Sitting of 6 March 2001

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

    KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 13 March.

    MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 13 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Ministerial Correspondence
    Mr. Robert Syms: If she will make a statement on recent correspondence between her Department and the Irish Prime Minister's Office. [150733]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I wrote to the Taoiseach on 28 February to confirm my conversation with him and to invite him to make an official visit to Scotland as a guest of the First Minister and myself.
    Mr. Syms: The Carfin affair has caused great embarrassment north and south of the border. Is it too much to hope for a full statement on the matter and, indeed, an apology?
    Mrs. Liddell: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman even knows where Carfin is. However, may I point out that the Taoiseach and I had a conversation? He knows that no offence was intended, and he took none. He will come to Scotland at an appropriate time to unveil the memorial at Carfin grotto.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the interparliamentary body that is working hard on strand 3 of the peace agreement? Will she acknowledge that five Members of the Scottish Parliament have been accepted as full members of that body? Will she ensure that she gives it full support, recognising that we are building bridges and bringing
    132
    hope? Anyone from the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly will be given a warm welcome in Scotland, whenever they come.
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady makes a good point. All of us in Scotland are conscious of the fact that the peace process in Northern Ireland is at a difficult stage. Our hopes and good wishes are with Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Dail and our own Scottish Parliament and, indeed, with the Prime Minister, who will have discussions on those matters in the next few days. The hon. Lady made a much more appropriate comment on the situation than the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms).
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the right hon. Lady explain why, if no offence was given to the Taoiseach and this is not a diplomatic incident, her Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) resigned?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend resigned because he is a man of honour who did not wish to cause continued distress to his family. Opposition Members' activities in trying to make political capital out of the matter are disgraceful. Those of us who know Carfin know its history. It was built by miners from Scottish communities, and from Poland and Lithuania, during the great depression; it is a sign of their working together to create employment for themselves and in recognition of the Church that they supported. My hon. Friend supports those miners and will continue to do so.
    Mrs. Browning: I am trying to establish what responsibility the Secretary of State and the Government take for foreign affairs and relations with other countries—relations that concern Scotland. Under the Government's proposals, and if Labour wins the general election, would not the right hon. Lady be the last Secretary of State with responsibility for Scotland? The roles of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Wales, and responsibility for the English regions, would be rolled into one Cabinet post. Having seen the mess created by the Secretary of State's PPS, what hope do we have that relations with foreign countries will be any better when there is no longer a dedicated Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet?
    Mrs. Liddell: I find it interesting that the official Opposition could not even put forward the shadow Secretary of State today.
    Mrs. Browning: I am the shadow Secretary of State.
    Mrs. Liddell: Oh, the hon. Lady is now in that position. There has been another change—a further sign that the Opposition cannot even put up a Scottish Member as shadow Secretary of State. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that he would retain the post of Secretary of State for Scotland and that that post should be filled by a Member representing a Scottish constituency. I therefore say to the hon. Lady: win one.

    Drugs
    Mrs. Irene Adams: What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister concerning the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [150734]
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister concerning the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [150739]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Minister to discuss a range of topics, including the Government's anti-drugs strategy.
    Mrs. Adams: Does my hon. Friend agree that legalisation of any drug, other than for medical purposes, would be absolute folly? Will he join me in stating publicly that he will march against drugs on 1 April, shoulder to shoulder with Daily Record readers?
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. Some people are trying to denigrate the march on 1 April, but I think that the Daily Record deserves nothing but praise for organising a march that will focus attention on the menace of drugs and the terrible toll—[Laughter.] Opposition Members are laughing. The menace of drugs takes a terrible toll in death, illness and crime. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is out of order. He knows that he is out of order.
    Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman is out of order in more ways than one.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be on the march, and we hope that as many hon. Friends as possible will join us. If Opposition Members can find their way to Glasgow, they are welcome to join us, too.
    Mrs. Winterton: What discussions has the Minister had with the First Minister about setting up in Scotland United States-style drugs courts, which aim to bring together enforcement and treatment and to take people out of a life of criminality? Bearing in mind that almost 70 per cent. of offenders use drugs illegally, and that in Scotland up to 90 per cent. of those released from prison go on to reoffend, does the Minister agree that the matter is of the utmost urgency? Will he consider ensuring that those who push drugs are not released early from prison?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am glad that the hon. Lady, unlike some of her right hon. and hon. Friends, is treating the matter seriously. The First Minister has met Mr. Hellawell, who is in charge of drugs policy in the United Kingdom as a whole, as well as the Cabinet Officer Minister responsible for drugs policy. An announcement has been made about drugs courts, and we will take account of the points that the hon. Lady has sensibly made.
    Mr. David Marshall: May I, too, congratulate the Daily Record on organising such a relevant march on 1 April, and say how pleasant it is that so many hon. Members will participate in it? Will my
    134
    hon. Friend outline the recent measures announced by the Government to seize the ill-gotten assets of people who traffic in drugs? That seems to be one of the best ways of tackling the problem and getting rid of the insidious evil in our midst.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is right. The Government are taking strong measures to deal with that menace and other profits from crime, to ensure that they are taken into custody. I commend the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) in proposing the setting up of a register of serious drug dealers. I know from my constituency the tragedy and appalling waste of life and talent involved. We are working with the Scottish Executive on their drugs action plans to deal with the availability of drugs, the treatment of addicts, the education of young people and, above all, the provision of community support for people who take drugs. The police have an extremely important part to play in that.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Unusually, I commend the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) for her courageous work against drugs over many years. I find some of the Minister's remarks perfectly reasonable—[Interruption.] I am sorry if that is offensive to him. On the matter of drugs, as on other important policy matters, what steps does the Scotland Office intend to take to ensure that, during any forthcoming general election campaign, announcements will not be made by the Scottish Executive that could be construed as using public funds to help Labour candidates or their partners in coalition, the Liberal Democrats?
    Mr. Foulkes: I thank the hon. Lady for her nice remarks, and congratulate her on her recent good news. We all wish her well, and our thoughts will be with her over the next few months.
    Every year, the Scottish Executive spend more than £250 million dealing with sickness, absenteeism and crime caused by the awful problem of drugs. It would be ludicrous to put that work on hold and to stop any announcement just because of a United Kingdom general election. If there is any announcement to be made or any work to be done, it should be made and it should be done.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police in my constituency, as well as the partners who work with them, on reducing crime by 20 per cent? This morning, I spoke to the sub-divisional commander, who told me that he estimates that at out 80 per cent. of crimes involving dishonesty, including car thefts, relate to the misuse of drugs. Does my hon. Friend agree that to break that connection we need a long-term strategy that does two things? First, through legislation that can be passed in this Parliament, the strategy should target the dealers. Secondly, and in partnership, it should deal with drug users by imposing a structure on their lives that will lead them out of their habit. Orders to achieve that aim could be imposed by the drugs courts introduced by the Scottish Executive.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whom I congratulated earlier on his initiative to establish a register of serious drugs dealers. It would be too much to

    135
    congratulate him again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] All right; why not? His work certainly deserves underlining. He is absolutely right that the police play a very important role, and has been discussing the matter with them. Indeed, all Scottish Members are concerned and have been speaking to the local police. Many have also been involved in local community activity to try to wipe out the drugs menace. It is increasingly appalling, if not embarrassing, that Opposition Members treat with such levity a problem that has killed hundreds of people every year in Scotland. I think that the people of Scotland will have noted that.

    Barnett Formula
    Mr. Michael Fallon: What recent discussions she has had with Treasury Ministers about the operation of the Barnett formula. [150735]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers about a range of matters. The Barnett formula continues to provide a fair deal for Scotland within the United Kingdom and we have no plans to change it.
    Mr. Fallon: Now that education and health spending are at least 25 per cent. higher per capita in Scotland than in England, and as that difference is paid for through the formula mainly by taxpayers in England, would not it be reasonable to invite the Scottish Parliament to use its tax-raising powers to enable Scottish decisions on higher teachers' pay or free nursing care, which it is fully entitled to take, to be financed with enthusiasm and integrity by Scottish taxpayers?
    Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the question. The spending allocations in Scotland were originally based on a needs assessment. The Barnett formula allocates the increases each year according to population, so they an updated annually as the population changes north and south of the border. I have been considering his constituency, which has an unemployment rate of 1.5 per cent. My constituency has an unemployment rate of 6.6 per cent.
    Mr. John Bercow: Blame the MP!
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman says "Blame the MP"; I thought that he was going to say "Blame the Government". I suppose that it is the same thing.
    Although the rate has been reduced by a third since Labour came to power, it is still 6.6 per cent., which is more than four times that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). All the other indicators there are better than those in my constituency, too, which suggests that Scotland still has needs that do not exist in his part of England. Some parts of England will be receiving higher per capita expenditure than Scotland, however, as they also have substantial needs.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who seek to abolish the Barnett formula are doing Scotland a great disservice? Will he speculate on their motive for doing so?
    Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that such people can be motivated by a desire for re-election in Scotland, which
    136
    has clearly been abandoned by the Conservatives. Sometimes, Opposition Members say that the decisions taken by the Scottish Executive, who have a finite budget, create preferential treatment north of the border. Devolution means that they decide their own priorities. If they choose to spend more on one area, it means that less will be spent on another area. However, that spending is in the context of the fastest increasing budget in living memory north and south of the border. By 2003, the Scottish Executive will have £3.4 billion extra to spend because of a Labour Government, and they will spend it according to the priorities decided in Scotland.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister concede that, year on year, the Barnett formula reduces the percentage of Government expenditure in Scotland? Despite that, the Government surplus of revenue from, against expenditure in, Scotland in the next couple of years will be approximately £7.7 billion, which should help to subsidise some Members and their constituents.
    Mr. Foulkes: I find this a bit strange. The Tories from the leafy suburbs in the south-east claim that the settlement is too generous, while the nationalists whinge as usual and say that it is not generous enough. That suggests that it is about right.
    It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. I am glad that we have fine weather for his day trip to London. I have here the Scottish National party's voting record in the House of Commons; it is appalling. There is one consolation: it is not the worst, simply the second worst after that of Sinn Fein.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Barnett formula will be the prime method of calculating spending in Scotland, and that he will oppose the statements of Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who said that the Tories could not guarantee maintaining spending in Scotland and that there were
    "several areas of spending the Tories would like to see cut"?
    Will my hon. Friend assure us that during the election campaign we will defend the Barnett formula against such an assault by the Conservatives?
    Mr. Foulkes: As I said earlier, the Barnett formula is fair; it does not squeeze, but continues to provide a fair expenditure allocation to Scotland, based on need. Not only the Barnett formula but the Labour Government's huge increases in expenditure across the board benefit Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Sir Robert Smith: Does not the Minister realise that spending increases in the past two years have been to make up for the massive cuts in the first two years of the Government's tenure? At the end of their term of office, the percentage of gross domestic product that is spent on public services will be less than that under the Conservatives. The Barnett formula determines the amount of money that is available for investing in public services in Scotland. When the Minister discusses it with Treasury Ministers, does he

    137
    appreciate that, in tomorrow's Budget, the Chancellor should put such investment before tax bribes for the election?
    Mr. Foulkes: The Chancellor has put investment in public services at the top of the agenda. The Government have provided four times the increase in education expenditure that the Liberal Democrats requested. Whenever the election takes place, voting for the Liberal Democrats or the nationalists in Scotland will be one way of returning a Tory Government—
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend defeated a Tory.
    Mr. Foulkes: Who can tell the difference between him and a Tory? A Tory Government would not be committed to increases in public spending.

    Rail Franchise
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: If she will expedite the awarding of the Scottish rail franchise. [150737]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The current franchise agreement ends in March 2004. Public consultation on the priorities for rail services in Scotland ended on 28 February, and Scottish Executive Ministers will take account of that in the directions and guidance put to the Strategic Rail Authority for the Scottish passenger rail franchise.
    Mr. Donohoe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, she will know that awarding the contract for the new franchise to ScotRail has been delayed. That affects its ability to place new rolling stock orders. Will she make further representations to facilitate the process and thus enable the Scottish travelling public to travel on trains that have seats for everyone?
    Mrs. Liddell: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. The Scottish Executive have been anxious to concentrate on getting the process right rather than on speed. However, I will make sure that my hon. Friend's representations are made available to the Scottish Executive, and I am sure that they will take them into account.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland the need for that matter to be resolved is urgent? Recent developments of traffic problems around Aberdeen demonstrate that we need an upgrading of the service between Aberdeen and Inverness, and investment in a commuter service between Inverurie, Stonehaven and points further north and south. The sooner the matter can be resolved, the sooner we will be able to secure the investment that will deal with the traffic problems and congestion.
    Mrs. Liddell: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I understand them. The problem is a consequence of many years of underinvestment in our
    138
    railway network, and the Scottish Executive will take that into account when they roll out their plans for the rail network in Scotland.

  ADVOCATE—GENERAL
  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE—GENERAL

    Devolution
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If she will make a statement on the number and types of devolution issue cases that have been intimated to her. [150758]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): As at the end of February, more than 1,200 devolution issues have been intimated to me. The vast majority have focus on the right to a fair trial, which is enshrined in article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Some of the matters raised include delay and the question of a trial within a reasonable time; the right to an independent and impartial tribunal; prejudicial pre-trial publicity; cases under the Road Traffic Acts concerning the presumption of innocence; and legal aid questions. Devolution issues concerning convention rights other than those in article 6 have also been raised.
    Mr. Savidge: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that response. Will she tell the House which cases have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?
    The Advocate-General: So far, seven cases have been referred. They are Brown, the drink-driving case; Montgomery, the pre-trial publicity case; McIntosh, the case relating to the confiscation of criminal assets; McLean, the case involving fixed legal aid fees; Anderson, the mental health case; the temporary sheriffs case; and the district court challenges.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Advocate-General tell us whether any case has been referred to her on the issue of devolution, particularly on the constitutionality of an electoral system that allows the Labour party, which came first in the elections to the Scottish Parliament to share power with the Liberal Democrat party, which came a poor fourth?
    The Advocate-General: Under the Scotland Act 1998, any member of the public who is litigating is entitled to raise a devolution issue if they can plead themselves into the Act. I have not noticed the Conservatives in Scotland making such a plea, but if they do, I will consider it.

    McIntosh Case
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: What advice she has given on the implications of the Privy Council decision in the case of McIntosh. [150761]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I give advice to various Departments on various matters. In relation to the McIntosh case, which concerned a confiscation order following conviction for a serious drugs offence, I presented arguments to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in January. On 5 February, their lordships delivered their judgment and decided that the current legislation was compatible with the European convention on human rights.
    Mrs. McKenna: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does she agree that that is an important decision for human rights legislation and particularly for the campaign against drugs in the whole of the United Kingdom? Will she advise the House of the main arguments advanced in the case?
    The Advocate-General: I considered the case an important one. It was a challenge to the statutory scheme that succeeded at first instance and had implications for the rest of the United Kingdom, where similar legislation exists. The main arguments, which were advanced over about two days in the Judicial Committee, were that the presumption of innocence in article 6(2) of the convention did not apply to the making of a confiscation order following conviction, and that, even if it did, the statutory assumptions were within the reasonable limits permitted and, therefore, lawful. It took us a considerable time to develop those rather basic arguments, but the judgment is now available if anyone would like to examine it in detail.

    Criminal Justice and Police Bill
    Mr. Desmond Browne: What assessment she has made of the human rights implications of the new powers of seizure and for the disclosure of information proposed by the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. [150762]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made a statement of compatibility under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 confirming that, in his view, the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill are compatible with the convention rights.
    Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for reminding me of that. I am aware that when the requirement for information to be disclosed under the Bill lies in the hands of a public authority, article 8 of the convention will protect an individual's privacy. However, when the information lies in the hands of a private person or private body, how will an individual obtain protection for his or her right to privacy under the Bill?
    The Advocate-General: It will be a matter for the courts to perform the balancing exercise required, taking into account the provisions of the Human Rights Act and, of course, the statutory regime under the Data Protection Act 1998, which gives certain protections to the individual.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does not the Advocate-General think that it is a disgrace that those provisions, like many others before the Committee considering the
    140
    Criminal Justice and Police Bill, will not be considered in detail simply because of the appalling programme motion that the Government have inflicted on the House?
    The Advocate-General: If there were less filibustering and more focused argument, the provisions could be considered.

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

    Crown Courts
    Mr. David Ruffley: How many Crown courts have been (a) closed and (b) merged since May 1997. [150763]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): None.
    Mr. Ruffley: The Minister will be aware of the concern in my constituency about the threat of closure that Bury St. Edmunds Crown court is under as a result of plans to centralise court services in Ipswich. Will she throw aside her Department's institutionalised complacency on the matter, review the case personally, note that my constituents want their justice administered locally in Bury St. Edmunds and come to the only sensible conclusion, which is to keep Bury St. Edmunds Crown court open?
    Jane Kennedy: There are no plans currently to close the court at Bury St. Edmunds. The Court Service is not complacent about the provision of trials and hearings for those cases that cannot be compromised. The hon. Gentleman may not like to hear this, but it is the truth: it has been proven that pooling resources at courts with a number of judges and courtrooms leads to the quicker and more efficient disposal of cases, which must be in the best interests of the parties and his constituents. The new Crown court buildings will substantially increase the capacity to deal with cases in the area—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) has asked a question and I expect him to listen to the answer.
    Jane Kennedy: A decision on whether to follow the procedure to close the court at Bury St. Edmunds would be taken only nearer to the completion of the new buildings, which is expected in 2003.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What meetings he has had with the Lord Chancellor to discuss the impact on the English legal system of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [150764]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I regularly meet the Lord Chancellor and have wide-ranging discussions covering all aspects of the business of the Department except, of course, matters concerning the appointment of judges.
    Mr. O'Brien: The new charter forms part of the Nice treaty and is, in effect, legally binding on the English courts because, as the European Commission said, it is treated as mandatory by the courts. Last month, it was prayed in aid in an English court, so does the Minister really agree with the Minister for Europe that the charter will be no more binding than the Beano? Does he deny that it will have a massive effect on our legal system by subverting the decisions of our courts, thus making the charter, as Conservative Members have repeatedly said, a key element in taking this country into a European constitution and, thereby, European integration?
    Mr. Lock: I anticipated a xenophobic rant from the hon. Gentleman and I am afraid that that is what we got. The charter is not the law, here or in the European Union. It is a political declaration aimed at making citizens' rights more visible. It expressly states that it does not establish any new power or task, or modify powers or tasks defined by the treaties. I encourage him to read article 52 and to be slightly more accurate in future.
    Mr. John Burnett: Many Members in all parts of the House welcome the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into law, but will the Minister confirm that the EU charter of fundamental rights does not impinge on the law and litigation conducted either in this country or in the EU? Furthermore, does he agree that if it did impinge on our law, it would be a recipe for uncertainty, confusion, conflict of laws and never-ending litigation?
    Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman raises an important and sensible point, in contrast with the previous one. There must not be confusion between the ECHR, which is part of our law under the Human Rights Act 1998, and the political statement, which is declaratory, in the charter. However, the relevant charter provisions are based on the ECHR, as are the human rights provisions of the treaty on the European Union.
    As the charter gives no rights that are justiciable in the English courts, there should be no problem; but I entirely understand and support the hon. Gentleman's view that, having incorporated human rights in English law, we should not have a second charter in English law that is confusing. That is why the Government's success in maintaining this as a political rather than a legal set of rights is so welcome.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: During his meetings with his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to discuss human rights and other issues, has the Minister raised the view of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that the one thing no Minister must conceivably do is attempt to solicit funds for political purposes from those over whom he has influence, power or patronage? That strikes me as so
    142
    obvious as to be incontrovertible. Has not the Minister's noble Friend betrayed his office, and ought he not now to resign?
    Mr. Lock: I am afraid that raising his voice does not make the hon. Gentleman's points any better.
    The fact is that the Lord Chancellor's is a political office, and he, like earlier Lord Chancellors, has acted politically. On the "Today" programme, the shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsland, has said:
    "I believe that the Lord Chancellor has behaved with the utmost probity in selecting judges."
    That, I think, puts an end to any suggestion of a link between political activity and the appointment of judges, and no repetition of such a suggestion by the hon. Gentleman—even in a very loud voice—will make any difference.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: If I am running and racing around the country raising money for all the Labour MPs in marginal seats, why is it that the Lord Chancellor cannot pull his weight as well? I expect him to raise more money than me: he is a posh lawyer. I am pulling my guts out raising money, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will carry on raising money and save my breath.
    Mr. Lock: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support in raising money for a worthy cause—the re-election of Labour Members and a Labour Government.
    My hon. Friend is quite right. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet and a member of the Labour party, and he is perfectly entitled to raise money for the party. Given that he was raising money from lawyers who have done extremely well under this Labour Government, I am delighted that those lawyers were encouraged to contribute to the re-election of a Labour Government.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: So that we can conform with human rights legislation, it has been decided that no prisoner—no defendant—may be seen in a public part of a court in handcuffs. In my constituency, that will require £197,000 in Oswestry, £167,000 in Market Drayton and £132,000 in Whitchurch to bring the courts up to scratch.
    Is this not a complete waste of money, given that the arrangements are adequate now? Moreover, will it not constitute an intolerable attack on the human rights of my poorest constituents if those courts are closed and witnesses, including elderly ladies, must go all the way to Shrewsbury or Telford to give evidence?
    Mr. Lock: Again, the claim is put in stark terms but is somewhat exaggeratd.
    It is important for the human rights of individuals to he respected, and it is somewhat dismaying to hear them being decried by Conservative Members day after day. Decisions on how aspects of the Human Rights Act 1998 that are relevant to magistrates courts should be interpreted is a matter for individual magistrates courts committees, and the Government are confident that we have given those committees the resources that will enable them to discharge their duties.

    Child Contact
    Ms Margaret Moran: When he will conclude his review of child contact issues. [150765]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Government endorse the report of the Children Act sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law, entitled "Contact Between Children and Violent Parents". We agree with the sub-committee that primary legislation in this area would be premature, but note that the guidelines have nevertheless been partially incorporated in law following judgments by the Court of Appeal. The sub-committee will shortly produce a consultation paper on the equally sensitive issue of the facilitation and enforcement of contact orders. In all these areas, the Government consider the interests and welfare of the child to be paramount.
    Ms Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I welcome the Court of Appeal's June judgment. However, is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past four months, there have been three casts in which contact orders have been granted although there has been clear evidence of abuse or violence to women and children, including one attempted murder and one child death—that of Daniella Hurst, who was found dead in her father's car after a child contact visit? Will my hon. Friend now act on the Children Act sub-committee's year-old recommendation that practice guidance on the subject be issued to all judges, so that we can avert further such tragedies?
    Jane Kennedy: Yes, it is an appalling fact that children are often killed by their parents. The Government very much want to encourage consistency and good practice in contact when domestic violence is an issue. We shall work in partnership with the president of the family division to ensure the widest possible promulgation of the guidelines. The Children Act sub-committee and my officials are meeting on 15 March, when they will consider the duration and the best means of monitoring the effectiveness of the guidelines. We shall consider the need for amending legislation in the light of that monitoring.
    Mr. John Bercow: What input to the review has been provided by police forces and particularly by their domestic violence co-ordinators, who have immense experience to contribute?
    Jane Kennedy: They will have been among the groups that the Children Act sub-committee consulted in producing its guidance. Last year, that guidance was used by the High Court in determining appeals. The High Court' s decision will now have been noted by judges dealing with those matters across the country.

    Solicitors (Wales)
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: How many solicitor practices in Wale s undertook publicly funded criminal defence work in 1997; and how many hold community legal service franchises. [150766]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): In 1997–98, the Legal Aid Board made payments for criminal proceedings to 539 solicitors' offices in Wales; 251 solicitors' offices in Wales hold the community legal service quality mark for diverse spheres of civil law. Some of those offices also have the quality mark for providing criminal law services.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that rather ingenious answer; he did not say how many firms have criminal franchises. May I tell him that, in my constituency, prior to 1997, almost every firm had at least one good criminal practitioner attached to it? Now, two firms have criminal franchises. How does that square with the Government's intention of ensuring access to justice for all?
    Mr. Lock: There are 251 firms in Wales that are eligible to do criminal work. Moreover, the firms that have franchises received 91 per cent. of the payments that were made in 1997–98. We are confident that the services being provided by each of those firms are of a suitable quality. We must ensure not only a geographical spread of services, but that, whenever those very important services are provided, we and the defendant can be confident that they are of the right quality. That is the purpose of the quality mark. I would encourage any firms in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or elsewhere that have not yet applied for a quality mark to do so. If they do, they will be able to sign up to the very attractive new contracts that are now available.

    Courthouse (Colchester)
    Mr. Bob Russell: When his Department plans to announce the result of the bid for a new courthouse at Colchester. [150768]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I commend the hon. Gentleman on his persistence in asking that question, and I can tell him that his waiting is now over. The Essex magistrates courts committee's bid for inclusion in the next phase of the Department's private finance initiative building programme has been successful. That scheme will include the provision of a new magistrates court to replace the existing unsatisfactory facilities at Colchester.
    Mr. Russell: I am delighted that persistence has paid off. Could the Minister give some indication of when work will commence, and when the new courthouse will actually be open?
    Mr. Lock: It is never enough, is it? I can tell the hon. Gentleman that representatives of the magistrates courts committee and the paying authorities will discuss the procurement process with my officials. The best estimate that I can give him now is that the buildings will be available for use in about four years. I am sure that, if there is a general election in the foreseeable future, he will welcome in the leaflets that he puts around the decision of the Labour Government to invest in his constituency,

    Auld Report
    Mr. David Taylor: When he expects the Auld report to be published. [150771]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's
    Department (Jane Kennedy): Sir Robin Auld expects to complete his review shortly.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend will know that the continuing uncertainty and delays in the publication of the report is doing nothing for the morale and effectiveness of the lay magistracy, which has support on a grand scale across the political spectrum, as demonstrated by early-day motion 123. Will she confirm that her Department will fight vigorously against any attempt by the cold and clammy hands of Treasury and Home Office accountants to diminish and reduce the effectiveness of the lay magistracy in terms of its relationship to district judges, who many believe are likely to replace lay magistrates in many important respects?
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend will be aware of the oft-stated support for the lay magistracy, both from my noble and learned Friend and from my ministerial colleagues and me. The topics that Sir Robin Auld is looking at are complex and interrelated and he has received more than 1,000 submissions to analyse. We need to wait until we have the full details of his analysis and the full proposals before we can comment further on the ideas that he may wish to share with us.

