so I am advised, probably the worst health service in the EU—and yet we had some of the great ideals and thoughts that encouraged others to follow us. In other sectors—in education, for example—we find ourselves behind many.
And what do we do? We say that this is no longer the role of government but the role of something beginning with "P", which always used to remind me of those awful phrases such as "poll tax" and others; we say that it is up to the private sector. Many aspects of our lives cannot be run by the private sector, but the
552
private sector, if so it is called, will willingly do what government asks it to do provided the framework is right.
I am worried that I may have to spend half of my speech declaring my interests. I am involved as a non-executive director with a contractor. We carry out PFI's in hospitals, schools and transport. I could advise many people as to how this could be better achieved.
The decline in the sectors that I have referred to is matched by the sad decline in manufacturing industry and the way that we moved only 10 years ago from having a permanent surplus in the export of visibles or manufactures to a permanent deficit. Now we have an overall deficit on trade. What are we left with? I suppose we are left with agriculture, which is now in the worst situation it has been for centuries. The average wage in the agriculture sector of £7,500 a year is the lowest for 25 years.
What are we left with? I return to when I was a member of a Select Committee chaired by Lord Aldington. We looked at what would happen when oil ran out. One of the people who came to give evidence to the Select Committee said that he supposed it would be all right; we could rely on tourism and all become Beefeaters. But look what happens to tourism when one sector of the economy fails; it disappears. We are then left with that strange ethereal thing known as dot.com, whatever that may be.
I query what is the base of our economy, which leads me to the second area of information-based technology. We made a decision—it started with the white heat of technology years ago under the Labour Party—that we would switch from heavy industry. With the collapse of the steel industry, the collapse of the textile industry, the collapse of the mining industry, the collapse of the shipbuilding industry and the collapse of industry across the board, we decided that we would move into higher quality, and that fathers would want their children to be white collar workers and not blue collar workers. That has worked surprisingly well. But now we have to look to some extent, into the future and to that information-based technology—where we are, and have been, in the forefront in many fields—and to how that is linked to other sectors.
I move now, within that information phrase, to defence. In our industrial economy it was always defence-led contracts that led to the production of greater technology. That technology from a defence basis was spread throughout industry and enabled us to compete. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, may now have a problem in defence procurement in that he may not be able to procure what he would like to procure from the United Kingdom because the capability— or a large amount of it—has all gone and we may have to outsource or source elsewhere. This leads me to the shift to rapid reaction forces and to the role that has now to be played by information and knowledge in defence matters.
I move now to a slightly higher level—as befits me standing head and shoulders above everyone at the moment—to the issue of space and, effectively, the

553
future of communication. I shall, if I may, return to a kind of hereditary speech since it was my grandfather who gave the BBC its charter and introduced television with the Selsdon report. I move on to this world of communication, which we should not ignore. It is not only important in the defence and foreign affairs worlds but it is important for humanity, for man as a whole, whose access to knowledge is greater than at any time in history and is growing at an exponential rate.
In the defence field, I have often wondered why it is, when we are so modern, we start to attack cardboard or fibreboard models of tanks; why it is, when we are told how accurate we are, we seem to miss targets; why it is that we seem not to know where people are when they get lost. I return to the importance of space. I shall be asking the Minister shortly who is responsible for space. Who owns space? Where does space begin? It starts, I believe, at the equivalent of the distance from London to Paris.
In this field, this country of ours, which intends to be in the forefront of information-based technology, makes an investment in space of approximately £150 million per year, which is exactly half of that of Italy, one-third of that of Germany, and one-seventh of that of France. Europe together invests about 10 per cent of that of the United States.
Once more I find myself having to declare an interest in this field. I have recently returned from a parliamentary space committee trip to France, where we met with the European Space Agency (ESA), which takes half the UK's space budget. We met with EUTELSAT, which is partly owned by British Telecom and is about to go private. It has 950 television stations, manages 18 satellites and has some excellent British people there. They have been talking to me about what is "Open Skies", which starts at the end of the year; about how a soldier serving in a far-flung land may be able to see on his television screen his family going to bed in the evening and say "Goodnight" to them. This will happen when satellites replace land-linked or telephone-linked communications. This advance in technology is quite incredible.
In the world of space we have, so I am told, 500 active satellites. The satellites go into high-earth orbit, middle-earth orbit and lower-earth orbit. The lower-earth orbit ones, apparently, are the spy satellites that go hurtling around the world, taking photographs of everyone. We do not know how many there are of them, but I am told that there are 500 active satellites up at the moment and another 500 that have gone to graveyards. That is 1,000 satellites.
I wanted to know how important these might be in the worlds of communication and defence. Everyone said they are very important. It will not be long before the media arrive the day before an army lands and welcome the soldiers coming up the beaches, as they did in Ethiopia or Somalia.
What I am trying to emphasis is this. Do we have a space policy? Yes, we do. Do we have a space Minister? Yes, we do. But what happens if we move in this
554
direction and we cease to have access to that particular kind of technology. I am advised that it is possible to disable almost all of these satellites. I thought they would be shot down from space, but there are methods of disabling them. As we rely more and more upon this macro information concept, which I find quite difficult to understand, I should like to know how seriously the Government are treating it. Are we going to have to rely on the United States for ever in such matters as global positioning systems? Are we in the forefront of that technology? If so, and if that is our wish, why are we investing so much less than our competitors?
Our industry has declined, but there have been some successes within the European framework which we probably did not anticipate and in which we were reluctant to participate. I think in particular of Airbus. I declare an interest, having been involved in the financing of Airbus in the early days. It was extraordinarily difficult to persuade British industry to become involved. But recently, 111 aircraft were sold, and we find that we can compete on a European basis with American aircraft. There are many sectors of industry where that is taking place naturally, due to mergers, cross-investments or globalisation. However, to a certain extent we are falling behind. I hope that, in our European thinking, we may recognise that it was economics and business that drove us in the beginning to participate in the European Union. Politics is also an important aspect. I believe that if government give the right and proper lead, industry will follow.
In conclusion, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is answering the debate for the first time in his new role, I crave a particular European boon. I travel an enormous amount. Often, when I try to obtain visas, I cannot get my passport back in time. So I have been experimenting in travelling with my House of Lords identity card, as I choose to call it. I have had discussions with Black Rod and with immigration authorities in many countries. I have even produced a letter confirming who I am. Perhaps it would be possible for the noble Lord to consult with his international colleagues and ask whether Members of this House, as a gesture in recognition of the great amount of time that they devote—more than members of any other parliament in the world—might be able to travel using their identity card. I should regard that as a very great favour indeed.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, the reference to human rights in the gracious Speech and the increasingly urgent call for Europe and Britain to play a more active part in the current Middle East crisis prompt me to draw attention to what I believe is a grave issue and one on which Her Majesty's Government might form a serious view and even consider initiating action. It is the issue of certain Middle Eastern states promoting and prescribing schoolbooks which incite racial hatred, religious intolerance and, worse, outright genocide. I refer especially to the educational system of Syria where, from the head of state down to the most junior teacher of fourth to eleventh grade children and young adults, the notion of peace and reconciliation

555
with the Jewish enemy is regarded as treason and crime, where children are exhorted to fight and kill and to seek voluntary death with the promise of both material reward for their families and eternal happiness in paradise. But these school texts for different age groups now go further. They advocate ultimate extermination of the whole Jewish people—in other words, genocide.
A Washington based Middle East academic media research institute—MEMRI—recently issued an astounding up-to-date study of the Syrian school system. Whereas in most Arab countries similar hostile sentiments are expressed daily in various media and in all kinds of learning materials, the Syria of the Ba'ath party is a highly centralised authoritarian regime, and such teachings are obligatory. It is strange, even ghoulish, that during a week in which Slobodan Milosevic is heading towards the war crimes tribunal and in which the Pope is praying at the scene of one of the Second World War's most horrible massacres in the Ukraine, hundreds of thousands, even millions, of young people should be exposed to the teachings of such evil doctrines.
But the real reason why this issue is so relevant now, and why closer study of the evidence is so important, is that it opens our eyes to the underlying problems of resolving the conflict between Israel and her neighbours. When two generations of Syrian citizens are told that peace is treason and that the enemy must be liquidated, the very idea of compromise and legitimisation of Israel endangers and possibly entails the collapse of the ideological essence of the Syrian state. Perhaps that is the reason why the whole peace process, including the American brokered negotiations between Syria and Israel, seem to be nowhere mentioned in the literature.
The more you delve into this school literature, with its numerous case studies, short stories, rhapsodic poems and garish illustrations, the more you will find that all systematically lead young and uninformed minds, through fanning indelible hatred, to accepting the extermination of the Jewish enemy root and branch as the final solution. This also explains the children's part in the intifada, the deliberate and calculated involvement of boys and girls in every form of violent action.
Syria's Ba'ath party was originally a nationalist pan-Arab secular movement. In fact, the late President Assad crushed the ultra-religious Muslim brotherhood and killed around 20,000 people in the city of Hamma in his most notorious raid. But since the mid-80s, Syrian ideologues have adopted the slogans of fundamentalist Islam—mind you, not of the main line orthodoxy, for Islam as a faith has no truck with inhumanity. Today, Damascus is still the headquarters for a dozen extremist organisations and the turnstile for terrorists with links in Iran, Afghanistan and the Sudan. Recent redeployments of Syrian troops in Lebanon have not yet furnished convincing proof that Syria's hold on that country is being loosened.
556
When the issues of incitement and hate in the media of the region and other transgressions against human rights were discussed previously in this House, I am afraid that the tendency of noble Lords answering for the Government was to deplore them as unfortunate excesses or flowery rhetoric, staple propaganda de-fanged by numbing repetition. They are more serious than that, much more "action orientated".
It is true that a great deal of the hostility and bitterness in the Arab camp is due to Israeli transgressions against the Palestinians or its Arab citizens within the Green Line. The Jewish settlements near Gaza and the West Bank are thorns in the eye of every Arab. But when it comes to criticising and castigating Israel's omissions and transgressions, there are no better sources than the Israeli media; for Israel is a democracy, vibrant, strident, soul-searching, ruthlessly self-critical. There have been unpardonable outbursts from bigoted Jewish clerics against Islam, crimes perpetuated by individuals in and out of uniform. Yet they have all been condemned by a large section of Israeli public opinion. But no Israeli leader has sunk so low as to utter aggressive obscenities in the presence of the Pope, on a mission of charity and peace, against another religion, a whole people and a whole world community of linked destiny.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, was recently asked if he would take up the case of the Syrian schoolbooks, which I hope he may now do. I cannot believe that a member state of the United Nations, a candidate for a seat in the Security Council, should be left unchallenged if it advocates genocide.
I said that this is a timely issue: for if we have any hope of resuming talks between Israel and the Palestinians, Syria or Syria-controlled Lebanon, we must face the fact that we are here dealing with a rigid state of mind and that the failure of the Oslo peace process has not been so much the result of this or that negotiator's tactics or timing, or of the wrong chemistry between Mr Clinton and Assad or between Barak and Arafat; nor has it been a question of a near miss and a trifling difference of 300 metres of the shoreline of Lake Galilee. It goes much deeper. The genocidal strain in this kind of fundamentalist rejectionism is older than the settlements, older than the state of Israel. It reflects the spirit of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who, in the middle of the war, fled to Berlin, blessing the arms of the Muslim SS and begging Himmler to let him handle his own version of the final solution in Palestine against the Jewish settlers in Haifa, Jaffa and Tel Aviv.
What lessons should we now draw from all this? To defer or desist from a resumption of peace talks? Not at all. We should try to bring the parties together, once again. Chairman Arafat says that he wants to negotiate. General Sharon is also bent on resuming talks. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have acknowledged his policy of restraint. But it is understandable that Sharon feels that if there is a lesson to be drawn from the intifada, the inflammatory media and class-room jihad, it is that only iron-clad safeguards for security can be accepted by a

557
responsible government of Israel. The first and last watchword for future negotiations must be security on the ground and barriers to terrorist attack. These can only be lightened or lifted when all states in the neighbourhood agree to recognise each other's legitimate right to exist and to live. The most confidence-building proof would be an instant and thorough reform of school books and the spreading of new messages of real tolerance and compassion.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I begin by offering my congratulations to my two noble friends sitting on the Government Front Bench who have recently taken up new and very important responsibilities. I wish my noble friends Lady Symons and Lord Bach every success in their new offices. If I may say so, the assumption of these offices by my two noble friends imbues me with profound pleasure and great confidence.
As the gracious Speech informs us, Her Majesty's Government will work for rapid progress on the enlargement of the European Union, and will introduce legislation to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Nice Treaty. I very much welcome those commitments. As some noble Lords have already noted, it is a matter of great concern that Ireland's voters, on a turn-out of barely 30 per cent, refused by almost 54 per cent to 46 per cent to incorporate the Nice Treaty into the Irish constitution. This is neither the time nor the place to pick over the perceived reasons for that decision. However, it is worth noting that a week before the referendum more than 50 per cent of citizens polled said that they did not understand the treaty, or know even vaguely what it was about. That is not just an Irish phenomenon, as the Irish Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, quite rightly pointed out to his European partners; it is Europe-wide problem, and it relates not only to the Treaty of Nice. The Irish rejection, though rooted in many respects to concerns particular to Ireland, was symptomatic of the general failure of Europe's leaders to communicate sufficiently with their citizens on the development of the European project.
The European project is becoming more and more complex. The lack of adequate communication leaves citizens feeling more confused and remote than ever. What, they ask, has the European Union become, and where is it going? If it is not Jean Monnet's "United States of Europe", neither is it Charles de Gaulle's "Europe of Nation States"; it is a blend of the two. For example, the single currency—let us be clear about this—is leading to a partially federal Europe, and, in my view, correctly so. At the same time, the emergence of a European defence capability is a triumph for intergovernmentalism.
So Europe must, for the time being at least, live with what Dominique Moisi of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI) has aptly called "this hybrid reality". For a continent drawing strength from its diversity, that may be no bad thing, but political leaders seem almost afraid to try to explain to their
558
citizens what they would like Europe to be because the challenge of getting there is so fraught with complexities. They should have more faith in their citizens. That is the warning that the Irish "no" voters and stay-at-homes gave to their leaders, and one hopes that it has been heard clearly right across the Union. If it has not, the yawning gulf that currently divides civil society from the institutions of the Union will certainly grow wider. Perhaps I may add, at the more parochial level, that a government who procrastinate on the leading of a countrywide debate on both the political and economic arguments for Britain embracing the single currency should also have more faith in their citizens and a greater awareness of their innate desire to be informed and, more importantly, to be heard.
As Chris Patten told us this morning after his remarkable British Council-Independent lecture when responding to a question from my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney, the governments of Europe must more clearly define what it is that we are trying to create in Europe. He regretted, in particular, that those who had encouraged and convinced us to enter the European Union had underplayed the political consequences of our membership.
That brings me to the Treaty of Nice itself. When the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to ratify the treaty comes before your Lordships, there will be plenty enough opportunity to debate the treaty's merits and demerits. There are plenty of both, but this evening I want to remind noble Lords of one of the demerits that raises legitimate questions about the acceptability of the treaty; namely, the reform of the Council's voting procedures, due to take effect in 2005. This reform has served only to make the qualified majority system even more complicated than it already is, and has been described as a formula for deadlock once the Union is enlarged.
When your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union reported to the House last July on the preparations for the IGC which eventually gave birth to the Treaty of Nice, we emphasised the need for a system of Council voting that was transparent and easily understood. We strongly recommended a system of double majorities. The Government, however, preferred a simple reweighting.
What we eventually got—and this is one point that I can concede to the noble Lord, Lord Howell—was a bit of a mess. But the Government seem to be satisfied with it, inter alia on the grounds that it secured a substantial increase in the strength of Britain's vote in the Council, the first increase for us since we joined the EU. That is an undeniable fact, but perhaps I may take the Government mildly to task in their celebration of this victory. The issue should not be how much added power our Government can wrest from such negotiations, but how well we are, together with our European partners, collectively enhancing the EU's ability to serve all of Europe's citizens.
Therefore, for a less subjective assessment of what this treaty has wrought, I strongly recommend a report by the Centre for Economic Policy Research in its "Monitoring European Integration Series", in which a