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

    Legislative Programming
    Dr. Howard Stoate: What progress there has been on programming of legislation. [150778]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Since the House agreed to the new Sessional Orders on 7 November 2000, most Government legislation in the Commons has been programmed. The process is experimental and the forms of programme motion and the resolutions of Programming Sub-Committees have varied according to circumstances.
    Dr. Stoate: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She will know that the programming of legislation has enabled hon. Members, particularly those of us who can commute from their constituencies, to be far more effective in combining the dual role of representing our constituents and calling the Executive to account. What plans does she have to extend the scheme, and can she suggest ways of making the parliamentary timetable even more efficient?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that programming legislation, as was intended, enables hon. Members to use their time more efficiently to the benefit of their constituents. It is also one of the many ways in
    146
    which we can gradually improve the transparency of the running of this place, which again will be of assistance to hon. Members in using their time effectively. As my hon. Friend said, it offers advantages to all hon. Members in that respect, but it also offers particular advantages to the Opposition, should they be wise enough to take them, because it enables them to have a real say in which debates are taken at what time.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the President of the Council suggesting that she is wholly satisfied with the programming of legislation, or does she recognise the need to make some amendments? Does she not acknowledge that it is a little absurd for the House to have to decide a programme before we know which hon. Members will be on the Committee considering the legislation concerned? Does she not acknowledge that if the system is to be credible and acceptable to the House, Opposition parties must have a substantial say in determining which legislation should be programmed, and what the priorities and time allocation should be?
    Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not accept that there are huge problems, although there is a need to look at particular issues and try to resolve any difficulties that arise. That is indeed under consideration. I do not accept—and I think that there is a genuine misunderstanding in the House about this—that some innate problem is caused by the Government publishing at the earliest possible opportunity, on Second Reading, the date at which, for the management of their overall business and the programme of legislation, the Government intend a Bill to finish consideration in Committee. Every Government have done that in precisely the same way; the framework is known to the House. To be perfectly blunt with the hon. Gentleman, the only potential losers are the Government. We have known all along—as every Government know what they have in mind—when we expect Bills to come out of Committee, but until now the information has never been shared with the rest of the House. Certainly we believe that there is room to create even more opportunity for input from hon. Members.
    It may be that over time, if the present resolution of the House is carried over, all legislation will be programmed. Equally, we may find that that is not necessary and that will give us more flexibility and room for manoeuvre, but we have to have that fall-back position so that we can manage the business of the House effectively for the benefit of all hon. Members.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend not have a scintilla of doubt about what she has just said? Does it not occur to her that in fact the deliberate programming of all legislation would not only be anti-democratic, but would do exactly the opposite of what she has declared? Back Benchers have the right to raise individual points on behalf of their constituents, but they are totally constrained by programming. Any suggestion that the Government somehow have the right to slot legislation through the House without proper consideration is not in the interests of either the electorate or the Labour party.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am never without doubt about a range of issues, and I am always prepared to listen to other points of view, but my hon. Friend is a very experienced

    147
    Member of Parliament and I know that she is perfectly well aware that to pretend that programming is a new invention by this Government is, frankly, rubbish. To my knowledge, the issue of programming, and the advantages that it can offer to the House, have been under discussion for 10 years at least. The matter was discussed by the Jopling Committee.
    I accept my hon. Friend's point that it is perhaps a pity that the Government have found it necessary in this experiment to consider programming all legislation, but she knows as well as I do that that is because of the process that I have described as working to rule, which has led to the inefficient use of the House's time. If my hon. Friend subscribes to the notion that there were halcyon golden days in the past when it was open to Back Benchers to use the House's time as they chose, when Governments never had target dates for Committees and never made sure that such targets were stuck to, she is describing a process that has not been in place while she and I have been Members of this House.
    Sir George Young: The new regime means that great swathes of legislation are going through the House with wholly inadequate scrutiny, and the new system of synchronised voting on Wednesdays is bringing the House into disrepute, but the Labour party does not seem to be getting into its collective bed any earlier than previously. Against that background, would it not be better to scrap the experiment and start again?
    Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not the case. Swathes of legislation are not going through the House with inadequate scrutiny. Well prepared legislation is going through on a perfectly ordinary time scale—
    Sir George Young indicated dissent.
    Mrs. Beckett: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. If he looks at the pattern of dates for Bills coming out of Committee under previous Governments, he will find no charge whatever—other than that this Government are starting to introduce legislation that requires less Government amendment than was the case under his Government.
    As for the notion that the time allowed has been inadequate, I believe that it has been perfectly par for the course. On at least two occasions this Session, a Bill has been reported from Committee slightly before the due date originally set.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: The right hon. Lady knows that the changes to Standing Orders were forced on the House by the dreaded Modernisation Committee—which she chairs—even though the Opposition published a minority report saying that they did not support the move. The experiment has been a shambles. It is no good the right hon. Lady saying that all is well: I give her examples at business questions every week of where the system is failing. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) is not alone in not understanding that the role of Members of Parliament of all parties is not to do their shopping in their constituencies during the week, but to be here in the House scrutinising legislation and holding the Executive to account.
    148
    If the right hon. Lady is going to introduce proposals to improve the working of programme motions, will she confirm that she will have the courtesy to bring them to the Floor of the House for further deliberation by the whole House? In that way, at least the process can be a tad democratic.
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) seems to have forgotten that the current experiment was brought to the Floor of the House, and that the decision to implement it was made by the whole House. She said that the decision was forced on the House by the "dreaded Modernisation Committee", but she has either overlooked or forgotten the contents of the minority report that she keeps citing. That report did not say that programming was a bad thing, nor that it was damaging to democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) alleged that programming somehow deprived Back Benchers of their rights, but the minority report did not say that either. It said that to programme all legislation was a substantial and major step which the Opposition could not support.
    However, before either the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton or I served on it, the Modernisation Committee agreed unanimously that we should stick with the regime under which all major legislation was programmed. Opposition Members appear to be suffering from a collective failure of memory when they think that they have never supported the programming proposals. That is not the case: they have supported them.
    I entirely agree—and have long argued, before the hon. Lady's time in her present post—that it is a pity that the Government have found it necessary to put in place a framework that allows us to programme all legislation. However, if the House deals with its business efficiently and well, and takes the time that is allowed for scrutinising legislation to do so, there is no reason why we should not see a better conduct of business without quite that degree of rigour.
    As for the hon. Lady's remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), I know that Conservative Members are worried about the much better attention paid by Labour Members to their constituencies, but that is their problem.

    New Members
    Fiona Mactaggart: What plans she has to ensure that newly elected hon. Members are able to begin their work quickly and effectively after their election. [150779]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am pleased to say that the Departments of the House are working to ensure that newly elected Members are given speedy access to the facilities of the House and that introductions to the House's work are readily available.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I recall, when I was first elected, a period of confusion and muddle, in which people who taught new

    149
    Members the procedures of the House were not skilled in teaching even though they were skilled in the procedures of the House. To help the House get down to its business well, it would be useful to ensure that those who are responsible for teaching new Members about procedures have some teaching skills. Has any progress been made on that? Could existing Members act as mentors for other Members to enable them to understand the procedures of the House quickly, and quickly to become effective Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Tipping: I know that my hon. Friend has a teaching background. I will take her as a volunteer, when she is returned after the general election, to take part in such induction courses.
    There has for a long time been an unofficial mentoring scheme, and my hon. Friend's proposal is worth considering. I shall ensure that her comments are considered and taken forward by the working party involving all the Departments of the House, which considers such subjects.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: When the successor to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) arrives in this House, she will have to buy her own computer, deal with her own staffing and so on. I understand that the Senior Salaries Review Body report is with the Leader of the House, although I may be wrong. The right hon. Lady shakes her head. However, the SSRB report will suggest a complete change in the way in which we do things. Can we have emergency action from the Privy Council Office so that we can see the report and implement its recommendations? In that way, when the successor of the hon. Member for Slough arrives, she will not have to change horses halfway through.
    Mr. Tipping: I know that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) takes a great interest in election results. He should do—he has a majority of just 77, and is clearly counting every vote that is straying away from him. More seriously, the hon. Gentleman knows, and the House knows, that the SSRB is at present considering the issue. I look forward to seeing its report and to its recommendations being implemented as quickly as possible.

    "Shifting the Balance"
    Mr. John Bercow: What representations she has received from hon. Members since 17 February on the first report of the Liaison Committee, "Shifting the Balance". [150780]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): None.
    Mr. Bercow: That deficiency must now be made good. As an admirer of the talents of the right hon. Lady, I urge her to shift the balance in her own work by recognising that she is not only the Government's representative in the House but the House's representative in the Government. Given that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has acknowledged that the Government have a hand in picking the Committees that scrutinise their work, why does not the right hon. Lady cease to defend the indefensible and resolve to scrap a system which is a charter for Back-Bench sycophancy and Front-Bench skulduggery, and replace it with one based on independence, transparency and accountability?
    Mrs. Beckett: I take seriously my governmental responsibility for the House, which is one reason why I have some anxiety about some proposals in the report to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is quite right; many Members on the Conservative Benches share those anxieties. There is a danger that such proposals may introduce a system that would have effects other than those expected, which could damage the conduct of the House.
    I am forcefully struck by the fact that further representations on the matter are not the only area of silence. In our many discussions on the Liaison Committee proposals and on the advice that some means should be sought to provide a more open process of appointment, to which there would be input, we have repeatedly described the system that operates in our own party. It is by no means perfect, but it includes many of the features recommended by the Liaison Committee. Yet no Opposition party has made it plain that its procedures match those standards. If the Opposition want to put matters right, I suggest that they start with their own parties rather than meddling with the whole House.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Advocate-General for Scotland, in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), suggested that there had been "filibustering" in the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. I have raised the matter in advance with you, Mr. Speaker, and ask you to confirm that the three Chairmen of the Committee—the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams)—would have intervened had there been any filibustering. Since the issue has been raised, each of them has confirmed that ill the Committee's proceedings have been in order. The Advocate-General for Scotland should apologise, and withdraw her comment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has made one of the points that I intended to make, but I take personal exception to the point made by the Advocate-General for Scotland. I received uncalled-for compliments from the Minister in the Standing Committee about how pertinent my remarks had been. Quite apart from the question of filibustering on Committees, the programming of the Committee will mean that 50 clauses will be dealt with on the final day. It is not the Government who are losing out, but the people of this country who will face legislation that has gone entirely unscrutinised.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. As far as the Committee is concerned, the Chairmen on the Speaker's Panel are excellent, and I make no criticism of them.
Mr. Eric Joyce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of Scottish questions, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—not a famous Scottish location since it is in Devon—appeared to suggest that she was the shadow Secretary of
152
State for Scotland. Were you made aware of that, Mr. Speaker, as no such courtesy was extended to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respond, since the hon. Gentleman gave me no notice that he would make that point? If he and his colleagues study carefully, they will find that I have shadow Cabinet responsibility for the constitution, which includes Scotland and Wales.
Mr. Speaker: That puts the matter right.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been touring the television studios? In particular, he appeared on Sky News, making what appear to be announcements about foot and mouth disease rather than making time to come to the House. Have you received any indication that the Minister will come to the House today to answer questions from hon. Members, including me, who have serious concerns on behalf of constituents worried about the foot and mouth crisis?
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will most certainly be here on Thursday for his Question Time, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave an undertaking last week that he would be available to the House to keep us properly informed and updated about the crisis. Since that undertaking was given to you as well as to the House, are you satisfied that the Minister seems to deem it fit to be in the television studios to make what amount to daily announcements but does not come to the House to be questioned by Members whose constituents are affected by the crisis?
Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of judgment for the Minister. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is quite right: the Minister gave the House an assurance that he would come to the House, and he has given an assurance to me. However, the Minister is entitled to use his judgment.

Macedonia
3.35 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
the situation in Macedonia in relation to KFOR and Albanian aggressive action.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make an application for an emergency debate. This matter is definite, in that there are constant reports of the consequences of the incursions into Macedonia—basically, a Slav republic—by official and unofficial Albanian forces.
I do not know whether news bulletins are an indication of the importance of items, but at 5 o'clock this morning the situation in Macedonia was the No. 1 item on the BBC World Service news. Indeed, the respected correspondent, Mischa Glenny—known to many of us because he frequently comes to the House—who is not given to gross exaggeration and is the historian of the Balkans, used the careful words that perhaps we are getting into the situation of another war in the southern Balkans.
We understand that, this morning, the Government of Macedonia appealed to the Government of the Ukraine, which is in the Chair at the United Nations, for some kind of UN help. We also understand that the Americans, so concerned are they about what is happening, are supplying night vision equipment and other important equipment to the Macedonian Government.
Surely, the House of Commons should have an opportunity to discuss these complex and serious matters before there is an outbreak of major and sustained fighting, rather than holding debates after such events have taken place and we can do little about them. On those grounds, I believe that we should hold an emergency debate on the situation in the southern Balkans.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has said. I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Job Losses (South Devon)
3.38 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
redundancies at Nortel Networks, the largest private sector company in the Government office of the south-west region.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me permission to raise a matter of grave importance in my constituency. Four weeks ago, Nortel Networks announced 700 redundancies, and last Thursday announced a further 700, bringing the total to 1,400. Compared with the 1,300 job losses at Corns in south Wales, 1,400 such losses in our travel-to-work area, with its higher unemployment rate and lower incomes, are significant. Furthermore, our area has suffered for some time from the decline in agriculture, tourism and the fishing industry.
One of the big problems is that the losses are in full, all-year-round jobs rather than the seasonal employment on which our economy used to depend before the very welcome investment by Nortel. Those job losses and their effect are important not only to my constituency but to the constituencies of other hon. Members in south Devon and in the whole region, because south Devon has become the European centre of the fibre optic industry—a position that we want to retain.
The matter is urgent because we are beginning the 90-day consultation period between the company and the affected staff, and because the foot and mouth crisis is affecting the hinterland of south Devon. That has a knock-on effect on the other industry in the area—tourism. People are considering whether to take holidays in our area. This week, we heard the appalling news that the Austrian Government were advising people not to travel to this count y. That affected one of the language schools—another industry in the area—in my constituency, at which a party of Austrian students were due to study an English course. For those reasons, I seek permission for a debate under Standing Order No. 24.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has said. I must give my decision without stating any reason. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  FOOD POVERTY (ERADICATION)
  Mr. Alan Simpson, supported by Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Tony Benn, Ms Diane Abbott, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. David Chaytor, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. John McDonnell, Mr. David Drew and Mr. David Taylor, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish and implement a strategy for abolishing food poverty; to require the setting of targets for the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July, and to be printed [Bill 56].

Education (Student Loans) (Amendment)
3.40 pm
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to student loans in respect of the entitlement of borrowers to defer repayment of loans and in respect of the rate of interest payable on loans.
The Bill gives all hon. Members a very special opportunity—the chance to spur the Government into correcting an injustice that was created by Ministers and that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree should be corrected. Nearly four years ago, the Government scrapped student grants and replaced them with loans, which must be repaid by graduates who earn as little as £10,000 a year. What has been the effect of that action?
Increasing numbers of school leavers from poorer homes have been deterred from taking up university courses. Their numbers, which had doubled in the 10 years to 1997, during the great expansion of higher education under the previous Conservative Government, have stood still since then. This Government's target, which was to build on our success by ensuring that up to 50 per cent. of school leavers went to university, is now in tatters. Yet again, we see how a Labour Government, who promise more and take more, have delivered less.
As the Secretary of State for Education and Employment told the House only the other week, the number of students from the very poorest homes has risen slightly since 1997—by about 500—to 5,000 a year. However, the total number of students from poorer homes—totalling about 65,000 a year—has declined during the first three years of this Government.
It is no use blaming the universities The Chancellor of the Exchequer tried that last year, and all the evidence since has shown how wrong he was. Our universities try as hard as they can to attract the top talent, wherever it comes from. Labour's decision to force students to repay their much bigger loans when they earn as little as £10,000 a year is the real deterrent today.
The Bill gives the House the chance to choose between two ways in which to correct that injustice. The first is Labour's way. Labour want to focus on where students come from, offering them extra support if they live in deprived areas, as designated by Whitehall officials. That will simply create a postcode lottery. A child from a Georgian house in Lambeth will qualify for the grant; a school leaver from a Guildford council house will be denied the support that he or she needs.
Universities UK told me in a letter today that it shares my concern about the accuracy of using postcodes, saying that
"in some postcode areas, wealth and poverty live side-by-side."
Yet again, we see how Labour's obsession with people's backgrounds fails to address the real problem. I want to focus on where students go, not where they have come from. That my way and is what my Bill would achieve.
Most students make it into well paid jobs. The average starting salary for graduates is £15,500 a year; for those in graduate-type jobs, it is more than £18,500 a year. Most graduates can therefore afford to put back into the system a fair share of what they have gained from it. By so doing, they help others to follow in their footsteps.
156
Some graduates, however, will never earn a high wage. Students from homes whose family income has only ever reached £10,000 a year must think twice before embarking on a course at university when they have to repay a loan despite earning just £10,000 a year. My Bill will require graduates to repay their loans only when they are earning £20,000 a year, sending a clear signal to those from less well-off homes that we really believe in their potential.
Graduates who will never earn £20,000 a year will be let off the hook. That must be paid for, and I will explain how. Indeed, I would not be allowed to introduce the Bill if its framework did not provide the means to pay for that. One of the scandals of the Government's handling of student finance is the way in which they have sold off part of the student loan book at the thumping loss of £150 million. Students were charged £150 million in tuition fees, but what did the Government do with the money? They blew it on a lousy deal with banks in the City, because the student debt was unmarketable. Now they are creating even more of that unmarketable debt through their loan system.
I know that the previous Government had pencilled in the sale of the student loan book, but we would never have let it go at such a low price. As the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), knows—she was the Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment—I wrote a memorandum on this subject and it appeared in our Committee's first report. I suggested that universities should manage the debts, so that if debts had hidden value it would be unlocked in the hands of those who need it most—the universities themselves.
The next Conservative Government will not repeat Labour's mistake. We will hand over the outstanding debt to the universities at the same time as freeing them from being tied to the grant system of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. We will ensure that the hidden value in the loan book is unlocked in the hands of the universities.
The thrust of my Bill is to reform the student loan system, so that it is transparent, efficient and, therefore, properly fundable without our ever having to give money away to the banks again. That means that the loans must bear a market rate of interest. Today's loans are charged at the rate of inflation—about 2 per cent. a year. A market rate in line with mortgages would be about 6 or 7 per cent. a year.
The Government tell us that the cost of the interest rate subsidy is 20 per cent. of the amount of the loans. The typical graduate now leaves university with a loan of about £8,500. The cost of removing the subsidy would, all things being equal, be about £1,700 per graduate. However, we do not stop there. The Conservative plan promises a tax change. It is outside the scope of this Bill, but it will be within the scope of tomorrow's Budget. Tax relief on loan repayments can and should offset completely the additional interest charged for students.
On that basis, I am glad to welcome the support of the National Union of Students for the principles behind the Bill. Earlier today, it told me:
"We do feel that the threshold for repayments should be raised, as the current threshold of 10,000 does not adequately reflect the effort and risks of studying for a degree."

157
We would not expect the representative body of students to endorse the raising of the threshold if that were funded by a shift from a subsidised rate of interest to a market rate. However, when taken with the Conservative tax pledge, we are not proposing to do that. The Bill's proposed changes would be paid for out of the efficiency gains from making the loan system simple and transparent.
My Bill will address one other vital issue. Universities UK also told me today:
"We are particularly concerned about students from poorer families who may be debt averse."
I agree. The Education Sub-Committee heard evidence that in many colleges the Government have cut grants for providing students with careers advice by up to 50 per cent. That is a disgrace. We must properly fund the advice that people receive before they take their exams because that is when they decide whether to go to university and obtain a degree.
The combination of my Bill and modest changes in tomorrow's Budget would allow us to tackle the problem. The Government were recently big enough to admit their mistakes on secondary school reforms and to congratulate Guildford on the changes that we have made at one of our schools. Will they learn from Conservative policy on this matter and help our students as well?
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. David Ruffley, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Miss Julie Kirkbride.

Education (Student Loans) (Amendment)
  EDUCATION (STUDENT LOANS) (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to student loans in respect of the entitlement of borrowers to defer repayment of loans and in respect of the rate of interest payable on loans: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 March, and to be printed [Bill 57].
Orders of the Day

  International Development Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.51 pm
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to establish in legislation the reduction of poverty as the aim of United Kingdom development assistance and to ensure that it is spent for that reason alone. The House will be aware that over the past four years, we have established the reduction of poverty as the guiding principle of all our efforts. I am pleased that the change has been widely supported in the House and the country, and by the International Development Select Committee, which is chaired so ably by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
  Existing legislation allows the Secretary of State to do virtually whatever that person may wish. Without change, a future Minister or Administration could reinstate the use of the aid budget to soften the terms of commercial contracts through mixed credits, as under the old aid-and-trade provision. An Administration could re-tie aid, thus distorting its use and decreasing its efficiency, as under the previous Government, or use that aid budget to serve the short-term political or commercial purposes of the UK. We believe that it is much better to clarify the purpose of our country's development efforts to ensure that our legislative power means that our funds and efforts are devoted single-mindedly to the systematic reduction of world poverty.
  The House will know that the Government have led the international effort to place the systematic reduction of poverty and the meeting of the international development targets at the core of the international development effort. We have not simply refocused our bilateral programme on the reduction of poverty; we are using our influence throughout the international development system to get a commitment to reduce poverty systematically in every poor country across the globe.
  We have had remarkable success in that effort. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations development agencies, the UN millennium assembly, which met recently, the African Development bank, the Asian Development bank, the European Union and the Cotonou agreement, the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the G7 have all firmly lined up to make the international development targets the objective of the international development effort.
  We believe that that is very important. The biggest and best UK programme cannot alone ensure that the international development targets are met across the world. However, an international development system dedicated to that objective can do so. As hon. Members will know, the world is on track to meet the first of those targets—halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015, enabling a billion people to make the journey out of extreme poverty. That is a considerable achievement, but we need to go on,

  159
  as the world population will grow. The Bill's purpose is to underpin the improvement in the quality of international development efforts and the contributions that we make both through our own bilateral programme and through multilateral development agencies.
  The second major objective that the United Kingdom Government have pursued in their development efforts is achieving a shift in the way in which international development assistance is applied. Far too often in the past, it was applied through a massive fragmentation of well intentioned charitable projects in developing countries, which led to a weakening, rather than a strengthening, of the capacity of developing country Governments to improve their economic performance and the delivery of health care and education services to their people. Such services improve people's prospects of bettering their life opportunities and climbing out of the condition of extreme poverty.
  For that reason, we have tried to redirect the whole international effort by supporting poverty reduction strategies laid down by Governments of developing countries, which have been openly consulted on with their people and which combine macro-economic policy and social policy objectives to make sure that resources from revenue, debt relief and aid funds can all be directed through Government institutions to make a much stronger effort to improve services and economic management. Again, that requires international development efforts to have as their objective the systematic reduction of poverty, which is leading to a massive improvement in the capacity of the international system.
  World Bank research shows that if aid is focused where the poor are and where the national Governments are committed to reform, the effectiveness of the US $50 billion or so in the international development system is increased by 50 per cent. The United Kingdom Government have worked hard on than objective, and the Bill requires that a much more effective international development system focused on the systematic reduction of poverty be the objective of the Secretary of State, unless that person introduces alternative legislation in the House of Commons.
  All of that is of profound importance to the poor and the future stability and safety of the world; it was the basis on which the House approved the reversal in the decline of the development budget under the previous Administration. There has been an increase in the contribution of 0.26 per cent. of gross national product that we inherited from that Government to 0.33 per cent., to which we are committed. I hope that growth continues, so that we get our country's aid budget to the United Nations target of the 0.7 per cent. of GNP. As the House has increased the budget on the basis that those resources would be spent on poverty reduction, not on ulterior objectives, it is right that the legislation underpinning the spending of that money should entrench the requirement that any Minister or Administration use those funds to achieve the systematic reduction of poverty.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State went straight from the 1997 position to looking at least two years ahead to the figure of 0.33 per cent.
  160
  What percentage of gross national product did the Government spend on aid at the end of the last financial period, three years into a Labour Administration?
  Clare Short: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed, as he is busy writing press releases and does not usually read much published by my Department, but we will achieve 0.29 per cent. this year, as we said we would.
  In our 1997 White Paper, we committed ourselves to considering the case for new legislation. The overriding response to our consultation, which took place in two rounds of policy forums across the country, was that there is popular support for a change of legislation to entrench the objective of reducing poverty.
  The current legislation on the statute book is the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, which is a consolidating Act drawing its provisions from 33 previous statutes. Much of the Act is outdated or obsolete, and we need new legislation to update it, to entrench the poverty reduction objective, and to take new powers to support civil society and to provide financial guarantees and hold securities when we try to develop the private sector in developing countries, in order to enable those countries to grow their economies and thus to reduce poverty.
  The House should note that the courts found in the Pergau dam judgment, which shamed our country so deeply, that the powers in the existing legislation were so widely drawn that they caused the Minister to mislead himself into believing that he could use aid to back economically unsound projects. We would all agree that it is desirable to protect any future Minister of any conceivable alternative Government from making such a mistake.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Given that the Government indicated by a written answer on 10 April last year that they intended "as soon as possible" to bring forward legislation to enforce the OECD convention on bribery, and on the assumption that the right hon. Lady did not judge the Bill to be the appropriate vehicle for achieving that objective, can she tell the House when she intends to act on that important subject?
  Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the subject is enormously important, but it is not the responsibility of my Department to introduce such legislation. The Bill would be rather longer than it is, and legislation has not been prepared, although the Government have made a commitment in principle to enact stronger legislation. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when it will be introduced, as it is not in my remit, but I share his view that that should be done as urgently as possible.
  I should draw to the attention of the House two exceptions to the overriding requirement set out in the Bill that poverty reduction must be the purpose of spending on international development assistance. The first exception relates to assistance given to the overseas territories. The Government recognise the responsibility that the UK has for the overseas territories beyond a commitment to help them reduce poverty, although any assistance that we provide would include that objective. The requirement

  161
  that assistance to the overseas territories must be likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty is therefore set aside and replaced with a requirement that our assistance to those territories must be provided for the purpose of furthering sustainable development or improving the welfare of their population.
  The second exception relates to assistance provided in response to disasters or emergencies. Obviously, such assistance will not be likely to contribute to a reduction of poverty in all cases. For example, the terrible earthquake in Gujarat, which we all agree was of overwhelming concern, affecting as it did such large numbers of people, occurred in an area that was not the poorest part of India. If the requirement to provide humanitarian assistance always had to serve the poverty reduction objective, it would restrict our ability to move rapidly across the world when people are in trouble, and maintain the UK's record for speed and flexibility, of which hon. Members in all parts of the House are proud. Exceptions should be made in those two cases.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Would she consider it appropriate to consider in this context the aid that we might give in Sierra Leone? As the right hon. Lady is well aware, we are giving a great deal of military aid to Sierra Leone, where there is an amputee camp which her hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and I visited recently. More than 200 victims of the Revolutionary United Front rebels had their hands chopped off—in one case, a little girl aged only 13 months. We were shocked to see people trying to manufacture artificial limbs unaided by any skilled help or, apparently, any outside help. In that context, will she consider providing aid for the victims of war in especially deserving cases?
  Clare Short: Yes; indeed, we already provide such aid. I have visited the camp about which the hon. Gentleman speaks, which was a deeply moving and distressing place. The Government are absolutely committed to the current effort in Sierra Leone to retake 50 per cent. of the territory that is held by the Revolutionary United Front, a criminal gang that is interested mostly in diamonds and which seeks to use the power of terror instead of fighting. That is why it uses amputation, and it should be defeated. We have provided help to the amputees in the past and we will continue to support such objectives. As a country, we are the biggest supporter of the part of Sierra Leone that is controlled by the Government. We provide about £35 million of support a year and we will see it through until all of Sierra Leone is in Government hands. Thus, people who have suffered amputation can at least look forward to peace and a decent life in future.
  The House should understand clearly that the overriding objective of poverty reduction does not mean that development efforts are restricted to the provision of social assistance or charitable handouts. Our second White Paper, "Making Globalisation Work for the Poor", makes clear the conditions that are needed to reduce poverty in developing countries: economic growth that benefits all people, not merely a small number, and the provision of quality education and health care for all. To achieve those conditions, Governments need all the
  162
  capacity of an effective modern state. They need the capacity to manage their public finances well, to raise revenues properly and fairly, and to provide regulatory systems for their banking sectors so that they can keep their savings at home and attract inward investment. It is one of the tragedies of Africa that 40 per cent. of the continent's savings leave the continent because the banking system is so deficient.
  Work on security sector reform, which is relevant to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), is also needed. Over-large armed forces that are not transparently funded or properly accountable to a democratic power are often a cause of coups and instability. Work to ensure that the security sector is properly accountable and properly and transparently funded is part of developing an effective modern state that can give people the stability and security that they need to grow their economy and reduce poverty.
  We also provide support to health and education Ministries. Such aid seeks to ensure that a quality basic primary education system is in place for all the children of a country rather than only those who attend city schools that serve better-off people. Similarly, the presence of primary health care systems throughout a country is important, and health Ministries should be capable of maintaining and sustaining such services.
  When we say that poverty reduction is our main objective, it should be borne in mind that that means helping countries to create modern and efficient states that will enable their economies to grow and ensure that good quality services can be provided to all their people. We are speaking about an effective state and a well organised and well regulated private sector that can grow, attract inward investment and thus reduce poverty.
  The test of any of the work that we currently undertake is whether its purpose is the reduction of poverty. Such work can also be done for other reasons, but the Bill requires its purpose to be the reduction of poverty. It will not allow priority to be given to the commercial or political interests of the UK. Under the previous arrangements, the Overseas Development Administration of the previous Government had a sort of semi-autonomy, but was accountable to the House through the Foreign Secretary. The UK's development effort was always subject to considerations involving its commercial and political interests. Every country has legitimate interests of that sort, but development is a different business. It takes more than short-term considerations to help some of the poorest countries to establish arrangements to enable them to grow their economies and provide better services for their people. Such considerations, which were allowed and encouraged under previous arrangements, are not permitted by the Bill, and I hope that the House agrees that that is desirable.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Secretary of State raises an interesting point about the way in which the House will call the Department to account. The Bill's objective is to reduce poverty. If it is clear that matters have not improved, but deteriorated after a long period of involvement with a country, will that be a reason for withdrawing from it? If not, how can the House call the Department to account?
  Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Select Committee for International Development discussed that

  163
  matter recently. The Department publishes strong output objectives that contribute to fulfilling international development targets. They include economic growth, getting more children into school and providing better health care services. Of course, ascertaining the extent to which the United Kingdom's contribution drives the objectives forward requires refining the method of evaluating the effort. However, our published objectives tie us down to evaluating our achievements against them. The House can therefore effectively call us to account through the Select Committee and by comparing our performance with the published objectives.
  A country could do everything in its power to achieve the objectives, and there could be a military uprising, such as that in Sierra Leone, or a natural disaster. None of us wants to turn away from a country in trouble, which might have slipped backwards through no fault of its own.
  There is another problem: how can we support people who live under bad Governments? They are often the poorest and most oppressed people in the world. Clearly, we cannot support their Governments but neither can we turn away from those people. We must find methods of providing humanitarian, and, if possible, additional aid to enable some of the poorest people in the world to demand better Governments and thus a better future.
  Such matters are complex, but we are open in publishing our objectives and our methods of measuring our success. We are much more transparent about that than previous Governments. That enables us to have intelligent and detailed discussions in the Select Committee and to be properly accountable to it. I hope that Select Committee members agree that that has helped us to improve the quality of UK overseas development assistance.
  Mr. Desmond Browne: We cannot turn away from people who live under bad Governments, neither can we abandon people who live in areas of conflict. Millions of people are denied access to humanitarian or development assistance because they live in countries that are ravaged by conflict. How will the Bill and the Government's policy make Departments work together to tackle the resolution or prevention of such conflict?
  Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Twenty per cent. of the population of sub-Saharan Africa live under conditions of conflict. Post cold war, most conflict breaks out within rather than between the poorest countries in the world. In some countries, one group tries to take all and thus divides the people, and in some weak states, such as Sierra Leone, which are rich in natural resources, groups try to plunder them.
  The Bill makes clear our duty to provide humanitarian assistance to all who are in need, wherever they are. That provision is not governed by the requirement to reduce poverty. We must simply respond to people's need. We and the international system do all in our power to provide humanitarian relief to all those who are affected by conflict. However, in, for example, Burundi, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) visited, the circumstances are too dangerous for United Nations and non-governmental organisation workers. People in such countries are in desperate need, but do not receive help.
  164
  The answer for grossly impoverished places such as southern Sudan, where conflict has continued for such a long time and 1.5 million people have died, is not the endless provision of humanitarian relief but a greater effort to resolve conflict. We have established joint funding arrangements to achieve a more tightly collaborative effort between my Department, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence and thus use our influence to improve the capacity of the international system to resolve conflict.
  Sierra Leone is the first big test, and we will succeed there. Sierra Leone has the largest UN peacekeeping operation, costing $500 million a year, although it is a small country of only 4.5 million people. The first problem that we had there was that many of the UN peacekeepers were taken hostage. Secondly, although there is supposedly a ceasefire agreement with the Revolutionary United Front, the UN forces have not moved forward.
  We must all be determined to succeed in Sierra Leone, but we must learn from the arrangements there how international peacekeeping efforts can and must be improved. We are, of course, going on from Sierra Leone to the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has not had good government since Leopold of the Belgians. I hope that it had it before him. That country is as big as western Europe, and the task for the international community of bringing peace to the DRC, which is crucial to the development of Africa, will require a greater strength, capacity and effectiveness than we have at the moment. The operation of the joint pool is meant to improve the UK effort in that regard.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State mentioned southern Sudan, which I have visited. I am very concerned about the situation there. Does she think that when conflicts have gone on for decades, as they have in southern Sudan, we should concentrate a little more on development aid? We are very good at giving humanitarian aid to areas such as southern Sudan, but the provision of more educational facilities, for instance, would only need to be very simple and might lead to a more rapid resolution of the conflict.
  Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Lady's aspirations, but I do not agree that that is the way forward. The crunch is that in such disorder, most of the people are displaced. Of course, when people are in refugee camps, we must try to ensure that the children are educated so that they are not under a life sentence but can look forward to a settled life in which they can improve their circumstances.
  What Sudan needs is peace, desperately and overwhelmingly. I believe that if there were greater efforts and energy in the international system, there could be a prospect of a confederal solution for Sudan that would bring peace to that tortured country, where poverty is growing and people are suffering. If it were possible to enhance humanitarian aid in ways that enabled people to survive, we should do that, and we do. However, those who call simply for enhancement of humanitarian aid should realise that 90 per cent. of those resources are spent on aeroplanes and airlifts; very little of it gets through to the people, and it has been proved that the fighters take some of the resources. Therefore, more aid

  165
  is not the answer. We have to do what we can to get help through, but peace is the answer in southern Sudan and we need a stronger international call for that.
  Dr. Tonge: The Secretary of State has not visited southern Sudan. Does she not agree that the simple provision of primary education—and the training of the southern Sudanese people to give simple primary education—would require no school buildings or special equipment, and that if the people were displaced the education could go with them? Generations of children in southern Sudan have had nothing to do except wait for the next attack by the raiders from the north. It is very sad that we cannot provide such simple facilities for them.
  Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Lady that the situation is very sad, but I do not agree that the answer is to try to provide spots of education or health care for people who are constantly being displaced, impoverished and threatened with violence and fighting. We should do what we can to keep them going, and to provide services to displaced people and refugees. The answer is a peace settlement, and, in my very strong view, not enough people in the international community are making an effort to achieve peace in Sudan. It worries me when people who are concerned about the situation there focus all their efforts on calling for more aid, because that will not provide the answer. The people there desperately need peace.
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: Further to what my right hon. Friend was saying about countries with awful Governments—I can link this question a little to Sudan—and about encouraging people to press for a change of Government, I feel quite desperate about the situation of the women in Afghanistan. Can my right hon. Friend offer any small ray of hope on what we could do through aid to help the women of Afghanistan become something more than machines for bearing children, which is how the Taliban regard them?
  Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation in Afghanistan is terrible and deeply worrying. As well those beautiful old Buddhist statues being destroyed, girls have been deliberately excluded from school and women from hospital. Women doctors are not allowed to work and provide health care. That is so backward and unbearable. The situation is deeply distressing and I cannot offer her the hope of immediate change, but we have worked hard to ensure that the United Nations system will not concede on the principle of equal provision for women and girls. If everybody stands together, there is a prospect that there will be no collusion with the undesirable ruling that the regime has made, and we shall hold on to that.
  The UK has been disadvantaged in trying to help in Afghanistan because there was clear security information that UK nationals were probably under threat. However, we shall reconsider that policy. I can promise my hon. Friend that we shall do all in our power to ensure that women and girls receive education and basic health care, but I cannot tell her that we are optimistic about achieving major change in the short term.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Clare Short: I should get on, if the House will forgive me.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Clare Short: Okay.
  Mrs. Gillan: I am most grateful. May I take the Secretary of State back to the remarks that she made before so generously taking all those interventions? I am trying hard to understand exactly what will be ruled in and what will be ruled out by the new focus on poverty reduction. Can she explain whether it will exclude aid to projects such as using Customs and Excise to improve taxation systems, drugs monitoring, and systems in the overseas territories where aid has gone in the past? Will projects such as good governance, which she mentioned in relation to Africa, also be excluded? The focus on poverty appears to move us away from any focus on good governance.
  Clare Short: I have already dealt with that point—the hon. Lady cannot have been listening. As we say in our globalisation White Paper, poverty reduction is maximised by an effective modern state creating the conditions for a private sector that is not allowed to be monopolistic or to abuse its powers, which happens behind high tariffs in some countries where nationally owned private sectors have high prices and shoddy goods. Another condition for an effective private sector that will grow the economy and attract inward investment is the provision by an effective modern state of regulatory arrangements that encourage good banking and good revenue systems.
  We do such work all over the world and there is no question of our not continuing to do it. Countries need those arrangements. That is what good governance is, right across the board—not just action against corruption, important as that is, but effective systems that enable an economy to grow and to provide proper services for people. That has been the central focus of our efforts since we formed our Government and that work will continue.
  The Bill includes new powers such as the provision that we can support work that improves development awareness and advocacy, both at home and overseas. I am concerned that there is a mindset that considers development to be not part of the mainstream of creating a more just world order and modern, effective government, which enable countries to grow their economies, but a residual that comes after politics and provides funds that are charitably distributed to those who are lacking. If we are to have any kind of safety and security, we need a UK public who understand the urgency of those efforts.
  We also need to be able to support work in developing countries so that people there have sufficient knowledge and feel entitled to demand of their Government better governance and better use of public resources. That work, which we have strengthened since we formed our Government, will be funded under new powers, but such funding is currently committed under the annual Appropriations Act, and not the main legislation under which we operate.

  167
  The Bill also provides for the use of a wider range of commercial instruments—the taking of shares, loans, convertible loans, options and guarantees. Let me give a couple of examples of the way in which the powers will be used. We have done some work in this regard, but currently we must obtain permission from the Treasury as a one-off on each occasion.
  I do not know whether hon. Members have come across the Day chocolate company, which produces Divine chocolate bars. It is a fair trade company, owned partly by a Ghanaian cocoa farmers co-operative and partly by some British non-governmental organisations. It is marketing the chocolate throughout the country on the basis that towns can become Divine towns. If hon. Members would like their constituencies to be Divine, they may wish to sign up. The aim of the initiative is to create a commercially viable enterprise that will improve the lives of Ghanaian cocoa farmers who have experienced a deterioration of their terms of trade and hence their income levels over the years.
  Under our legislation, we have only the power to provide a grant, and grants are not always helpful to enterprises that need to be commercially viable. We therefore wanted to guarantee a loan from the National Westminster bank, which was not willing to make the loan without such a guarantee. The Day chocolate company and its trade in Divine chocolate bars now seem to be prospering. That is the kind of intervening that we want to be able to do, and under the Bill we shall no longer have to obtain one-off permission from the Treasury to enable countries to grow their economies and local people to improve the activity of the private sector.
  My Department has been lobbied by a number of bodies seeking to embed certain policies in the draft Bill—for example, a commitment to children, to empowering women, to dealing with HIV-AIDS or to whatever their favoured objective might be. Let me make it clear that we will resist all such pressure. We agree that children are key to development, and that our task is to ensure that this generation of poor children have the chance of education and health care so that they do not become parents of even poorer children. We also agree that dealing with HIV-AIDS is a major international priority. The Department is giving ever growing commitments to such work, not just in Africa but in China, Bangladesh and India, where HIV-AIDS is also spreading and needs to be contained before it reaches the vast population of the rest of Asia. We agree, too, that poverty has a woman's face: 70 per cent. of the world's poor are women, and the poorest children come from women-headed households.
  Nevertheless, we believe that any attempt to entrench such objectives in legislation will impair our adaptability and flexibility. The flexibility of our current arrangements makes the United Kingdom one of the most effective development organisations in the world. The needs of countries and regions vary; performance varies from country to country. We hold all those objectives dear, but we deploy our resources where they can make a difference to a country's need and what other development partners might do. Tying down proportions of our work or focusing on particular priorities in the Bill would create a rigidity that is illustrated by the United States development programme. Its legislation involves a lot of earmarking, which prevents it from responding flexibly in many of the countries in which it is working.
  168
  I strongly commend the Bill. Its purpose is simple, but profoundly important. One in five of the world's population—the 6 billion people who share this planet—still live in conditions of extreme poverty: the sort of conditions that our country experienced at the time of the industrial revolution. There is a lot of child labour, and many people cannot expect to live beyond their 40s. Many are illiterate, and many die of simple diseases such as diarrhoea and measles.
  Given the world's levels of abundance and knowledge, it is a shame and a disgrace that the world still has such levels of poverty and inequality. It is a profoundly important moral issue. However, it is not only a moral issue. If the world continues with such division and those levels of inequality, we shall hand on to our children mounting instability and environmental degradation that will endanger their future, wherever they are.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am very grateful to my good friend the Secretary of State. The legislation is a tremendous step forward, and I am very proud that our country is taking this action. Obviously, however, we cannot do it alone. It would be excellent news if we knew that other countries that are among the wealthiest in the world, and other bodies such as the European Union, were minded to set themselves similar policy objectives. Has my right hon. Friend anything to say on widening the participation by others in what we are trying to do in the United Kingdom?
  Clare Short: I am sure that the whole House is very pleased to see my hon. Friend. We know that she has not been well, and it is delightful to have her in the Chamber today. I also honour the fact that, throughout her political life, she has worked on the issue of international development. It is lovely that she returns when we are discussing this legislation.
  As I said, we have worked very hard to obtain central commitment to the poverty eradication targets, to try to co-ordinate the objectives of the entire international development system—including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, regional development banks, all the United Nations agencies and all the bilateral agencies. We do not want a plethora of fragmented, different projects in countries, but to pool our resources in the budgets of Governments who have clear, explicit and measurable poverty-eradication objectives. We are increasingly receiving co-operation across the international system in achieving that objective, which is increasingly being accepted as the way in which we should proceed. I am proud that our Government have led in much of that work.
  Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend mentioned the issue of poverty reduction strategies, to which we are all signed up. However, is not one of the big issues in the world the need for poor countries to trade with rich countries? As poor countries are said to be losing out, to the tune of about £500 million annually, to the rich countries, that trade is clearly a transnational issue. Clearly, when we consider that that £500 million loss is 14 times more than those countries receive in overseas aid each year, trade is also a central issue. I am delighted that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor have mentioned that fact in some of their previous speeches.
  Clare Short: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who describes an aspect of the process of separating the

  169
  issue of world poverty from the charity box. Development efforts are not simply the administration of an aid budget. We have to consider all the instruments of government in determining how we can create an international trade system that is fairer and gives developing countries a chance to grow their economies. It is therefore very welcome that Pascal Lamy, the European Union Trade Commissioner, proposed the everything but arms initiative to improve trade access for the world's poorest countries to the European Union market, which is the world's largest. Although those countries account for only 0.4 per cent. of world trade, there was resistance to the initiative—which had to be watered down somewhat before it could be passed by qualified majority voting. Nevertheless, it was passed. That is a very important first step, and I hope that there will be very many more steps.
  As I said, the Bill's purpose is to entrench poverty reduction as the purpose and objective of United Kingdom development policy. We are working hard to entrench that objective around the world. We live in a time when—with the new wealth and technology created by the new information technologies, the abundance of capital and the way in which we can share knowledge around the world—there could be massive progress in poverty reduction. I think that we are at a turning point. We shall either make massive progress or see the poorest people and countries more marginalised and impoverished. The Bill entrenches in United Kingdom statute the certainty that United Kingdom Government efforts will be absolutely focused on securing a systematic reduction of poverty.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I agree with the spirit of the Secretary of State's comments, particularly when she described the world as we know it. The Opposition share a common objective with the Government: we seek to alleviate world poverty. We, too, seek a more stable world in which every person has access to basic living standards, a basic education and primary health care—a place where children are free from involvement in violent conflict. We also seek to pursue that vision. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and her Department for what they have done in the past four years to move towards that common objective.
  In the past two years of doing this job, from something of a standing start, I have become absolutely persuaded that the right kind of help can make a very real difference. I have seen with my own eyes as I have travelled to some of the poorest parts of the world that focused development works. I have seen projects, relationships and work being done in all parts of the world that make me proud to be British, whether it involves our own Department for International Development, British charities or British people making their own contribution to alleviating grinding poverty and helping people to be free from poverty and stand on their own two feet. We can change lives and bring hope to many, and so we must.
  I felt it was right to start by putting on the record very clearly the fact that we share a common goal and that we agree with many of the steps that the Government have taken to work towards it. We have always been happy to support the Government where we believe that they have acted in the best interests of developing countries. Hon.
  170
  Members will agree that on several occasions I have recorded in the Chamber my support for certain actions taken by the Department. I particularly agree with the Secretary of State's comments today about the importance of Governments working with each other and with multilateral organisations and other agencies in a concerted effort to bear down on global poverty and instability.
  So we are singing from the same hymn sheet this afternoon. We do not oppose the broad thrust of the Bill, but we have a number of questions and reservations about some of its contents and I will exercise my constitutional duty in raising as forensically as I can, during my short remarks this afternoon, my concerns about certain aspects. Of course we will continue with that approach in Committee.
  In the past four years, it has been a great pity that there have been so few opportunities for the House to debate international development. In 1997 the Government said that they envisaged an annual debate on international development. That has not happened. The Labour manifesto said that international development would be brought back into the mainstream of Government decision making, yet we have not had a single debate on international development in Government time since 1997.
  In the Queen's Speech, the Prime Minister described how the Government planned
  "to shape the forces of globalisation"—[Official Report, 6 December 2000; Vol 359, c. 4.]
  by means of the globalisation White Paper. It was a massive claim and a good White Paper, yet the House has never been given the opportunity to debate it. It was not even presented by way of a statement to the House. A White Paper that was going to shape the forces of globalisation and was important enough to be included in the Queen's Speech was not important enough, it seems, to be brought to the House by way of a statement.
  Clare Short: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that we should have more dabates on international development. I believe that there is a lag in all parliamentary systems across the world, in that international development is in the charity box and not in the mainstream of politics. That is immoral and an error as regards the future stability of the world.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the lack of a statement on the globalisation White Paper. As hon. Members would imagine, I pressed for a statement and was told by the usual channels that the Opposition would be irritated because they had other objectives. A bit of honesty about this is in order. Have the Opposition been pressing for more debates on international development, and did the hon. Gentleman try to exercise his influence through the usual channels to get a statement, as I most certainly did?
  Mr. Streeter: I am flabbergasted by what I have just heard. We certainly pressed for a statement. As someone who used to be part of the usual channels, polluted though they are, I can tell the House that there was no way in which we would have tried to block a statement. We were calling for a statement on an important White Paper that was going to shape the forces of globalisation. You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I complained, on a point of order, about the absence of a statement on the

  171
  day in question. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that she was pressing for a statement, but she has talked in the past about joined-up Government. It is a pity that she was not able to influence her colleagues and ensure that that important statement was brought to the House.
  Mrs. Fyfe: To enable the House to gauge the sincerity of Opposition attitudes on this matter, will the hon. Gentleman remind us of how many White Papers on international development were published between 1979 and 1997?
  Mr. Streeter: I was going to welcome the hon. Lady back after her recent illness, but now I am not so sure. To be serious, I am afraid that I do not know how many White Papers were published in that time. However, had the previous Government produced one, a statement would certainly have been made about it, as that Government did not bypass the House of Commons. I hope that the hon. Lady finds that answer—never mind the quality, feel the width—satisfactory.
  We have heard a lot in the past four years about the Government's contempt for Parliament. Nowhere has that contempt been more clearly demonstrated than in their handling of the vital subject of international development. I do not like the Secretary of State's expression "charity box", as I think that it demeans the vital role that charities play in development, but I agree with her that the world is waking up to globalisation and to interdependence.
  In every country in the developed world, our responsibility to the developing world is becoming more and more politically mainstream. That is in part because of the impact of our globalised and interdependent world, and in part because more and more people are taking an interest in this vital subject. To that extent, therefore, I agree with the Secretary of State that international development is becoming a centre-stage concern, and that the system may sometimes lag behind the new realities.
  British aid and development enjoy a high reputation all over the world. British aid charities often lead the way, and the newly branded Department for International Development has built on the impressive achievements of the previous Administration. I am able to pay a genuine tribute to the work done by the Secretary of State's officials in many different countries.
  In the space of just a few moments, I have praised the Department for International Development several times. That clears the way for a damning attack on the Secretary of State later in my speech.
  The Secretary of State told the House in November 1997:
  "I have paid my tributes, and they were genuine, to Lynda Chalker".—[Official Report, 5 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 320.]
  The OECD said in 1997:
  "At the last Aid Review of the United Kingdom, the Committee recognised the well organised, business-like character of the British bilateral programme, drawing on substantial national expertise. The last DAC aid review was impressed by the internal procedures of DFID's predecessor agency."
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who was involved in that predecessor agency and who helped to secure that impressive report.
  However, Labour Members sometimes give the impression that history began on 1 May 1997, and that they invented overseas aid on the same date. Britain has
  172
  always had a strong record on aid and development. For many years, under the previous Conservative Government and under this Government, Britain has also led the world in debt relief. Part of our historic and strategic role in the world is to play our full part in relieving global poverty and working for global stability.
  Ms Oona King: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the shift in policy to untie aid from trade was correct? Will he make statements in support of the change, especially given that British companies and businesses sometimes raise the matter?
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the first of what I hope will be many opportunities this afternoon to plug the Opposition's policy paper on this subject. It clearly sets out that a Conservative Government coming to power on 4 May would not reconnect aid and trade.
  The next Conservative Government will build upon the fine tradition that I have just outlined. Against that background. I turn to the Bill. I have already said that we stand ready to support policies that are effective in reducing global poverty. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State's address; none the less, my first question is whether the Bill is necessary at all.
  The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to focus development policy on poverty reduction, but she already has that power. If she does not have it, much of her activity over the past four years has been illegal. The Bill gives the Government power to carry out humanitarian assistance, but they already have that power. It gives the Government the power to promote development awareness, but they are already doing that.
  What is the point of the Bill? Why introduce it just before the election? What difference will it make to the way in which the Department for International Development goes about its work? How will it improve the British aid effort? Once the Bill becomes law, what difference will it make to the way in which the Secretary of State does her job? I suspect that it will make no difference, so why introduce it? I would like the Under-Secretary of State for International Development—whom I welcome to his newish position—to deal with these questions in detail in his winding-up speech. I have a feeling that he may have plenty of time in which to do so.
  Mr. Bercow: In recognising the wisdom of the Secretary of State's point that poor people should not be obliged to pay for the misdeeds of their tyrannical Governments, and acknowledging in the process that Governments often face appalling dilemmas as to whether and when to turn the tap of Government assistance on or off, will my hon. Friend press the Under-Secretary to explain how, in allocating aid, we can give more effective teeth to the criterion of good governance?
  Mr. Streeter: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has gone straight to the heart of the matter. I wish to talk quite a lot about good governance. He is right to want the Minister to say more about what will be done to bring good governance centre stage.
  I have some specific concerns about the Bill. It seeks to set a new focus on poverty reduction. In one sense, who on earth could disagree with that? However, are there

  173
  not hidden dangers in setting such a narrow legal framework? What does that mean for work and funding linked specifically to democracy building, support for good governance and the rule of law? Everyone in this Chamber knows that these are fundamental to strengthening the framework in developing countries if global poverty is to be reduced. Indeed, the next Conservative Government will bring them centre stage. Is the right hon. Lady certain that a court would construe these activities as being within the definition of poverty reduction, if challenged by judicial review? Has she taken expert legal advice on that matter?
  Clare Short: Yes.
  Mr. Streeter: I am glad that the right hon. Lady trusts her lawyers. That is good.
  What about action to deter the topical and very evil trade in trafficking human beings? Is that within the poverty focus? What about support for a clamp-down on the illicit drugs that destroy so many lives? How about action on the flow of small arms to regions engulfed in conflict? The right hon. Lady will no doubt have read my policy paper and seen our new commitment to introducing a scheme to crack down on the flow of small arms in regions of conflict. If the Bill makes progress between now and 3 May, will I be able to introduce that scheme on 4 May?
  Clare Short: In the areas of good governance or dealing with the harm that drugs do, many interventions can be made. In all government systems, people regard the development budget as a residual to fund their particular concerns. Those may be completely proper and honourable matters, but they are not always to do with the reduction of poverty.
  When people grow drugs because they have no other livelihood, supporting them so that they can have other livelihoods and a better, legitimate life is a proper part of development assistance spending. However, the large amounts of money that could be spent on preventing drugs from flowing across the world—desirable as that is—would not come within development budget funding.
  The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is: yes, in all regards, if the point of the reform is to create conditions under which poor people will have the chance of a better life and poverty will be reduced. The answer is no if the objective is desirable but it has nothing to do with improving the lives of the poor of the world. That is the legal advice that has been received, and that is the intention of the Bill.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making matters clearer, but she has, in one sense, given weight to my concern. Aspects of support will be defined as poverty reduction, according to her opinion, and other aspects will fall outside that definition. The Bill rightly gives her that discretion, but she will be giving a subjective opinion, and one can anticipate a challenge to future DFID funding and support by well intentioned, well motivated people concerned that the Department is funding one aspect rather than another about which they feel passionate. I simply ask the Secretary of State to
  174
  make sure that the Bill is robust enough to withstand judicial review. We shall wish to go into that point in detail in Committee.
  Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that poverty reduction measures can be achieved by the Department for International Development only if other measures, such as arms control, are introduced by other Departments? That is what we lack.
  Mr. Streeter: I certainly agree that we have had precious little joined-up thinking in the past four years from a Government who promised it.
  Mr. Browne: When he asked whether the Bill's terms were robust enough to allow the Secretary of State to do what she wanted in relation to good governance, the hon. Gentleman referred to his own policy paper. I confess that I have not read it, but I shall correct that omission as soon as possible. He suggested that if the Conservatives came to power, good governance would be a stated objective of development assistance. Presumably, they would support good governance only for the purposes of development. Would they support development for any purpose other than poverty reduction?
  Mr. Streeter: Good governance would certainly be the focal point of the next Conservative Government's development policy. There is no question but that we shall support countries in their march towards good governance, without which there would be no framework to sustain the investment and entrepreneurial activity that cause living standards to improve. That will take centre stage in our policy.
  The Secretary of State has answered the questions that I have put so far. Would the Bill permit steps to facilitate private investment, which can work faster than anything else to reduce poverty? Will she give her definition of poverty—perhaps in Committee? What are the benefits of imposing the narrow approach in the Bill? How would it make us better off?
  We shall wish to explore those questions at length in Committee, and I hope that the programme motion will allow enough time, which the motion on the Order Paper certainly does not. Given that we have had few opportunities to hear from the Secretary of State in the House—though it is always an illuminating experience—will she confirm whether she will serve on the Standing Committee?
  Clare Short: I do not intend to serve on the Committee. I have an incredibly able deputy to do that job for me, and we can expand the activities and achievements of our Department by not wasting our resources on performing the same task.
  Mr. Streeter: I am disappointed, since the Secretary of State's input would be important as this tricky matter passes through Committee, but I hear what she says.
  The Government's poverty focus is inextricably linked to international targets on poverty reduction, which the Secretary of State mentioned in her speech. We all support those targets. The Government subscribe to the 2015 target of halving global poverty. Who would not? But are there not real dangers in hiding behind remote long-term