559
group of distinguished European economists analyses the Nice Treaty and discusses whether or not it should be ratified. Its criticism of the reform of Council voting is particularly harsh and, to me, highly persuasive. I shall not go into the details of it, but in closing it poses the question of whether the EU leaders knew what they were doing at 4.30 a.m. on the morning of Monday 11th December. One not implausible view was that the leaders simply did not realise, at that ungodly hour, the strong inefficiency consequences of their actions.
Another, less prosaic, view was that they got exactly what they bargained for—a crippled legislative process that makes it very difficult to pass anything in an enlarged Council, effectively stripping the old Community approach of its viability, and leaving future European integration to be guided by intergovernmental initiatives, often using the enhanced co-operation route with the large members inevitably playing a role more commensurate with their economic and demographic importance. There is hybrid reality for you, but with the scales now tipped more heavily towards intergovernmentalism.
Whether it was oversight that set the Council on the course of deadlock, or wilful stratagem, time can certainly tell us. If it was oversight, then, as the CEPR report suggests, there is time to do some emergency repairs before 2005. The IGC in 2004 provides the perfect opportunity. If it was wilful, there is nothing to be done until an enlarged EU runs into a high-profile decision-making crisis or two, such as deadlock over the CAP and structural funds reform, or on the 2006 negotiations on the next financial perspective, which could leave the Union without a budget. But why must we wait for time to tell us? It is up to governments, now, to explain to the people what they have done in their name.
In light of such shortcomings, one might well ask why the treaty should be ratified. However, for the purposes of enlargement, its ratification is absolutely essential. There are those who claim that the treaty is not necessary for enlargement. In a strict legal sense, that is so. Those parts of the Treaty of Nice that are required for enlargement could, it is suggested, be inserted in the accession treaties to be negotiated with each candidate country. Politically, however, that is a non-starter. All member states are agreed that the treaty, with the institutional reforms which it enshrines, is an absolute political pre-condition for enlargement. That is why the Göteborg Summit's final statement contains the following words:
"The ratification process for the Treaty of Nice will continue so that the Union is in a position to welcome new member states from the end of 2002".
It is also clear that a renegotiation of the treaty is excluded by all, including the Irish Government. We must now presumably await a second Irish referendum in anticipation of which every effort will be made to find the ways and means of allaying the fears of the Irish voters. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bach referred to the determination of the 15 member states as a group to try to help Ireland to resolve that dilemma.
560
I am an admirer of Commission President Romano Prodi and was dismayed that he appeared to dismiss the Irish vote as of no consequence to the enlargement process. Of course it is of consequence, and happily—although I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Howell, failed to mention this—he subsequently atoned for that lapse of tact with a reassuring clarification. But the angry reaction on all sides to the original gaffe was, I hope, an indication of a growing determination to narrow the gulf between Europe's citizens and the Union's institutions.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government, in light of the political imperative of enlargement, will firmly pursue the "ratify and repair" route. To my mind that is certainly the proper and practical sequencing. This historic enlargement is on course. The Göteborg Council decided that the best prepared countries should be able to complete negotiations by the end of 2002 with the objective of participating in the European Parliament's elections in 2004 as fully fledged members. That was an impressive result for the Swedish Presidency which did not waver in the face of an initial French and persistent German reluctance to sign up to a firm timetable. It is also very good news that the enlargement talks yesterday, led by the Swedish Presidency, reportedly succeeded in swelling the group of front runners to include Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania.
I think that noble Lords know where I stand on the European Union. I am a strong, although by no means uncritical supporter and a profound believer in our membership of it and our ability to contribute to its successful development. I hope that my criticism of it will always be constructive.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, who is one of my oldest friends, made an interesting speech which was delivered with his customary eloquence and clarity. But I hope that he will forgive me if I say that, with regard to the European Union, for me it epitomised the curious contradiction that grips those who seek to convince us that they are not against Europe but lose no single opportunity to rubbish it. Their unwillingness to put forward constructive solutions for the faults they perceive in the European Union suggests that they see the Union as beyond redemption. I find that negative approach profoundly depressing. But it cannot and will not deter or deflect those of us who believe in the Union from giving it our full support, tempered where we feel it necessary with constructive criticism.
But what really counts is the Government's continuing and, I hope, expanding, constructive engagement. I am confident that they will meet our high expectations and I hope that they will match that endeavour with an expanding effort to engage the citizens of this country in real dialogue on where we want the Union to go and how we are going to get there.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I remind him that the party he supports flatly refused to send any Members to the European

561
Parliament in the early days and therefore rejected it at that time. The turnaround is healthy and the open debate is desirable.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I am glad that he included the words "in the early days" which we are now beyond. The delegation we now have in the European Parliament, particularly those who represent the party of which I am proud to be a member, comprises extremely hardworking and effective Members, fully engaged in the business of the Parliament.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I forgive him his comment but reassert that there is a vast range of proposals for furthering European unity built on the European Union which some of us have sought to bring forward but have obviously not communicated effectively yet. But to imply that there are no possible alternatives to the path on which the European Union is stuck, and was stuck at Nice, is to close one's mind to real possibilities for genuine European advance.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there must be alternatives. The point I was making is that it is difficult to know what those alternatives are if one relies on the party which he represents to tell us what they are because we do not hear from them on that.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fear that everyone is taking the opportunity to stretch their legs by hopping up in that altercation as this is a long debate. I admire the fortitude of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and her colleagues in sitting it out.
As a former member—and one of the first directly elected members—of the European Parliament representing the Conservative Party, I should have liked to discuss the European Union and its future and in particular the enlargement issue which I have always supported. I welcome the Government's positive approach to that matter.
I also have an interest in the Overseas Territories. I deplored the omission of a Bill to rectify the citizenship anomaly in the previous gracious Speech last December. I am therefore delighted that I can now welcome a Bill on the subject. Its Second Reading next week will give us an opportunity to consider its provisions further and raise any questions with the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.
However, once again I shall concentrate my remarks on British interests in Latin America, largely because I do not think that anyone else will. I have listened like a hawk to the debate so far. I believe that I am the 21st or 22nd speaker. With the exception of a passing reference of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, to Argentina, not a single person has mentioned this vital part of the world. I find it dispiriting that in this country there appears to be so little interest in
562
improving and enhancing our relations with a part of the world which has a present and a future unrivalled in global terms.
Your Lordships may remember that we had a splendid debate on Latin America and the Caribbean on 28th February this year. Therefore, I do not propose to repeat all the facts and figures that emerged in the course of that debate. Suffice to say that we are talking about countries with a combined population of some 450 million people; that the economies of Brazil and Mexico are among the top 10 in the world; that these countries are rich in resources such as petrol, coal, gold, silver, copper, precious stones and, most important of all, human resources; and that there is tremendous goodwill towards the United Kingdom based on our historic links.
We are also talking about countries with established pluralistic democracies and countries which by and large have overcome the problems of hyperinflation and have turned their economies around. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, in opening the debate, said that as a country we export more than the United States and Japan and that we are the fifth largest trading nation in the world and the second largest investor abroad. Why is it, therefore, that we have a trade imbalance with Latin America of some £1.2 billion and that the United Kingdom's exports have deteriorated in recent years?
I fear that this country is becoming so inward looking, self-absorbed and, dare I say, quarrelsome over Europe and our position in Europe that we seem to forget that we became a country of world significance only because we were outward looking.
I realise that having a particular enthusiasm for Latin America myself—I declare an interest as president of the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council and of Canning House and as a non-executive director of a Latin American investment trust—I find it hard to believe that there appears to be so little interest in Latin America. I wonder how we can do more in Parliament, in Canning House, in our universities and in the special Latin American institutes to change that position. I am slightly worried by the feeling that the powers-that-be see Latin America as America's backyard. Perhaps they have made some secret deal to leave the United States to it so that we can have preferred status in some other part of the world. I hope and believe that that is not the case. I believe that it is more a question of apathy and inertia. I mention as an example of that lack of interest a visit made to Parliament yesterday by 10 members of the Argentine Congress who were in England to attend a seminar on the regulation of utilities.
A notice of a round table discussion with those visitors was circulated in last week's all-party notices to 659 MPs and to all Peers—I think that there are about 680 at present. I wrote personally to a few dozen people I knew would be interested. Admittedly, certain Members of Parliament who would normally have attended, including the new Father of the House, Tam Dalyell, found it impossible to be present for very good reasons. But apart from myself, there was the noble

563
Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and a former Member of Parliament, Jacques Arnold. Clearly no one reads the all-party notices. I did not expect dozens of people but half a dozen out of so many would have been nice.
We had an interesting and useful discussion but it was disappointing. Where were all the people who go on IPU visits to Latin America? The IPU makes every effort—I hope that it will increase its efforts—to improve contacts between parliamentarians and it does an excellent job. But I find it hard to accept that there can be so little interest in following up those visits and meetings.
Perhaps I may refer to the British Council as another example of this apparent lack of focused interest. Mention has already been made of the British Council. As I have stated on many occasions in your Lordships' House, I have great admiration for the work of the British Council. I, too, attended this morning the inaugural independent lecture in the Royal Gallery. But in the British Council's strategy document for 2001–05 the only specific reference to Latin America is the fact that it intends,
"to remove their physical presence from Ecuador".
If, as the strategy document states, the British Council's role as a cultural relations agency is central to the United Kingdom's diplomatic effort, independent agency as it may be it still works closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If the new strategy is,
"to shift resources to countries undergoing fundamental economic and social change where the British Council can achieve significant impact for the United Kingdom",
and if,
"the use of self-financing services such as English language teaching is a key feature",
why is it proposed to close down the British Council centre in Quito, Ecuador, which was just becoming self sufficient? The centre in Guayaquil on the coast had already been closed.
The new ambassador from Ecuador to the United Kingdom is the distinguished former president, Sixto Duran. I feel sure that he will not object to my quoting him. Ambassador Duran is a former British Council scholar who learned his English and about England via the British Council. He told me that he very nearly declined the appointment to London when he heard of the proposed closure of the Quito centre. Many others have also contacted me. Many have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. It seems a particularly unfortunate moment to take this decision. Ecuador is going through a sticky patch in its democratic institutions and its economy.
If the British Council has such limited resources that it is forced into this type of cheeseparing decision, and if the British economy is in such an excellent state as we were led to believe during the recent election campaign, why is the Foreign Office—perhaps I should say the Treasury—so stingy in its support of the British Council? In saying that, I realise that the grant
564
in aid has been increased but it is still not enough to continue the important role played by the British Council.
Funding is also a pain in the neck for smaller organisations such as Canning House and the various regional and bilateral chambers of commerce which do great work in arranging trade missions and other trade enhancement activities to Latin America. But such modest financial support as they formerly received is being reduced. That means that even fewer small and medium-sized businesses will be exposed to the opportunities that exist. They will be following the fate of the manufacturing industry to which my noble friend Lord Selsdon referred.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to ask this question again. When will the Prime Minister visit this important part of the world? We have had state visits and official visits from the presidents of several Latin American countries in the past four years but no reciprocity at the same level or at Foreign Secretary level. In that respect I have high hopes for the new Foreign Secretary. But that situation is not good enough. Unless the Government want to see opportunities for our health and education services, our financial institutions and other areas being lost to our competitors, they must not only say fair words but do fair deeds.
It is not a party political issue. Too many people are playing politics who are not interested in being statesmanlike or in considering our role in this rapidly changing world of global economy. We talk a great deal about the virtues of free trade. Yet we do not always take the opportunity to take action. We moan about the common agricultural policy. If we are serious about reforming the common agricultural policy, why do we not take advantage of the negotiations between the European Union and Mercosur, the European Union and the Chile bilateral agreement or the European Union and the Mexico agreement? Those countries are primary agricultural producers. When they raise questions about the European Union's failure to comply with world trade order rules, surely that gives up the opportunity to press for the reforms to the common agricultural policy that we want. I have said before—I shall not go over the ground again—that we have a role to play in the European Union and its relationship with the countries of Latin America.
My remarks seem rather a lament. However, I am not totally discouraged. I believe that there is a glimmer of hope in the fact that large numbers of our young people are studying or spending a gap year in Latin America. The numbers of young people from Latin America who choose to do the same in the UK are increasing. That is a signal for hope in the future. My other hope for the future lies in the interesting new job of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. I hope that we shall hear more from her about the way in which she expects her role to develop, embracing as it does the overseas trade aspects of the Foreign Office and the DTI—in effect being British Trade International. I trust that the Minister will accept and respond to my remarks in the spirit in which I make them.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friends on their new offices, let me also commiserate with them. It may be difficult to believe, but dawn will come after a long night. The debate will end—perhaps not before the favourite restaurant to which my noble friend Lord Bach and I often retire; I think that it will have shut by then—but at some time.
The Government made a commitment in the gracious Speech to support,
"a more modern and representative Security Council, and work to make conflict prevention and peacekeeping more effective".
I shall start with that point because I have not heard anyone mention it so far. I apologise if some noble Lord talked about it when I was not here. Making the Security Council a more effective body—and right now it is not effective—is very important for peacekeeping and conflict prevention. I have said before that I would like the Government to press for a qualified majority voting system for the Security Council. I recognise the criticism made by my noble friend Lord Grenfell of the revision of the QMV weighting at Nice, but the principle of qualified majority voting—with safeguards, but not a veto, for the permanent members—would be a very good thing. A coalition of at least two permanent members should be needed to block a motion. It is important that the Security Council moves on by expanding its membership, downgrading the role of the permanent members and replacing the veto with some form of qualified majority voting.
The gracious Speech raises other related issues, which I shall deal with quickly. There was a notable absence of any discussion on foreign affairs during the election campaign, apart from the crazy discussion on the euro, and there was no mention of international development issues. That was very sad. The Department for International Development has been a success story of the 1997–2001 Labour administration. My right honourable friend Clare Short has done an excellent job in establishing a philosophy for international development that combines a recognition of the benefits of globalisation with an understanding of the problems that it may cause. That balanced approach has been very useful.
I was also pleased to notice my right honourable friend's robust remarks during the HIV/AIDS conference at the UN the day before yesterday. She was quoted in the Guardian as saying:
"It is my strongly held view that we waste too much time and energy in UN conferences and special sessions … We use up enormous energy in arguing at great length over texts that provide few, if any, follow-up mechanisms or assurances that governments and UN agencies will carry forward the declarations that are agreed".
The problem affects the whole UN, not just the Security Council. Equipping the UN with an effective implementation mechanism and a quick decision-making mechanism should be a major task for the Government as they seek to play their role on the world stage.
566
The Government have already done a very good job in bringing the theme of debt cancellation permanently into public debate, including at G8 level. They are to be congratulated on that, although more progress has to be made. I also welcome their commitment to poverty eradication, which was reiterated in the gracious Speech.
My noble friend Lord Grenfell graphically illustrated the problems of the institutions of the European Union and the G8. There is a great distance between global society and the leadership meetings. The G8 is an ad hoc arrangement with no legitimacy. It is simply a group of powerful countries that have decided to meet together. Their meetings and decisions are outside the UN framework.
People have a right to feel that they have no way of influencing G8 decisions. It was remarkable that at Gothenburg not one political leader thought it proper to address the crowd. It was not full of anarchists. There were many people who were interested in reform of the global system, or at least a discussion of it. It is wrong to characterise them all as anarchists and to expect a police or army response to what is only a minor riot. I confess that in my youth I took part in the 1968 Grosvenor Square demonstrations. Demonstrations can be quite fun and very creative. I mention parenthetically that women in this country would not have got the vote without the suffragettes' extremely violent campaign. There is a lot to be said for riots—but I digress.
However, there is a problem, because the leadership in the G8 and the councils of the European Union are shying away from confronting the people where they are, reasoning with them and arguing the benefits of globalisation, if they are so confident that globalisation is beneficial, as I believe it to be. Running away from the people is not the right response. Rather than running away and meeting on the high seas or behind closed doors with an army barrier, they should make arrangements to have a dialogue with the people on the streets, as happened at the Prague meeting of the IMF and the World Bank. That is very important.
That leads to the related problem of the democratic deficit in the European Union, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Grenfell, and no doubt by other noble Lords. In his Warsaw speech some time ago, the Prime Minister raised the issue of a second chamber for the European Parliament. Leaders in other European countries have also advanced that notion. It is worth exploring the possibility of having an assembly of national parliaments as a second Chamber in Brussels so that national parliaments do not feel so cut off from the European Parliament and European political procedures. Regardless of whether people want a federal solution, we must have another tier of representation in Europe so that people do not feel that there is a large democratic deficit.
I should like to respond to the comments in the excellent speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about the benefits of the World Trade Organisation. He rightly pointed out that, although a number of third-world countries had felt the benefits of free trade, those benefits had not spread