  175
  pledges? Targets are not the same as outputs. As we have seen with hospital waiting lists, the wrong target can be counterproductive. We have already seen how progress towards international poverty targets is failing. Recently, the UN stated that the current rate of progress towards halving world poverty is less than a third of that required to fulfil the 2015 target—a worrying admission.
  Even when those targets are broken down, there are problems. For example, under the DFID public service agreement for 1999–2002, the allocation of aid to the poorest countries was supposed to be 80 per cent. last year; instead, it was 69 per cent. That is lower than in the previous year. Little progress has been made on maternal mortality, which led to the target being scrapped altogether this year. DFID could not obtain sufficient data on the target for enrolment in primary schools. If the Government cannot achieve even their smaller targets, what realistic hope is there for their global targets?
  What a new Labour approach it is to set a target, announce it with fanfares in the press and include it in all the glossy brochures but, when it becomes clear that the target will not be reached, quietly to forget about it. Targets are worth while only when they are consistently applied so that progress can realistically be measured. They do not work if one keeps moving the goalposts.
  For example, last October the Secretary of State said that 35 countries were eligible for debt relief and that it would be a disaster if we did not get three quarters of them on track by 2000. Three quarters of 35 is 26, but only 22 countries have qualified—four fewer than the right hon. Lady's target—so presumably that is a disaster. No, apparently it is not; instead of admitting that the target had been missed, she simply downgraded it. In a written answer, she said:
  "I am pleased to report that 22 countries have qualified for exceptional debt relief … exceeding our target of 20 countries qualifying by end of 2000."—[Official Report, 10 January 2001: Vol. 360, c. 577W.]
  Meaningless targets, continually downgraded, do not help hungry children. We want a clearer, more specific focus for British aid. I shall say more about that later in my speech.
  The Bill gives the Secretary of State wide discretion as to how to apply the objective, supported on all sides, of reducing global poverty—rightly so. We support that wide discretion. However, when considering how the Secretary of State is likely to exercise her powers, if the Bill becomes law and in the unlikely event of the Government's re-election, we are entitled to examine the policies that she has pursued to date.
  The Government have begun to establish a clear pattern in their approach to international development. Increasingly, they are moving to a sector-funded approach and adopting a Government-to-Government approach—turning their back on some excellent work done by charities. This afternoon, the Secretary of State confirmed more or less—that that is her approach.
  Clare Short: As ever, the hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand these matters. One cannot create effective modern governance—good governance—without engaging with Governments. It is the role of charities to bolster civil society, or to run pilot projects that show what is doable. As a Government, we are providing £195 million a year to UK non-governmental organizations
  176
  that are involved in development assistance; that is more than we provide to the World Bank or to the UN development agencies. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing two contradictory objectives. If we want good governance, we have to engage with Government systems. If we put more effort outside Government, we will not achieve more effective Government systems. There is a contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  Mr. Streeter: I am sorry to say that it is the Secretary of State who does not understand. The whole point of engaging with Governments should be to improve their governance, but her engagement with Governments all over the world does not have the specific focus of improving the quality of their governance; it is to deliver projects in those countries that are more often run by her officials than by their Ministers.
  The right hon. Lady referred to the allocation of £195 million to charities and NGOs. That sum constitutes 8 per cent. of the DFID budget—no wonder the Conservatives have pledged that in our first Parliament we will double the proportion of DFID money to be spent through NGOs and charities. We believe in the quality of their work and in the excellent outcome of all their efforts. The Government have begun to establish a clear pattern of sector funding, Government-to-Government aid, and talking tough but acting soft in their attempts to improve the failing European Union aid programme, which wastes 30 per cent. of British aid money. I should like to examine each of those issues in turn.
  We have serious reservations about the sector-wide approach to aid. It is dangerous to pour money into a developing-government programme with no clear knowledge of or control over how it is used, and the Department has highlighted those concerns. A research paper that it produced in 1998—entitled, "Social Development Issues in Sector Wide Approaches"—states that
  "donor governments will have to come to terms with accepting the loss of direct control which project processes brought to donor staff in many instances".
  It also states:
  "Any individual donor's agenda is likely to be subsumed within a collective donor approach",
  and will involve
  "handing over the control to national institutions in partner countries."
  It continues:
  "Individual donor agencies joining a common programme with key partners in the country concerned lose a certain level of direct control over activities they support".
  Of course, for a Government and country committed to poverty reduction and good governance, sector-wide programmes may well succeed, but in countries with no real commitment to good governance, taxpayers' money will simply be poured into a black hole. I believe that the Government need to be more cautious in their use of those programmes if public support for development is to be achieved.
  The confidence of the British people in Government-to-Government aid is very low. We know that from the survey of opinion that appears on the Department's own website. The survey clearly shows that the majority of British people believe that Britain is a soft touch when it comes to aid. Although the British people have, time and

  177
  again, shown themselves compassionate and generous in their support for people in crisis—whether in Mozambique, Kosovo or Gujarat—those same people have a low opinion of governmental spending on development. So the Government must win back lost trust and confidence by ensuring that British aid is not abused or misused; but that has not always been the case in the past four years. The Government are ignoring the findings of their own survey.
  Let us consider Malawi. Far more than half the population over which the Malawi Government preside live in absolute poverty and more than 40 per cent. cannot read and write—so how could the Government of Malawi afford to buy a fleet of luxury Mercedes cars for Ministers? The British high commissioner knew that that would be unacceptable to British taxpayers, who have stumped up £46 million for that country this year alone. When I raised the issue in the House with the Secretary of State, she denied that there was a problem. However, there was a problem and the cars had to be sold, but the damage was done. How can the British people have confidence that their money, pumped directly into the Government of Malawi, is not simply freeing up resources that enrich the elite?
  Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman misleads the House, and I am sure that he would not wish to do so. I told him that no corruption was involved in procuring those cars, but that it was outrageous extravagance, engaged in by the previous Finance Minister. The current Finance Minister of Malawi made it clear, at the conference in London last Monday, that I had been in touch with him and that he had announced that the cars would not be procured for Ministers; they would be sold and the funds spent on poor people in Malawi. The hon. Gentleman simply misleads the House, as he so often tries to do, in suggesting that I—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Lady must not make such a remark, and I invite her to withdraw it. No hon. Member misleads the House.
  Clare Short: I should like some advice from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said that my response when he raised an issue was other than it was. I am sure that that was inadvertent, but it misled the House, and I need to correct the record.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order for the right hon. Lady to say that an hon. Member may have said something that was incorrect, but it is offensive in parliamentary terms to suggest that an hon. Member has misled the House.
  Mr. Streeter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Lady confuses her recent response on Malawi to the Select Committee with the response that I received when I raised the issue in the House—she can check Hansard—before Christmas. The impression given by those on the Government Benches was that there was no problem, and they dismissed my raising the issue. Subsequently, the Malawi Government had to sell the cars.
  178
  The money raised from their sale might have reached the correct coffers in the Malawi Government, but how much was lost by selling new cars on a second-hand basis? We all know that cars, especially expensive ones, depreciate rapidly, and we wonder what that episode cost British taxpayers.
  On Zimbabwe, how can the Government spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money training the police and the army in a country whose President shops at Harrods, funds a war costing $1 million a day and oppresses his own people? Aid to the Zimbabwean Government should have been stopped a long time ago. The Government's inability to take a tough line with aid recipients undermines the very confidence in development that the Bill seeks to promote.
  Corruption and waste are clearly major obstacles to encouraging support for development, so we might expect the Government to take every step possible to eradicate them. As we have already heard, however, Labour has failed to introduce legislation to enforce the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery. In 1997, the Secretary of State said in one of her first speeches:
  "While developed countries have been aiding poor countries, their representatives have also been corrupting their governments in the interests of trade. It is right that developed countries have agreed to negotiate a convention to make it a crime to bribe public officials in a foreign country and to stop bribes".
  Mr. Tony Worthington: Why, in every year of the Conservative Government's term of office, was bribery of foreign officials tax deductible?
  Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman raises an issue that has nothing to do with the point that I am making, which is that, despite their posturing, rhetoric and four years in government, Labour has not introduced legislation on the OECD convention.
  This Government have done nothing to enforce the convention. No prosecution has been brought under British law in the past four years; the Government have sat on their hands while corruption has abounded. Transparency International, a well known and much respected body, has said:
  "Tony Blair and Robin Cook are said to have an ethical foreign policy. It is difficult to claim this if you don't have support for the OECD convention."
  This Government can find time to ban foxhunting, but cannot make time to crack down on international corruption.
  Where is the anti- bribery Bill? It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say that she wishes that another Department had introduced it. Where is the joined-up thinking? Ministers promised in April 2000 that it would be introduced as soon as possible, but the Queen's Speech came and went. Where is the Bill?
  Clare Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of whom he was a member, and for whom he was collectively responsible, took the view that existing British law enforced the convention and that there was no need to legislate? His Government did not propose any legislation. We undertook a review and are committed to legislating.
  Mr. Streeter: The Secretary of State misunderstands the position yet again. She has had four years to introduce

  179
  the legislation and to check the position under British law following the OECD convention. My point is that last April, a Minister in the Government of whom she is a member said that the Bill would be introduced as soon as possible. We have since had a Queen's Speech, a vehicle for the introduction of such a Bill. None was forthcoming. The Government do not give the priority to bearing down on corruption that the next Conservative Government will give it.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that, if and when the Bill is introduced, no Conservative Members will oppose it on the grounds that it would give courts in this country jurisdiction over offences committed abroad? In the four years that I have been a Member of this Parliament, I have listened time and again to speeches of that nature from Conservative Members whenever we seek to bring jurisdiction home. I suspect that I shall hear such speeches again in the context of the Bill on the International Criminal Court.
  Mr. Streeter: What a telling intervention that was—as though any Conservative Front Bencher could guarantee anything that a Conservative Member might say inside or outside the House. We believe that Members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents and to speak their own minds in public and in private. What a contrast that is with the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman has as good as admitted that people such as himself take the line from their Front Bench spokesmen and that that is all they will ever say. We have known that for years, and are pleased to hear it confirmed.
  My second major concern is that a third of all UK aid is channelled through the European Union. We know that its programmes are completely unacceptable and ineffective. Although the Bill does not alter the status of aid to the EU, the Government's new poverty focus puts Britain and Europe on a collision course. How can a Government who want aid to be channelled to the poorest countries contribute a third of their aid budget to an agency that last year gave most of its development aid to Morocco and Egypt? Surely their objectives are incompatible.
  How can a Government who are committed to the elimination of world poverty seriously compromise that fight by funding an organisation with such a track record? According to the Blak report, which was issued by the European Parliament last week, the EU has the same number of staff in Mali to preside over an aid budget of 152 million euros as it has in Barbados, which has an aid budget of next to nothing. The picture of eurocrats sunning themselves on Caribbean beaches at taxpayers' expense is a scandal.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my hon. Friend greet with alarm yesterday's meeting between President Mugabe of Zimbabwe and none other than the EU's Commissioner for Development Mr. Poul Nielson, presumably with a view to requesting the EU to continue and increase aid to that tyrannical regime?
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. President Mugabe has benefited in his country from the publicity of being received by leaders of member state countries and Commissioner Nielson. That is a disgrace and has done untold harm to the cause of democracy and
  180
  freedom in Zimbabwe. It will be a scandal if his visit produces more money from the EU when he presides so oppressively over that country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter.
  The Government missed the chance at the Nice summit to get the EU aid programme sorted out once and for all. They refused even to put it on the agenda, despite our repeated requests. The Secretary of State deploys the right rhetoric, but once again her Government fail to act. The only target set for EU aid spending is for it to be more focused by 2006, so we face five more years of waste unless the recent reforms work.
  The Conservatives are the only political party that is committed to fighting that waste. In almost every case, bilateral aid provides better value for money than EU aid programmes. When we take office, we will immediately review the effectiveness of the Commission's reforms. If we conclude that they have failed to deliver a more streamlined, more focused and less wasteful aid budget, we will fight for a treaty change to allow member states to deliver aid bilaterally. The Government should have put the mechanism for that on the table at the Nice summit, but they point-blank refused to do so.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's failure on this matter at the Nice summit is especially unfortunate given that it coincided with the report of the European Court of Auditors on 10 January 2000? That criticised EU aid programmes for their "weaknesses and shortcomings" and specifically denounced the European Commission for its cumbersome procedures and overly centralised decision making. Surely something should have been done by now.
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point: it was a missed opportunity, and I am afraid that the poorest people in the world will pay the price of misdirected EU aid over the next few years. He is right to mention the Blak report, which makes it clear that we cannot be too optimistic about the reforms working. It suggests that we would have to dismantle the whole bureaucratic culture of the Commission to deliver an effective aid programme. How many hon. Members believe that that is likely to happen?
  Clare Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to confirm that the Government of whom he was a member altered the proportion of the UK aid budget from 10 to 30 per cent., but that they made no effort whatsoever to reform or improve the European Community's development effort. There is now a major reform agenda. It was driven by UK pressure, and the publication that we made available to the House indicated the direction of those reforms. The hon. Gentleman says that if the country ever has the misfortune to have another Conservative Government, they will review the reform agenda to see whether it has been implemented and will take action if it has not. His party's record is to give more aid, and not reform the system through the EC. The Government's record is to put major reform in place. Of course, if we get a better EC effort, it will reach countries with which the UK does not have bilateral programmes, so the possible impact is greater.
  Mr. Streeter: The Secretary of State knows full well that the depth of the problem with the European Union's

  181
  aid programme became apparent in 1996 and 1997, just as her party took office. She has had four years to push for reform of the programme. Under the Maastricht treaty, the proportion of aid was, of course, increased. My point is not what happened four or five years ago, but that the Secretary of State missed a golden opportunity to set matters straight at Nice and did not even try to put the issue on the agenda. As I said, the poorest people in the world will pay a heavy price for that.
  The White Paper that preceded the Bill rightly focused on the importance of globalisation, which impacts on all of us. I am pleased that the Secretary of State now supports globalisation and capitalism with the zeal of a true convert. Even The Economist praised her recently, saying that
  "she makes a strong intellectual case for global capitalism, arguing that it should be seen as the solution to global poverty rather than the cause of it."
  The Economist says that the Secretary of State has
  "changed her mind about her youthful sermons".
  For that, she should be commended.
  Most of us would be very happy indeed with that praise from The Economist. Strangely, however, the Secretary of State is not.
  Mr. Worthington: Should not the hon. Gentleman quote the rest of the article, in which the Secretary of State pointed out that globalisation is neither a good thing nor a bad thing overall and that action depends on political will? The Labour party's political will, unlike that of the Conservatives, is to end world poverty.
  Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in thinking that his party has a monopoly on compassion for world poverty. I made that point earlier and made it clear that there is a fine Conservative tradition of bearing down on global poverty, which will continue and be consolidated under the next Conservative Government.
  I shall quote more of the exchanges between the Secretary of State and The Economist, which made interesting reading. Most of us would be happy with the praise that the magazine gave her. Strangely, however, she was not. She was so upset by The Economist's praise, that she was moved to write and complain. She claimed:
  "your snide comments on my political views and the Globalisation White Paper are misinformed".
  However, The Economist cannot be blamed for thinking that the Secretary of State has had a Damascene conversion to global capitalism. In almost every speech, she demonstrates that she has changed her mind on every important argument in the past decade. The old Labour firebrand has become new Labour through and through.
  Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about. Since I joined the Labour party, I have been in the tradition of the Attlee Government, who always believed in a mixed economy, effective states and the market doing its job. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was never a neo-liberal, a Thatcherite or a monetarist in favour of structural adjustments. He, of course, was—he would roll back the state and let inequality rip. He supported all those policies—I did not. I did not support them when I was young, and my party did not when it was in power in 1945.
  182
  The hon. Gentleman shares the ignorance of the editor of The Economist and, perhaps, has a background of fundamentalism in supporting market forces ripping through and rolling back the state. That did untold harm to the world, and was driven by the Government whom he supported.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her second speech of the afternoon. I join the editor of The Economist. After the exchanges between the Secretary of State and the magazine, it published a second article about her, which is headed, "No praise, please, I'm Labour". It says:
  "We unreservedly withdraw any praise we erroneously gave her for doing so without embarrassment."
  I am pleased that the Secretary of State said that she is in the Attlee tradition. The White Paper embracing globalisation was written by a new Labour Secretary of State, and is a far cry from the class warrior of old who, only in 1996, said:
  "we socialists are different because we believe that the economy of the world must be managed in a way that provides a decent life for every person … It is how the time for the democratic socialists of the world to take the world forward again".
  As is so often the case with recent converts, the right hon. Lady has gone over the top. She has misunderstood what globalisation is all about. She has said that
  "the old idea of national sovereignty … is gone. The world is one",
  but that is not true The world is not one. We will raise that fundamental issue with her in Committee. The nation state still makes the greatest impact on people's lives. For a child in Nigeria, it is the Government of Nigeria who hold the keys to her future. The United Nations Development Programme's poverty report summed up the matter in five words:
  "Good governance—the missing link."
  I shall set out what the Conservatives will do in office to take practical steps to bear down on global poverty. Real change in a developing country can come about only when there is political stability. That means a framework of competent and responsible government, open and accountable institutions and a strong civil society. It means the rule of law and an effective and honest legal system. Conservative international development policy will focus on that.
  It is our firm belief that when developing countries make a commitment to good governance, aid money is better spent and foreign direct investment is encouraged. Foreign aid alone will never be sufficient to lift a country out of poverty. It is by encouraging the private sector and foreign investment that we will help economies to grow and living standards to rise. Conservative development policy will help to lay the key foundations of stability, on which developing nations can then build. We want to empower developing countries committed to change, so that they can govern responsibly for all their citizens. In government, we will focus on good governance. We intend to amend the Bill in Committee to reflect that.
  We also believe that although Governments may be ideally placed to deal directly with other Governments, that is only part of the story. It is hard for Governments to come alongside ordinary people and provide tailored solutions to individual needs. That is primarily the role of charities, non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations, which do an excellent and priceless job all over the world, caring for those in need.

  183
  In government, we will seek to boost the role of such bodies in development. We have pledged to double the proportion of the DFID budget spent by NGOs over the course of the first Parliament. We will also support the smaller aid charities, which feel let down by the present Government. In a consultation exercise involving more than 1,000 smaller aid charities, we were told again and again that they felt rejected by the Government, and that the application process for support for life-changing work in some of the poorest parts of the world was a long and painful process. We will put that right.
  The Government have no information on their website to tell people how hey can help in international development. After the recent Gujarat earthquake, for example, Australian and American websites outlined what to collect, what not to collect, which organisations are working in the region and what technical assistance might be helpful. They were helping their people, but the British Government failed to support and encourage the energy and drive of the British people so that they could play their full part in fighting global poverty.
  The Government do not respect or encourage the massive impact that private individuals and charities can make. The people of Britain have consistently demonstrated that they care about development issues. We will provide more information and better co-ordination of the relief efforts of British people. We will set up an agency, aid direct. Through a sophisticated website, database and call centre, aid direct will act as a central information service for members of the public, providing up-to-date and accurate information about all areas of development.
  Aid direct will be dedicated to offering advice on how best the British people can help those in developing countries. It will help to match needs in the developing world with willing helpers in the UK. Aid direct will be set up in partnership with the NGO community, with constant input from NGOs and embassies throughout the world. It will empower the British public and small aid charities to make a real difference to communities in the developing world.
  Harnessing the enthusiasm of the British people will not only help developing countries, but will raise the profile of development in the UK, so in government we will focus on good governance, do more to back the excellent work of British charities and sort out the EU aid scandal.
  I should like to raise three other concerns about the Government's handling of international development that the Bill appears to do nothing to address. The Government are not supporting poverty reduction and sustainable development when they recruit staff from developing countries to fill UK shortages. The Secretary of State will know that the South African Minister of Education, Kader Asmal, has severely criticised the United Kingdom for poaching the most highly trained teachers from South Africa to cover up the Government's failure to recruit and retain teachers. Minister Asmal said that such recruitment drives showed little concern for the development needs of South Africa and the money and effort put into producing good quality graduates. Surely the Secretary of State cannot believe that it is right to fill our schools and hospitals with qualified doctors, nurses and teachers who have been stolen from developing countries. How can we expect those countries to lift themselves out of poverty if we help to train their teachers, but then snatch them away
  184
  when they have been fully trained? How can she preside over that modern-day press gang? Where is the joined-up government, and what will she do to stop that damaging policy?
  Last week, I received from DFID a catalogue listing more than 200 publications, including reports, plans, strategies and proposals. How do those publications contribute to the relief of poverty? One of the reports deals with what is on television, but how does a report on watching television reduce global poverty? The Government must be completely out of touch if they have to commission a report to find out what is on the television. Another publication seeks to explain poverty and the environment by using colourful characters such as Socrates and Frank Zappa. How can the Secretary of State justify the spending of taxpayers' money on so many glossy brochures?
  It is no wonder that people are disillusioned. That unnecessary waste has cost British taxpayers £2 million since 1997. This year alone, the Department will spend £55,000 on direct mail promotion of its publications—money that will be used only to send the glossies out. During the past four years, it has spent more than £4 million on recruitment advertising. Since Labour came to power, aid administration costs have increased by £10 million in real terms. More and more is spent on administration, publications and advertising, which hardly demonstrates poverty focus.
  My final point concerns the Government's promise to increase aid as a proportion of national wealth. In 1997, the Secretary of State stated:
  "As our Manifesto and the Government's White Paper on International Development makes clear, we are committed to the UN 0.7 per cent. oda/GNP target and to reversing the decline in UK aid spending".—[Official Report, 12 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 592W.]
  When Labour took office in May 1997, aid as a percentage of GNP stood at 0.27 per cent. Last year, after it had had three years in government, that figure had fallen to 0.23 per cent. Only in the world of new Labour can that be described as a rise. The Secretary of State claims that there is a technical flaw in the figures, but in this case the phrase "technical flaw" is new Labour speak for the Government's complete failure to meet their target and keep their promises on aid spending.
  If last year was a flaw, let us consider as a whole what has happened over the current Parliament and the previous one, including DFID's projections for the next two years. On average, in the five years 1992 to 1996 inclusive, the previous Conservative Government spent 0.3 per cent. of GNP on aid. Between 1997 and 2001, the current Government will have spent an average of 0.27 per cent. of GNP on aid, according to their own figures. That difference—0.3 per cent. versus 0.27 per cent.—must be another technical flaw. Even in real terms, aid has been lower under Labour. Last year, Labour's aid budget was still lower than those in four out of the previous five years of Conservative government.
  The Secretary of State must have been giving us a prophecy in 1996 when she said:
  "The Government always promises more money for the poorest people tomorrow, yet tomorrow never comes".
  Today, the truth can be told. It is not a technical flaw and the figures are clear. No matter how the Government spin or conceal it, they have broken their promise to the British

  185
  people. They are spending less on aid as a percentage of GNP than the previous Conservative Government. How many ways can one say it? Labour spends less on aid than we did. The Bill is another example of fine words; time will tell whether it will make a difference to the lives of the poorest.
  We will work towards a target of spending 0.7 per cent. of gross national product on aid. We have set out changes of £8 billion to Labour's public expenditure plans for 2003–04. None affects the aid budget. We shall continue to champion debt relief for the poorest countries. We will be radical, but compassionate. We recognise the reality of abject poverty and we accept the role that our country can play in helping to improve living standards for those who live in the world's poorest countries.
  We will focus on good governance, give more support to charities and end the European Union aid scandal. Like the Government, we will work towards achieving the global targets on poverty, education, health and the environment. Unlike the Government, we have policies that will enable us to do that.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: If I had not been a Member of Parliament since 1982, and had not enjoyed the privilege of serving in the post that the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) currently holds, I would have found it difficult to believe that he could make such a speech. It was a mean-minded, unworthy little speech, which failed to address the Bill. Above all, it failed to acknowledge one of the Government's greatest successes: the creation of the Department for International Development, which is proudly led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Its success has been recognised not only in Great Britain and Europe but throughout the caring world. I am sorry that that has escaped the hon. Gentleman.
  It was difficult to believe that we were being lectured at the Dispatch Box by a spokesperson for the party that was responsible for the Pergau dam and all its implications. I heard Sir Timothy Lankester's evidence to the Select Committee. He told us about the way in which the previous Government had repeatedly abused every aspect of overseas aid. I listened to Baroness Chalker and Lord Hurd, who failed to justify the combination of overseas aid and taxpayers' money with arms deals. The previous Government's attitude was repugnant and as indefensible then as it is today.
  I welcome the Bill, and I am sure that most hon. Members and the majority of the British people welcome it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly seized a legislative window of opportunity. The Bill takes international development forward by several strides and I am proud to support it. The hon. Member for South-West Devon suggested both that the Government were doing too little, and that the Bill would do too much. There has been no legislation on the subject for 21 years and it is therefore right to tackle that gap.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to non-governmental organisations, charities and voluntary organisations. I have spoken to representatives of several and, like other hon. Members, I have received briefings and letters. Not one expressed the view that the Bill was unworthy of
  186
  support. Indeed, some would like the Bill to contain more than we can currently include. I shall deal with that point shortly. The Bill is greatly welcomed, and my right hon. Friend is right to press on with it. Through her excellent record and the White Paper, she has established that poverty reduction is a pivotal aim of UK development assistance. We accept that it is necessary to support the activities of organisations likely to promote awareness and understanding of world poverty. That is precisely what the Bill does. It is right to do so, and those organisations welcome that.
  I also welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the whole of the United Kingdom. When I hear so many other mean-minded attempts to try to set parts of the United Kingdom against one another, I welcome the fact that, on the issues of development awareness and advocacy that my right hon. Friend welcomed in her speech, the Bill will embrace both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. That is excellent in terms of involving all our people, and, in particular, young people—pupils, students—in the vital issue of development and in our perception of what the British Government in modern times have achieved and can achieve.
  My right hon. Friend has confirmed in her speech and in the Bill that poverty is a global crisis, and one that is begging to be addressed in sub-Saharan Africa. That was the kind of thing that I had expected to hear from the hon. Member for South-West Devon. The number of people in poverty rose from 242 million in 1990 to 291 million in 1998, and 5,500 people die every day in Africa as a result of AIDS. More people will be concerned about dealing with those problems—which the Bill, addressing poverty as it does, can certainly do—than about whether people buy cars in Malawi or whether a statesperson of dubious standing should dominate our approach to these important issues.
  I have never believed that people should suffer because of the leadership under which they happen to live at a given time. I am glad that the Bill is much more forward-looking than to suggest that, and that it sets higher horizons than that. That is quite right, too, at a time when one in five of the world's population—two thirds of them women—live in abject poverty in a world of otherwise growing prosperity.
  Of all the clauses in the Bill, I most welcome clause 8. It does what we want the Government and the House to do, which is to show—not just to speak of—our support for organisations likely to promote awareness of world poverty, and to show as part of primary legislation, that they have an important role to play. The Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 failed to address that, and it is absolutely right that we should introduce legislation to address it now.
  Hon. Members will no doubt speak of their own experience in these matters during the debate. I would like briefly to speak of a recent visit that I paid to Peru, and of the impact that the Bill will have on the important work going on there. I welcome the work of organisations such as the World Development Movement and the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. Incidentally, on the subject of corruption, I believe that that aid work managed to influence the removal of Mr. Fujimori. I would welcome a comment from the hon. Member for South-West Devon on that step forward for democracy.