567
universally. The power of some corporations and the inequitable distribution of wealth within and between countries have caused problems.
No doubt the right reverend Prelate was very encouraged, as I was, by the outcome of the legal action taken by the pharmaceutical industries against the South African Government over their legislation. There were various factors involved. First, civil society protested strongly that, whatever the legal rights under the intellectual property rights legislation, they did not like what was happening and wanted to challenge it.
Another issue, which has not been noticed, is evident in the comments of an Indian manufacturer, who said that, if competition were opened up, it could manufacture the drugs at one tenth of the price charged by the big pharmaceutical companies. An element of open competition is an important part of the WTO process. We should do everything possible to reinforce the idea that, in as much as the WTO process guarantees intellectual property rights, we will not deflect from the need for a very strong competitive environment. The result has been that drugs for the treatment of AIDS are now being sold at one-tenth of their former price. That has come about from a combination of the power of society and the market. That is the type of solution that I hope the Government will seek and advance.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is, as ever, a very great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Desai. He always gives me considerable grounds for thought. My thoughts this evening are first directed to congratulating my noble friends on their presence on the Front Bench in a comprehensive variety of functions. I wish them well.
I do not imagine that I am alone in believing that over the past two years time for the opportunities afforded not only to Members of the other place but also to Members here for discussing in informed detail the affairs of the European Union, or European Community—by whatever title it is from time to time known—has diminished. Of course, we have good Select Committees here, particularly on European matters. But curiously enough, the Government, who are responsible for the allocation of time, for some strange reason always ensure that the occasions on which we discuss European matters in any great detail are a Friday morning or perhaps a Thursday afternoon—the fag-end of our meetings. That does not make for any continuity of study of what is going on in Europe or of the Government's latest thoughts.
Similar observations apply to the other place. Over the past two years, I have noticed that informed discussion by the full membership of another place on European questions is diminishing rapidly. Particularly in view of the fact that out of the British Exchequer we contribute some £3 billion to £4 billion every year towards the European Union, one would have thought that there would be some interest in the European budget. Two years ago some perfunctory notice was taken of it, but this year the other place has
568
not even bothered to discuss the European budget. A whole series of laws which are binding upon us seem to go through both Houses of Parliament without any great examination, discussion or criticism by a Parliament which, I believe, is widely acknowledged as one of the oldest parliamentary democracies in the world.
Why is that? There must be a reason why the Government are so modest about these matters. I shall suggest to your Lordships that there is a reason and that it concerns congestion. The Government and their members, in common with ordinary Members of Parliament, have less and less time in which to think, less and less time in which they can develop argument, and less and less time in which to engage in the more detailed aspects of policy which it is possible for parliamentary democracy to undertake.
I regard that as unfortunate. But there is a reason for it. One reason, of course, is that the British Parliament, particularly in its relations with the remainder of the European Union, is so deluged with legislation proposed by the European Commission in particular that it does not have time even to think about it. Last year 3,000 regulations of one kind or another were sent here from the Commission. It is quite impossible for Ministers to read them. They may find themselves initialled in the Ministers' Red Boxes at night, but I doubt whether they have time to read them. I am a fairly assiduous reader of most material that comes out of Europe, but I, even full-time, cannot cope with it, let alone a Minister.
There must be something wrong here. I do not believe that anyone in their right mind disputes the necessity for an association to develop between countries, whether on this side of the Channel or the other. Pollution is no respecter of boundaries, and it is quite clear that close co-operation among member states is desirable for that purpose. There is a whole series of matters which it is common sense to assert should be the subject of closer and closer collaboration, whatever form that may take, between members of the European Community. No one is in dispute about that.
However, the quantity of regulations now begins to make the mind boggle. I am not suggesting that one should have wicked suspicions in the matter, but it is not entirely unknown for bureaucracies to get their way simply by swamping people with legislation in the hope that they will throw up their hands and allow it through with the minimum of scrutiny. Certainly that applies in our relationship with the European Union.
Our scrutiny committees, particularly in the House of Lords, are extremely efficiently conducted, as are those in another place. However, there are limits to the information that can be elicited and the conclusions that can be drawn from a round-the-table routine of interrogating witnesses. That is not always the best way. However, that is what I believe is happening and we must do something about it.
If Her Majesty's Government feel that a closer association with Europe is desirable and, indeed, vital to the nation's interests, surely they should pay some

569
attention to the institutions of the Community and, in particular, to the Commission. We all know that the Commission rigidly insists on holding a monopoly of the formulating proposals for submission to the Council of Ministers. It repeatedly assert that monopoly. Why should it have that monopoly? What divine wisdom is disposed among the gentlemen and ladies who are appointed to the Commission that puts them above all ordinary mortals? They are selected; they are not elected at all. Yet they seem to be able to rule the roost.
I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that if they are intent on making Europe work together as a unit under the law, they should take control themselves. Responsibility for the initiation of legislation should not be left to the Commission. What particular qualities does it have? It should rest with the Council of Ministers, who derive their democratic power from the people who elected them, first, as Members of Parliament. Those people, who are at the apex of parliamentary government, should propose laws for their colleagues, and the Commission should be their executive instrument. That is the only correct approach. What objection could there possibly be to it?
What currently happens is this. We get sheaf after sheaf of papers, which are listed in publications that are available to us all. Documents, which can appear as proposals, recommendations, draft decisions or draft directives, come from the Commission and they are distributed down to the relevant Ministers. The Ministers concerned cannot possibly read them—they have not got the time. Such documents come up for discussion at Council level and the Ministers who are delegated the task of dealing with them at meetings in Brussels probably first see the proposals when they are sitting in the plane with their papers in front of them. It is not entirely unknown for Ministers to be so tired when they arrive, after having had the refreshments to which they are entitled, that they leave the committee work under the presidency-in-office in a condition that does not make any consideration worth while. In fact, many of them are merely informed, after a meeting with their delegated officials has taken place, of what has already been decided. Some of them do not even bother to read the documents. It is not entirely unknown for Ministers of the Crown not to read the treaties that they have signed—there have already been two or three examples of that. That cannot be right.
We should take seriously the job of being in Europe. The first thing to do is to divest the Commission of its monopoly over making proposals for the Council of Ministers. That will obviously mean the appointment of more Ministers, but why not do that? What is wrong with having more people in office who believe in the construction of Europe and its purposes? They would have their own civil servants who work and think in their own way and, if the Commission were merely the executive instrument, they would have the time to think. Such an approach should be considered.
570
There is currently a pretence that there are all kinds of legal difficulties with enlargement. Enlargement will be difficult because of the acquis communautaire, with which every new state is required to comply. We had to do so after the Heath negotiations. The morning after we signed up—this is recorded in the official history—we received 30 volumes of the acquis communautaire, with which we thereafter had to comply in order to be a member. Various member states and our Government are troubled by the fact that the main question in this context involves negotiating not about various points of principle—although they need to be discussed—but about the acquis communautaire that each new member state has to accept. Mind you, there are hardly cases in which that could be circumvented.
One of the ways in which the Commission succeeds in getting its way is by postponing the operation of a particular directive. In order to get agreement, it says, "This provision need not come into force for another six years". The politicians who are there want to get home to sleep, and they say, "Well, that is all right". However, six years later, we suddenly find—this happened with the metric system—that we agreed to the proposal six years previously.
If we are serious, all of that will have to change. There are compelling reasons for examining the whole structure of the European committee system and we have to make changes. We should also bear in mind the results of the investigation by the wise men into the affairs of Europe following financial scandals. We should remind ourselves that they did not get a clean bill of health. If there is any doubt about that, one simply has to read the speech that the Prime Minister made after the matter was discussed—it is sufficiently damning.
We have to think again. We have to think radically and we have to get a democratic institution at the top. We should not accept the dictatorship of a Commission which is not elected by anyone—but which is appointed according to one kind of merit or another, with which we are not always fully acquainted.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on his appointment as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for the courtesy she has shown me when dealing with all of the defence matters that I have raised.
The armed services have been deployed operationally on no fewer than six different occasions during the previous Parliament. On each occasion, they excelled in their missions. The Sierra Leone operation and the deployment of the SAS will be recorded as one of the most successful operations that the armed services have undertaken.
Those combat operations are not achieved without hard, tough training and excellent leadership by all ranks. It is essential that they continue to train for the

571
more traditional types of combat which involve killing the enemy and, regrettably, on some occasions, the death of some of our own servicemen.
It is the duty of Parliament to ensure that nothing damages the combat effectiveness of the armed services. To ensure combat effectiveness, the basic principles of the Armed Forces must not be interfered with by the Government. Political correctness, the scourge of the services, which I shall come to in more detail in a moment, should not be implemented into service life and much that has already been incorporated should be eradicated forthwith.
Political correctness threatens combat effectiveness and that has come about by a mass of new legislation. The Human Rights Act, health and safety, the working time directive, equal opportunities and sexual discrimination have all had their parts to play in weakening the military ethos, morale and service of the Armed Forces, which are all major factors on their own relating to combat effectiveness. That legislation has enabled servicemen and women to sue the MoD over many matters, which has cost the taxpayer enormous sums of money which could have been spent on new equipment, training or improved conditions of service. There are many occasions when team spirit comes above the needs of the individual if training and operations are to be successful. I am convinced that some elements of that recent legislation have already damaged the Armed Forces.
There is also a subject known as risk aversion, which has stemmed from that political correctness. That could totally destroy the combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces by breeding cautious leaders who may not make courageous decisions for fear of being pursued through the courts afterwards. For example, will an officer or an NCO be prosecuted in the courts when he orders a soldier to continue with a patrol, knowing that he may be killed? Is it possible that orders issued in the heat of battle, when under enemy fire, in retrospect may not turn out to have been the best orders and will the officer who issued those orders find himself being prosecuted in the courts? That is an intolerable stress and strain to place on our Armed Forces and I am convinced that a way must be found to remove that culture of damaging political correctness from them.
It is wrong to impose political correctness from civilian life on our Armed Forces as the military way of life differs from the way of life of civilian counterparts and it can only weaken that essential combat effectiveness.
I turn now to the European Defence and Security Initiative. I have found statements about that force made in the press and by the Government both confusing and sometimes contradictory. I read very carefully the official translation of the French Presidency Report to the Nice Council, which was placed in the Library on 26th January.
The first sentence of the first paragraph of that report states:
"The aim of the efforts made at the Cologne, Helsinki and Feira Councils is to give the European Union the means of playing its role fully on the international stage and of assuming its
572
responsibilities in the face of crises by adding to the range of instruments already at its disposal an autonomous capacity to take decisions and action in the security and defence field".
I believe that it is those three words—"an autonomous capacity"—which have provoked such disagreement between, on the one side, many of us and the USA and on the other, the European Union. It is agreed by all that NATO is the foundation for the defence of Europe and must remain so. It is agreed that nothing must weaken or undermine NATO. NATO, the USA and the European Union are all agreed that Europeans should do much more to increase their defence capability, but not at the expense of the cohesion of NATO.
It was shaming to Europe that the USA had to fly about four-fifths of the missions during the Kosovo air campaign because the Europeans did not have the technical ability to do so. And it was shameful to the rest of Europe that it was unable to supply the intelligence, the transport, the command and control and the radar jamming and much else, which all had to be provided by the USA.
The mechanisms by which NATO has the first right of refusal to become involved in any threats to Europe still have to be resolved. It has also been stated by President Bush that the European Defence Force must be properly integrated into NATO. But it is not properly integrated yet. It has recently been agreed that there is a need for the European Defence Force to have access to NATO's planning capabilities, ensuring that the force is firmly linked to NATO.
So why has the European Union set up on its own initiative a policy and security committee, a military committee and a military staff organisation, duplicating much which exists in NATO itself, damaging the relationship with the USA and wasting public money?
The European Defence Force will not be credible for at least 10 years. Why should that be the case? First, European defence spending must increase significantly now and for the foreseeable future and a real, rather than a rhetorical, commitment to defence spending needs to be demonstrated. European defence budgets continue to fall by five per cent a year in real terms, and that defence spending has dropped to 110 billion in 1997 to a predicted figure of about 99 billion this year, despite the claims by NATO that defence budgets have stabilised.
The recent spectacular cut in Germany's defence budget and the announcement that it cannot afford to buy the 73 transport aircraft to which it was committed are alarming and may set an example to the other European Union countries that there is no real need to increase defence spending.
Without increased spending by European countries the European defence force cannot be effective. Another problem to grasp is that the European Defence Force cannot be effective until the quality and the quantity of the troops, with the exception of those of the United Kingdom, are dramatically improved. Currently, the USA provides 80 per cent of the manpower and the European Union only 20 per cent.

573
The only two countries within NATO that are capable of fighting wars are the United Kingdom and the USA. Forces allocated must be properly trained to fight wars and it will take many years to train the other European countries to similar standards as those of the United Kingdom and the USA.
There are other important aspects without which the European Defence Force will be unable to function. They are the lack of command, control, communications, computerised systems, battlefield surveillance and reconnaissance assets; intelligence facilities without which it would be impossible to make the correct decisions in a crisis management situation; the need for a reduction in the deployment time for the force from 60 days to around 14; the requirement for a minimum of 180,000 troops; the need for interoperability within the force; the need for more transport aircraft to include heavy lift, and more ships; and the force itself must be sustainable. For those reasons, even if European defence budgets were dramatically increased now, which is highly unlikely given the recent example by Germany, it would take at least 10 years before there would be anything approaching a realistic force.
The European Defence Force should be subordinate to NATO, as it does not have sufficient capabilities of its own. It could use NATO planning facilities and if the force is ever deployed it should come under the command of the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. That would avoid duplication, avoid upsetting the USA and would cease to be seen to undermine NATO.
I now turn briefly to the situation in Northern Ireland. As your Lordships are aware, the political situation is grave, with the extremist parties Sinn Fein/IRA and the DUP confronting each other. The Belfast agreement hangs by a thread; violence has escalated between the two extreme factions; and there is a possibility that direct rule may be imposed once again. There is little chance of any decommissioning of weapons, as in IRA terms that means surrender. Unless Sinn Fein/IRA fully decommission their weapons there is every likelihood that Mr Trimble will resign as First Minister.
The threat to the security forces is high and too often our Armed Forces in Northern Ireland are forgotten because I have the impression that there is a misguided feeling on the British mainland that little happens over there. In fact, that is far from the case, as we have seen in the past two weeks, when once again the Armed Forces have been in high profile. Throughout June there has been public disorder and rioting in North Belfast and Portadown, and in the past three months there have been five murders, 41 bombings, 40 shootings, 27 assaults and 164 RUC casualties.
The marching season, which is soon to start, will require careful action by the Army and the RUC in monitoring and dealing with situations. The Armed Forces make a very large contribution with the Army providing three brigades with some 15,000 troops, the Royal Air Force providing about 1,000 personnel controlling a large joint helicopter force found from
574
the Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps, and the Royal Navy providing around 170 people with a number of Hunter class patrol craft and rigid raiders.
Our Armed Forces in Northern Ireland had nearly become a forgotten army as far as the general public and some politicians have been concerned. It is wrong that that should be so as they face more danger than those in the Balkans. They are particularly well trained and commanded and are highly successful in all their many different operations.
I now turn to the Defence Medical Services, which are in a critical state. In order to illustrate how serious the situation is, perhaps I may point out that at December last year there were shortfalls of 55 per cent general surgeons; 61 per cent orthopaedic surgeons; 59 per cent general physicians; and 77 per cent anaesthetists. Such is the shortfall of trained doctors and nurses that currently only one and a half of the three field hospitals could be operationally deployed using regular personnel. To make that up to the three field hospitals required by the Strategic Defence Review reservists and ex-service personnel with recall liability would have to be called up. If further capability were required, TA field hospitals would have to be mobilised, which was being planned for Kosovo.
The Army is some 8,000 troops below strength, but there were a further 9,000 servicemen and women who were fit only for light duties and could not be committed to operations until they had been medically upgraded. That is a disgraceful state of affairs, reducing the deployable strength of the Army by about 17,000 personnel. That situation must be put right as soon as possible.
Perhaps the Minister would write to me on the three issues I raised in the debate on the National Health Service last May. First, I asked what had happened to the need for the fast-tracking of servicemen and women requiring hospital treatment and operations. Secondly, I pointed out that the removal of service families from waiting lists every time they are posted to new stations within the UK caused frustrating delays. Thirdly, I pointed to the immediate need for instant physiotherapy when Armed Forces personnel damage limbs in training and sport.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the Crown. They are highly professional and exceptionally well trained. They are determined to achieve success and to protect our liberty and freedom. They are brave and courageous and they are always prepared to make the supreme sacrifice. It is our parliamentary duty to look after these men and women, who are such an outstanding example of loyalty to their country and dedication to duty.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, it will not have escaped notice that defence and the Armed Forces scarcely received a mention during the whole of the election campaign and certainly not by any of the party leaders.

575
The gracious Speech, apart from a brief mention of NATO and the European capability, shows similar reticence.
Many noble Lords will recall that not long ago defence was considered to be one of the primary responsibilities of government, the Secretary of State of a great department of state usually ranking fifth or sixth in Cabinet precedence, instead of 15th as he is today. I wonder what the men and women in the Armed Forces make of that.
But of course times have changed. This country is not for the moment under any direct threat. However, as has been made clear, the importance—indeed, the indispensability—of the Armed Forces both in supporting the Government's foreign policy and in acting after natural disasters in areas as diverse as the Falklands, the Gulf, the Balkans and West Africa, to say nothing of Cumbria and Devon, must be obvious for all to see. Therefore, this jewel in the Crown still needs constantly to be nurtured and supported if the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the Armed Forces are to continue to be taken for granted. And, for obvious reasons, support and funding cannot be turned on and off as crises come and go.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, paid the Armed Forces a handsome compliment, as much appreciated as I believe your Lordships will agree it was deserved. But it is by action, not by words, that the Government will in the end be judged. The Government, as I and many other noble Lords have frequently said, have made a very good start with a soundly based Strategic Defence Review.
However, those of us who are comparatively wise in, and certainly wary of, the ways of Whitehall have few illusions about what is likely to happen with the election safely out of the way. Even discounting the persistent rumours, the whole government emphasis on the delivery of better public services—sometimes conveniently forgetting that reliable Armed Forces may be one of the most important public services that a country can have—will require a great deal more money from a reluctant Treasury. It is not difficult to guess where its eyes are likely to alight to recoup resources. This is an area not covered by any specific election promises and unlikely to cause a ripple on the electoral pond.
Should that happen, it will no longer be possible to fudge the issue by sheltering behind claims of better value for money or efficiency savings. We have been round that buoy not once but umpteen times in the past 15 years or so. No, if there are to be cuts in the promised marginal real term increase in defence spending over the next three years, albeit from a very low baseline—as so much of the programme is already under-funded—it is bound to affect the already seriously depleted and fragmented Territorial Army, the only reliable reserve now left to us, and the longer-term equipment programme on which the whole future effectiveness of the Armed Forces depends. It will also affect the accommodation programme, some of which is in a disgraceful state, and the number of cap badge units, which would both seriously increase overstretch
576
and strike a body blow to the regimental system on which the morale, recruitment and retention in the Army depend.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong. The best start that the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, whom I also warmly welcome to his new post, could have made would have been to give a categoric assurance that what I have outlined will not happen and that, as in other areas, the Government intended to deliver the Strategic Defence Review in full, with the necessary funds to make that implementation possible. But it seems that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is to wind up. I am delighted about that because it means that our sadness at her departure to her bewildering, varied, new and important jobs will be assuaged just a little longer. Of course, the noble Baroness knows the whole background intimately. I only hope that I can persuade her to try to reassure your Lordships' House on some of the matters that I have raised. If not, I fear that overstretch and manning will get worse training will become further restricted and things will start to go wrong so that for the first time for many years the British people will discover that they can no longer take the effectiveness of the Armed Forces for granted when new crises emerge, as they are bound to, particularly in the vital Middle East and, as I he noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, perhaps, sadly, much nearer home. But by then it may well be too late and too expensive to put things right, as has occurred in relation to medical services, a situation which the Government inherited from an earlier administration.
The effectiveness and future of the Armed Forces must depend on getting the right people to join, giving them the right equipment, training them properly for real combat and, most important, achieving a proper balance between operational commitments and time with their families. It is on these matters that defence expenditure should be both based and justified, not merely (in the current Whitehall jargon) on whether the Armed Forces can be said to be contributing to the national agenda and pan-government initiatives and showing greater media agility for the benefit of the image of the Ministry of Defence. These may be a bonus but they are certainly not the be-all and end- all.
As to the one thing in the defence field on which the gracious Speech did touch—taking steps to enable the European Union to act when NATO chooses not to—the Government have only themselves to blame that it attracts criticism both in Parliament and the country. The language in the gracious Speech is unexceptional enough. Perhaps less so than other noble Lords, I can find no objection to it at all. However, knowing how the French see the initiative as an alternative or even a counter to NATO, the Government must come clean and make clear exactly how they see this desirable improved European capability being integrated into NATO's overall political command and staff structure without undue and unnecessary duplication; what size additional headquarters within the NATO umbrella they foresee as necessary to command European forces, should that be necessary; and, most

577
importantly, what extra funds they propose European countries, including this country, should be contributing towards making this concept a reality?
As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, without such additional funding a force's exclusive capability will be so deficient of so many things as to make it virtually unusable. All that will happen is that the United States may have been made suspicious and NATO somewhat destabilised without having anything to show for it at the end. Perhaps the noble Baroness can show some light on those points. Otherwise suspicion will persist, and it will be the French plan that will be adopted.
I believe that your Lordships' House is looking for reassurance that, for reasons of political expediency and the omnipotency of the Treasury, the Government will not be diverted from full implementation of the Strategic Defence Review which, only a very short time ago, they thought essential in the national interest.
Finally, there is one aspect of the Government's handling of defence on which the noble Baroness will be pleased to know I can find no reason to criticise or even harbour suspicion; that is strategic missile defence. If ever a subject cried out to be kicked into the long grass until we can be sure that we are enhancing rather than damaging strategic stability, that is it. Clearly, a great deal of work needs to be done first on East/West co-operation before the matter is taken further.
On the other hand, the shorter range, more tactical missile defence, such as was needed in an earlier generation form in the Gulf War, is a much more urgent matter to which I hope the Ministry of Defence is giving some consideration.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in the recent debate in your Lordships' House about its composition and its future, a number of references were made to the fact that "of course this is a part-time House". As a number of your Lordships know, I, as a hereditary peer, have the slightly surprising outside job of being an elected Member of the European Parliament. There I represent a number of noble Lords on the Front Bench and the Benches opposite. Indeed, the right honourable Member for Blackburn is one of my constituents.
Ten days ago, as part of my work in the European Parliament, I went with the delegation of the Legal Affairs Committee to Poland to talk to the administration there and the Sejm—the Polish House of Commons—about preparations for and progress towards Poland's joining of the European Union. Clearly, everyone recognises that there is a very big mountain to be climbed before it does, but the Poles were buoyed up by the conclusions of the Gothenburg Summit and encouraged by progress in recent months over the accession negotiations. Of course they recognise how much more is to be done. Equally, there was recognition on both sides of the negotiations that
578
perhaps the best way to reach a satisfactory outcome in certain circumstances is to go right up to the wire. If one looks at the progress in enlargement generally over the past few months, one sees that progress has been made.
On a previous occasion I explained to your Lordships' House that I consider the enlargement of the European Union to the East to be the most important geo-political project we are currently engaged on. Moreover, it was so well described by Commissioner Patten just before lunch no distance from here in the Royal Gallery that I do not think that I could put the matter any better myself.
Given its importance, what is it that we need to do? First, we have to complete the pre-accession negotiations; secondly, a number of European Community and Union policies need to be reformed; and, thirdly, we need to see changes in the system of Europe's governance.
I have already touched on the matter of the accession negotiations. As far as concerns policies, the most obvious policy that needs to be addressed for all kinds of reasons is the common agricultural policy. It is important that when new member states join, they become full members right across the board and that they themselves become integrated into the common agricultural policy, whatever it may be at that time. Reform will be expensive, but, as we all know, pressures are building up all around Europe—the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country and the political ramifications of BSE in Germany—which mean that the time is probably better for reform than it has been for a very long time.
Equally, there is real poverty in a number of the applicant countries, which inevitably means that money that channels through the various instruments of regional policy to this country and to other countries like it will be directed elsewhere.
Europe is not principally about money. Indeed, I do not believe that the European Union and Community requires a large budget at all. For my part—it is a purely personal observation—I should like to see the rebate obtained by my noble friend Lady Thatcher for this country at Fontainebleau applied equally to all member states.
Everyone recognises that the common agricultural policy is ripe for reform. It is an almost unbelievable policy. It is bad for farmers, bad for the environment, bad for taxpayers and bad for consumers. The only saving grace is that if one were to reform it, one would almost certainly find some money to redeploy. In the event, we are seeing increasing development of policy within national envelopes and we shall see more co-financing. Indeed, as the situation develops, perhaps we shall see even 100 per cent national financing for agricultural projects. As for regional policy, if less money comes to this country, I hope that we shall see a complete recasting of state aid rules, which will enable national policies for regional aid to be developed in a different way from how they have been developed in recent years. It will cost money, but stability, whether economic, political or military, on our eastern borders is worth paying for.

579
I turn to systems of governance. The rationale behind the Treaty of Nice was that it was necessary to replace the systems designed for a Europe of one dozen member states with systems that would work for a Europe of two dozen. Now that we have a treaty, I am not sure I have heard of anyone, with the possible exception of Jacques Chirac—I am not even sure that I believe him—who is positively happy with the outcome. In an ideal world, I should like to see it changed and improved in a number of respects. But it should be remembered that the pre-Nice debate and the Nice conference set the limits of what may be politically possible. If one wants enlargement, one has to create the necessary conditions in which enlargement can be carried out.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, commented on the outcome of the Irish referendum. I am not quite sure of its significance. It can be seen—probably rightly seen—as proof of certain aspects of democratic shortcomings in the way Europe works. It also suggests that intergovernmentalism is flawed, because the great argument for intergovernmentalism is that one can strike a deal and then be relied on. The one thing we cannot do in progressing Europe is to have a system under which deals are made and then cannot be delivered. I am increasingly coming to the view, which I suppose is obvious if one thinks about it, that the Treaty of Nice, the Treaty of Amsterdam before it, and the post-Nice agenda are part of the same single process, which is to bring Europe into the third millennium and to double the number of member states it contains. That will require a very great deal of work and, just as the whole basis of this enterprise is the interdependence of the member states, so the nature of the way in which decisions are taken means that national political parties themselves will require an equal interdependence in determining outlook and future policy.
That is the reason why I and my Conservative MEP colleagues sit with allies from other countries in the Union, in a European political group which, by its nature, is a much looser organisation and grouping than is the case for domestic political parties. It is my view both as a Conservative and as a citizen of this country that we are absolutely right to be doing that. I say that not only because the EPP/ED group in the European Parliament—of which I am a member while it may not have an overall majority is nevertheless the largest political grouping and, as such, is the principal player in that arena. Thus I find myself in the slightly unusual circumstance where, in this Chamber I sit on the Opposition Benches, but when I attend the European Parliament, I am a part of the dominant team.
Although no one should harbour any illusions—the European Parliament is an organisation nothing like as important as the Council of Ministers in the overall scheme of things—it is nonetheless a place which is important for both legislating and forming policy at the European level.
I do not believe that the institutions of Europe are perfect; far from it. However, that is also the case for the institutions in this country. Very little in this world,
580
in one way or another, is incapable of improvement. What we need to try to do—I use the pronoun "we" in a very general sense—is to develop ways of doing things at the European level which relate and are complementary to the ways in which things are done here and, I hasten to add, to the way things are clone in other European member states. We will then become comfortable with what is going on, as will all the others affected.
It is self-evident that that will not be easy to achieve. A great deal of lateral thinking and imagination will be required to bring it about. But it is no good simply paying lip service to the European Union and then complaining that it is not working as it should, if one is adopting an approach to change which is perceived as not being delivered in good faith. It follows, therefore, that noble Lords on these Benches must do more than simply adopt the traditional United Kingdom opposition perspective on these matters. We need to tackle the task from a set of premises and with a set of policies which our allies in other member states will find consistent with our commitment to the underlying project. If we do that, we may find that we shall lose the battle in Westminster, but that that opens the possibility of winning the war in Brussels. I believe that to be a very considerable challenge.
Not only will that be a challenge under ordinary circumstances but if, as I believe, we have to proceed speedily with the task of enlargement, that will make it so much more difficult. We should remember a comment made to me by a Pole during my visit to Poland 10 days ago, "There is only a certain amount of time that you can keep the bride waiting at the altar. If you leave her there for too long, she will go off with someone else".
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate on foreign affairs. I should also like to take the opportunity to congratulate my noble friends Lord Bach and Lady Symons on their new positions. Furthermore, perhaps I may express my admiration for their fortitude in sitting through this lengthy debate.
I am particularly glad to learn that the Government have not departed from the aim of pursuing an ethical foreign policy. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I think that it is quite important to restate that commitment. Apparently, legislation is to be introduced—perhaps more far-reaching and radical than any since the Second World War—seeking to ban the export of weapons to areas where there could be human rights abuses. There is to be a ban on the sale of torture equipment and on the sale of landmines; increases in the penalties for offenders; and, apparently, there is to be an annual report on strategic export controls. I should like to see cluster bombs and weapons containing depleted uranium added to the list as both threaten civilian lives and health.
Britain is responsible for a quarter of global weapon sales and British companies are leaders in the field. It therefore requires some courage to embark on such a

581
policy, which could mean job losses. However, the policy is right and the Government are to be commended on their stance.
We heard little about foreign policy from any of the major parties during the election. The media informed us that the electorate was concerned only with public services; with health, education, transport and welfare. Except for the emphasis by one party on the euro, the important role of Britain in world affairs received little attention. Many of the comments about the euro appeared to go beyond that issue and to challenge our continued membership of the EU. This was particularly the case with some members of the main opposition party, although not, I am glad to say, of its leaders.
Years ago I was inclined to Euroscepticism myself; so were many trade unionists then—but no longer. Many of us began to realise that, in the EU, trade unions are social partners rather than the "enemy within". Moreover, many directives in regard to working conditions, non-discrimination and the like have been of benefit to working people. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall, in an excellent speech last Monday, spelt out just how beneficial the directives received have been. I know that some of my noble friends may not agree with me, but I believe what I have just said to be the majority view of the trade union movement. No doubt reforms are necessary, but I believe that the Government understand that and I am sure that they will pursue the issue.
The European social model appeals a great deal more to me than the American one. Moreover, it would appear to be more in line with the electorate's view, with its concern about public services. The United States model, with its individualistic, entrepreneurial culture, results in prosperity for some people but also produces a large, resentful and sometimes dangerous underclass, and a large prison population. That is not the road for us.
Then, of course, there is the matter of EU enlargement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred in an interesting speech. The Government are keen on this, as are other governments in the EU, and, apparently, the governments of eastern European countries which were formerly under communist rule. No doubt the process of enlargement will continue despite the problems arising from the results of the Irish referendum.
There are, however, aspects which should concern us. In these eastern European countries there has been a rapid transition from centralised, state-owned monopolies to privatised, free-market economies. This has been at the instance of the West, notably the IMF. The results have often been dire. A few people have got very rich, but the bulk of the population has become increasingly impoverished. A recent poll in Romania indicated that more than 60 per cent of people believed themselves to have been better off under Ceausescu. Bulgaria appears to be similarly situated, with high unemployment and no adequate welfare net to protect the vulnerable.
582
Similar situations exist in other countries which have emerged from communism and have been encouraged down the path of privatisation and the free market. Why reform should always mean massive unemployment I really do not understand. In such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the more adventurous individuals in such societies believe that they should try to join the tide of economic migrants, taking enormous risks to get into EU countries, including Britain.
So these countries joining the EU will need help, but so far the emphasis seems to be very much on the free market and privatisation, as though these were the hallmarks of democracy. But the human rights of citizens, which include the right to basic living standards, are surely most important. That also is a part of an ethical approach to foreign policy.
Perhaps I may return to a more contentious issue. Before the House rose prior to the general election, I and several other noble Lords raised the matter of sanctions and the bombing of Iraq. My noble friend Lady Symons was kind enough to write to me at length and to place a copy of the letter in the Library. I am grateful to her for setting out in some detail the background to government policy.
I want to make it clear, however, that my intervention was not prompted by Iraqi propaganda, which I have not seen. I am concerned about bombing. I am old enough to remember what prolonged aerial bombardment is like. It is just not possible to drop thousands of tonnes of high explosive from a great height on populated areas and not kill and injure civilians.
It is clear from the Minister's letter that the Government have no idea of the number of civilian casualties. It is said that the bombing campaign is necessary for the protection of Kurds—although Kurds are, regrettably, repressed not only in Iraq. Saddam Hussein—now demonised, no doubt justly—was yesterday's man with whom the Americans "could do business". He was encouraged and covertly armed in the long and disgraceful war with Iran, merely because at that time it happened to suit United States foreign policy.
Similarly with Milosevic, he was the "OK guy" when he was needed for the Dayton accord but is now regarded as responsible for all the Balkan ills—a ridiculous assertion. The Serbs have also been demonised, but others were responsible too, particularly the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims to some degree.
Despite the Minister's helpful letter, I really do feel that it might be appropriate to review our policy on Iraq. It clearly does not command full support among our EU partners, and it is possible that the new President of the United States might be willing to look at it all again, particularly in the light of recent changes in the Senate. I should also like to hear from the Minister a little more about the so-called "smart sanctions". A recent report suggests that if they were implemented, it could give Jordan some economic problems. Since Jordan is a friendly country, one would not want that to happen.