  187
  Those organisations did even more. Organisations such as CAFOD in Lima, by supporting the women organising the soup kitchens—very welcome for people who have not eaten for days or, in some cases, weeks—are emphasising that women have a role to play in a developing democracy. CAFOD, in addressing the problem of HIV-AIDS in Peru, and encouraging people to support one another and to demand their rights from the Peruvian public health system, is doing what the Bill will encourage many others to do in other parts of the world.
  I conclude my remarks on my experiences in Peru and, in particular, the input of CAFOD and other organisations by referring to this comment:
  "The bill is narrower in purpose than the 1980 Act but is wider in the powers that it gives the Secretary of State to pursue poverty reduction".
  That is CAFOD's view, and it is mine as well. It is also one reason why I welcome the Bill.
  Mr. Rowe: The right hon. Gentleman is skirting round a difficult question. He suggests that there is some merit in western aid agencies helping citizens to organise themselves to remove a corrupt Government, yet national Governments are extraordinarily leery about operating in such a way. Is not the extent to which such corrupt Governments should be respected, regardless of how badly they behave, a difficult issue? It is central, is it not?
  Mr. Clarke: I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course that is an extremely difficult issue, which is why it perhaps ought to be approached with more sensitivity than was displayed by the Opposition spokesman.
  In presenting the Bill to the House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entitled to claim credit for the £195 million that she provided to civil society groups-17 per cent. more than in 1996–97. The need for poverty reduction has been well and truly established. According to the World Bank's 2000 development indicators, about 1.2 billion people were living in extreme poverty—on less than £1 a day—in 1998. That figure was about the same 11 years previously, in 1987. Surely that invites challenge.
  The record of my right hon. Friend's Department exceeds the commitments set out in our election manifesto, progressive as they were. Representations have been made about tied aid, which, for reasons that I fully understand, is not dealt with by the Bill. However, it still covers such issues positively. I understand that the WDM and others welcome the Bill, but still suggest that perhaps a little more could be added to it. My response is that the Department is indeed going ahead and addressing those other issues. We hope that the Bill will be passed, but that does not mean that we are pulling back for one moment from the commitment to tackle important matters such as tied aid, especially in the light of our experience with the Pergau dam.
  Clare Short: If tied aid is supplied, the goods or consultancies procured have to go beck to the providing country. All the World Bank research shows that that creates gross inefficiency and aid is reduced in value by 25 per cent. The Bill, which states that poverty reduction must be the target, will make it impossible to reintroduce
  188
  tied aid. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have announced that we are getting rid of it completely, so there is no need for an explicit provision about it. The Bill means that tied aid will not be permitted because it is not poverty focused.
  Mr. Clarke: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend says. I am sure that those charities and voluntary organisations that have been following our proceedings will note her remarks and welcome not only them, but what was said in "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor".
  The Bill's main thrust deals with world poverty. Of course we should aim in that direction, and my right hon. Friend can say with pride that she has introduced the measure against a backdrop of substantial improvements in international development made since she took over. Between 1997 and 2003–04, the UK aid budget will rise by 45 per cent. in real terms, and nobody can take away from her and the Government the fact that it is the largest aid budget ever.
  Moreover, there have been huge debt initiatives on the part of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and indeed the Secretary of State, which have made remarkable progress. Important and radical as they are, however, those initiatives cannot succeed unless we address world poverty and the need to help the poorest people in the poorest countries. I believe that the Bill seeks to do that.
  Poverty reduction was not placed at the heart of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. That is one of the Act's major defects, and one of the reasons why the Bill is necessary. The Bill accepts the challenge of eliminating poverty abroad, and I am glad that it does—but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, that does not mean that the rest of her Department's many-faceted work will not continue. Despite what she may have heard from other Ministers, the world outside recognises that my right hon. Friend has put development at the heart of this Government.
  I recall the days when Question Time on Mondays ended with 10 minutes of questions on international development. A junior Minister replied for the Government; a Minister of State in another place also dealt with international development. If the hon. Member for South-West Devon needs any reminding of his Government's role in international development, compared with where we are today, I can refer him to the open letter that the then Minister, Tim Raison—on the day of his removal from office—addressed to his successor, Chris Patten. In that letter, he said that the only discussion on international development in which he had ever engaged with the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, had taken place on the very day when she dismissed him. How different that approach is from today's attitudes!
  I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State "Well done. We welcome the Bill. Get on with a great job: the country admires you, and so does the developing world."
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I shall begin by justifying the need for an International Development Bill. Some have regarded international development as a handout aimed at gaining political advantage, and at enabling the money to be used as an

  189
  adjunct to political and diplomatic objectives. Others have regarded it as a method of getting rid of otherwise unsaleable equipment, such as the Westland helicopters that were given to India for "humanitarian purposes". Incidentally, they were recently returned to us as "junk".
  The real justification, however, goes much deeper than those passing needs of Government. For me—and, I believe, for not only the Conservative party but the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties—this is a deeply moral question of human beings' responsibilities to their fellow men. It is the issue that faced the good samaritan. For a Conservative, it involves the issue of the responsibility of those with skills and wealth for those who were not born with such advantages.
  Regrettably, in feudal and early Victorian times that attitude could be deeply patronising. I believe, however, that if people are able to make money and become wealthy, it is the result of God-given skills and hard work. Such wealth brings with it responsibility for using the money wisely to create employment, train others and enable people to help themselves. That should be regarded not as patronising, but as a God-given duty.
  If what I have said applies to individuals, it must also apply to countries and Governments whose wealth is gained through taxing the product of the efforts of hard-working subjects of the Queen or citizens, for the public good and for equitable reasons. Often, Britain has become wealthy because of the efforts of thousands of people toiling as slaves in the sugar industry of the West Indies, the importation of bananas produced by thousands of ill-paid and ill-housed banana farmers on plantations owned by huge American companies in Central America, the harvesting of latex in Malaysia and Indonesia to make rubber, or the mining of gold from the bowels of the earth in some of the world's deepest mines in South Africa, in conditions that can only be described as close to hell.
  Britain has become rich also by the mining of diamonds in Angola and in Sierra Leone, and by exploiting the skills of the tea pickers of India and the teak loggers of Burma, Thailand and Cambodia. With that wealth from overseas has come responsibility for those who live and work overseas. We have a responsibility to them.
  Why do hundreds—now thousands—of people risk their lives to come to Britain and claim political asylum? Most of them come as economic migrants fleeing the intolerable conditions that they must endure in their own countries. Some of them come to avoid persecution and are seeking a safe haven. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) confirmed in his policy speech to the Conservative party meeting in Harrogate that we should always welcome those people to our shores.
  Dr. Tonge: Ha!
  Mr. Wells: That is what my right hon. Friend said in Harrogate, and I am going to keep him to his word.
  We cannot and must not turn a blind eye to those who come for economic reasons as well. Britain cannot accommodate them all, but we can help them to provide a better living for themselves in their own countries. We have not only a moral duty to do so, but a practical and common-sense reason for doing so. That is why
  190
  Conservative Members must soften their rhetoric by recognising our duty, with others, to provide the means by which the wretchedly poor of the world can help themselves out of their misery and hopelessness. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, Conservative Members have a proud record. Nevertheless, that record is insufficient and more needs to be done. I should like to hear all parties give a commitment to do more and to grow the development budget.
  The British people understand that something is going badly wrong when tens of thousands of people are crossing the entire length of the European continent, travelling through safe countries en route, suddenly to plead for asylum when they arrive in Britain. Something is going badly wrong when desperate people hide in the undercarriages of Eurostar trains or Boeing 747s. What is going wrong is our failure to offer investment, management and skills training in the countries from which those people have fled. In short, it is a matter of international development. I wholeheartedly welcome the new International Development Bill because I believe that it emphasises the duty of us all to promote that development.
  My own conviction was triggered when, at 19 in Karachi, I saw the so-called houses that thousands of people had built on the sewage-covered banks of the Sind river. They were built of refuse such as Kelloggs cornflakes packets and anything else that they could scavenge from the river or that had been discarded by richer people. They had lived in that condition for eight years, since 1947, when the sudden and brutal division of India was agreed in a hurry by Lord Mountbatten on the instruction of Prime Minister Attlee, to settle the issue of Britain's relations with India.
  What did India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom do to help those wretched people? They did very little indeed. Those people were put in that position by men who took political decisions without doing anything about the consequences for them. We could have helped them to rebuild their lives, but we did nothing. As poverty in this world is largely man made, it can be remedied by man. The appalling condition of those people made me resolve to try to build a better world that cared for them. That is why I believe that today's debate is overdue, and why we need to consider the Bill in much greater detail.
  Clause 1 enshrines the poverty focus—which the Secretary of State wishes to be the core and main objective of her Bill—in legislation for the first time. The poverty reduction strategy is absolutely right, but nowhere in the Bill is there a definition of poverty. I have been in this place long enough to know why it has been omitted. The Bill's drafters would not have wanted to provide any opportunity for judicial review, so they did not define poverty.
  The problem with that omission is that in very many cases, poverty is a comparative term. In just the past fortnight, for example, the Child Poverty Action Group published a paper stating that 25 per cent. of children in this country live in poverty. The abject poverty that we are discussing, and on which I think the Bill intends to focus, is—except in very exceptional and criminal situations—a life that no child in this country lives. The type of life lived by children who are born on rubbish heaps in Dhaka or in many other places around the world is a hideous life of great danger to which no human being should be subjected.

  191
  I therefore think that in Committee, we shall have to discuss further whether we need a definition of poverty. It is a very important issue if we truly want to find a way of constantly and continuously ensuring that future Secretaries of State for International Development really do concentrate the resources that are available to them on those who are in abject poverty—which I know the Secretary of State and many other hon. Members understand only too well.
  Clause 3 is the humanitarian assistance clause and is a new type of provision. We sometimes wonder why it was thought necessary to include it in the Bill. The right hon. Lady explained that in cases where emergency assistance is necessary, she would like to be relieved of the poverty focus. I appreciate that in emergencies, the poor and the rich may be equally in need of humanitarian assistance. However, when we describe something as "humanitarian assistance", we have to know what wt mean by the term.
  Traditionally, we have intended that humanitarian assistance should be given to people without regard to whether they are on one side or the other of a war or any other situation. That is the basis on which the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and other humanitarian agencies have always operated and been welcomed by both sides. Regardless of the action that has been taken by the individuals or groups involved, those agencies have offered assistance—health assistance, medical assistance, food, shelter and warmth—to both sides, and that is how the agencies have been able to operate. We have to prevent any degradation of the term "humanitarian assistance".
  I am concerned that the term has already been degraded, most recently in the Kosovo crisis. For the best of reasons, the European Union decided that it would provide winter fuel and what it called humanitarian assistance—which was funded by the European Community Humanitarian Office—to two towns in southern Serbia. The reason was that the mayors of those two towns supported democracy and opposed the continuation of Milosevic's rule in Serbia. I entirely agree with that policy, but to regard that aid as humanitarian relief is a degradation of that term. If we undertook to provide fuel, we should have provided it to all towns and to all those who, were suffering from the cold and the lack of electricity as a result of the Kosovan conflict. That was not done. In my view, we risk using aid that is meant for humanitarian purposes in a political way, thereby undermining the concept of humanitarianism and destroying the capacity for emergency relief to be offered objectively and impartially.
  The Bill should include a definition of humanitarian aid that puts in statute that it has to be provided impartially in order to prevent the perversion of development assistance into a politically dominated and politically motivated policy. That view is supported by the research carried out so well by Dr. Joanna Macrae, a research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute. Her arguments are compelling. She refers to:
  "Reaffirming humanitarian principles of impartiality and independence of humanitarian action, underscoring that its primary purpose is the alleviation of suffering not to resolve conflict or achieve a political objective."
  We should consider that in Committee, and decide whether we need to amend the Bill.
  I have some further points to make about issues raised in the Bill. The additional powers that the Secretary of State is seeking to assign, to hold shares or to offer
  192
  guarantees, must relate in some way to the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1999. If and when shares are offered to the public under that Act, the Department for International Development will need the powers that are envisaged under clause 6.
  I refer to our debate on 14 July 1999, when, as is recorded in column 529 of Hansard, I discussed how the CDC would change in the light of that Bill. That is now beginning to come to a head. I understand that the CDC is sacking many of the people involved in managing direct projects, and, indeed, that many direct projects, mainly in the agricultural sector, are being disposed of at less than cost. I warned the Secretary of State that such a tragedy might result from the nature of the CDC Bill, which I supported in principle. We now need the kind of provision that I suggested in that debate. A fund is necessary to bring about greenfield development, which can no longer be established through the CDC because it does not offer sufficient return, but is vital to kick-start economic development, particularly in agriculture, from which most people in the third world derive their income.
  I urge the Secretary of State to consider how she can help that development to take place—not on the basis of an input from big companies or funds in this country, but to help the people concerned as we help people in depressed areas of this country when they have been put out of work, for whatever reason, and need a start, and just as we offer through the Welsh Development Agency, the Scottish Development Agency and so on, help to re-start businesses and so enable people to earn a living.
  Clare Short: I know the figure—I mentioned it in my speech. We spent £190 million in 1991 on improving the incomes and livelihoods of the poorest people living in rural areas. The reorganisation of CDC was to get a sufficient rate of return to demonstrate that the private sector could afford to invest more in developing countries. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, Africa needs to get more value out of its agriculture and to carry out more processing within the continent. That will produce a higher rate of return and attract the inward investment that the continent needs. So we have other means of providing support to rural populations on very low incomes, and we continue to use them. The CDC reform is going through and is still on track to achieve the objectives established in the Act that we debated so thoroughly.
  Mr. Wells: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady's intervention on that point. We need more explanation as to how we can help the poor start up businesses and agricultural development, now that the CDC cannot offer assistance with that. I should like more detail as to how that is being done; I would be grateful if she let me know how it will be achieved.
  Let me move on to clause 11, which deals with contributions to international organisations, and use it as a hook to bring two matters to the attention of the House. They are both based on the problem of accountability. The problems relating to the European Union's accountability to the House and to the institutions are extremely serious. I urge the Secretary of State on, as I know that she has been as critical as the Select Committee on International Development has been in three reports to the House about the way in which the EU conducts aid business, as regards both the European development fund and budgetary aid. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon rightly referred to that in his speech.

  193
  The Select Committee, in its report on the effectiveness of EC aid, said:
  "The fundamental mistake has been to allocate excessive funds in the first place for predominantly political reasons."
  I want to discuss that further because the Bill says that all our money is to be poverty focused, yet we are giving to an international organisation that gives aid "for predominantly political reasons". Presumably that is why President Mugabe was seeing Mr. Poul Nielson, the Commissioner in charge of these matters, yesterday.
  The Select Committee report continued:
  "The Communication on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance was frank in its admission of the extent of the problem: 'The average length of project/programme implementation has continuously increased over the last few years with a corresponding trend in the backlog of outstanding commitments that reached over 20 billion euro by the end of 1999'"—
  that is, the backlog. The communication continued:
  "'In the last five years the average delay in disbursement of committed funds has increased from 3 years to 4.5 years. For certain programmes, the backlog of outstanding commitments is equivalent to more than 8.5 years' payments.'"
  That is a disgraceful record by any standard.
  Only last Thursday, Commissioner Patten came to the House to give evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Among other things, he said that the amount of money given to the southern Balkans—Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Serbia—amounted to 850 million euros. My ears pricked up at that figure, because it is the amount that the European Union gives to some of the poorest people in the world. The EU's programmes for Latin America and Asia amount to 850 million euros a year. The programmes manage to spend that money without accumulating the backlogs accrued by the programmes for the Mediterranean and the east of Europe.
  The Secretary of State must work with her EU counterparts to put right the EU's aid budget and give it a poverty focus. I know that she has been trying hard to do that and that she has got the agreement of the vast majority of her counterparts in other Governments. I have never heard any of them resile from that objective, but it is not being implemented in practice. We must redouble our efforts in that regard.
  Clare Short: The Select Committee on International Development has made a contribution in that respect. The statement about EU policy reform is unprecedented in its radicalism. It admits the failures of the past, and it has been agreed by the Council of Europe and the European Commission. The European Parliament also agreed to it last week, but the reform statement needs to be implemented. There is also agreement on the decentralisation programme, which will remove the layers of bureaucracy that prevent the money from being spent.
  We still need to drive the reform through, but we have made a breakthrough in achieving the commitment to it. The Government, and the Select Committee, have contributed significantly in that regard. We must finish the job, but securing the admission of past failure and the commitment to deep policy change represent an unprecedented breakthrough.
  Mr. Wells: I hope that I have made clear my awareness of the Secretary of State's hard work on this matter. I did
  194
  not know that the European Parliament had adopted the programme, but I am delighted to hear it. We now have the basis to ensure that the reforms are pushed down to the right levels, and that power is devolved to the countries where the EU is working.
  Unfortunately, such devolution has not happened yet. The Select Committee visited Vietnam and Cambodia and found that the EU representatives remained in the unhelpful mode that we have criticised for so long. Progress has been made but, as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon have said, we must display the determination that the right hon. Lady has shown on many occasions and ensure that reforms are pushed down to the most appropriate levels.
  We must ensure that the EU is accountable when it comes to adopting and delivering a poverty focus, and the same is true of the regional development banks. The present Minister of State, Scotland Office, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), used to he the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, a post now occupied by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). The present Minister knows a lot about this subject, and I enjoyed reading his book about Vietnam when I was there, but his predecessor did a huge amount of work on regional development banks and, unprecedentedly, visited them all.
  The Department has issued reports on the banks, but the reports are disappointing because they are, inevitably, a little superficial. I know of some banks whose lending is seriously politically bent. Pressure is exerted to ensure that they invest where they should not. The banks agree to make investments for political reasons, and because their shareholders' representative in a particular country is often the Minister responsible for a particular project. The banks therefore get overwhelmed.
  The Select Committee has seen the development bank for the Association of South-East Asian Nations in Bangladesh and Cambodia go behind the backs of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and offer its own help for projects on the basis that that help remains undeclared. That practice has to stop. The international community has to work together and implement a responsible and coherent policy that is accountable to the member states who are the shareholders of the World Bank, and to this House. We must ensure that the same poverty focus in bilateral programmes proposed in the Bill is adopted by the international community.
  The Secretary of State has made huge efforts with regard to the problems that exist internationally. She hosted a high-powered seminar last Monday, attended by the presidents of the World Bank and the IMF. The president of the OECD, Mr. Johnson, also attended. The seminar dealt with the serious matter of child poverty. The problems of poverty require great vigour, and organisations that do not fulfil their obligations must be called to account.
  My final point has to do with SWAPs—sector-wide approaches. In that regard, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon mentioned the question of good governance. I agree with the Secretary of State's objectives. She told the Select Committee that if we can get the education departments in countries that receive assistance—bilateral assistance from us, and multilateral

  195
  assistance too—to agree programmes with the IMF and to implement them, we will gain leverage, when it comes to focusing our efforts and money on poverty, that we have never achieved before.
  The problem is that many countries are stricken with poverty because they are so poorly governed. Their Governments are corrupt, lazy and made up of elites interested only in feathering the nests of their members and friends. That makes it extremely difficult to get into the ideal position implied by the SWAPs policy.
  When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Select Committee last Tuesday, she said that SWAPs must be implemented at a lower level if they cannot be implemented at a higher level. She gave the example of Ghana, where co-operation and leverage were being achieved at regional or provincial level. That shows a welcome flexibility of approach, but such co-operation will not be possible in some countries.
  We must learn to work to a time scale of more than three years. I could not agree more with the right hon. Lady that three-year projects merely pick at problems and do not address what is important—reducing rates of poverty and child mortality, raising the number of children attending primary school, improving the health of mothers, and so on.
  More thinking must be done. In the meantime, we and the other donor countries must offer longer programmes that are better organised and designed. When faced with Governments whom we cannot trust, we must implement such programmes as far as we can.
  Flexibility is essential. In Cambodia and Vietnam, the Committee encountered DFID people who said that they had worked on projects for 10 years, but were now being told that projects were out and SWAPs were in. The officials said that the Department in Victoria street did not want to hear anything about projects. However, the officials considered that projects represented the best way to address poverty, as they could be set in train before people were in a position to implement SWAPs. I hope that the Department is not going overboard in its enthusiasm for SWAPs as a method of getting a poverty focus into all our programmes.
  Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, because this is so important. We all agree that there cannot be sector-wide or budgetary support unless a country has a reforming Government. However, reforming Governments with reforming intent often have very weak capacity. If, by working through those Governments, we can strengthen their entire public management systems, we achieve sustainability and scale.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that when that is possible, it is the best way. When it is not possible, one has to find second-best instruments; but when there is a better way of working in other countries, we may leverage the reform effort in countries that perform less well by showing what can be achieved. Working in that way achieves scale and sustainability. Working through the systems of a Government means reaching everybody and engendering sustainable reform that will continue indefinitely.
  Mr. Wells: I could not agree more. If we can reach that position, it would be ideal. We should continue to try and do so and make certain that the countries that offer
  196
  poverty reduction programmes mean what they say. I got the definite impression in Cambodia that its Government would say what we—including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—wanted them to say. The proposals might look beautiful, but I got the impression that nothing of substance would happen. Either the Government did not know how to do it, or they did not have the people to do it, or they did not want to do it—I do not know what the exact combination of factors was. I know that the idea is ownership, but because such countries are so desperate for money, we have to ensure that they are not simply saying what we want them to say without actually doing anything. We must try to achieve the position that the right hon. Lady describes, without ignoring other opportunities that may present themselves.
  I believe that the aid direct scheme proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon could be one of the most explosively good ideas that we could offer Britain. We could twin people in Britain who care about overseas development—and there are a lot of them—in the same way as Jersey does. The island of Jersey has a very small programme. In one of its projects, it contacted a village in Nigeria, near Ibadan, which did not have a potable, reliable water supply. The Jersey Estates put up some money but then asked the people of Jersey whether a team would like to go to the village in Nigeria, assess its needs, come back and order the necessary pumps, pipes and equipment, go back to Nigeria and, with the help of the villagers, build that pump and train the people there to maintain it. Jersey offered the villagers a maintenance service and provided spare parts, where necessary, over a long period.
  If we could get a lot of such projects going, with a little assistance from the Department for International Development, people would be able to help others in a practical and sensible way. It would also transform people's attitude to aid. This is all about introducing people, showing them how to do things and helping them do those things over a long period. That could have an explosive effect on producing a culture in this country of wanting to help at the grass roots. It cannot be done in isolation; it must be done together with the bigger projects such as SWAPs, but it contains the kernel of a very important idea.
  This is a moral issue which we cannot ignore. All parties in the House now have, through the Bill and other means, a focus on development which I believe will be at the centre of the problems of the 21st century. The real problem of the 21st century will be human migration. Unless we can find a means by which these developing countries can offer a decent life to their people, they will migrate, which will result in friction. The task before us is urgent and needs to be undertaken now.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development. I do not know whether this is his last chance to speak in a debate in the House on this subject, but, even if it is not, it would be appropriate to pay tribute to his chairmanship of the Committee. I have been privileged to serve on the Committee and have greatly enjoyed doing so.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about migration. He and I agree, and we discussed it recently, that this has been a neglected area as far as international development is

  197
  concerned. We say that we are giving priority to education or health in certain countries and put a lot of development money into those areas, yet we then take those countries' trained doctors and nurses. I find that difficult to take.
  We must look at migration and at reducing poverty through that focus. The Department for International Development is conducting some research on the issue, and I hope that it will continue to do so in the next Parliament. It will need to be considered not only in a development context but across Departments.
  I am very pleased to be here for an international development debate—I thought that my career might end before we had one. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber can remember the last one. That shows how much attention the House has devoted to the subject over the years.
  The Secretary of State has introduced a Bill that will reduce her powers. My right hon. Friend has almost unlimited powers to use the money voted to her in whatever way is thought appropriate at the time. However, the Government are saying that is not good enough because it has led to some pretty crummy projects, and to corruption and perversions of British aid, such as the Pergau dam affair.
  I pay tribute—
  Mr. Rowe rose—
  Mr. Worthington: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman who is about to intervene on me.
  Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I call him my hon. Friend because we have served together on the International Development Committee with great pleasure. My point is that what he said is not altogether surprising because, after all, one of the Secretary of State's priorities is good governance.
  Mr. Worthington: I will return to that point later. It is a fundamental misunderstanding for the hon. Member for South—West Devon (Mr. Streeter) to say that the Bill reduces the focus on good governance—quite the reverse.
  I pay tribute to the Secretary of State with regard to the setting up of DFID and the work that it has done. It was epitomised, for me, by the conference that took place a week last Monday. Those attending included the president of the World Bank, the new head of IMF, the head of the United Nations Development Programme, the head of the United Nations Children's Fund—UNICEF—the Prime Minister of Italy, who is the current chair of the G8, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, the head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the head of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They were there because the Department for International Development wanted a conference on how to reduce child poverty worldwide. The conference was attended not by substitutes, but by top people who recognised the Government's leadership in world development. Wherever one goes in the world, DFID is recognised and respected.
  Person after person also commented on the remarkable fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attended a development conference. Yet
  198
  without Treasury Ministers, Trade Ministers and those from the centre of Government, development will remain, as the Secretary of State said, in the aid box. One of the biggest achievements of the Secretary of State and the Government has been the amount of cross-departmental activity.
  One always worries whether a new policy might go wrong. I was afraid that DFID—a small Department—might be marginalised and that its impact would be reduced when it was cut away from the Foreign Office. Quite the reverse has happened. Wherever I have seen it operate, DFID has a status of its own. The Foreign Office has piled in alongside it, or behind it according to circumstances. The Select Committee recently saw wonderful team work in Vietnam and Cambodia. There was no question that the impact was greater.
  Ms Oona King: I, too, serve on the Select Committee, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Does he recall that Nelson Mandela also attended last week's conference, joining us by live satellite link? Nelson Mandela has joined the Labour party because, he says, Labour has consistently focused on international development, both as a Government and in many years in opposition.
  Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had intended to say that Nelson Mandela was there, but thought that some smart Alec would say that he was not since he appeared on video. I forgot to mention that we had enjoyed his words and inspiration.
  Ms King: Not by video, but live.
  Mr. Worthington: He attended the conference live.
  I must ask whether the reduction of poverty is the same as the increase of wealth. Should we include a clause committing the Secretary of State to concentrating on the poorest people in the poorest countries? I know that in some circumstances, it will be important to direct resources towards poor people in medium-level countries, but the Bill gives great latitude. Should we include a test of whether DFID has concentrated on the deepest poverty in the most difficult places? It may be too difficult to do so.
  Clare Short: If we did that, we would be prevented from making reforms in Government systems that are needed to help whole economies to grow to include everyone and facilitate social reform. If we could spend only on the poorest People in the poorest countries, we could not spend on better financial systems, better revenue systems, better regulation of banks and so on. We share my hon. Friend's objective, but such a clause would narrow our powers in such a way as to prevent us from supporting reforms needed for the systematic reduction of poverty.
  Mr. Worthington: I fully support what my right hon. Friend is doing about governance and helping to create civil services, police forces and the engines of state. I have no quibble with that. My question is whether we need to ensure that we concentrate on the countries in the deepest poverty—but I have no doubt that we are doing so now.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked about how DFID, as a development body, interfaces with other organisations. Poverty is the centre of our focus,

  199
  but if we are working with bodies such as the European Union or some banks, are we open to question about our success in influencing how they use our money? I agree that our success so far in changing our policy and altering other people's behaviour must be continued if we are to make our policy work. Our activities cannot be only bilateral.
  Sometimes, DFID runs programmes that I do not see as absolutely central to overseas development aid. For example, money has been spent in central and eastern Europe—not all under DFID control—following the collapse of the iron curtain, as page 146 of the annual report notes. I wonder whether that money is subject to the same poverty focus as the development budget.
  Why do clauses 9 and 10, on devolved powers, make no reference to Northern Ireland, when Scotland and Wales are covered? The powers devolved to Northern Ireland are equivalent to those devolved to Scotland. The bodies listed in the schedules to the Bill include tourist authorities and health boards and trusts. Northern Ireland has health boards, even if the tourism body is an all-Ireland body. Why is there no reference to Northern Ireland?
  The Select Committee has recently discussed whether it might be handy if the Bill referred to how DFID should be accountable to the House. I have always been puzzled about why we have Wales debates, such as the one held yesterday, or debates on defence and on each of the armed services, when there is no requirement for an international development debate. I am fortunate to be on the Select Committee on International Development, but some less fortunate hon. Members present are not. I can see one Member—the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)—who is in mourning because she is no longer on the Committee. Westminster Hall has been a good step for debates on international development, but there should be a requirement for a debate on the Floor of the House. That is a modest demand.
  We must build our democratic links with DFID, but above all, with the EU to ensure that our views get across there. I am pleased that the World Bank has recently involved parliamentarians much more than it used to. The IMF should also consider such links. That issue is significant. The House does not deal well with on-going matters; we can deal with them if there is a Bill, but, as we have heard, it is 21 years since a measure such as this was introduced. It is important to increase accountability.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford referred to humanitarian principles. We have received extremely good lobbying material on that subject, which stresses the importance of even-handedness. That is the difference between life and death for many people. In the aid world, if one is seen as part of the enemy, lives are lost. The Red Cross has built its reputation on never being part of the enemy—one receives assistance regardless of ethnicity and so on. I support that. Humanitarian aid must be seen to be given dispassionately on grounds of need.
  There is, however, another side. During our visit to Albania and Macedonia, we were struck by the fact that the armed forces put up the camps with incredible efficiency, as no other body could have done. That had to be done; otherwise, the consequences for those poor people who were fleeing would have been horrific. However, people in the aid agencies pointed out to me
  200
  that it was a dangerous precedent for combat troops to put up such camps, and that we had to get the army out of that situation.
  That is not the only example. One of the purposes of the proposed European defence force—of which I approve—is to give humanitarian assistance. In the past, I have been critical when world or NATO resources were available—especially for heavy lift—but people starved and did not receive aid because we were unable to get aid workers to them. I recognise the importance of humanitarian principles, but I do not want to draw their definition so tightly as to rule out the use of military forces to get aid to people.
  The most recent case was in Mozambique, where our performance was superb, but why could not our military helicopters get there as quickly as possible? Such issues are at the boundaries of that humanitarian debate, and sometimes we have to use military resources—perhaps we should use them more often.
  Mr. Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman remember meeting General Reith in Albania? He was the first NATO general to be given humanitarian responsibilities—when NATO was the belligerent force against Serbia over Kosovo. Surely, in that situation, the use of the word "humanitarian" by the military is a contradiction in terms. Humanitarian assistance from armed forces is most welcome, but those forces must be subordinate to impartial, aid-giving humanitarian organisations.
  Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the point that we both make: the issue is not simple. For example, in Sierra Leone, there was no state and no army; it is impossible to reduce poverty without police forces and armies—without state institutions. By and large, the aid we give in that country is not humanitarian, but help with the construction of an army. I have seen that work, and I believe that it is right, because it is crucial to the recovery of that country and the ending of poverty there. The boundary between humanitarian and other issues seems simple, but it is not.
  My final point might be for the Standing Committee rather than this debate, but the Under-Secretary might want to address it when he sums up. I am delighted to see him in his new position—his career plan is intriguing.
  We are committed to the reduction of poverty, but I have some concerns about people who are involved with drugs. It is right for us to try to stop the supply of illegitimate drugs and involvement with them. Such projects are not likely to reduce poverty in the first instance. For example, I visited Bangladesh with other hon. Members to examine AIDS issues. There is no doubt that girls in the brothels are better off than if they had remained in their villages—that is why they had left the villages. It is right that we should try to return them to an orthodox life, but it might be difficult to claim that what we were doing was poverty reduction.
  Dr. Tonge: I suspect that the girls in the brothel were better off as regards catching AIDS than the girls in the village, but that otherwise they would have preferred to be in the village.
  Mr. Worthington: They might have preferred to be in the village, but they were financially better off by moving—that is why they did so. However, I raise the matter as an example of the focus on poverty.
  Clare Short: Ill health makes people poor; they cannot work but they have to pay for drugs and treatments.