583
As to the Balkans, I opposed the bombing of Kosovo and Serbia—and I still believe that it was wrong. It now seems that we shall have to commit forces to remain in Bosnia, in Kosovo and perhaps in Macedonia for a very long time. Ethnic wars are not simply a matter of leaders. It would be much easier if they were. The bitterness that is engendered lasts, and there are no quick fixes. In Macedonia, the Albanian rebels—probably funded from abroad and apparently amply supplied with weaponry—appear to be making demands that the Slav government find difficult to accept. NATO assistance has been sought by both sides. But it appears that large numbers of Slays regard NATO as taking too favourable an approach to the Albanians. However, NATO's policy appears to be to attempt to negotiate a peaceful settlement, and we should all support that approach. Intervention carries with it considerable risks and does not always produce the hoped-for result.
Yes, the world is a more dangerous place than most of us would like. But I question whether the missile defence project—"son of star wars"—is an appropriate response. It is not widely popular even in the United States and it would appear that our partners in the EU are not particularly keen on it either. Russia is hostile, and it may have the effect of driving Russia closer to China in a defensive bloc. The rogue states to which President Bush refers are scarcely in a position to challenge the world's only remaining superpower; and the abandonment of the ABM Treaty is bound to be regarded as hostile by the present Russian Government.
We should advise President Bush against this course. In particular, we should not make Fylingdales available. Why should we give our fellow citizens who live around it the impression that they are expendable; that President Bush regards them as the USA's first line of defence? It is unacceptable, and we should say so.
I am reminded by some of my noble friends who were there at the time that during the Vietnam War Harold Wilson was pressurised by the then United States President to send a force—even a token British force—to Vietnam in support of US forces. He absolutely refused to do so. He was right. Yet the special relationship continued. We have nothing to gain by supporting this latest US project and possibly a great deal to lose.
9.55 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I was pleased that the gracious Speech focused on the need for a more effective global effort to reduce poverty, as well as on crime prevention. Certainly in Africa, where I have spent most of my life, the battle against poverty is the new byword in the fight against AIDS.
With so many speakers and such a broad spectrum in tonight's debate, I do not envy the task of the Minister in winding up our deliberations. Like other noble Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, in the words of the
584
noble Lord, Lord Howell, on her "triple crown". I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on his well-deserved appointment.
I want to focus my remarks on the challenges facing southern Africa—more specifically, the battle against poverty and AIDS and the need for a resolution of the political, economic and social problems that face Zimbabwe. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in that the situation in Zimbabwe has had a terrible knock-on effect on the rest of the region. As I initiated a three-hour debate just three months ago on the challenges facing Southern Africa, I shall not regurgitate that speech this evening. However, I should like to touch upon some of the recent developments and immediate challenges facing the region.
Before I do so, I should speak briefly on the WTO. The gracious Speech also referred to the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to work for an early and comprehensive World Trade Round. Clearly, if that is to be achieved, a very firm timetable will need to be set for agreeing the scope and objectives of the round. When the WTO members met just a few days ago, they agreed that further work was needed to clarify the WTO's intellectual property accord. I hope that this can lead to more focus on an integrated policy on pharmaceutical research and distribution which will promote public health and make treatment for AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases available to the developing countries at an affordable cost. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who said that it was a good idea to promote competition in the pursuit of cheaper drugs. It is encouraging to note that members of the WTO appear determined to ensure that the Trips Agreement is part of the solution, not part of the problem, of meeting the public health crises in poor countries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and my noble friend Lord Sandwich both covered the AIDS crisis in Africa. In addition to the statistics that they listed earlier, I read today the rather startling facts that Sub-Saharan Africa will have 71 million fewer people by the year 2010 because of AIDS; that life expectancy in Zimbabwe will fall to 27 by 2010; and that Tanzania will lose 14,500 teachers, with its share of orphans increasing from 2 per cent to 10 per cent.
While South Africa has an admirable record over the past 10 years in fiscal and economic discipline, the fight against AIDS continues to undermine the country's full potential. President Thabo Mbeki appears to be in a state of total denial of the AIDS crisis that is facing his country. Nkosi Johnson, the orphan with AIDS in South Africa who, sadly, died earlier this month—appropriately on "National Children's Day" in South Africa—gave a child's face and voice to AIDS in Africa when he spoke last year at the World AIDS Conference.
According to a recent report by the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund, many South African children whose parents have died in the AIDS epidemic are neglected, starving and ill, while some are turning to prostitution to survive. Will the Minister, when she winds up

585
today's debate, elaborate on what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to fight this pandemic, not just in terms of financial contributions but also of practical measures to raise more awareness of this disease in southern Africa?
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, mentioned in his opening remarks the Government's White Paper on eliminating global poverty. I simply want to draw attention to chapter three of that excellent document, which covers the extent to which the Internet revolution could potentially facilitate enormous breakthroughs in providing better education and other vital services to developing countries. In his state of the nation address at the opening of the South African Parliament, President Thabo Mbeki announced an ambitious plan to ensure that South Africa rides the information super-highway and exploits that medium for education, health, commerce and government. I hope that his example will be followed in the rest of the region where there is certainly a digital divide.
Finally, there has been much concern about the deteriorating economic and political situation in Zimbabwe. That matter has been comprehensively covered by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, all of whose concerns I entirely endorse. While I support as much international pressure as can be brought to bear on Robert Mugabe, I believe that the most constructive chance of a breakthrough will be through pressure from other African Heads of Government. I entirely agree with those noble Lords who have embraced the importance of the Commonwealth as an effective intermediary in conflict resolution.
Whether it be as a result of the ever increasing economic collapse in Zimbabwe or the imminent Commonwealth summit in Brisbane, or even the presidential election in March next year, I was encouraged to note that earlier this month President Mugabe travelled to Kenya and signalled his readiness at long last to co-operate with the Commonwealth initiative to solve the land question. I hope that the planned forthcoming Commonwealth Ministers' meeting with President Mugabe will yield a similar positive response. As one diplomat recently put it,
"we are dealing with a proud man, who is perhaps a little senile. It is clear that to get to a position of constructive negotiation, we will have to allow Mugabe to appear to have initiated a so-called African solution".
I believe that on the whole there need to be African solutions to African problems but I wholeheartedly support Her Majesty's Government's commitment to facilitating and resolving the challenges that face southern Africa and the rest of the continent.
10.3 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, no doubt we are well accustomed to classifying economic and social development as an attractive product and outcome of sustained peace. What might be less obvious, perhaps, is that economic and social development levels should themselves become the means as well as the desired
586
ends of European stability, let alone the key ingredients and instruments for achieving lasting peace in Europe.
Yet that proved to be the case between 1948 and 1989 in terms of the Cold War. The 1949 NATO alliance could not have been formed had it not been preceded by the economic disbursement of Marshall aid in 1948. The Cold War would not have ended as it did in the 1980s had the arms race not come to exert an unacceptable level of pressure upon the economies of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states. Nevertheless, right up to 1989, and in spite of promising signs to the contrary, many of us, including myself, still believed that Soviet communism would remain entrenched for a long time. However, it did not and for that an enormous debt is owed to the forging of the North Atlantic alliance in the first place; to the planning and development of that organisation; and to the balance achieved by its membership in terms of deterrence, diplomacy and economic stability. As we recall, it took much effort and persuasion to form NATO at all.
In that connection, it is fitting to pay tribute, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, to Ernest Bevin, who as Foreign Secretary, was chiefly responsible for guiding the Americans towards NATO; and in association with this House I pay tribute to Roger Sherfield, Derek Inshyra and Gladwyn Jebb who as diplomats within the British Foreign Office played a significant part in forming NATO and whom we now remember with gratitude and affection.
There is a striking contrast between the successful handling of the Cold War by 1989 and the inept handling of the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. The contrast is also paradoxical. The former, although it threatened nuclear world war, produced no major disaster in Europe; while in the latter civil war between non-nuclear armies in south-eastern Europe killed more than 250,000 people and made more than 3 million homeless. With hindsight, the catastrophe could have been avoided if the prescription of July 1991 of the European Union Dutch presidency had been implemented. This prescription was for two expedients: first, an immediate deployment of NATO and United Nations troops to keep the peace following the outbreak of hostilities between Serbs and Croats; and, secondly, the continued deployment of the troops while the European Union presided over an orderly secession of states from the former Yugoslavia. As we know, that proposal was rejected and our western security system remained divided over the former Yugoslavia until the intervention of the Dayton peace plan in October 1995.
Many of us believe that ironically enough this division within western defence security was a product of the very success of the management of the Cold War by NATO states. For 40 years NATO's focus had been the containment of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states which formed its satellites. The containment of regional instability had thus not been a priority or even a necessity. As a result NATO states, distributed over the European Union and including the United States, were unused to confronting regional

587
instability in the 1990s and were divided over and unsure of the best way to do so with regard to the former Yugoslavia.
Yet although division within western security prevented timely containment, we would all wish to acknowledge that western governments behaved honourably and responsibly, if inadvisedly. The measure of that is the commitment of those states to peacekeeping forces and to the shared cost and burden of reconstruction. During the 1990s wars there has also been the impressive disbursement of humanitarian aid by member states within the United Nations.
In those contexts, therefore, we can be proud of our own British contributions and, as a number of noble Lords have stressed today, in particular the commitment of our servicemen.
So the first theme is that post-Cold War European defence security must depend upon agreed methods for pre-empting and combating regional instability at the outset before it develops and takes hold. It must also depend upon economic and social development not just as the fruits and rewards of peace but also as the best means of engendering stability in the first place.
That leads to my second theme: the present scope to assist, through a variety of expedients, lasting peace and rehabilitation within south-eastern Europe. Can the Minister say what part our own Government are now playing? To which collective actions and remedies do they subscribe in order to end fighting within the minority area including Macedonia and Albania, where that is still threatened, and to consolidate peace within the majority area where violence has now ceased? Within a collective international policy for south-eastern Europe what individual initiatives or forms of leadership of its own do the Government propose to offer?
My third theme is on how lessons learnt from the former Yugoslavia now stand to assist the future handling of any regional and local instability both there and elsewhere in Europe. In that context the simple key considerations must be the prevention of war and the maintenance of peace. Regarding the former, no doubt a rapid reaction force deployed within NATO is desirable and long overdue. However, its concept, let alone its deployment, reflects a welcome recognition from the United States and the European Union countries that instability must be dealt with early on.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, reminded us earlier, equally called for is an improved working relationship between the European Union, the United States and Russia over the protection of human rights and the containment of instability in all regions, including eastern Europe. What steps are the Government taking to achieve such co-operation?
There are also lessons for the rest of Europe from the former Yugoslavia about the management and consolidation of peace. Within the Balkans and elsewhere, current endeavours already reveal pragmatic partnerships of all kinds to address social
588
and economic development on different scales. Such joint ventures may include governments, the World Bank, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and a number of other institutions whose purpose is social and economic development. They should and do also include non-governmental organisations and voluntary and charitable bodies.
The remit of the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group for Social Development in Europe, of which I am the current chairman, is to encourage the growth of partnerships and initiatives to achieve a measure of social development within European regions and communities on a variety of scales. One of the group's methods is to encourage the parliamentarians of the 41 Council of Europe states to embrace that focus and to advocate in their Parliaments the added value of European social development from all kinds of initiatives, some of which may operate convincingly on very small scales.
The potential of and benefit from all such endeavours is to consolidate peace and security within European regions and localities. That in turn emphasises the post-Cold War role of social and economic development as a means towards that end. Its implementation brings together a variety of institutional and less formal expedients.
Following from that is the connection between this varied and flexible approach to assist European regional stability in particular and what should be the Government's broad policy to improve European security in general. Arguably, those two aspects will naturally coincide anyway if, as already contended, social and economic development has become both a means for enhanced European security and an end product in terms of human rights. Nor, of course, within international democracies, is its pursuit in any way in question at all as a necessary means or as a desirable end product. That has become so not least following the end of the Cold War by the late 1980s and the end of the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia by the turn of the century.
Ironically, the more that there may be consensus on that assessment, the more that the Government are presented with a challenge. Do they simply go with the present trend, or do they set out to give leadership? For the task of promoting social and economic development in Europe, will the Government stick to those channels conveniently presented by the European Union, the stability pact and other means, or will they supplement those with additional efforts and projects of their own? Are they also prepared to lead by example rather than through institutionalism?
Proper evidence that the United Kingdom had effectively addressed social problems within its own communities would greatly assist European stability through its example of good practice. However, as we are all well aware, much better practices are called for in this country to improve motivation and opportunities for young people, to deal far more effectively with young people and others who have fallen foul of the law and to reduce the unnecessarily

589
high levels of prison recidivism. At the same time, far greater investment should be made in law and order and the police force to deter crime and protect communities in the first place. Clearly, a combination of those policies will enhance the security and health of our communities. We should demonstrate the evidence of that both in our domestic interest and to contribute by example to improved European security.
Many of us will wish to urge the Government to draw those connections and to be prepared to meet the challenges that they present. If they do, then we in this country may all hope to be able to engender a degree of confidence in a balanced form of security as an agreed priority for Europe, as we can also seek to make a reality that, at least in Europe, peace and stability will become a guaranteed human right for all.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Powell of Bayswater: My Lords, I gladly join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on their new and demanding appointments and in wishing them every success.
I shall restrict myself to some remarks on transatlantic relations and a very brief comment on China. I should declare that I am a founder member of Atlantic Partnership, a non-profit body dedicated to sustaining public support for good transatlantic relations, and president of the China-Britain Business Council, the government-supported industry body which promotes trade and investment with China.
There are a worrying and unusual number of problems troubling transatlantic relations at present on trade, on the environment and on defence. None is individually insoluble but, taken together, they amount to a burden which should flash some warning lights for the Government. One such issue is the widespread grumbling and opposition among European governments to America's plans for missile defence. I believe—in this I disagree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall—that President Bush is absolutely right to commit himself to achieving missile defence. However, I do not want to argue the merits of it on this occasion; I simply want to make four observations.
First, the Americans are now making a much better job of explaining their views to their European allies, as well as to Russia and China, than in the recent past. That is very welcome and I hope that it will continue.
Secondly, European governments need to understand that missile defence will go ahead and they need to adjust their thinking accordingly. Of course, it will take longer than predicted. There will always be technical problems, although America's record of solving engineering difficulties since the Manhattan Project onwards surely means that those problems will be overcome. Decisions still have to be taken about the nature of the system to be adopted. All that will cause delay. But the inescapable fact is that, once an effective system is available and in prospect, the American people, whether they vote Democratic or Republican,
590
will expect their President to provide it. And he will because it would be irresponsible not to do so. European governments which continue to contest the whole concept of missile defence are simply hiding their heads in the sand.
Moreover—my third point—those governments underestimate the very real potential for further sharp reductions in nuclear weapons for which introduction of missile defence opens the way. That simply does not seem to feature in the calculations of these European critics and it should do so.
Fourthly, if I am right that the Americans will go ahead anyway, it must be in the interests of Russia and President Putin to reach an accommodation with them—to reach an agreement to limit the size of a missile defence system so that it does not threaten the viability of Russia's own deterrent. That has to be far better from the Russian point of view than a unilateral decision by the Americans to go ahead. That would leave the Russians both humiliated and facing the unbearable strain of having to expand greatly their own nuclear forces. They cannot want that, and they certainly cannot afford it.
Therefore, my concern is that fractious European opposition to missile defence may encourage some in Russia to believe that they can split NATO and whip up opposition on the scale of the demonstrations against the stationing of cruise missiles in Europe in the 1980s. In other words, gratuitous European criticism of missile defence may simply make it harder for agreement to be reached between America and Russia without in any way changing American plans.
I am glad that our Government have shown a more sophisticated awareness of the merits of missile defence than many others. However, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, were, to my mind, excessively timid. I hope that the Government will use their influence with the French and Germans in particular to bring home the realities to them. My guess is that the introduction of missile defence will in practice be a gradual process, starting with the upgrading of existing systems and with agreed amendments to the ABM treaty, which has already been modified on three occasions. In the longer term, the ABM treaty will have to go. There is provision for that in the text of the treaty, which permits either side to withdraw from it with six months' notice.
Another current transatlantic issue is Europe's proposed rapid reaction force. The implications of that are being studied by Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee and I do not want to preempt our conclusions. However, having met some very senior members of the American Administration in recent weeks, I can confirm that there is genuine concern about the risks of dividing NATO and of duplicating well-tried NATO procedures. Those concerns are amplified by ambiguities about the role of the European Union's nascent military staff, small as it is in relation to NATO's.
The single most important issue in American eyes is whether Europe has the will to provide additional defence capabilities. If that can be achieved other

591
concerns become manageable. President Bush's recent statements have indicated that. The worst of all possible worlds would be to create new European structures that would weaken NATO but at the same time fail to provide extra capabilities. However, there is no reason why that should happen. We must in particular resist the sort of thinking associated with France which sees European defence co-operation as a means of turning Europe into a rival centre of power to the United States rather than a partner.
As the main originator of the recent moves forward on European defence, it is for our Government to set an example through defence spending and to do their best to ensure that other European countries also deliver extra capabilities and full integration with NATO. I very much hope that they will succeed. If they do not, they should be ready to walk away from the project altogether rather than involve Britain in a fruitless enterprise that would weaken NATO.
In the interests of time I shall not dwell on Kyoto or some of the trade issues that are currently burdening transatlantic relations. I hope that the Government will maintain close consultation with the United States about the pace of NATO's enlargement. That should proceed as candidate countries prove their democratic credentials: we owe them that. We cannot allow the Russians to dictate which countries can or cannot join NATO. Equally, we have to recognise that enlargement will greatly change the nature of NATO and the European Union. I should go so far as to say that the NATO that we know will, by the end of the process of enlargement, no longer exist. It will be a broader, looser grouping; it will find security in the fact of association but it will do so without the close-knit strategy, integration of forces or credible nuclear guarantee from the United States that hitherto characterised NATO. That evolution is inevitable and we must take account of it.
Lastly—and briefly—I turn to trade with China. British exports reached record levels in each of the past two years and this year they are currently running ahead of even those figures. However, with the economic downturn in the US economy, that may not last. Our success is primarily due to the efforts of exporters, although the dedicated staff of the China-Britain Business Council and of Trade Partners UK also deserve credit.
We in the China-Britain Business Council are grateful for the excellent support we have received from Ministers. We most recently received support from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, whose first public engagement in her new role was with that council. Relationships at the very top have a vital part to play with regard to doing business with China. I urge the Prime Minister to consider paying a further visit to China before long. That would follow his extremely productive visit with a large business delegation in 1998. Nothing would do more to encourage British exporters and to draw attention to the huge potential of the China market, especially with China on the verge of entering the World Trade Organisation. I hope that the Minister will relay that request to the Prime Minister. Indeed, now
592
that No. 10 Downing Street staff numbers have been still further enlarged, they are now presumably working shifts and the Minister may even be able to get an answer in time for her winding-up speech this evening.
10.24 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, and to hear his wise words.
I welcome the last paragraph of the gracious Speech, which concerned the reintroduction of the International Development Bill. That was discussed by the Minister at the start of this debate—which was a very long time ago!
At this late stage, I shall confine myself to only two areas, both currently urgent concerns: the first was highlighted last week by the distinguished United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and is the very serious worldwide problem of HIV/AIDS, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. In the Secretary-General's words:
"HIV/AIDS is the world's biggest public health challenge, and in some countries, the biggest single obstacle to development.
Secondly, there has been an extraordinary election held this month, not in this country—which had an unprecedented result—nor the one held in Peru, nor Iran, nor Albania, nor Uganda, all held in June, but one of the most unusual of modern times; that is, the one that was held in Bulgaria. Many will have read the headlines announcing that the former king—the first in recent times—leading a political party formed less than six months ago, had won 120 of the 240 seats, only one short of the majority needed to form a government.
What does that mean? Why, apart from my interest in Bulgaria, do I feel that it is important today to say a few words about that often forgotten European country? King Simeon's victory is a breakthrough in contemporary politics. He will effectively, regardless of whatever position he takes in the future government, be responsible for a country which may find itself forced to play a major role in the very fragile situation which we are tragically witnessing yet again in the Balkans. I refer to the present unrest in Macedonia. I shall not go into the details of that as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford has covered the main points concerning Macedonia so clearly in his speech.
I return to the elections. The Bulgarian National Assembly will open on 5th July. People are speculating as to who King Simeon is. He is now addressed as Mr Saxcoburggotski. That is according to his own wish. Who will he recruit into his new government? There are few clear indications as to what will be the priorities of that new government. On the election night, the king said that his main goal would be to fight corruption and to build on the country's economic prosperity. Many people, however, would have liked that to be supported by something rather more specific.