  201
  HIV-AIDS causes a big growth of poverty; there is lower life expectancy and loss of work, and many people to care for. Interventions to reduce the spread of that disease prevent poverty. That is permitted and encouraged under this measure—there is no question about that.
  Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point. We need to test all the points. Perhaps the drugs example is a better one. Our motive in trying to stop involvement in drugs in one country might be because of the poverty of people elsewhere. However, anti-drugs initiatives in a country should not be seen as impermissible just because they did not directly attack poverty there. We should test such points in Committee.
  Clare Short: I shall try to stop intervening from now on.
  In order to stop the growing of drugs in Afghanistan, a UN drugs agency paid people not to grow them, so even more growing took place in the surrounding area. Such interventions would not be permitted under the Bill. However, an intervention to help people who grow drugs because they are so poor that they have access neither to legitimate crops nor to a better legitimate life would be permitted—to enable them to have access to crops, so that their children could receive schooling and health care. Surely, that is where we should draw the dividing line. We could throw large amounts of the development budget at anti-drugs initiatives that were not well thought through and brought no help to poor people. That would not be permitted under the Bill. That is where we are trying to draw the line.
  Mr. Worthington: Once again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. That shows that we are bringing ideology into development by focusing on poverty. It is very important to test our development programme against a set of principles. Countries that fail to have respectable principles in their development programmes do not run good ones. We must have a simple clarion call for poverty reduction. That is what the Bill represents, which is why I support it so enthusiastically.
  6.50 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I, too, warmly welcome the Bill, as I have welcomed the two White Papers on international development that have been published in the past four years. The House should congratulate the Government and the Secretary of State on a very proud record. As has been said, it is more than 20 years since a Bill on international development was introduced. This is an almost unprecedented happening.
  I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that it is very sad that we have not had any lengthy debate on development issues, but, as spokesperson for the alternative Opposition, that is almost all on which I agree with him. In an hour-long speech, he spent at least 15 minutes discussing the fact that he did not have enough time for debate. Such comments always seem to be a total waste of time, but Conservative Members will, no doubt, spend another three quarters of an hour later this evening discussing why they do not have enough time for debate.
  202
  So devoid of ideas is the Conservative party that the hon. Gentleman could manage to spend only 10 minutes on Tory policy. He simply spent the rest of the time in a slanging match which had nothing whatever to do with the Bill. It was a pretty poor performance, and I am delighted that he is now back in his place to hear me say that.
  I understand that this is a procedural Bill, and, in that sense, it is a bit grey. I was excited when I heard that it had been published because I thought that it would deal with matters such as bribery, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggested, and with tied aid and AIDS. I thought that it would be colourful, but, as I said, it is a bit grey and procedural. Nevertheless, it is still very interesting, and with the indulgence of the House, I should like to address the issues that it raises. I shall spend 10 minutes or so going through it, picking up some of the points about which I feel strongly and getting a few things off my chest.
  The Secretary of State said that the Bill was necessary to ensure that aid would not be given at the whim of a future Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said that that was the case and that the Secretary of State was devolving responsibility. We have heard about the awful things that have happened when Secretaries of State have taken too wide a brief on aid in the past, and there have been disasters such as the Pergau dam, but why then does clause 1(3) state:
  "'sustainable development' includes any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, prudent"?
  The first amendment tabled must deal with that phrase. If we are to free ourselves from the Secretary of State's whims, we must not allow the phrase,
  "in the opinion of the Secretary of State"
  to be used, and I should like that matter to be clarified, but perhaps we can explore it in Committee. The inclusion of that phrase is dangerous because—although I suspect that it will be a long time before there is a change of flavour—how can we stop future Secretaries of State doing all sorts of terrible things in the name of development if it remains on the statute book?
  I immediately spotted the fact that the declaration on the front of the Bill states that all its provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights. Therefore, I have a difficulty with clause 2 on aid for overseas territories. First, on a side issue, if the overseas territories are part of the United Kingdom, I cannot understand why the aid that they need from this country has to come from the Department for International Development. If they have opted to stay part of this country, surely the aid should come from the education or health budgets, or wherever, not from DFID. However, if the Department is to give them aid and they call themselves overseas territories, we must insist that, as a condition of that aid, they uphold the international agreements that we uphold, such as the European convention on human rights.
  There has been an enormous spat in the press and other media during the past few months about the refusal of some overseas territories to accept homosexual rights, with which I have been very much involved. Those territories simply must understand that they cannot have it both ways—either they are part of this country and comply with our international agreements, and we will help them, or they become independent. We should make that clear, and the Bill should do so, too.

  203
  On the thorny subject of humanitarian assistance, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford called for a definition of such assistance. We must consider the need for humanitarian aid, but I should prefer to consider who causes the need for such aid. We should separate natural disasters from those that are caused, with whatever justification, by the Ministry of Defence or NATO. Should the Department for International Development pick up those bills either in full or in part? If humanitarian aid is needed as a result of military action to which this country has partly or wholly contributed, and if we are to stick to the poverty focus, the humanitarian aid should come from and be paid for by a Department other than DFID. I emphasise that the poverty focus is all-important.
  A difficult issue is raised in clause 5, which I believe is intended to deal with what could be termed "tied aid". Clarification is needed because clause 5(1) refers to
  "assistance in any form or of any nature, including … financial or technical assistance".
  If that is linked with know-how, such as personal training or the provision of the results of research and so on, is that not tied aid?
  Clare Short: No.
  Dr. Tonge: It is not. Well, I need clarification on the issue, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary will provide it.
  I want to refer to indirect offset schemes—mysterious things that I heard of only a few weeks ago at a meeting in Portcullis House. The Secretary of State kindly wrote to me on the subject, but I still do not understand under which category they come. I should like an assurance that the Government would never become involved with such schemes, because they tie the supplying country to the requesting country in an odd way. We need clarification on that issue.
  I shall move on, under my agenda, to clause 13. I welcome the support for commonwealth scholarships—a wonderful scheme. About 95 per cent. of the participants in those scholarships return to their country of origin to work. They are currently nominated only by their Governments, however, so people who are part of significant dissident opposition in their country have a serious problem. For example, how will people who oppose the Zimbabwean Government ever have access to Commonwealth scholarships? When I was in southern Sudan, I was repeatedly told that people wanted Commonwealth scholarships, but could not obtain them because the Government of Sudan would not nominate them. Can we have an assurance that that will change?
  Clare Short: Because the hon. Lady has asked parliamentary questions, she will know that we asked the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission to carry out a review so that the focus on development and poverty was central to its efforts. Members of elites often apply for scholarships, but they can obtain other forms of education if they are not nominated for one of those scholarships. The commission has done an extremely good job and we are in the process of implementing many of its recommendations. For the very reason that the hon. Lady has given, it recommended that nomination through
  204
  Governments should not be the only means of gaining such scholarships. I intend to implement that recommendation.
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the Secretary of State for clarifying that point. I know that it is important to many members of the Select Committee.
  I will not go into detail on the subject of our contribution to European Union aid. We have heard a lot about that and the Liberal Democrats agree with what has been said. I shall never forget the day when I sat down with a glass of wine and looked at the Court of Auditors report on the delivery of aid. I expected to go to sleep very rapidly, but I got through half a bottle of wine and got more and more angry. I could not sleep because the report outlined the appalling delays that had occurred in the delivery of European Union aid. I am delighted by the changes that have taken place. However, as members of the Select Committee have said, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this time next year. Will the Commissioners have taken the recommendations on board and implemented the changes? I hope that they do, because it is important that we maintain the poverty focus.
  I appreciate that there are very poor people in middle-income countries, and we want to help them. That is only right and proper. However, we must not use aid for political purposes as the European Union has done.
  Co-ordination between Departments is very close to my heart. I remember early in this Parliament when I was a new Member asking the Secretary of State whether the aims of her wonderful White Paper on development were supported by other Departments. I received a blistering response. It would have reduced me to jelly if I were not such a tough old bird. The reply was as good as anything that the hon. Member for South-West Devon gets.
  I have wondered over the past four years, however, just how much Departments support the aims of other Departments' White Papers. For example, if, as is stated in the White Paper, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office supports poverty reduction and conflict prevention, why have we had no arms control Bill or a register of—or control over—arms brokers? They contribute so much to poverty in this world.
  If the Department of Trade and Industry wants poverty reduction, which it supported in the White Paper on development, why is it still considering export credit guarantees for the Ilisu dam, which will throw 78,000 people into poverty?
  Mr. Wells: The hon. Lady may recall that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he was minded to approve the issue of export credit guarantees to Balfour Beatty, which will be one of the contractors in the building of the Ilisu dam. The Select Committee has asked to see the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Department of Trade and Industry that gave rise to that extraordinary statement, but the Foreign Office is refusing to show that advice to the Committee. Does the hon. Lady think that it has something to hide and that its advice on humanitarian matters is overridden by political considerations?
  Dr. Tonge: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office must have something to hide.

  205
  Why do Departments have to face in two directions? They support the glorious and virtuous aims of the White Papers on development and globalisation, but they cannot implement such measures in their own Departments.
  In a sense, the hon. Gentleman interrupted my flow, but he will be glad to hear that I have even more questions beginning with the word "why". The Home Office cannot cope with asylum seekers and we know that it is not coping. We also know that people migrate because they are unhappy, poor and want better lives, or are being persecuted, so why are we not putting more resources into aid and development to stop the flow of asylum seekers? Why do we not receive the Home Office's support for that?
  If the Prime Minister wants poverty reduction and conflict prevention, why does he not express his total disapproval of Plan Colombia, which is being perpetrated on that tortured country by the United States of America? Why does he not protest at the United States' withdrawal of funds from non-governmental organisations that support abortion in some of their programmes? Why does he support the USA by staying silent on these issues? Why, why, why?
  To end on a rather depressing note, I sometimes get the feeling that the Department for International Development takes one big step forward and then the other Departments take two steps back. That is a difficult situation in which to work. Where is the joined-up government about which we have heard so often?
  7.7 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I am delighted to participate in this debate. Like almost all the Members who have spoken, I welcome the Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the emphasis that they have put on international development since 1997.
  One result has been the focus in my constituency on these issues. More than 2,000 people are in contact with me and write to me about international development. Many churches and voluntary organisations in Dumbarton, Helensburgh, Alexandria and Balloch communicate with me as a direct result of the Government's White Paper. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office, when he was a Minister at the Department for International Development, attended a meeting in my constituency a year ago that more than 200 people attended. I congratulate the Government on their approach, and organisations such as Jubilee 2000 on their good work in bringing the issue to the fore at civic level. That gives the lie to the notion that people are disengaging from politics; it is gratifying that people are engaged.
  If I have one message for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it is that at the next election, the Government should commit themselves on a phased basis to the 0.7 per cent. target that the United Nations has set. However, if we aspire to more, that will be very popular throughout the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has already mentioned the conference on international action against child poverty that took place more than a week ago, which Nelson
  206
  Mandela and his wife, Graca Machel, attended. I commend my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor on the practical steps that they have taken and on their sheer concern for the many millions of the world's children whose existence is on a knife edge. The conference dealt with those issues and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was asked why the focus was now on children.
  Children are obviously an integral part of any Government's strategy. We can all support the development targets of providing universal primary education and reducing infant mortality by two thirds by 2015, when it is estimated that half the people in the world will live in poverty. When we look at the statistics, we see how important it is to reduce infant mortality. Some 30,000 children die needlessly every day, 7 million die before their first birthday and 10 million die before their fifth birthday, all for the lack of access to clean water, proper sanitation and basic medicines. Malaria and tuberculosis are thought to kill 8 million children a year. It is vital to reduce infant mortality by the target rate of two thirds.
  I also welcome as a core component of the Bill the establishment of poverty reduction strategies. I commend the Government for the way in which the Bill has been formulated. There is a simplicity to it, which means that there is more that they can do to focus on those strategies. However, trade with poor countries is the key. Oxfam recently described access to the markets as being a matter of life and death for such countries. Trade barriers cost poor countries nearly £500 billion a year, which is 14 times what they receive in overseas development assistance. It is important to focus on that. Justin Forsyth of Oxfam said:
  "Rich countries continue to stuff subsidies worth around £200 million a year into their agricultural export industries, then ignore the crisis they cause by dumping cheap food into poor markets."
  That practice is very much alive in our country and Europe—foot and mouth is an example of its results—and it affects poor countries.
  The World Trade Organisation connects developing markets with the global network. However, there is not always equal access to it. For example, the United States has 250 permanent delegates, but the 35 poorest countries have none. We must address that inequality. We should tell the WTO—as I am sure my right hon. Friend has done—that the poverty reduction strategy should also he one of its main aims.
  Many countries have been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) referred to Peru, which I have visited four or five times in the past decade or so. Some hon. Members suggested that money should be channelled to Governments and not to organisations on the ground. We knew when Fujimori came to office that his Government would be corrupt. If money had not been given to the voluntary organisations and NGOs, no progress would have been made in the barrios because there was a complete disengagement of Government and communities. Organisations such as the Columban Fathers, a missionary group, and its sisters helped to implement the poverty reduction strategy in the barrios. The Bill's measures dealing with that matter are important.

  207
  My right hon. Friend mentioned countries with alternative strategies for eliminating drugs. A couple of weeks ago, I attended an international drugs conference in Bolivia. I was taken to the Chapare region to see what the Government described as the total elimination of drugs in that area. We went to a military base, which we were not allowed to leave because 30,000 campesinos were outside protesting against us. The Government stated that they had eliminated the coca crop, but there was nothing for those people to work on. Development strategies, such as banana crops, are lauded as alternatives, but there is only one banana crop a year. The coca crop is harvested four times a year and the country does not have suitable access for selling bananas abroad.
  We need to understand the complexity of alternative development strategies, which need to encompass health, education and economic issues. We will get nowhere if all we do is engage in rhetoric and produce hot air. We need to ensure that we implement better policies for the people of such regions. That is one message for my right hon. Friend, and I am delighted to hear her say that such a strategy is envisaged.
  I have also visited Zimbabwe in the past few years, before the unrest and the problems with Mugabe. I saw for myself what effect the World Bank's policies and structural adjustment programmes were having. There was the economic cream at the top and a void at the bottom. Work in such areas is extremely important. I saw the good work that was being carried out by organisations such as Oxfam. It was putting what it called "Blair toilets" into the countryside and, at a stroke, ensuring proper sanitation for those communities. Although the initiative was developed by Oxfam, it was supported at a local level by many people in different areas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked about strategies in central and eastern European countries. I was in Romania just after the revolution and recall the great dawning of a new age. People thought that democracy would improve matters and that there would be economic stability. Sadly, that has not happened. It is necessary to focus poverty reduction strategies on those areas. Flexibility is important, especially if we want them to join the wider body of the EU. We need to help them to develop.
  The final objective of the international development target was to provide universal primary education. The best anti-poverty strategy is education, which is a precondition of progress in both personal and national terms. We must remember that 130 million children—two thirds of whom are girls—do not attend primary school. Nearly half of all African children and a quarter of children in south and west Asia have been denied that fundamental right. Some 900 million children over the age of 15 are illiterate—that is one sixth of the world population.
  I taught for many years in what some people might disparagingly call a bog-standard comprehensive school. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] I shall not name them, but they know who they are. In that school, we had a gifted music teacher. Instead of the kids throwing stones at each other before school, we looked across the wasteland and saw young children with violin and trombone cases and drum kits coming to school. That lifted their aspirations and the spirit of the community. It energised the young children and the community, and they felt part of society. Of the children whom I knew, I am pleased to say that one is a
  208
  world-famous opera singer and another is in a national orchestra in London. That is what hope and ambition did for that area, and it reflects what education means all over the world.
  The latter part of my wife's educational professional life was spent as a special needs teacher, largely dealing with children who had been written off. When she eventually got through the programme with them, she saw a transformation in them and in their parents. There was a light in their eye and a spring in their step. She has "thank you" letters from parents for bringing their children on. That progress has been accompanied by a transformation in the children's attitude and behaviour. They are no longer excluded from school or society. We should have those same aspirations for the many millions of young children in the world to whom we can bring hope.
  I welcome the recent Government proposals and I particularly welcome the new tax incentives which would accelerate research on AIDS, TB and malaria, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced only a couple of weeks ago. I also welcome the purchase fund, which provides a credible commitment to create a market for current and future treatments in developing countries through strong incentives to develop and deliver affordable treatments. When we remember the current case in Pretoria of the pharmaceutical companies against the South African Government, it becomes obvious that it is important that we develop such strategies.
  Africa must be a focus for us. Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel said that Africa was a problem, but will now be part of the solution. In Africa, 25 per cent. of pregnant women die from AIDS; in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana, 25 per cent. of the population have AIDS; 24 million Africans have AIDS and 50 per cent. of children are expected to die by the age of 15. When we consider that, we realise the need for urgent action in that continent.
  The Secretary of State has two challenges. I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that the first is to change the culture of Government to ensure that if poverty reduction strategies are to be achieved, poverty reduction must be at the heart of every Department. We need a whole-Government approach. I have previously mentioned agriculture; poverty reduction needs to be at the heart of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if we are to get away from the obsession with cheap food. I have mentioned drugs; poverty reduction needs to be at the heart of the Cabinet Office and, in relation to crime, at the Home Office, if it is to be achieved. Not least, it must be at the heart of the Department of Health, if we are to tackle AIDS and the other infectious diseases which bedevil much of the world. That culture is there for the Secretary of State to change. I commend her for her work in the past, but she still has an awful lot to do.
  The second issue is the challenge to the rest of the world. Today, I read in a magazine sent to me by a development group a comment by the former President of Chile, Patricio Aylwin, who came to office immediately after the Pinochet regime. I, for one, think that he did a tremendous job in healing the country and establishing a civic Government again. What he wrote about the market relates to what I said earlier. The article says:

  209
  "By its very nature the market tends to be unequal. In order for it to be a just system all those who take part within the system—employers, workers, transnational corporations and small and medium sized businesses—would have to participate on conditions of equality."
  We do not have that equality today, which is why we have gone backwards since the 1995 Copenhagen social summit. At least 80 countries have been shown to have a lower per capita income today than in 1995. We have gone backwards—the number of people in poverty in Latin America has grown has grown from 200 million to 224 million in those five short years. Those challenges face us in future. However, I am certainly hopeful about the actions of the Government and the achievements of the conference on international action against child poverty.
  To conclude, Graca Machel said:
  Africa is the biggest challenge. But now Africa is offering solutions through the Millennium Africa plan.
  Graca Machel said that Africa had the resources, knowledge and capacity to solve the problems. She said:
  We Africans were the problem, but we are now part of the solution.
  We have to work with Africans and others to be part of that solution and to achieve a more decent and humanitarian society in the 21st century.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: This is likely to be my last debate, but perhaps I will be allowed to take part in the Adjournment debate prior to dissolution, or something of that kind. Given the record, this is certainly my last opportunity to debate international development on the Floor of the House. Having sat through our debate, I have found it extraordinarily constructive. There has not been a speech that has not added something to our knowledge and challenged us. It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall),
  May I take hon. Members on a journey to a foreign land—the United Kingdom at the end of the next Government's four years in office? Let us look for a moment at Dartmoor, which, as a consequence of our extraordinary pursuit of food at prices which mean that virtually no producer can make a profit, may well end up with every single wild animal on it slaughtered—if we can achieve the skill to do that with or without hounds. Fortunately, however, all will be well, because an alternative use for Dartmoor will be found. Whichever party wins the election, as part of the obscene competition between those on the Front Benches to lock up as many citizens or non-citizens of this country as possible—whether increasing numbers of young people or refugees from overseas—it will be able to turn all of Dartmoor into a form of prison camp.
  In our debate, it has been said that the number of refugees is bound to continue growing. As the disparity in wealth between the rich world and the poor continues to increase, so will the number of refugees seeking a better life. Indeed, as the number of conflicts increases, so too will the number of people seeking life itself.
  210
  We must have a much better strategy for dealing with that than we have at the moment. There is an extraordinary paradox: we devote enormous resources and tremendous effort to preventing large numbers of people coming here from overseas, while at the same time encouraging private agencies to rush around overseas finding foreigners to come and work here. We have not got that right at all; the only possible solution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said in his excellent speech, is to create the conditions in the countries from which people come here to make them want to stay. There are not many people who would want to leave their home, relatives and the country with which they are familiar if the conditions there were improved.
  The thrust of international development is therefore essential. May I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development a simple little strategy? It might be worth challenging all British citizens to consider what 0.7 per cent. of their annual income buys. To most people, that is just a figure. If they sat down and looked at their annual budget and saw what 0.7 per cent. bought, there might be a slight change in the public's general attitude to this important issue.
  It is hugely important to realise that we cannot achieve any of the targets that we have set ourselves alone. I very much welcome the emphasis that the Department is placing on the development of partnerships. As every part of the globe assembles into larger groupings, whether it be the Association of South-East Asian Nations, the emerging groupings in southern Africa—which appear to overlap quite a lot—the North American Free Trade Agreement, or the European Union, it is essential that we make those partnerships work and use our leverage to obtain much better productivity from them. It is obscene that the EU aid programme works so badly; defending it is one of the biggest single difficulties for those of us who approve of our EU membership. There is no reason whatever why that extraordinary bureaucracy should be allowed to get away with it.
  Another great issue is demography. The youthfulness of the world's population is extraordinary. An extreme example is Cambodia, where 46 per cent. of the population is under 15. It may be an awful comment on Pol Pot to say that just 2 per cent. of the population is over 65, but Cambodia is by no means alone. The danger for such countries is that there is about to be an explosion in the numbers of young people at their most sexually active, with no foreseeable income and no livelihood to earn.
  If that is not a recipe for instability, I do not know what is, but it is also a tremendous opportunity. The world is rent with conflicts which have their roots in earlier generations. If we can provide those young people with education and some kind of opportunity, their generation may be able to shed the age-old hostilities and make something of their countries.
  It is enormously important to give young people a voice. That is not the easiest thing to do. It has taken me four or five years to assist the United Kingdom Youth Parliament for people under 18 to come into being. It has been an uphill struggle to get anyone interested in it at all. We speak all the time about listening to the voices of young people, but that is only just beginning to happen, and it is happening mostly through organisations that like to speak for them. We need to do a great deal more in all countries to assist young people's voices to be