593
What will Britain's role be? It is quite clear. It will be to encourage the new government, when formed, to build on the foundations built by the UDF, the former government, rather than to make some kind of fresh start. I hope that the Prime Minister will be welcoming President Stoyanov on his visit to this country next month. That could be an important opportunity to urge the UDF to work with the king's new government and to make certain that the achievements of the past four years are not lost; for example, there should be no deliberate undermining of the king's people unless and until there is concrete evidence that they are taking a very different direction.
We have a huge and strategic interest in Bulgaria having a stable and effective government, given the turmoil in Macedonia. That has been timidly eyed already by the Russians. The former Prime Minister, Mr Kostov, has resigned. The new Ministers will probably be announced on 12th July. Mrs Mihailova, the former Foreign Minister, is now the head of the UDF parliamentary party. She has said that,
"the UDF could consider entering into a coalition only if there were guarantees that foreign policies remain the same".
President Stoyanov clearly supports a coalition. There is also mounting speculation that the results of the elections could pave the way to restoration of the monarchy by legal means, even though the king rigorously denies that.
In a recent interview in the Spectator, the King referred to himself as the new Nelson Mandela. However, he is clever enough to know that he has been elected in the hope of a miracle—an 800 day cure—and he will remember what happened in February 1997: that the presumedly passive Bulgarians swept away Zhivkov's successor, Zhan Videnov and his thugs.
Nobody knows whether the King will decide to be prime minister. Some wise people say that he could well follow Ronald Reagan's model, which was to be prime minister but, in practice, with massive delegation of his powers.
Whatever the emotions, the fact remains that the King was legally elected and if Bulgaria is to go forward, it will need the support and understanding of what are habitually called the Great Powers. Bulgaria will have to strive to avoid civil unrest. That can be achieved only through economic measures that cannot materialise without foreign investment. That new government will herald enormous change. We all pray that it will bring progress. A N Whitehead, in Process and Reality, wisely said:
"The art of progress is to preserve order amid change, and to preserve change amid order".
I return to my first point, which is the tragic plight of millions that was recently highlighted by the United Nation's Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. In several recent speeches, from which I draw substantially, he has put the point with great conviction and clarity of thought, far better than anything that I have read on the subject. Twenty years ago few of us had even heard of AIDS; 10 years ago, few of us had any notion of the scale of the disaster; and even two years ago most
594
people in western countries still thought of AIDS as a mainly domestic problem and believed that it was being controlled. But, for much of the international community, the magnitude of the crisis is only now beginning to sink in.
More than 36 million people around the world today are living with HIV/AIDS. The vast majority are in sub-Saharan Africa. However, the pandemic is spreading at an alarming rate in Asia and Eastern Europe. Last year alone 3 million people died from the virus, the highest annual total to date, and 5 million people became infected, which is an average of 13,000 people a day. That is indeed a catastrophe.
We have the power to do something. Around the world there are many people working on ways to combat this public health challenge. The Secretary-General set out five clear objectives that are reasonable and, I hope, acceptable. The first is that prevention has to be the first objective. Anyone who is not infected must know what they need to do to avoid infection. Young people need to have the knowledge and power to protect themselves. They need to be informed, inspired and mobilised through awareness campaigns such as the world has never seen, using the wireless, television and professional marketing techniques as well as the conventional tools of education. Once the knowledge is available, young people will need the means. As Maurice Maeterlinck so wisely wrote:
"To the sage the road is long that leads from grief to despair. I t is a road untravelled by wisdom".
The second objective is family and community support, access to voluntary counselling and testing and, when appropriate, condoms. Thirdly, care and treatment must be put within the reach of everyone. The fourth objective is to deliver scientific breakthroughs to find a cure for HIV/AIDS—which is none of the present drugs—and a vaccine against it. At King's College London we have a highly successful department in that area. I declare an interest as Chairman of Council.
We have succeeded in the past year in recruiting the international HIV expert Professor Michael Malim from the University of Pennsylvania, together with Professor Adrian Hayday, himself recently recruited from Yale, and Professor Philippa Easterbrook. They are undertaking an extensive programme in infection and immunity that demonstrates the determination and commitment of the scientific community in this country to confronting the disease.
Finally, as we all know, money is constantly needed. We all know that, most important of all, money needs to be in the right hands. Too often it goes astray, as we heard in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I welcome the Secretary of State's proposals to find more money to help these projects. Even though HIV/AIDS poses a huge economic threat, it is first and foremost a humanitarian imperative.
I hope that the Minister, with her many new important and influential hats, will relay these messages to the powers that be. The role of your Lordships' House has been under much discussion arising from the proposals in the gracious Speech.

595
It still has, however, an important responsibility in the legislative procedure and possibly still a certain influence in society. Therefore, I hope that all the interesting ideas in the many eloquent speeches we have heard in this final debate on the gracious Speech will not just be a charade but will be carefully listened to and carefully read and even acted on.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I want to speak briefly on European enlargement, but first I want to comment briefly on the situation in Northern Ireland. It is very difficult there at the moment and David Trimble's resignation may take effect within the next two or three days. I understand that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have been to Belfast today, so it is not appropriate to say more than a little about the situation there.
I am concerned that with the marching season about to begin a period of political instability, or indeed a political vacuum, could be highly dangerous. We have already seen rioting at interface areas in North Belfast and the situation is clearly dangerous. It always is during the marching season but given the situation relating to the Ulster Unionist Party, it is more so at the present time.
The general election results were bitterly disappointing both for the SDLP and for the Ulster Unionist Party. Clearly, the difficulties David Trimble faces have been exacerbated by the recent election results. Therefore, there is an urgent need for calm. I am well aware that on past precedent Sinn Fein and the IRA do not respond to outside pressures. Even if the Irish Government are leaning heavily on the IRA for decommissioning, I doubt whether anything will happen by 1st July. I do not think it is appropriate to say anything more about the situation there. We must wait to see whether the Prime Minister, together with the Secretary of State and the Taoiseach, has been successful in his endeavours.
I now turn to the Irish referendum which has a direct bearing upon European enlargement. I happened to be in Dublin on the Monday following the referendum. I do not want to stand in your Lordships' House and criticise the Irish Government. They have been most helpful to the peace process in Northern Ireland and we must be careful before we stand and criticise another government's conduct of its own affairs in a referendum. However, on the basis of the "sample polling" one does on a one-day visit—that is, talking to taxi drivers and the like—it seemed to me that people were not clear what the referendum was about. They said that they were well aware of the arguments against but had heard very little about the arguments for.
I cannot make a judgment as to whether that is an accurate statement of how much effort was put into the case for the referendum. All I know is that people were under misapprehensions, which the "anti" campaign engendered, as to the significance of the referendum. For example, it was said that the EU would insist that nuclear power stations could be built
596
in Ireland and that Ireland would be forced to be part of the rapid reaction force, which had nothing whatever to do with the referendum. It was even said that abortion would be allowed in the Republic, which was again a totally erroneous view that had nothing to do with the issue in the referendum.
All of that was exacerbated by what appeared to be a very active campaign by Sinn Fein in the Republic to oppose the referendum. I am not clear why it did so. The only argument I have heard is that Sinn Fein did not believe that, in relation to the argument about the rapid reaction force, Ireland should be part of a military pact. It is a little odd that the IRA and Sinn Fein should be so keen to be part of a demilitarised structure. However, Sinn Fein put a good deal of effort into the campaign in the Republic. That is a matter of concern because it means that it was testing its electoral machine with a view to the forthcoming elections in Ireland. I do not know how the Republic gets out of that dilemma. I do not believe that it is helpful for us to suggest what the Government should do, but clearly that is a matter of major concern to all of us who believe in European enlargement.
I am chair of an all-party group that is concerned with promoting European accession. Therefore, I particularly welcome the Government's support for enlargement which is clearly stated in the gracious Speech and other contributions from government Ministers. It is very clear that for those countries which seek accession this is the most important political issue that they face. As the arguments continue and difficulties emerge, there is a sense that public opinion in some of the enlargement countries is becoming a little uneasy. It must be of concern to all of us if we do not send out proper signals to those populations that we want them to be part of a wider Europe and help them to do so.
I also draw the wider conclusion, which is not based solely on the Irish referendum, although that is part of the evidence, that the European Union must be very careful not to appear to send out the message that it takes ordinary people in Europe for granted. If I had to make a judgment about the Irish referendum, it would be that people felt that they were being taken for granted by Brussels and they did not want that to happen. There needs to be a very strong effort by all EU countries and Brussels to ensure that the ordinary people of Europe are kept fully informed as to the issues and are brought along with the prevailing policy of enlargement so that that becomes acceptable and can go forward smoothly.
Of course there are difficulties about enlargement. At this late hour I do not want to take up time spelling out the difficulties in too much detail, but clearly the problem of the CAP, the European budget and the large agricultural sector in Poland are matters of concern. There are others; for example, what will happen to the countries which now benefit from the regional and structural funds if the emphasis of those funds moves to some of the accession countries? I believe we all agree that we should seek to avoid a large increase in the overall EU budget. I do not believe that either this country or other EU members

597
want that. There must be changes in the CAP which all parties in Britain have wanted for a long time. The Government sought to do that in the discussions in Brussels a couple of years ago but achieved only some of their objectives.
If there are to be transitional arrangements to ease the way for accession countries, it is clear that they must be limited. Accession countries do not want to enter Europe with second-class status for themselves, their industries or any of their industrial sectors.
As part of the arrangements for these countries to join, in terms of environmental standards, we are making strong demands. I have a concern that we are asking for higher standards of the accession countries with regard to that than those which apply to some existing members of the EU. It is important that we are aware of the possible difficulties because there may well be voices in EU countries, including this one, arguing against accession when these issues come more to the fore, which they will do in the not too distant future.
Therefore, I should like to finish by saying that there are a number of important arguments why we should support wholeheartedly the cause of European enlargement. First, most of the countries concerned have suffered enormously under communism and it is right that we who advocated democracy and freedom should want to enable them to be part of a larger European set-up which believes in democracy and freedom. Secondly, there will be a larger market which will provide opportunities for British companies. That will be especially true in the financial services sector where we have a dominant position in Europe and where, if we manage things well, we should be able to increase business enormously for some of the financial services companies that are now in the City.
Of course it is right that a large Europe, of the kind envisaged, is directly in the interests of this country. I believe that the enlargement of the European Union is not only good for Europe but is particularly good for the future of Britain.
10.46 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, as tail-end Charlie I shall focus my brief remarks on Russia. I have just returned from Moscow. I was there not in any parliamentary role but as a member of the board of the Baring New Russia Fund. I am rather glad to declare that interest as I believe it underlines the synergy which is desirable for those of us with outside interests in this House. I mention that because I know that next week we shall discuss that matter in greater detail.
I had not been to Russia since October 1997. What a change there has been in those three and a half years. In 1997, Yeltsin had been in charge for five years. That period saw the consequences of the political anarchy that replaced Soviet communism and also the rise of gangsterism, corruption and commercial oligarchy. New Russia was being born. What a painful birth it was.
598
In August 1998, Russia nearly went up the spout economically and then it would have gone up the spout politically. A market indicator of that was that the 11 per cent Russian dollar Eurobonds, issued at 100 dollars, went down to 20 dollars. That meant that there was a running yield of 60 per cent, and a considerably higher yield, of course, on redemption.
Russia was saved by the increase in the price of oil. In August 1999, Putin, plucked from an obscure KGB past, became Prime Minister. In less than two years he has become master of Russia with 70 per cent public support.
New Russia is as different from old Russia as new Labour is from old Labour. It is, of course, a vast improvement, in both cases. Further major reforms are under way. These reforms are not known well enough. So far as concerns the media they are all too often masked by political news.
Perhaps I may say one or two words about the political issues. Russia is well aware now that it is a minor world power. But it feels it deserves to be a major world power, and in politics, as we all know, perception is reality. But even the old Soviet Union was never really more than a third-world country but with a first world military force. That is why the Russians are so sensitive about the proposed American anti-missile programme. They may indeed genuinely fear it. After all, Friday of last week was the 60th anniversary of Hitler's treacherous invasion of Russia, an event which, to coin a phrase, "will live in the Russian annals of infamy for ever".
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that the idea that there could conceivably be a European antimissile shield in which the Russians participated is pure fantasy. It is a pity that Mr Solana appears to have encouraged the belief that it is worth discussing it. Little remains of the former Soviet military. Moscow itself is dotted with boarded-up buildings which previously were occupied by part of a military-industrial complex.
For a while Russia had no parliament worth the name. But now I believe that the Duma is becoming a force to be reckoned with. It is true that President Putin still has the means of controlling it, but it does have influence and is doing much of the nuts and bolts of reform. On Monday I had the opportunity of meeting Alexander Zhukov, who is head of the budget committee of the Duma. He and his colleagues have achieved a lot. The budget was balanced last year. It will be balanced this year, assuming that oil remains at 22 dollars or more a barrel. Budget surpluses are being put into a stabilisation fund. Last year, GDP grew by 7 per cent. This year it is expected to grow by 4.5 per cent.
In spite of a high rate of inflation—it is still about 25 per cent—the rouble, which floats freely, has remained stable against the dollar. That of course means that the competitive advantage which Russian industry had following the collapse of the rouble in 1998 is being eroded. Most senior executives in Russian industry now have their remuneration packages denominated in dollars or, as they are

599
euphemistically known, "relative units". There is still a problem with capital outflows—some 30 billion dollars in the past 12 months. But there is strong inward investment. Those dollar eurobonds are now back to par.
But perhaps most important are the tax reforms passed by the Duma. They have received very little attention. Corporation tax in Russia is now 24 per cent. VAT is 20 per cent on most things and 10 per cent on food. Most remarkable, there is now a standard rate of income tax of 13 per cent. Russia has effectively become a tax haven. Even the communists in the Duma voted for this! As a result taxes are being paid. Mr Zhukov told me that previously under 50 per cent of the tax that should have been paid was collected. The amount is now thought to be running at over 90 per cent.
Huge structural problems remain, particularly in agriculture where land ownership has not yet been tackled. There is a feeling among many Russians in the rural areas that if land were to be bought by foreigners they would revert to being serfs. That is a major limiting factor on their preparedness to accept reform in agriculture. The standard of living of many workers is very low. The average wage in the metal-bashing industries is about £15 a week. But Russia is a huge, relatively underpopulated country with enormous natural resources and a relatively insulated economy. It does indeed have the scope to act to some extent contra-cyclically if a recession does strike America and the EU.
President Putin is, I suspect, no democrat. It is restoring the power of the state that motivates him. By "power" he probably means the old Soviet word vlast, which really means state authority: rather in the Louis XIV sense of "L'état c'est moi". But he is a pragmatist and he is a patriot. I think he recognises that Russia needs closer links with the West. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Powell, said about the importance of encouraging a proper solution between the Russians and the Americans. That is something that we, too, should encourage.
I am an enthusiast for the European Union, but for the widening rather than the deepening of it. I shall not go into detail, but the economic argument against the early adoption of the euro in place of our national currency is, I believe, overwhelming. At the most basic level, we shall retain the freedom of economic management that goes with the ability to use exchange rates to adjust the differences between the economies of different countries. But I hope that enlargement as envisaged at Nice will go ahead and that, by the end of the decade, we may see the possibility of Russia as a candidate entrant.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I should like to welcome the gracious Speech. I believe that at this point it is traditional to remark that we have had a wide-ranging debate, moving from the detailed remarks of my noble friend Lord Avebury on Afghanistan through to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on Latin America.
600
Europe was mentioned by almost every noble Lord. Finally, I touch on The Hague, which is in the news at the moment. As we speak, news reports have announced that former President Milosevic is being delivered to be indicted as a war criminal, which perhaps should have happened some time ago.
The gracious Speech has set out the Government's plans. Noble Lords on these Benches are overjoyed to see certain Bills reintroduced and new legislation being brought before Parliament. We are especially pleased to see that the International Development Bill has returned. We would have supported that measure had it gone through during the wash-up period of the last Session, but now we shall have an opportunity to look at it again.
Another Bill which is to come before us shortly is the British Overseas Territories Bill. I have one or two questions to put to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, on that measure, but first I should like to congratulate her on her new position. In the round of congratulations I felt that the noble Baroness was rather left out. International development should have been first on the list of subjects covered in our debate, but it appears to have been sandwiched in the middle.
I shall raise two issues on Second Reading of the British Overseas Territories Bill. The first is the question of uniforms. It seems amazing that, just as a Bill which has been so eagerly anticipated and will do so much good for the dependent territories is brought forward, the Foreign Office has picked this week to release a story that the dependent territories are to be asked to pay for their own uniforms. It may not represent a massive financial expenditure, but the timing of such a statement might be questioned. I understand that the Government are seeking to institute a cost-cutting exercise which might well backfire. I have read a report from the well-known tailor, Gieves and Hawkes, which in financial terms will be badly affected by this. The company has stated that it would be inappropriate to stand underneath the Union Jack in a suit.
Secondly, I wish to raise the issue of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The lease on the American air base on Diego Garcia is to come to an end in 2015. The plight of the Ilois, who were forcibly removed from the island to make way for the Americans, is an issue that will be raised in our debates.
I have been given a strict time limit by my noble friend on the Front Bench. He said that I must stick to it because no one else has done so. I shall charge straight into Europe. Noble Lords on these Benches are well known for their Europhile sympathies and therefore it was with great joy that we listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. His approach to Europe was extremely positive. During the general election I campaigned in London and the North East. Although Europe was not a question I encountered every day on the doorstep, it is on people's minds. I believe that we need to hold a debate. If we are to have a referendum on adoption of the euro—something that these Benches wish to see held as soon as possible—then there has to be a degree of understanding of both sides of the argument.

601
Perhaps I may indicate just how little this argument has been aired at the detailed, nitty-gritty level. I have asked many noble Lords around the Chamber what is the euro equivalent of the penny? Most people know the euro equivalent of the pound, but I have found only one noble Lord who knows its equivalence in pence. That was the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I shall not mention which Minister had a stab at "eurettes", but that is not the correct answer. The importance of the question is that if you have to ask what it is, that perhaps underlines the point about the argument not being expressed properly.
This is important because of the recent situation in Ireland, where local matters affected the result of the referendum. Most people did not understand the issue and were not prepared for the referendum. I believe that it came as a shock to many of the people of Ireland that the referendum was lost, with all the implications that that will have for Ireland, a country which has benefited from much largesse from Europe.
As this is a defence debate, I should perhaps use a phrase that was quoted repeatedly to us at Sandhurst—that is, that failure to prepare is preparing to fail. I believe that those of us who will be on the "yes" side of the campaign need to get our message across.
The issue of turn-out is also raised by the Irish referendum, and similarly by our own general election. As we are about to head down the road of referendums, we should question what level of turnout will give a referendum electoral legitimacy.
I should like to use the euro analogy in regard to national missile defence. The euro has five test criteria; I shall suggest five test criteria that we should look at in terms of how we view missile defence.
Although it is not one of the criteria, I believe that the name "missile defence" gives an indication of the direction the policy will take. It is obviously an American initiative designed to protect the land mass of the United States. However, we have to look at missile defence in a different light.
The first question is whether it is feasible at all. There have been three test firings and interceptions, two of which failed. The first test was successful. However, it was stated in the New York Times that the missile that was intercepted, surprisingly enough, had a global positioning system inserted into the nose cone. Although the Pentagon stated that this had no bearing on the success of the test, it is surprising that a missile that is about to be destroyed should have a GPS in its nose.
The second question is whether it will actually happen. It has been put forward in America that the cost of the system will be between 200 billion and 300 billion US dollars. It is claimed that the system is designed to make the world a safer place. If that 200 billion to 300 billion US dollars was spent on poverty reduction, the world would be a safer place. That, perhaps, is a prime consideration.
602
The third consideration is whether it will make the world a safer place. Those who are supporters of the NMD programme have drawn comfort from the fact that President Putin did not attack the system with the same vigour that probably would have been the case a few years ago. The simple answer is that Russia is not in a financial position to attack on this issue. Russia is in great financial difficulty and, therefore, had problems in putting forward its case. However, this will do nothing for the feeling in Russia that this system is for its benefit. If the cost is to be 200 to 300 billion US dollars, I very much doubt—although it has been offered—that a significant system would ever be set up in Russia.
Another consideration, of course, is that if America had a working system it would have a first strike capability against Russia and China. This is very worrying indeed. Obviously it will not lead to a feeling of security throughout the world.
The fourth question relates more to these shores. Will such a system make us safer? It will break the antiballistic missile treaty, and that cannot be a good thing. The unilateral destruction of an international treaty is not to be encouraged. Another consideration is that, whether or not the system works against missiles, it works only against ballistic missiles. The delivery of a nuclear warhead does not necessitate the use of a ballistic missile. In fact, a ballistic missile is probably one of the least effective delivery systems. One of the best means of delivery would be to put the warhead in a crate and deliver it by boat to New York. No system is perfect—as was demonstrated when a German flew a light aircraft through one of the most heavily defended anti-aircraft missile corridors and landed it in Red Square.
The fifth criterion is whether national missile defence will be popular in this country. It is an issue that arose on the doorstep during the election campaign. There are those who are very unhappy about the idea that Fylingdales will be used in the make-up of the system.
I have probably gone over the time that I set myself. I should very much like to have gone into the subject of AIDS, addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. However, I believe that all I should be doing would be to rehearse the Second Reading speeches that we shall hear in the remaining weeks before the recess.
I conclude by highlighting points raised in the fine speech made by my noble friend Lord Alderdice relating to the problem of internal conflict, which is by far the most devastating recent phenomenon; namely, that wars are not fought between states but within states—usually the poorest states. The weapons that are used are not tanks, aircraft or the aircraft carriers that we have heard are to be given the go-ahead; they are the Kalashnikov, the land-mine and, in Africa, the machete. On that basis, anything that reduces the all too prevalent flow of small arms around the world must be a good thing. I particularly welcome the proposed legislation relating to the export of small arms.
11.8 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, it would be a little grotesque at this stage of the evening for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on his new post—particularly as I did so yesterday. It would be particularity inappropriate as in a few minutes' time the reply to the debate will be given by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who has been pronouncing and explaining defence policy for the past three years. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has done so, and for the cooperation that we have enjoyed. I believe that I can speak for the Liberal Benches as well. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, accosted me outside the Chamber—guess where!—almost as soon as he was appointed, and I am confident of similar co-operation in the months to come. That is not to say that we shall not make the Government's life difficult on many military issues. I intend to outline some of them in my remarks. However, it can be only an outline because times do not change. As soon as I sit down, the noble Baroness will rise to her feet to respond and to criticise me, just as she has done throughout these years—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has dutifully repeated on many occasions that she speaks for the Government as a whole, not for a single department, but so many of my questions relate to defence, which is no longer her business, that I honestly and genuinely do not expect to get an answer to them. The purpose in raising these matters is to set an agenda for a full-scale debate on defence, which I hope that the Government will allocate at the very latest before the end of the year.
It was noted on Tuesday of this week that the gracious Speech contained nothing about agriculture. Indeed, with the exception of one phrase on NATO, there was nothing about defence either. Similarly, until those inter-continental ballistic missiles were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Vivian and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, we did not hear very much about defence this evening. However, defence is something that we really must consider most seriously.
Above all, the problems of defence centre on the men and women of the services. The Government will not be able to fulfil their commitments if they do not have the men required. Time and again, we have seen examples of where a battalion has had to borrow men from other units in order to be able to fulfil its commitments. At the present moment, the Army is well down on the 47 per cent who were on operations when the Bosnian crisis was at its height, together with the problems in Northern Ireland. But the omens are not good for the immediate future. We are told that 6,000 members of the Parachute Regiment, and other units, are on their way to Macedonia, and this at a moment when the marching season is about to start in Ulster—an annual event that is bound to require more reinforcements to be sent. This marching season is likely to be more serious than in previous years with the impending possible resignation of David Trimble.
604
I hope that the Minister will be able to give your Lordships the up-to-date figures on recruiting. More importantly, can she update the House on the number of middle to senior ranks (both commissioned and non-commissioned) leaving the services? I was given the figures earlier in the year in the form of a Written Answer, and should like to see how they have changed. For this is the controlling figure on morale. Free telephone calls, newly painted quarters and home duties have some effect, but they are not what the soldier or sailor, and so on, wants: he wants interesting and productive duties, excitement, a secure future and steady promotion at the appropriate time. He also wants a secure second career when he does decide to leave the service.
We are told that the story, which was widely circulated before the election, that 10 battalions—it said "10 regiments", but I did not understand that bit—are to be disbanded is quite untrue. But it would not be surprising if it were true. The Army is so short of men that it can only fill the battalions that are required for active service by robbing other units. There is no chance of getting up to establishment by 2008. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Vivian says that it will take 10 years from now to do so.
If there is any chance that recruitment and retention will allow the 8,000 men that the Army is short of establishment to come in, will the Government pay for it? We are told that this will cost £1.3 billion more than the current budgetary provision. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has attacked the Conservative pledge to fill these major gaps. Presumably, he is saying that we do not have the money. Is this so? Can the Minister say whether or not the Government want to get the services up to establishment? That brings me to another point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Vivian; namely, will the people who are recruited be fit to carry out their jobs?
When a man leaves the service he must have a secure future, but it can be a bit too secure. The Secretary of State confirmed in another place that the two aircraft carriers, of which we have heard so much, are definitely to be built at a cost of about £2 billion. Initially, the MoD is expected to award two £25 million risk assessment contracts. Can the Minister tell us from which budget this money is to come? Money apart, when we have the carriers, who is to man the aircraft that are the sole purpose of such vessels? That brings me back to my point about second careers. At present trained and experienced pilots are in such short supply that extreme measures are having to be taken to ensure that they do not leave for civil aviation. Are the Government confident that they will be able to man all their aircraft?
Men apart, where is the money to come from? The Secretary of State has given the assurance that the carriers will be built. But will the defence budget be trimmed elsewhere to make allowance for the carriers? It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could give an assurance on that point. We hear so much about the inability of the services to perform their duties because of a lack of cash, leading, it is alleged, to fuel and

605
ammunition shortages. Is there any truth in those stories? Again, a categorical assurance would be helpful.
There are so many other problems to which we shall return in due course. The hosts of Midian seem to be prowling round the Bowman contract. When will that finally be placed and can the Government now give a categorical assurance that Bowman will be in service by 2004 as has been stated?
How is the DERA contract going? What are the financial benefits first to the Government and, secondly, to the Ministry of Defence budget? We have been given a series of figures, none of which is the same. It would be helpful to be given some rather more accurate figures. Are the boundaries between private DERA and retained DERA clear and are the Americans and our other allies happy about it?
I have a number of other rude words for the Government, among them A400M, Meteor and Type 45. At Le Bourget the defence Ministers signed only a Memorandum of Understanding on A400M rather than a production contract. The Ministry of Defence erroneously claimed that various countries were committed to buy 212 aircraft in a single launch order. The current commitment of these countries is 193 and the economic minimum below which it would not be a viable project is 180. The figure of 193 is awfully close to 180. I ask noble Lords to note that the economic minimum is 180. We are getting close to that figure, and the Germans in particular are likely to buy many fewer than the number to which they are committed. Have the Government a firm date for the conclusion of negotiations? What is the current figure for the A400M?
On Meteor, we again have only a Memorandum of Understanding. Even so, 43 per cent of the programme is unfunded. Can we have a firm deadline for the conclusion of negotiations and what will be the penalty for failure?
I refer to Type 45s. When can we expect the Rand Corporation report to be published or at least completed? It is designed to help to inform decisions with regard to overall value for money in the warship building programme as a whole. Are the Government committed to competitive tendering for the second batch of Type 45s?
Even with all those questions I have not touched on the European rapid reaction force or nuclear missile defence. With the ERRF the Government have embarked on a divisive process that will undoubtedly undermine NATO. All it does, when compared with NATO, is to throw out the United States and Turkey. What is the Government's current thinking on information and headquarters-sharing between the ERRF and NATO?
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, repeated the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that there has to be an alternative to NATO or nothing. Why is that? I do not see why we need a third alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Powell, stated that NATO is changing. It will indeed be very different. That is undoubtedly the
606
case. All that has been said makes the case for the ERRF rather more doubtful if we look well into the future. Apart from anything else, we are short enough of friends without disobliging those we have. One of the most cheering events of recent weeks has been the statement of a number of French generals in support of NATO and implicitly against the RRF. We should be pragmatic. We do not need the RRF and we do not have enough men to man it. Let us forget it.
Nuclear missile defence is the big thing world-wide. Many noble Lords have touched on the issue in the course of the debate. We have heard much of the dangers of abandoning the ABM Treaty. But the ABM Treaty was 29 years ago and the world has moved on. Nuclear missile defence will be immensely expensive but it is supremely important. The attitude of Russia to the rather indefinite proposals of the United States seems at present equivocal. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make their attitude clear and cease to sit on the fence. The Prime Minister will have to make up his mind and the sooner he decides whether to support President Bush's plans the better.
My written note contained 18 question marks. I do not know whether my speech contained more questions or fewer. In reply to my honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State complained on Friday that he was entirely negative and had no positive views. I think that that was grossly unfair. I hope that I have not committed that alleged sin. I simply want answers to a great many questions. I say seriously that I do not expect to receive them today. However, I hope that the Minister will pass to her noble friend those questions that she fails to answer for a reply in due course, preferably in a full-scale debate. Your Lordships require and deserve answers to all the questions.
11.22 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I warmly welcome the opportunity to wind up not only our debate today on the gracious Speech but also those over the past five days. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, rightly said, our debate has been exceptionally wide ranging. That is a reflection not only of the breadth of the Government's engagement in foreign, defence and development policy but also of the breadth of expertise and experience on these matters in your Lordships' House.
I shall try to answer as many as possible of the questions which have been put to me. However, I hope your Lordships will be kind enough to accept letters where that is not possible.
First, perhaps I may pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Scotland, who has left the Foreign Office for the Lord Chancellor's Department. Her intellect, commitment and sheer talent have been widely admired not only in the Foreign Office but also in your Lordships' House. She is succeeded by my noble friend Lady Amos, whose persuasive talents and considerable flair at the Dispatch Box are well known

607
to your Lordships. She is already making an impressive impact as a Minister in the Foreign Office. I wish both my noble friends well.
I also take the opportunity to say that my noble friend Lord Bach will be an excellent Minister in his new role. He demonstrated in his opening speech how well he has got on top of his brief. He has been able to underline the fundamental importance of the human factor in our defence capabilities. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I echo those sentiments very sincerely.
We owe a tremendous debt to the men and women in our Armed Forces and their families who daily promote Britain's interests around the world. They frequently put their lives on the line and, sadly, sometimes those lives are lost. They are in an exceptional and special position in British public life. I believe that all Ministers would agree with what the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Vivian, said. What matters above everything in combat is operational effectiveness. They take unique risks. Their lives depend on their work as a team. During my time in the MoD I came to recognise clearly what a real force for good our servicemen and women are around the world and how much they are valued in the countries in which they serve.
However, there are many people who deliver practical benefits for us all over the world in different circumstances, not only our ambassadors and diplomats working on high-profile issues, but also the UK and locally based staff in our missions around the world who provide vital services to Britain, be they entry clearance staff, consular officials, development staff, those acting as commercial officers or those staffing the British Council or the BBC World Service. We have a fine diplomatic service that is the envy of most of the world. Its work is key not only in foreign relations, but in trade, defence and international development, as well as in ensuring that Britain's interests are upheld.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, urged the Government to take a wider view on foreign development and defence affairs. We take a wide view. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke in another place last Friday not only about south-east Europe, but about the Middle East and east Africa. We engage in a full and constructive role in the international community. Our global interests require and confer global influence. The people of Britain will benefit from the United Kingdom's pivotal role as a member of the United Nations, the Security Council, NATO, the Commonwealth, the G8 and the EU. However, as we have shown on a number of occasions, overseas engagements require us to ensure that when our vital interests and values are at stake, we can act with force and determination when diplomacy fails.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney urged us to think about the Commonwealth. The high-level group set up at the initiative of the Prime Minister and of which the United Kingdom is a member has made progress on a number of issues concerning reform of the
608
Commonwealth. We are looking forward to presenting the results at CHOGM later this year. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about our priorities. They are better protection and promotion of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values; finding ways to use the Commonwealth network better on issues of global concern such as the environment, education, ICTs, trade and action against money laundering and corruption; a tighter focus on the Commonwealth's range of small-scale development programmes; and better co-operation between official and civil society in Commonwealth countries. That is a formidable list.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the British Overseas Territories Bill. It confirms the commitment made in the 1999 Overseas Territories White Paper to grant British citizenship to British Dependent Territory citizens in qualifying territories. It also changes the nomenclature of the overseas territories. I know that my noble friend Lady Amos welcomes it as strongly as I do.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, asked about the Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management. I am aware of the work of the CPTM and of the noble and gallant Lord's active involvement in its dialogue. I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom Government are a contributor to the CPTM and that officials are actively involved in it and are well placed to contribute to its work on best practice.
The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Desai, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all raised considerable concerns about the WTO. They were right to do so, because trade has a vital role to play in helping developing countries to boost their economic growth and generate the resources necessary for reducing poverty. Greater trade openness and the promotion of exports are associated with faster economic growth, but if more open trade is to work for the world's poor, we need effective multilateral trade rules made by an institution in which developing countries are properly represented, as the noble Earl said, and one that is capable of enforcing those rules for poor countries and rich countries alike. Liberalisation is what will matter in the forthcoming trade round. That is why we attach such a high priority to the success of the round to be negotiated in Doha in November. We need to be ready to put our political muscle behind our overriding goals, presenting our priorities and, as the noble Earl rightly said, listening to the concerns of fellow WTO members, particularly those of developing countries.
The noble Lords, Lord Shore of Stepney and Lord Howell of Guildford, were concerned about what they saw as a government preoccupation with Europe, although they both spent the larger part of their remarks on Europe. I shall try to reply to some of their points.
The Government's engagement with. Europe has already done much to bring real benefits to the everyday lives of people in this country. Our engagement with Europe has made Britain richer and