  211
  constructively heard. I commend the work that the Save the Children Fund is doing in Zimbabwe, for example, where it is collecting and publishing children's views. Beyond that, however, the project is not organised, which is hardly surprising.
  We need to recall the horror of children being used not only as soldiers, but as torturers. One of the most awful moments in our recent visit to Cambodia was going to the genocide museum and hearing that, as a matter of policy, Pol Pot had used eight to 15year-olds to carry out the torture of adults. What is so terrible is that those 35-year-olds, or whatever age they are now, are out there in the villages, having exercised the most obscene cruelty for four or five of their most impressionable years, never having had a chance to talk through the experience with anyone, and not having the faintest idea of how to handle the trauma, which must be huge. I understand that the level of violence in the villages is very high. Such misuse of children is appalling.
  One of the groups that I want to bring to the Minister's attention—as if he needed me to—are orphans. There are said to be 23 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa. In Zimbabwe, which I visited last October because my wife was working there, out of a population of 13 million, 1 million are orphans. Orphans are, by definition, the least regarded, poorest and most likely to be exploited group of children on earth. There will be exceptions, of course, and in Africa particularly there has been great hope that the long-established family structure would absorb orphans, but in most sub-Saharan African countries the capacity of the family network to absorb any more orphans has been exhausted. Orphans as a group need to be more visible and to be treated with respect. They need opportunity and a voice.
  By and large, the priorities of the Department for International Development are fine. It is right that the Department should seek to influence and exert leverage on Governments, but there is a danger that resources will be wasted on corrupt or semi-corrupt Governments. If we are not careful, we shall return to the bad old days when such Governments exercised great ingenuity in mis-spending the resources that we provided. I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the danger.
  A further danger, especially in the sector-wide approach, is the danger of cutting off innovative pioneering projects. Although there is a huge advantage in using our relatively small aid budget to achieve maximum leverage, it is important that we do not inhibit the emergence of innovative projects.
  We should take a serious look at some of our longest-term customers, so to speak. Nepal, for example, has had a remarkable amount of aid per head poured into it. It is a country with enormous difficulties, starting with its topography. I remember going there and meeting a Member of Parliament. I asked how long it took him to get to his constituency, and he replied that it took 48 hours, followed by a four-day walk after the road ran out.
  Nepal is not an easy country, but my understanding is that, if anything, it is going backwards, despite all our aid, partly because, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton pointed out, the Maoists are an ever-growing menace—a problem originating primarily from a well intentioned effort to stop people growing drugs without providing them with alternative sources of income. The Department
  212
  needs to consider how we should handle long-term aid recipient countries that show no improvement. That is a real challenge.
  We have heard about the difficulty of defining and reaching the poorest of the poor. As my colleagues on the Select Committee know only too well, I believe that the disabled are among the poorest of the poor worldwide, and it is extraordinarily difficult to create large programmes for them, because they are, by definition, scattered across the population. I am pleased that the Department has published a strategy paper for reaching the disabled, and I hope that more work will be done for them, especially preventive work.
  There is clear evidence that early intervention can prevent the development of deafness, blindness and other disabilities very cheaply. We must consider the provision of professionals such as audiologists and optometrists, who are relatively cheap to train, but who are in such short supply that large numbers of children are not recognised as being in danger of going deaf or blind.
  Cambodia was a worrying and depressing country to visit, although it is a lovely country, and much good work is being done. We started out by meeting aid workers who described the projects and the work being done for people who had very small holdings, or holdings that were on such poor land that they could not sustain a family; then we went to the villages, spoke to the people there and discovered that 40 per cent. of them had no land at all. In a sense, our projects were aimed at a level above the poorest. That was disturbing.
  We must stop robbing the poor of their key resource: people. I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Health on the Floor of the House, and he pointed out that the national health service has good guidelines about not recruiting people from overseas, but every trust in the country, in extremis, draws on the people provided by agencies, and the agencies are in no way inhibited by such guidance.
  I am always worried by the fact that students from the poorest countries have to pay the full whack of overseas student rates. That is nonsense; it cannot be right. Even if we cannot rebate students' fees before they arrive, could not we do so if they return to their own countries? That seems a perfectly sensible approach.
  It is the poor who hate corruption most and suffer from it most. It is dreadful to hear representatives of large British companies telling the International Development Committee that if the culture of the country demands it, the payment of small sums to accelerate business is not corrupt. That is nonsense and we must ensure that our behaviour improves. Wherever we go, it is the poor who tell us that they want to get corruption out of the system. For example, as far as I can see, the land distribution system in Cambodia is wholly corrupt. Nominally, all land belongs to the Government, but it is given away to anyone who chooses to pay for it and the poorest people have nothing. In one village, we discovered that the headman was taking a cut and letting the poorest people there go down the Swannee.
  We must also take seriously the corruption of the election process in developed countries. There is something obscene about the fact that it costs $25 million to become an American Senator. There is, too, something utterly obscene about the way in which even this country's systems are in danger of being distorted by big

  213
  givers. It is a real disease. In some countries, the tradition of Members of Parliament distributing largesse to their constituents is taken for granted, but it is wrong of us to point a finger when they then try to recoup the huge costs of becoming elected.
  I am a great admirer of non-governmental organisations, which have made a wonderful, remarkable and indispensable contribution to worldwide development. However, I initiated a Westminster Hall debate on their accountability, which must be addressed. Of course, some of the better NGOs are starting to deal with that issue themselves, but it is worrying that the developing world is full of expensive four-wheel drive vehicles that take one to places where the health workers cannot afford a bicycle. I am anxious that many NGOs are accountable only to their founders, to self-perpetuating committees or to an ethos or motive that may or may not be wholly respectable. We must encourage the NGO movement to make itself thoroughly accountable.
  I hope that, as a part of international co-operation, we can persuade other countries, including some of the biggest donor countries in the world, to reconsider and follow more closely what Britain is trying to do. In other words, they should consider how to reduce the proportion of their aid budgets that flows back to them in salaries paid to white northern professionals, rather than to the southern professionals who need such assistance so much.
  7.44 pm
  Barbara Follett: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important and long-overdue debate. I am also glad to follow the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I am sorry that he will not continue to serve on the International Development Committee; he has made an invaluable contribution, his understanding of the issues is huge, and he will be much missed.
  Having been a member of the International Development Committee since 1997, I have had the privilege of scrutinising the workings of the first Department for International Development to be introduced by the United Kingdom since its inception. I am glad that time has been found for the Bill in the last month of this Parliament, as it entrenches the Department' s poverty-focused approach and ensures that the UK's international aid contributions go to those who need them most—the poor. In combination with the ground-breaking work on debt relief done by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that approach puts Britain at the forefront of the fight to reduce global inequality.
  The Bill is based on another first: Britain's first-ever White Paper on international development, which was produced by the Department within months of its creation. The White Paper committed the Government to introducing new legislation, as the provisions of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 were not sufficiently poverty focused. As someone who has spent much of her life working among the poor of Africa, I welcome that focus unreservedly. However, it is interesting to note that the Bill, whose explicit focus is poverty, does not provide a definition of that concept.
  214
  I remember people arguing about that definition when I worked in South Africa in the 1960s. In Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, Professor Peter Townsend contributed hugely to that debate. I realise that the lack of such a definition gives my tight hon. Friend the Secretary of State greater discretion and flexibility, but I am concerned that it could allow a less committed Secretary of State to dilute the Department's poverty focus. I would not like that to happen. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary consider carefully in Committee how that might be remedied?
  Like the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), I am concerned that, while 25 or 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom's aid budget is being channelled through the European Union, the House does not have the ability to ensure that that money is being spent on poverty-focused projects. Even more important, we do not have the ability to ensure that it is being spent at all, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. Obviously, that arrangement could undermine the UK's poverty-focused programmes and I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to redouble her already formidable efforts to reform the European Community's development assistance programme, which has the capacity to do great good. I know that she will do all she can to ensure that it also has the necessary ability and the will.
  Another definition that is absent from the Bill is that of humanitarian aid, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford pointed out. Like him, I feel that that lack should be remedied and should have been influenced by a report published by the Overseas Development Institute. The report compares humanitarian aid agencies to the ambulance men of the world. As it graphically illustrates, we do not expect ambulance men to decide which victims, if any, were involved in a car crash or who was responsible for it; we want them to help anyone who was injured. The job of deciding who was responsible is for the police and the law. In international terms, responsibility lies with the UN and other international bodies and agencies, such as jurists and courts. I believe that a definition would help them to do their job.
  The poverty focus of the Bill and of the Department should reassure those who are especially concerned about the welfare of women and children. They will benefit from poverty-focused aid, as they make up 70 per cent. of the world's 1.3 billion poorest people. Women also account for two thirds of the world's 1 billion adults who cannot read or write, and girls account for 200 million of the world's children who will never get the chance to go to school. A poverty-focused Department with poverty-focused programmes cannot but help them. They are the poorest of the poor—the people whom we aim to help.
  Despite my right hon. Friend's warning about her resistance to special pleading, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), will tempt fate by ending with some special pleading for Africa, especially for the 24.5 million men, women and children on that continent who suffer from HIV-AIDS. Most of those people are desperately poor, as are most of the towns and countries in which they live. Surely such a special case merits special measures. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, HIV-AIDS is a factor in increasing poverty.

  215
  In South Africa, 1,500 people are infected with HIV-AIDS every day and 4 million people already have the disease. The United Nations estimates that the disease will take 17 per cent. off the country's GDP by 2010.
  In Malawi, more than a third of the teachers are infected with HIV-AIDS. The country's future and that of its children do not bear thinking about. Education is the way out of poverty, but what will people do without teachers? Malawi is not a solitary case; a similar percentage of teachers are infected in Zambia.
  I welcome the Bill, just as I welcomed the creation of the Department for International Development in 1997. I look forward to welcoming more aid for Africa and its millions of HIV-AIDS sufferers. As Graca Machel said, Africa is the biggest challenge. I know that we are up to it.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) was right to speak about Africa, where it is difficult to see any bright spots. It is in serious danger of becoming a lost continent.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, not least because I am vice-chairman of the all-party group on overseas development. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for his comments about my role as a junior Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when it was responsible for the then Overseas Development Administration. I worked there with my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.
  At the beginning of the 21st century, one of our greatest challenges is the enormous number of people who live in extreme, grinding, unremitting poverty. The World Bank estimates that more than 1 billion of our fellow citizens live on less than $1 a day. No genuine progress has been made in reducing that number in the past 10 years.
  Television brings us flashes of the worst humanitarian disasters, such as flooding in Mozambique, hurricanes in central America, genocide in the Balkans, starvation in the horn of Africa, the impact of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, and earthquakes in India. However, it does not adequately describe or reflect the desperate daily drudgery of so many of our fellow citizens. Poverty, poor health and desperation make up the lives of many people.
  The Bill is unobjectionable. The Library briefing on it states:
  "The Bill does not substantially alter the basis for giving assistance."
  The White Paper that was published in November 1997 states:
  "All of the actions proposed in the White Paper can be put in place under the existing Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980."
  All the Government's objectives could therefore be achieved under that measure, which was steered through the House by my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Banbury, Sir Neil Marten. I hope that I am not being uncharacteristically churlish if I say that the Bill is unnecessary and that perhaps it constitutes pre-election window dressing, which tries to give the impression that more has been achieved than is genuinely the case.
  No reasonable person would quarrel with the objectives in the more recent White Paper, ' Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor".
  216
  They include: working with others to reduce poverty systematically; promoting effective Governments and efficient markets; investing in people; sharing skills and knowledge; harnessing private finance; ensuring that gains from trade are made for developing countries; tackling global environmental problems; using development assistance more effectively; and strengthening a more open and accountable international system in which poor people and countries have a more effective voice. It would be surprising if any person of good will did not fully support those objectives. However, we do not need the Bill to achieve them. I shall make some comments about the way in which we can make progress on them.
  How much money does the Treasury make available to the Department for International Development? How large is the United Kingdom aid budget? Let us consider the figures for 1999, the last year for which they are available. In that year, the UK was the fifth largest cash donor country in the world after Japan, the United States, France and Germany. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines overseas development assistance as a percentage of gross national product. Sadly, when ranked in those terms, the UK is towards the bottom of the list. Current UK spending on overseas aid is approximately a quarter of 1 per cent. of our GNP. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said in his excellent contribution, that is a tiny amount.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): The figure was a quarter of 1 per cent. when the Conservative party left office; it is now approximately 0.29 per cent. and rising. I do not suggest that that is acceptable, but the figure was decreasing and is now increasing under this Government.
  Mr. Baldry: I shall not quibble, but the Library briefing for the debate shows a reasonably flat line between 1979 and today. My point is addressed as much to those on the Conservative Front Bench as to the Government. The figure is pathetic by any standards.
  The Government say that they hope to increase spending on development aid to approximately a third of 1 per cent. of GNP by 2004, which is well into the second half of the next Parliament. Although the Government have said that they will continue to work towards the target of 0.7 per cent. set by the United Nations, there is no time scale for what has been and continues to be nothing more than an aspiration. In the run-up to the general election, pressure needs to be maintained on the Labour and Conservative parties to give clear commitments as to when they will reach the modest UN target for development aid to poorer countries, because without funds, all talk of helping to eliminate poverty and promote sustainable development is simply a somewhat pious aspiration.
  International development is an area in which I hope the shadow Chancellor will make it clear that a future Conservative Government would not just match the present Government's spending, but do considerably better. Apart from sound humanitarian reasons for assisting developing countries, there are also good commercial reasons to assist world development. Britain is a trading nation; we export more per head of population than any other country in the world except Japan, and—

  217
  quite apart from any other consideration—it is in Britain's interest that as much of the world as possible should develop and prosper.
  A number of hon. Members have made it clear that if more and more parts of the world move towards ever more desperate poverty, it will not be surprising if there are an ever-increasing number of economic refugees, many of whom will wish to come to the United Kingdom. My first point, therefore, is that there must be pressure from all political parties for an increase in the aid budget—let us at least try to reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. as quickly as possible.
  My second point is that at least a quarter of the money that DFID receives is spent by the European Community. This year, the European Union will take £728 million of DFID's money—a quarter of its budget. Now, I have no hesitation in declaring myself pro-European. I am happy to be described on Eurosceptic websites as a Europhile. I fervently believe that it is in Britain's best long-term interest to work with our partners in Europe, and that Britain's voice will be heard more clearly throughout the world as a consequence. I hope that my wholehearted support for Britain's membership of the European Union means that criticism of EU institutions by me and others who think in a similar way will be taken all the more seriously.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I know that my hon. Friend was merely trying to goad hon. Members by saying that. I do not feel goaded, but I wonder what evidence he has that our voice has been heard more seriously around the world during our membership of the European Union. I know that he will simply say what a tremendous success the European Union has made of its aid programme, because he and I agree about a lot of things.
  Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend had been listening, he would have known that I was going to say I am unimpressed by the EU development programme. I was laying the ground for saying that I hope it will carry greater credence for someone with my credentials to say that they are unimpressed by the EU development aid programme than if such a statement came from the mouth of someone who was known for criticising everything in the European Union and for being a classic Eurosceptic. However, we live in a somewhat bizarre world if a Conservative who says that he is a pro-European is challenged by his parliamentary colleagues for having goaded them. I look forward to sitting on these Benches and to being goaded for many a year yet, and I hope that the argument will regain a better mainstream balance in due course.
  I was making the point that I am unimpressed by the EU development aid programme, and I am not alone in that. The Select Committee on International Development examined the effectiveness of EU development assistance in its report published in the previous Session. It is important to remember that the Committee, like all the Select Committees, has a large Labour majority. Nevertheless, it unanimously concluded:
  "EC external assistance policies are clearly determined more by political priorities than poverty alleviation … The aims of the Statement on Development Policy are unlikely to be achieved in the absence of a dedicated development budget which would enable
  218
  outcomes to be audited against developmental objectives. At present, development funds are drawn from a budget which also covers expenditure on external action. All too often"—
  funds—
  "initially envisaged as a source of finance for community development programmes, are 'raided' by the Council of Ministers to fund political initiatives that they do not wish to fund bilaterally, amounting to what Clare Short described as 'political gestures'. Any failure in poverty focus can simply be explained away as 'external action' rather than 'development' … Whilst we welcome the rationalisation of the Commission, the present geographical division cannot make for good development policy. The fact that responsibility for Asia—which contains half of the world's poor—remains outside DG Development is inexplicable … To have three focuses is, simply, to be unfocused … at best useless and at worst dangerous. The Statement"—
  on EU development—
  "should not be endorsed until its commitment to poverty eradication is unequivocal … The level of existing backlogs is untenable. It cannot make for good practice to have an average of four and a half years between commitments and disbursement. It damages the reputation of the Community and will have severe implications for implementing partners."
  The Select Committee further noted:
  "the problems that NGOs are having with the EC in getting paid on time."
  It went on:
  "It has become very clear—both during Committee inquiries and from evaluations of ECHO"—
  that is the humanitarian relief organisation of the European Union—
  "that ECHO suffers from exactly the same problems of poor administration, delayed disbursement and staffing as other parts of the Commission. During our recent visit to Brussels and when examining ECHO's own website we have been unable to discern any clear and transparent information on how and where ECHO is spending its money. This is clearly unacceptable. We recommend that DFID request details of amounts committed and disbursed by ECHO, with all relevant dates, in: Mozambique after the recent floods; Central America in the wake of Hurricane Mitch; Kosovo: and Ethiopia during the recent emergency … We also recommend that ECHO, as a matter of urgency, reform its procedures so as to provide prompt, clear and comprehensive information on its activities."
  The Committee concluded:
  "None of the issues raised in the report are new. We are exasperated with the failure of the Commission to reform its development activity effectively. We have no doubt that were the development reforms we outline implemented, the EC could make a real difference to the elimination of poverty. The EC is living on borrowed time—the Commission should give up its addiction to half-measures and have the courage to reform for the benefit of the world's poor."
  My second point is, therefore, quite simple. There is an urgent need for reform of European development activity. The Secretary of St.tte may well say that a start has been made, but at least a quarter of the UK aid budget is going to the European Union. We are entitled to expect the Government to ensure that there is a process in place that can bring about effective reform as speedily as possible.
  Indeed, I would go further. Clause 4 provides for the Secretary of State to support organisations or funds that wholly or partly exist for the relevant purposes set out in clause 1. That provision empowers her to give money to the European Union. Clearly, some of the money that the European Union uses cannot demonstrably be proven simply to be used for poverty reduction; hence the need for clause 4.

  219
  I suggest that clause 4 should not be implemented until the Government can convince the House that, in the words of the International Development Committee, the European Commission has had
  "the courage to reform for the benefit of the world's poor."
  Until we can detect demonstrable change in the Commission and its handling of development aid, the Government must seriously con sidei whether they should implement clause 4 and simply give the Commission money—a quarter of our aid budget—year on year in a fashion that does not encourage it to reform. That is a matter of serious concern.
  An International Development Committee report in the previous Session noted that EU policies are clearly determined more by political priorities than by poverty alleviation. Our European colleagues often have political priorities of their own. To echo comments made earlier, the shameful feting of President Mugabe of Zimbabwe by the Belgian Prime Minister yesterday is a classic example of that. Of course Belgium has historic links to the Congo and doubtless thinks that it among the international community is obliged to take a lead in the Great Lakes area. Belgium may have a part to play, but that does not mean that the red carpet has to be laid out for Mugabe, almost to the strains of "Hail the Conquering Hero".
  If one were writing a case history of bad governance, corruption and despotism, it would be difficult to find a worse example than Zimbabwe. If the Harare declaration is to have any credibility whatever, Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth forthwith. An assurance that no further development aid will go to Zimbabwe until some semblance of good governance is restored would be extremely welcome. Clearly there is a tension between poverty reduction and good governance, and although I have no quarrel with the need to focus on poverty reduction, we cannot ignore the need to achieve good governance.
  Following on from the size of the aid budget and reform of the EU development budget, my next point about what can be done to help the world's poor concerns debt. The Jubilee 2000 campaign has achieved an enormous amount. Debt is not felt by politicians whose policies incur that debt; it is borne by the poorest people, through what they are denied. I congratulate the Government: it is good news that they have renounced the right to receive any benefit from historic debt owed to us by all the 41 most indebted countries. It is also good news that they have cancelled all aid debt for heavily indebted poor countries.
  When the Heads of Government of the world's wealthiest nation's get together at the G8 summit this summer, it is to be hoped that they will focus on further measures for debt relief for poor countries as well as ways in which industrial countries can open up their markets to exports from poorer countries. It is obviously good news that the EU, only a matter of days ago, made it clear that it will provide duty and quota-free access to EU markets for the least developed countries, ending all import tariffs. Developing countries must reciprocate. They have a part to play, where appropriate, in helping to put an end to civil wars and external conflicts, because it is pointless to provide debt relief if the money simply goes on further arms expenditure. It is also good news that debt relief has gathered momentum, and I hope that that momentum can increase.
  220
  The Bill is unobjectionable. Perhaps it was not needed, but it presents us with a welcome opportunity to debate international development. I hope that Members on both sides of the House and people throughout the whole country will exert pressure on Front Benchers from both main political parties to ensure that international development features in the general election campaign, whenever it comes, and that there is a clear commitment to increase spending on development aid. We must maintain the momentum on debt relief and on reforming the EU development budget. The task ahead of us is enormous and at times seems almost overwhelming, but we have a great duty of care to get it right for future generations. If we do not, the consequences for the world will be serious.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Paul Goggins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). I do not know whether he remembers as well as I do a visit that he paid in the mid-1980s as a new Member of Parliament to a project that I ran for young offenders in Salford. I welcome his remarks about increasing the aid budget, which will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who made what he described as possibly his last speech to the House—certainly the last on international development. I found his speech interesting and it certainly displayed great understanding of and commitment to international development issues. It stood in stark contrast to the contribution made from the Conservative Front Bench by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) described it as mean-minded, and it was.
  The hon. Gentleman asserted that people are disillusioned with Government policy on development, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) scotched that one and I agree with him. The policies on international development and debt have been extremely popular and have impressed and encouraged many of my constituents. I look forward to the election, when we can compare our record with his little blue book, but I shall present my party's argument without recourse to the personal abuse with which, sadly, his speech was laced.
  Throughout my lifetime, in and out of politics, considerable debate has been provoked by the saying, "Charity begins at home." Some argue that the United Kingdom, which over the last quarter of the 20th century became one of the most economically and socially divided countries in the industrialised world, should put the needs of its poorest people first. Others remind us that, despite those deep divisions, ours is still a rich country, so we should begin with the needs of those in Asia and Africa whose lives are a daily and often unsuccessful struggle to survive. My view is that the moral mandate to prioritise the needs of people in poverty does not make the question one of either/or. We must deal with both.
  My belief, which, I am proud to say, is shared by Ministers in this Administration, is that a Government pledged to tackle social exclusion at home are all the more likely to fight poverty abroad. A Government who are determined to reduce the health inequalities facing

  221
  children in Manchester will also strive to improve the life chances of babies born in Mozambique. Tomorrow, we shall no doubt hear more good news from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Throughout this Parliament, his sound economic policies, which have increased employment and moved more than 1 million children out of poverty, have also enabled the Government to increase development assistance by 45 per cent. in real terms and move, at long last, towards the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product.
  I warmly welcome the Bill, which moves us on from the broader requirements of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 to a more focused responsibility for providing development assistance that, as clause 1 makes clear, is
  "likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty."
  Too often, development assistance has been tied to post-colonial and cold war interests. Too often, it has enhanced the interests of the donor rather than the recipient. It has relied too heavily on the actions of fragile and frequently corrupt regimes, whose interest in conflict or personal wealth has prevented help from reaching the very poorest. Too often, assistance has been a bandage on wounds inflicted by the systems of international finance and trade.
  Again, the values that connect domestic and international policy are clear. Just as this Government believe that the answer to the problem of poverty in the United Kingdom is the opportunity for an individual to earn, and not simply for the Government to hand out more generous welfare benefits, it seems that international development must be sustainable rather than being merely a handout from the rich man's table. That means encouraging significant private sector investment in poor countries; it also means the introduction of grass-roots initiatives such as micro-credit, which enable people in poor areas to fund and develop their own solutions. Clause 6 empowers the Secretary of State to give guarantees and acquire securities, as well as to dispense grants and loans. I believe that that power will add much-needed strength to the Government's approach.
  I want to make four specific points. First, I warmly welcome the provision in clause 4 for the Secretary of State to promote awareness of global poverty and of the means of reducing such poverty. Development education is extremely important. I pay tribute to the development education project based at Manchester Metropolitan university, which is part of the United Kingdom Development Education Association. By means of initiatives such as "global express" it has been able to provide resources and training for teachers, helping them to engage their students in practical projects linking opportunities to learn about subjects such as history and geography with the exploration of issues of citizenship and sustainable development—and, crucially, with values, moral principles and an informed view of the world. The campaigning and advocacy of international development agencies such as CAFOD also play a vital role in the raising of public awareness of the short-term and long-term needs of people in poverty.
  As the Secretary of State said, sustaining a global consensus that poverty must be ended will require the informed support of citizens throughout the developed
  222
  world. The additional funds for development education that the Government have already given are therefore extremely welcome, underpinned as they will be by the Bill.
  My second point relates to the Government's clearly stated commitment to ending tied aid from April. As the Secretary of State made clear in the globalisation White Paper and repeated in her speech today, the tying of aid is inefficient and provides poor value for money. It frequently puts the interests of the donor above those of the recipient in ways that are inconsistent with a focus on poverty reduction. In short, this was a policy that did not and never could work in the interests of the poor, and we are well rid of it.
  Some have asked why we should not include such a provision in the Bill. My right hon. Friend responded helpfully by explaining that the poverty focus in the Bill made the practice impossible, given that the value of aid was reduced by about 25 per cent. when it was tied in that way.
  My third point concerns debt. I am pleased that a number of Members have raised that issue, although the Bill contains no specific debt provisions. The Government—I refer to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor in particular—have given a strong and inspiring international lead on debt reduction: they argued for the reform of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, pressed for 100 per cent. bilateral write-offs and placed poverty reduction strategies at the centre of the arrangements for each country.
  While it may not be practical or necessary to include debt provisions in the Bill, it is important for us, in this debate, to emphasise the vital role that debt reduction must continue to play if we are to achieve our goal of halving world poverty by 2015. Ensuring that 22 countries reached the HIPC decision point by the end of 2000 was a huge achievement, but that progress must be maintained. Every effort should also be made to ensure that those who, as a result of conflict, have not yet been able to benefit from HIPC are eventually able to do so.
  It is true that debt reduction on its own is not enough. It is also true that many poor people in areas such as south Asia do not benefit from the HIPC programme, because their countries have not the same level of crippling debt. Nevertheless, debt reduction must remain a central feature of the overall strategy to reduce global poverty.
  There is also the question of what steps the international community is willing to take to ensure that the debt crisis facing so many poor countries does not occur again. My right hon. Friend has made a remarkable contribution, but even she would admit that she will not be Secretary of State for ever. It is essential to ensure that international development and financial institutions devise transparent and durable systems to protect the world's poorest people from irresponsible borrowing and lending; unsustainable debt is in no one's interest.
  I want to say something about another important link between domestic and international policy—the need for people in poverty, wherever they live, to be genuinely involved in the regeneration of their own communities. In this context, I am probably echoing some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. For years, we in the United Kingdom thought that all it took to improve the prospects of poor and disadvantaged areas