609
it has made us safer. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, remarked in what I considered to be a remarkable contribution, it has brought his and my generation to a point at which there has been no war in Europe in our lifetime. We shall bring forward legislation to implement new arrangements for the future financing of the European Union, to ratify the Nice Treaty and to pave the way for successful enlargement of the Union.
I turn to the Nice Treaty. My noble friend Lord Grenfell gave us a pungent analysis, but perhaps I may put to him some of the gains that we hope to make. We have opened the door for enlargement with a bigger single market; we have won more relative power for Britain in the EU through the increase in our weighting of votes; we have also delivered a better and more efficient Commission; we have secured more qualified majority voting where it has been in the UK's interest; and, at the same time, we have preserved our veto where we said we would do so—on tax, social security, defence, our own resources, border controls and treaty change; and we believe that we have secured a more flexible EU.
But of course the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and my noble friend Lord Dubs are right: we must do something about the common agricultural policy, which is unsustainable in its present form. Therefore, the United Kingdom continues to press for further reform, including movement away from production support towards rural development. Others, including France and Germany, are also talking about reform. Therefore, the time is ripe for debate in Europe and we are pressing for change.
My noble friend Lord Shore is always very interesting on matters European and, of course, on the euro in particular. However, perhaps I may say that to describe his opponents' views as "pretence" or as "contemptible" or "not honest" does not help our debate. Ours is an honest argument; it is an honest disagreement. I am happy to debate with anyone with my noble friend, with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—but I believe that that debate must be held in sensible and well moderated terms.
In principle, as everyone knows, the UK is in favour of UK membership of the EMU. In practice, of course, the economic conditions must be right. The determining factor underpinning any government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. If it is, there is no constitutional bar to joining. However, once the Treasury has completed the five tests which the Chancellor spelt out in October 1997, a recommendation will he made to the Cabinet. The Government will then make a decision on UK membership of EMU. If the Government recommend UK entry, it will be put, as has been stated time without number, to a vote in Parliament and then to a
610
referendum of the British people. Therefore, the Government, Parliament and the people must all agree.
I turn to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Sewel and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others on the matter of enlargement. My noble friend Lord Dubs also raised them. The pace and intensity of the EU's negotiations with the candidates have increased in the year 2001. Negotiations have also been brought forward on justice and home affairs cooperation and food safety, highlighted under the Belgian presidency. Our own Prime Minister's call in Warsaw last October for what he described as a,
"breakthrough on enlargement under the Swedish Presidency",
has been achieved.
To answer the specific questions of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Alderdice, Turkey is indeed a candidate for EU membership. However, unlike other applicants, it does not meet the Copenhagen political criteria. As I am sure both noble Lords know, that is a prerequisite for opening negotiations. The EU agreed on accession partnership for Turkey on 4th December 2000, and that sets out priorities for action on meeting the membership criteria. Therefore, the EU and Turkey have begun preparations for screening, and the EU is doubling pre-accession funding to Turkey to approximately 180 million euros a year. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that Cyprus has completed negotiations thus far on 22 of the 31 chapters.
I turn to defence. We all know that there were serious lessons to be learnt from the Kosovo campaign. We should not lose sight of the fact that Europeans have subsequently played a leading role in KFOR and currently contribute some 80 per cent of the total redeployment. At the same time, we have to face up to the fact that Europeans flew only one-third of the total number of aircraft sorties during the campaign. That was bound to bring us to the point at which we consider what more has to be done about the European defence capability. That matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and, in a rather different way, by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
European security and defence policy is helping to ensure that European nations can make a stronger contribution to crisis management operations both within NATO and when NATO is not engaged. The Government are absolutely clear about the fact that NATO remains the basis of our collective and territorial defence and the cornerstone of our security policy. The commitment of UK forces for an EU-led operation will always—I stress this—be a decision for the UK Government alone. All EU partners agree that there will be no "Euro army". That has always been the view of Her Majesty's Government, as my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale made clear. That was explicit from the beginning.
We also enjoy the support of the United States, as President Bush said in his joint statement with Tony Blair at Camp David. They said:

611
"The United States welcomes the EU's European Security and Defence Policy intended to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the Transatlantic community".
To answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, who was worried about duplicate mechanisms, I say that there is a military staff of 135, of whom 13 are expected to be British. They will advise, but they will do so only in relation to strategic options for a political decision. They will not advise on operational capability. Once the political decision has been taken, the operational planning will be done through SHAPE, which has a core staff of some 950, or, for less demanding operations, through national facilities such as our own PJHQ.
To answer the points made by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede about the WEU—I recognise that it is to some extent the other side of the coin—I say that there are no plans to replace the WEU Assembly, which will continue to act under Article IX of the modified Brussels Treaty as a forum for strategic reflection in Europe. Perhaps I may write to him further about the very interesting questions that he raised. I also thank him for the hard work that he has undertaken in the WEU.
I turn to Macedonia, which was discussed by many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. The only way forward is a political settlement in which the two communities agree to live and work together; the way forward is not to impose a military solution. Britain completely supports the work of NATO and the EU and the efforts of Mr Solana and my noble friend Lord Robertson—they will continue to be of huge importance. We will consider contributing to a NATO peacekeeping force in support of a peace settlement but it has to be a political settlement that is being supported.
To answer the point made by the noble Earl, authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the World Bank and the EC are jointly hosting a major donor conference on 29th June in Brussels.
I turn to what is happening at the moment to Mr Milosevic. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, suggested that Mr Milosevic had been transferred to the ICTY and out of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That is indeed right. At the request of the Government of Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court, the United Kingdom Government have this evening provided an aircraft to fly Mr Milosevic to the Netherlands. I understand that the plane has already left Serbia.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this is indeed a defining moment, but it is also a moment of some trouble. We should do well not to comment too
612
heavily on it at this stage. I suspect that there will be great difficulty about this in Belgrade. We can applaud the statesmanship and courage of those who took this decision.
My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden raised questions about Iraq. I hope that she will be pleased to know that on 1st June, the Security Council unanimously adopted the UK-drafted Security Council Resolution 1352 confirming its intention to agree a new way forward on Iraq. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend with details of that as I know she is very interested in it.
Many noble Lords raised questions about NATO enlargement. Of course, the Prague summit in November 2002 will continue the adaptation of NATO. I assure my noble friend Lord Sewel that we shall support invitations to new members able to fulfil the alliance's political, economic and military criteria. The Prime Minister made clear on 13th June, at his meeting with NATO leaders, that we support enlargement when the NATO aspirants are ready and when NATO is ready. We are giving the aspirants the practical support which we are able to give in preparing them for their membership.
At the same time, the other side of that coin is, of course, our relationship with Russia. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Prime Minister met Mr Putin five times last year. That shows a considerable commitment by this Government to engage positively with Russia. We always discuss NATO in our bilateral talks with Russia. That goes without saying. And as both noble Lords will know, NATO has invested very heavily in its relations with Russia through the adoption of the NATO Russia Foundation Act.
Many noble Lords raised the question of missile defence. I believe that there have been some extremely hasty, in some cases too hasty, moves on the part of some people—I hasten to say none of your Lordships but perhaps elsewhere—to find evidence that the issue has led to splits between Europe and the United States or between the United Kingdom and others. I felt that some of that rush to find those splits has been somewhat unseemly.
I make our position clear. The United Kingdom welcomes President Bush's commitment to consult with the allies, with Russia and with China on that very important issue. We shall continue to act actively and constructively and to engage in the discussions as close allies with a common strategic interest because we understand the concerns of the United States as regards the growing threat posed by the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. In dealing with that threat, we need a strategy which includes offensive and defensive systems, rigorous implementation of national and multi-national proliferation controls and continued reductions in

613
nuclear arms. After his meeting with President Bush, President Putin said—and this is a very important point that,
"differences in our approaches in the very fundamental areas are much less than what unites us".
That is an extremely encouraging remark.
The noble Lord, Lord Powell, raised questions about China. The noble Lord's Downing Street connections are impeccable and I am sure that he will be a highly persuasive advocate in putting forward his arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised questions about Japan and Hong Kong. I have extensive briefing on both but the clock is against me. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I write to him on those issues. I agree with the noble Lord that they are very important. Japan is clearly an extremely important economic partner and, of course, our relations with Hong Kong continue to be of great importance too.
I feel that I must move on to the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Blaker, in relation to Zimbabwe. We welcome any initiative that allows the international community to engage with the Zimbabwe Government on the issues of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked about the Commonwealth initiative. That idea is still evolving but we welcome any initiative which enables the international community to engage in constructive dialogue with the government of Zimbabwe on issues of concern.
But the government of Zimbabwe must, as the noble Lord said, address its economic problems and the continued disregard in that country for the rule of law. Of course, elections must be free and fair and the international community stands ready to ensure that that is so, just as we have said that we in this country are happy to assist with a programme of land reform based on the principles of the 1998 land conference.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, is always a doughty advocate for the Armed Forces. The recovery from the exceptionally high operational tempo of 1999 continues. The average intervals between operational tours for the units in the infantry, the artillery and the armoured corps have all shortened and there have been significant improvements.
That has also been helped by retention. I am happy to say that the outflow from the regular forces decreased by 6.3 per cent in the year 2000–01, compared with the year before. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, about the specific details which he requested on recruitment.
I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that among everything else that they do, the Armed Forces are an effective delivery mechanism. Of course, they were given the excellent opportunity to demonstrate that, possibly in very sad circumstances, in the recent foot and mouth outbreak.
614
There have been many allegations about Army cuts, but I assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that the Government remain totally committed to delivering the Strategic Defence Review, about which he asked a specific question. Last July we announced the first sustained increase in real terms in defence budgets for 10 years, as the noble and gallant Lord knows.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that there are no plans—I repeat no plans—or proposals to cut Army regiments, no plans to reduce the number of brigades in Scotland, and no plans to reduce the size of the Territorial Army. I hope that that is specific enough. The noble Lord asked so many questions about defence procurement that I felt quite woeful about leaving my defence procurement brief for the Foreign Office.
The money for the aircraft carriers is in the budget. The noble Lord knows that they are not due to come into service until 2012 or 2015. The Bowman project will be considered later this year. On a previous occasion I told the House that we want the Bowman in service within two years of signing the contract. There will be a further report on DERA in the autumn and yes, the Americans are now happy with what is proposed. On the A400M, we never expected to sign anything more than a memorandum of understanding at the Paris Air Show.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked questions about accommodation and about the Defence Medical Services, as did the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. I hope that both noble Lords will be happy to accept letters from me on those points. They are lengthy matters and I would do justice to them much better in writing to noble Lords.
The globalisation White Paper was raised by the noble Lord, Lord St. John. It is enormously important. If I may, I shall commend my right honourable friend Clare Short, who is acknowledged not only as a world authority on development issues, but also as an indefatigable fighter for poverty eradication.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on the points that he made on conflict prevention. The Department for International Development provides technical guidance and advisory support and funding for pilot projects to integrate conflict issues into bilateral country programmes.
I also agree that possibly large international conferences are not the whole answer to some of the questions, as indicated by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Desai. However, they have their part to play when discussing the environment, world trade, human rights and arms control. Those matters require global solutions and I do not believe that we should be quite so dismissive as those noble Lords appeared to indicate on those points.
The position was well demonstrated only this week at the international conference on AIDS, which was

615
raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I shall respond to that briefly. DfID is committed to achieving the HIV/ AIDS international development target and in particular to reducing the impact that. HIV/AIDS has on the life of the poorest. As part of our efforts, we have pledged a substantial amount to the global health fund to address the major communicable diseases of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. I hope that other countries will do the same.
I was also grateful for the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on debt relief. So far 23 countries have qualified for the enhanced HIPC initiative with more than 500 billion of relief being agreed out of the 41 eligible countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, raised some worrying points about incitement to genocide. I was very concerned to hear what he said. I have no personal knowledge of the points that he put to the House, but I shall ask our embassy in Damascus to look into the matters that he raised. Perhaps I may write to him when I have done so.
I turn to the interesting points made on Latin America by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, whom I see in her place on the Woolsack. There were over 70 ministerial visits to Latin America and the Caribbean in the first term of this Government. I shall write to the noble Baroness with various details, but my noble friend Lord Bach is hoping to go to Latin America at an early date and both he and my noble friend are due to meet the Chilean foreign minister tomorrow. I also say to the noble Baroness that there have been an enormous number of exchanges with the defence department, particularly in relation to the defence export services.
I shall, if I may, write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the points he raised about Afghanistan. It is a complex and difficult issue and I can do better justice to it in a letter.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, made some interesting points. He said that he had just returned from overseas but at one moment I thought that he had just returned from another planet! Many procurements in the United Kingdom are made directly from United Kingdom defence industries. The noble Lord painted a black picture and perhaps he would like to know that we are second only to the United States in our success in defence exports. They support more than 400,000 jobs in this country. I was interested in his comments on space and perhaps I can write to him about them.
During the past five days your Lordships have discussed an extensive legislative programme set out in the gracious Speech. One hundred and sixty-eight speakers have taken part and I can see by the look
616
on the face of my noble friend the Chief Whip that if I attempt to answer them in any detail shall not get out of the Chamber.
We have discussed a huge number of issues and the discussions will continue into the months which lie ahead. The Government's programme contains many far-reaching points and we know that some will be controversial. Some will be hard to achieve but some, I hope, will be more consensual. However, important though they are, they are not what the legislative programme for the coming Session is primarily about.
The Labour Party has achieved what we have never secured before; re-election to a second full term in Government. And we have done so on the basis of the choice we put before the people of Britain. It was a clear choice for our programme of economic stability, sustained investment and far-reaching reform in our public services. The message from the people of Britain was very clear; they did not want the alternative. They did not want tax cuts; they did not want cuts in public services; and they did not want economic instability.
Therefore, our task in the second term is to build on and develop the foundations we laid in the first. We must sustain economic stability, remembering always that what we will be able to do in our second term is possible only because of the stability we achieved in our first.
What the election showed was that, if anything, support for public services has grown over the past four years. There has been a shift in thinking which many of us—I believe Members on all sides of the House—welcome. It is a shift away from social intolerance and national isolation to greater social inclusion and better understanding of the importance of renewing and reforming our social services and of international co-operation and interdependence. That was also a clear message from our debate today, although expressed in many different ways.
The Government will be putting investment into our schools and hospitals. But investment alone will not deliver the improvement in our public services that people want to see. We have to couple that investment with reform because without reform we will not achieve high quality public services. And without high quality public services we will not be able to move forward to achieving the ambitions we have for our country and for which our people have just voted; that is, genuine opportunity for all.
So the key Bills in the legislative programme are the big reform Bills: the Bills to implement reform in the education system, especially in secondary schools; in health, putting in place the next stage of the NHS plan; in crime, with the biggest reform of the criminal justice system in more than 50 years; and in welfare, with

617
further measures to help pensioners and families with children and to reinforce work as the best route out of poverty.
We shall welcome the debates in the House on all these issues. I hope that those debates will be characterised by what is best in this House; with experience, knowledge, expertise and—dare I say it?—with tolerance and good will, just as our debate on defence and foreign issues has been characterised today.
618
The Government have a renewed mandate and instructions from the British people. They have set out our instructions and we intend to carry them out. The legislative programme set out in the gracious Speech points the way, and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lord Chamberlain.
House adjourned at four minutes before midnight.

  Afghanistan: Mine-clearance Equipment
  Afghanistan: Mine-clearance Equipment
  Ethiopia and Eritrea: Arms Embargoes
  Ethiopia and Eritrea: Arms Embargoes
  Scotland: Parliamentary Constituencies
  Scotland: Parliamentary Constituencies
  Broiler Fowl Welfare
  Broiler Fowl Welfare
  Environment Council, 7 June
  Environment Council, 7 June
  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Regulations
  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Regulations
  Water Abstraction Charges
  Water Abstraction Charges
  Food Standards Agency: Expenditure Limits
  Food Standards Agency: Expenditure Limits
  Health Council, 5 June
  Health Council, 5 June
  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Standford Hill Prison: Board of Visitors
  Standford Hill Prison: Board of Visitors
  Immigration Detainees: Prison Places
  Immigration Detainees: Prison Places
  Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation
  Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation
  Northern Ireland: Asylum Seeker Detention Arrangements
  Northern Ireland: Asylum Seeker Detention Arrangements
  Police Numbers
  Police Numbers
  Television: Local and Regional Programming
  Television: Local and Regional Programming