  223
  was to make the place look better: central Government would allocate the money, and local government would decide how to spend it. But top-down solutions meant that the people were left behind, and before long the buildings were usually as bad as ever.
  I believe that this Government more than any before have emphasised the need to work alongside people and empower them. Partnership is the key. So it is in international development. It can no longer be a question of what the rich can do for the poor; it must be a question of how, by working together, we can eradicate poverty for ever.
  I was interested to hear recently about a project run jointly by Church Action on Poverty and Christian Aid, linking local people from Thornaby on Teesside with a similar group from Manila in the Philippines. Over three years, 40 people—a mixed group including benefit claimants and disabled people as well as a local teacher and a general practitioner—went on exchange visits to each other's communities. They discussed their problems and their ideas for solutions. Working with the wider community, they shared their experience of local projects and considered how community groups could organise their own responses to the poverty that they faced. Their overall conclusion was that the biggest gulf was not one of geography, but the gulf between the powerful and powerless, the rich and the poor, wherever they may he.
  I believe that the challenge of the new millennium is to foster the kind of solidarity that that project developed, but to link it with a new understanding among the rich of the world that if we do not make that world a fairer place in which to live we will, in the end, all suffer the consequences. The Bill will help us to achieve that aim.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I, too, welcome this debate. It is customary when speaking in our debates to say that there have been some interesting speeches. I do not wish to be patronising, but I really do think that we have heard some very interesting and useful speeches.
  I approach the issue of international development with a sense of the moral obligation that the rich have towards the poor. It is not only a Christian obligation, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said—a moral obligation that we all have towards the poor of the world.
  I also agree with some other hon. Members in questioning the need for this legislation. The Secretary of State and the Department for International Development seem to have been doing perfectly well in the past four years, and we have commended much of what they have done. I therefore do not entirely share their determination to pass this Bill. Nevertheless, I do not entirely object to a new Bill or to the establishment of a new set of parameters.
  I have been on the Select Committee on International Development for almost four years. It has been fascinating and extremely educational. Like the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, I believe that the Committee has done useful work. However, I have also found it frustrating because, as much as I should like to bash the Government, we have often found that that is rather difficult to do. We have had to adopt a rather non-partisan approach. It is not that all the Department's actions have been good but that, as we all
  224
  agree that poverty is a bad thing, any action taken around the world to defeat poverty, although one may not be entirely uncritical of it, is generally to be applauded.
  I am therefore sorry that there has been so much partisan discussion in this debate, about which I take issue with the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins). The partisan discussion started with the Secretary of State—I am sorry that she has left the Chamber—who kept saying how dreadful the previous Administration had been. However, those comments contrasted with her previous comments. I realise that, in an attempt to be somewhat conciliatory, the Overseas Development Administration did not get everything right; generally, however, it got most things right.
  The Department for International Development does not get everything right either; generally, however, it does most things pretty well. As I said, all hon. Members in the Chamber wish to see the Department flourish. I think that we all support its aims, even if we might disagree on various specific issues. Perhaps I should add that the Secretary of State commended the Trinidad terms. This Government's action on debt has, similarly, been mostly pretty good.
  I should like to address four issues in my speech: governance, HIV-AIDS, de-mining and European aid. As has already been mentioned, the Committee is examining corruption. We have had some mind-boggling evidence from business people about the need for "facilitating payments". When I asked whether that meant small bribes rather than big bribes, I was told that that is exactly what it means. Last week, we took evidence from the Secretary of State. I do not think that there is much difference between Opposition Committee members and her on the governance issue. Indeed. I thought that her evidence was extremely illuminating and useful.
  The Committee also heard that corruption is the biggest deterrent to investment for any international company. Although some international companies may make facilitating payments, they would prefer not to have to do so. They want to operate in countries where the rule of law runs and they know that, although they have certain obligations, they can make money—their profits—without having to pay bribes. Those of us who believe, as I think the Government do, that investment and economic growth are imperative in alleviating poverty, regard corruption as the biggest deterrent to inward investment.
  As we all agree, and as my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and for Hertford and Stortford said, the poor suffer most from corruption. If one has a lot of money and loses a few dollars, it does not matter very much. However, those who have to live on less than $1 a day and then have to pay extra for their children's schooling suffer greatly from the loss of such sums. Similarly, people who cannot afford to pay extra for health care suffer most.
  I particularly applaud the Department's policies to support public service reform. I believe, however, that we have to be tough in promoting it. The old saying is that one has to be cruel to be kind. Although I do not think that that applies fully in this situation, I still believe that we have to be tough. When corruption in any form is discovered, but particularly grand corruption, it cannot be tolerated.
  Hon. Members have mentioned Zimbabwe. I do not think that we can tolerate the corruption that has led to the deployment of large numbers of troops in the Democratic

  225
  Republic of Congo and to war there. We are aware of the influence of diamonds in that case and in Sierra Leone. We must make a stand against corruption wherever it may be, and we have to be tough. I think that the Government are generally tough when dealing with it, but sometimes we could be a little tougher. The United Kingdom is perhaps adopting a firmer view on corruption than it had during the cold war. I think that that is true of the world community generally. Since he took up his position at the World Bank in 1996, Jim Wolfensohn has demonstrated how we can move forward on the issue, as we really must.
  The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), among other hon. Members, has already mentioned the issue of HIV-AIDS. In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV-AIDS is undoubtedly the biggest threat of all to the poor. Again, as schools are being left without teachers, hospitals without doctors and untold numbers of children without parents, it is the poor who are suffering most. It is reducing life expectancy in a way that should make us all want to weep, as it is destroying the achievements of development. The disease is torpedoing development. When I referred to it as the black death that was stalking Africa, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) picked me up as though that was a racist comment. It was intended only as an analogy with the way in which the black death stalked Europe. This morning I heard Glenys Kinnock on the "Today" programme referring to it as the black death, so although I might be accused of many things, few people would wish to accuse Glenys Kinnock of being racist—particularly if they were in the same room as her.
  I commend DFID for the work that is being done, but the issue needs to maintain its high profile. The majority of people on the streets of Blaby, or London, are not aware of the devastating effect that HIV-AIDS is having on the poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to continue to press the issue so that people understand its impact.
  The Select Committee is about to produce a report on HIV-AIDS. I have not seen it so I cannot leak it, but we must realise that the disease not only destroys development but increases poverty and creates instability and conflict. I know that on this issue, the Secretary of State and the Department are very much on side, but it needs to be stressed time and again.
  I now turn to de-mining. I should say first that I am an unpaid trustee of the HALO Trust, which is the largest de-mining agency in the world. We receive excellent support from the Department. De-mining is a large element of DFID's bilateral funding to the HALO Trust and other organisations such as the Mines Advisory Group. I intend to discuss the issue with the Secretary of State next week.
  Less than three weeks ago, members of the Select Committee went to a de-mining site in Cambodia. The lack of knowledge about the impact of anti-personnel mines is also quite grave. People know about the Ottawa treaty and what a bad thing land mines are, but they do not know quite what is meant by de-mining. We are not talking about minefields staked out with a nice wire fence and signs depicting skulls and crossbones and "Achtung Minen" signs. We are talking about a mined site that may be in a village, sometimes under people's houses because that is where the Khmer Rouge or the Government forces were slugging it out some 10 years ago. People are
  226
  literally living on top of land mines and that can have a devastating impact their lives. Generally, land mines are planted not in out-of-the-way places but in populated areas and on agricultural land as that is where people were fighting.
  I have a CIET report on the social costs of land mines in Cambodia. Admittedly, it is about five years old. It found that in Cambodia, which is a country of grinding poverty, there could be a 135 per cent. increase in agricultural produce if all the anti-personnel mines were cleared. One can imagine the impact on people's lives of having land mines around. Every child knows to stick to a path through a particular village because if it wanders from the path it might get blown up. If a breadwinner is killed or has a foot blown off, the impact on the family is devastating.
  The same report found that in Cambodia 61 per cent. of families with a mine victim went into debt to pay for medical treatment. Debt is a serious matter that many of us have encountered, but in Cambodia we heard from people who were selling their children into prostitution to pay off their debts. They were losing their land and becoming bonded slaves. It is an issue of such importance that to say blandly that 61 per cent. of affected families go into debt is understating the case.
  I am not, as a trustee of a land mine clearance agency, indulging in special pleading about land mine clearance. I am trying to increase the general knowledge of the problems to do with land mines. Those of us who went to Cambodia found the visit very illuminating.
  Like other countries, Cambodia has a mines action committee, CMAC. It has had a bad few years. A 1999 audit of the committee's funds for the two previous years by the accountants, KPMG, found that a lot of money had disappeared, and that the group's administration was poor, to put it mildly. However, the worst finding was that the committee was working to clear land not for poor people, but for fat cats—people with Government connections, or senior military officers, for example. The whole purpose of the clearance was being negated, to a large extent. The Select Committee met King Sihanouk, who saw fit to raise with us CMAC's appalling record. I think that that was rather illuminating.
  Mine clearance is a slow and mind-numbing task. Each person can clear about 35 sq m a day. In Cambodia, mine clearers get $150 a month, which compares with the $22 a month that a headmaster gets. The job may be tedious and take a long time, but it is essential for poor communities. The Committee saw a school that had been built on de-mined land. Who would build a school on land that had not been de-mined? That is the question that we must ask.
  Finally, it is often estimated that there are between 100 million and 110 million land mines and anti-personnel mines scattered around the world. The House should treat such estimates with a large pinch of salt. It takes an enormous effort to plant mines and carry heavy munitions. Leaving aside the Russians in Afghanistan, most of the armies that planted the mines were made up of irregular soldiers who moved on foot. They did not plant mines in the enormous numbers that are spoken of.
  That fact is important, because 110 million mines seems an insuperable clearance target. The real total is much lower: throughout the world, there are probably

  227
  about 6 million mines. That total puts the problem in a different perspective. Some organisations have an interest in overstating the case. However, that is not to say that one anti-personnel mine that takes the leg off a child is not one mine too many.
  The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the Secretary of State described the European Union as the worst agency in the world. At last, reform of the aid programme is on the agenda. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, I might be described as a little bit of a Euro-pragmatist, but we can all agree that the recent history of the EU aid programme has been a scandal and a disgrace.
  I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State applauding the proposed reforms, but we should judge them on results. It is no good throwing good money after bad. Money has been wasted in an appalling manner. The culture in EU offices is too cosy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford described. People have been in the business a long time and have made a decent living out of it. I am sure that they have done some good, but they have been sitting around on their backsides for too long.
  Neil Kinnock is trying to change the leopard's spots among EU employees, and he is having a lot of trouble. There must be a change in culture before we contemplate putting more money into EU programmes, and I applaud my party's view that we should spend more money bilaterally. I think that we all agree that the money is not generally well spent. Although in general I applaud DFID's determination to work with others, we should not lower our standards of aid delivery or lose sight of our objectives just to keep in with partners, he they the EU or others.
  I wish to make two further quick points. We recently visited Cambodia, a grindingly poor but very beautiful country. The small amount of aid that we spend there has a disproportionate impact in terms of what it can achieve. Some aid is a drop in the ocean in a large country, but the aid that we spend in Cambodia has a disproportionate impact. I urge the Minister to consider spending more money in Cambodia rather than less. It is not Conservative policy to spend more money, so I hope that I will not be picked up for saying that. Nevertheless, I think that the money spent there achieved a great deal.
  Along with the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and other right hon. and hon. Members, I would like an annual debate on development, perhaps focused on the Department's annual report. Such a debate would be useful—it would raise the profile of the Department, the work that it does and the need for that work to be done. Again, most people in the Chamber would not disagree with that.
  I do not disagree with the Bill; it is mostly quite sound. I have generally agreed with DFID's actions and policies over the past three or four years. I have some reservations about the Bill but, despite those, I wish it well and hope that DFID, under whatever Government is in power after the election, continues its good work.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I am delighted to have the opportunity of contributing to what has been described as an historic debate. Other hon. Members have pointed out that this is the first such debate
  228
  for 20 years. [Interruption.] They have pointed out that this is the first such debate on an international development Bill for 20 years.
  Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Browne: I have hardly started, but I will.
  Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I explain the circumstances surrounding the Bill 20 years ago? It was late at night when the Bill was introduced by the Solicitor-General, who said that it was something to do with the consolidation of many Bills and that the House might like to consider it with alacrity. The House did just that—the proceedings were over in three minutes.
  Mr. Browne: I do not know whether I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for his intervention because, to some degree, he has stolen my thunder. I was intending to point out that my research has revealed that the debate on the last Bill, which was a consolidation measure, took up one column in the Official Report of the House of Commons and half a column in the Official Report of the other place.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). The four years that I have been in the House have not been peppered with much common ground between us, but I found some tonight. It is appropriate to put on record my admiration for the work of the Halo Trust and my commendation of the hon. Gentleman and his fellow trustees for their contribution to that great work. I share his belief that there is a moral basis to development, but I also share the view of other right hon. and hon. Members that self-interest comes into it in that we want a peaceful future for the world and for our children.
  It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend—in all senses—the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins). We travelled together to Colombia as part of a delegation of European parliamentarians in 1999. As my hon. Friend drafted and redrafted the final statement, I was exposed to his considerable skills in language and diplomacy. I have heard him speak on many occasions since, and tonight he lived up to his own high standards. I agreed with almost every word that he said.
  On Sunday night in Kilmarnock, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed a meeting of more than 500 people of all ages. It was the biggest public meeting in Kilmarnock for many years, and was bigger even than a full meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, which is quite difficult to achieve these days. The meeting was supported by Oxfam, Christian Aid, Fair Trade and the only Scottish-based international development organisation, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund. It was organised, with help from Unison and the GMB, through the office that I share with my colleague, the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. It provided my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with an excellent opportunity to see the extent of support in my constituency for her Department's policies.
  I must encourage more of the people who attended that meeting to visit the Department's website to answer the poll questions on that website. Their numbers alone would

  229
  help to dispel the myth of disillusion peddled by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Douglas Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that one virtue of such meetings lies in their making clear the link between international debt reduction of the kind that Jubilee 2000 has campaigned for and the poverty eradication strategy essential to the Bill before us?
  Mr. Browne: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that good point. He was anxious to contribute to tonight's debate, but his responsibilities elsewhere have precluded him from doing so. I know of his support for international development, and that he has marshalled informed support in his constituency, which mirrors the support in my own. As an aside, I may add that his constituency is served by Bishop John Mone, who leads SCIAF and who is a powerful advocate for the rights of the poor throughout the world. The bishop is known throughout Scotland for his contribution to international development objectives.
  The meeting gave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an opportunity to explain the policies that underpin the objectives set out in both the White Papers published by her Department since the general election and in her speech today. It was more than a meeting; it was an event. My right hon. Friend's inspiring speech was set alongside performances by the Stewarton academy senior wind ensemble, the Kilmarnock concert brass and the Aeolian male voice choir, all of which are fine examples of the phenomenon referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). There were additional contributions, including personal accounts of the challenges and opportunities faced by some of the world's poorest people, which were read by Ailsa Henderson, who works extensively for Christian Aid in Ayrshire, and by Paul Chitnis, the director of SCIAF.
  The importance of the meeting lay in the fact that all who participated left the hall recommitted to the work of development. Messages, cards and e-mails from people who attended are coming thick and fast to my office in Kilmarnock. All express thanks for the event, but they also ask what more can be done. If there is any need for evidence that our Government's change in development policy—moving it from, as my right hon. Friend put it, a policy subordinate to commercial and short-term political interests, to one based on the reduction of poverty and a national and international commitment to meet the 2015 international development targets—is a proper one, the turnout and response at that meeting was enough evidence for me.
  There is growing public awareness of our objectives, and approval and support is, to my knowledge, 100 per cent. among non-governmental organisations. From the number of different departmental publications circulated by my office alone, I know that the information contained in them has contributed greatly to the understanding that permeates my community. All the schools in my constituency have received teaching aids from the same source. An understanding of development is a component of good citizenship, so I am grateful for that contribution. I encourage the Department to continue to produce such valuable materials—they are much appreciated.
  230
  It is therefore opportune that we should be debating a Bill that establishes poverty reduction as the central aim of UK development assistance. Some people ask why we should have the Bill. I welcome it. I do not have the experience or expertise of many of my hon. Friends or of other hon. Members. This debate and the fact that it has exposed me to that expertise is a good argument in support of those hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently of the need for more such debates—or at least for regular and compulsory debates on the matter. When the proper policy targets are established and agreed across the House—as they are in this matter—they should be set out in an appropriate legislative framework. If the Bill did no more than that, it would merit introduction.
  Although I accept that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, poverty is a complex phenomenon, its complexity lies principally in the fact that the poor of the world live in vastly different ecological zones from the rich. The poor face different health conditions and limitations in their agriculture; they have fewer economic opportunities. That fundamental cause of their persisting poverty is often further complicated by the fact many of them live in corrupt or conflict-ridden societies.
  However, that does not detract from the importance of recognising that different ecologies are the fundamental cause of poverty. The 30 countries with the highest incomes lie overwhelmingly in the world's temperate zones. By contrast, of the 42 HIPCs, 39 are tropical or desert societies. Although the climate of the remaining three—Laos, Malawi and Zambia—is substantially temperate, those countries are landlocked and isolated; they face unique challenges.
  One of the world's most important challenges is to mobilise science and technology to address the key differences, and the fact that opportunities are afforded to the rich but denied to the poor. The necessity of using science and technology to improve health, to increase agricultural productivity and to combat environmental degradation is one of the factors that lies at the heart of the Government's second White Paper.
  Important though that is, however, it is a compelling irony that as science and technology create new wealth and well-being in the richer countries, the conditions in many of the poorest are growing significantly worse. It is not only life but death that differs in those countries. We in the north enjoy a life expectancy of 70 years or more. Although we complain about them, we can largely thank our winters for that. In the HIPCs, average life expectancy is about 50—in some of those countries, it is falling. That is caused by the burden of diseases such as malaria, hookworm and sleeping sickness, which overlays poverty. That combination creates a vicious circle. Short life expectancy can be a result of poverty, but it is also a cause of poverty.
  All the rich countries research on rich country ailments such as cardiovascular disease and cancer will not solve the problems of malaria; nor will biotechnology advances for temperate-zone crops easily transfer to the conditions of tropical agriculture. To address the special conditions of HIPCs, we must first understand their unique problems.
  The inequalities of income across the world are exceeded by the inequalities of scientific output and technological innovation. Despite the fact that many of the scientific and technological breakthroughs are being

  231
  made by poor-country scientists, they are being made in rich countries. Global science is directed by rich countries for rich countries, even to the extent of harnessing much of the scientific potential of poor countries. Indian and Chinese experts are numerous in silicon valley. The result is a profound imbalance in the global production of knowledge—probably the most powerful engine of divergence in global well-being between the rich and the poor.
  Malaria kills more than 1 million people a year—perhaps as many as 2.5 million—but because it is concentrated in the poorest tropical countries, no one even bothers to keep an accurate count of clinical cases or deaths. Recent advances in biotechnology, including the mapping of the genome of the malaria parasite, suggest that a malaria vaccine is possible, but that is not high on the agenda of the international community and the pharmaceutical firms. The Wellcome Trust estimates that only $80 million a year is spent on malaria research; the big firms see no profit in it.
  The AIDS epidemic, to which hon. Members have already referred, is an even more stark example. Two thirds of all HIV-positive people live in sub-Saharan Africa, but, yet again, science stops at that ecological divide. Rich countries control the epidemic through new drug treatments, which are much too expensive for the poorest countries, but vaccine research, which may be more cost-effective, is poorly funded. The same is true of tuberculosis, which still takes the lives of more than 2 million poor people each year and would probably be treatable with a vaccine, but little or no research is carried out; there is no market for it or profit in it.
  A proper poverty focus will compel us to work together with our poor neighbours to mobilise science and technology for the poorest countries World institutions must fund research directed at the needs of those countries, not at the best return from the market. We must build on policies, such as the research and development tax credits announced last Monday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and spread them throughout the world. At the same time, we must reconsider intellectual property.
  It has been suggested that the current struggle over AIDS medicines in South Africa is an early warning shot in a much larger struggle over access to the fruits of human knowledge. Global decisions will be needed to resolve that struggle and, as a lawyer, I say that we cannot afford to leave it to lawyers and courts. Politicians must take responsibility for resolving those issues internationally.
  Fergus Henderson of Stewarton—one of my constituents who attended the meeting on Sunday night—has written to me, posing questions that he did not have the opportunity to ask. Some of them have been answered by the very basis on which the Bill is set—the elimination of poverty. However—this is relevant to the comments that I have just made, especially to the South African case—he asks whether the Government will work to change World Trade Organisation rules to ensure that new medicines are available to those who need them, at a price that they can afford, as soon as is practicable. That issue goes to the root of the problem, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will address it in summing up.
  In response to an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to my visit to Burundi and Rwanda, as a guest of Christian Aid, in late July and
  232
  August last year. I was in the company of my hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) and for Gloucester (Ms Kingham). We had originally intended to visit the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, but for reasons that I am sure all hon. Members who are present will understand, we were unable to do so—certainly, no sensible person would have done so at the time. However, Christian Aid's partners came to us. They bravely travelled across the border into Rwanda, where they told us the most harrowing stories of a people brutalised by all the many protagonists in the bloody conflict that rages throughout that country.
  I mention that experience in the context of this debate not as part of a travelogue, but to illustrate my view. Armed with the evidence of the reality for those people, I was persuaded that we would have no difficulty in persuading any court—I hope that this reassures those on the Opposition Front Bench—that any aid that we could give to those people for the benefit of conflict resolution, human rights or good governance could easily be categorised as meeting the objectives of poverty reduction.
  The Bill raises issues that are specific to Scotland. Development is a reserved matter, and the Scottish people are content that it remains so—certainly, so long as the primary policy is one of poverty reduction and the attaintment of the 2015 international development targets. The strength of the Jubilee 2000 campaign in the United Kingdom was the shared common purpose of the people of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver speedy and substantial debt relief to the poorest countries to reduce debt burdens to sustainable levels.
  The Scots are as proud as other United Kingdom citizens that their Government took the lead in that process. They are acutely aware that what has been achieved has been dependent on our Government having a seat at the top table of the institutions that needed reform to improve their transparency, efficiency and accountability. They do not want to give up that role.
  Scots have an admirable reputation for contributing to government and intergovernmental organisations and to NGOs involved in the delivery of humanitarian assistance and development aid. They will welcome the opportunity provided by clause 9 for their statutory bodies to enter into and carry out agreements for those purposes.
  Clauses 9 and 10 contain a proper recognition of devolution. For the first time, there is also an interesting statutory attempt to define a Scottish body. It is appropriate that powers exercised by the Scottish bodies that have responsibility for devolved matters should be subject to an order made by a Scottish Minister. However, will my hon. Friend the Minister advise me whether legislation in Scotland will be required to enable a Scottish Minister to make such an order? If so, when does he expect that legislation to be introduced?
  Clause 9(6)(b) envisages
  "the Secretary of State acting with the consent of Scottish Ministers"
  in certain circumstances. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us what the mechanism for obtaining that consent will be and reassure us that it will not create any delay in allowing the sort of agreements that we all want between our health care bodies and partners in developing countries?

  233
  For my final point, I return to the objective of poverty reduction. I draw on the reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) made to drug eradication and on one of the "whys" asked by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure the House that, when enacted, the Bill will preclude any contribution to Plan Colombia? That plan has been focused improperly on a military plan involving the Colombian Government and the United States. Will he assure us that, until it is refocused as a development plan, the objectives at the core of the Bill will preclude us from spending one penny of our aid budget on it?
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I welcome the Bill as a useful summary of the Government's position on international development. I declare a slight disinterest: I am not a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I never have been a member and I am never likely to be a member. On behalf of Plaid Cymru, I also welcome the way in which the Government have worked on this issue. As we always say, not enough money has been devoted to development, but the Government's aims and intentions are welcome.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) mentioned the large public meeting that was held in his constituency. I regret that when the Secretary of State came to Wales yesterday, she was greeted by a custard pie. Although we can throw many brickbats and even custard pies at some Ministers and members of the Government, we should not treat the right hon. Lady in such a way. She has done sterling work in government to try to raise the level of debate on international development. She has also done excellent work throughout the United Kingdom to enable us to debate the issues.
  Although we do not have frequent opportunities to debate these matters in the House, I join other Members in saying how widely popular such measures are in our constituencies. In that regard, I pay particular tribute to Jubilee 2000, which has organised one of the most successful campaigns that I have seen. The Prime Minister described it as one of the most successful grass-roots campaigns, and many Members will still have in their offices little sacks and plastic bags full of red "drop the debt chain" postcards.
  We know how successful the campaign has been, because 22 of the most heavily indebted countries have received the debt relief that was promised to them. Others will receive debt relief as they introduce their poverty reduction programmes. Although I am sure that the Government would have worked to a certain extent for debt relief, Jubilee 2000 clearly shows how NGOs in this country, with their strong links abroad, can work to persuade the Government to act as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to those organisations.
  The question has been raised whether the Bill is necessary because the powers already seem to exist. The Secretary of State gave a cogent and clear argument about why she wanted to entrench measures for poverty reduction in a Bill. After 21 years, it is time to debate the future of international development and this country's role in supporting developing countries.
  234
  However, for me, one watchdog has not barked. I am concerned about the definition of sustainable development. For the first time in legislation on international development, there is a clear reference to the need for international assistance to be provided to further sustainable development. That is an important advance. It is only the second time that sustainable development has been cited in a Bill. It was first mentioned in the Government of Wales Act 1998, which obliges the National Assembly for Wales to have regard to sustainable development.
  The Secretary of State was asked about the definition of poverty. However, does the Bill contain an adequate definition of sustainable development? It states:
  "'sustainable developoment' includes any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, prudent"—
  no doubt we will hear more of that tomorrow—
  "having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided."
  That sweet definition sounds acceptable, but I do not trust future Secretaries of State to have the right view of sustainable development. It is too open-ended. We are getting rid of tied aid and it must not return by the back door, but the definition might allow that to happen. The likelihood of generating lasting benefits means that a future Secretary of State could argue that the tie-up with aid is for the benefit of the country in question and will support its sustainable development strategy. The Government and the Committee should consider including a phrase similar to the Brundtland declaration on sustainable development, which refers to the need not to compromise the requirements of future generations. That would be a huge advance.
  The Secretary of State has the most able lieutenant. The Minister, whom I welcome to his new job, knows about sustainable development from his previous role. He has huge experience of responding to no end of debates on the environment in Westminster Hall, at all times of the morning and afternoon. He will help to produce a firmer definition of sustainable development. We need that because global warming and climate change are perhaps second only to warfare in the effects that they will have on developing countries in the next 50 years. Those countries are suffering most from climate change. Some 96 per cent. of deaths from natural disasters occur in developing countries, which are less able to deal with such catastrophes, as we know from events in Mozambique.
  A quarter of people live in the developed world and devour three quarters of natural resources. We are also responsible for most environmental damage. The poor and deprived in the developing world suffer from the ill effects of that. We have heard much about our moral duty to support developing countries financially, but we also have a moral duty to consider how we run our economies and environment. According to one estimate, 10,000 people have been killed in the past two years by the effects of climate change. The vast majority of those were, of course, in poor countries.
  A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has doubled the worst-case scenario. It mentions the loss of food crops, the disappearance of fisheries, the melting of glaciers—which provide millions of people with a summer water supply—and a rise in sea levels, which will cause massive economic disruption and

  235
  migration. There is no doubt that Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa in particular, will be hit hardest by climate change in the next 25 to 50 years. People will be forced off their land in ever greater numbers because of the way in which the developed world has run its economy in the past 50 years. They will see this country, and Europe in general, as the promised land.
  We have to be careful in discussions on the Kyoto targets—which, I hope will resume between Europe and the new United States Government—that we do not transfer the burden of dealing with climate change and emissions to the developing countries themselves. The Kyoto targets are global, and we must ensure that we in the developed countries take due responsibility. I therefore hope that the Government will continue to press for domestic measures to achieve those targets, rather than engage in backdoor deals, emission trading, a clean development mechanism and all the other things that have been suggested as a way out of the present impasse between north America and Europe or the Kyoto targets. Clearly, developing countries should not pick up the tab for our aims on the clear Kyoto targets. We should not and cannot transfer the burden to them.
  Another issue of concern covered by the Bill is the negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the World Trade Organisation, which have continued since last February and are expected to conclude in the next year or so. Reading the White Paper, "Eliminating World Poverty", I got the impression that the Government feel that globalisation and institutions such as the WTO can help to eliminate world poverty by investing in developing countries and creating decent jobs. However, those developing countries need a greater voice in that investment and should not simply be exploited by multinationals. Sustainable development, the protection of workers rights and the creation of a more equal world should be central duties for the WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund; indeed, they should be part of the remit of the reformed United Nations.
  We must accept that at the moment, the WTO dances to the tune of corporate America, not developing countries. We must get that issue across in the current GATS negotiations. The poorest 20 per cent. get just 1.1 per cent. of global income, but the richest 20 per cent. get 86 per cent. There is therefore a differential of more than 80 per cent., which cannot continue. No matter what is set out on paper in agreements, that income differential will always mean that developed countries and multinationals and companies within those countries will put the squeeze on developing countries. That will always be the case, so we need to use agreements such as GATS, and the WTO, to protect developing countries.
  The Government have not recognised that argument, and still believe that those institutions can be used to eradicate poverty. I do not think that they are misguided, but we need a much more severe examination of what trade liberalisation means for developing countries. Although world trade has increased 17-fold in the past 50 years, Latin America's share of it has shrunk from 11 per cent. to 5 per cent. and Africa's from 8 per cent. to 2 per cent. The current goal of promoting economic growth by orienting economies to boosting exports and attracting direct foreign investment is an economic model that has not yet been proven to deliver to developing countries. In the past few years, trade developments in
  236
  sub-Saharan Africa have resulted in a decline of almost 30 per cent. in gross domestic product, and we must take account of that in debates on GATS and the WTO.
  GATS involves difficulties, and the potential impacts, both positive and negative, are enormous. So far, however, it has received only superficial scrutiny in the House. One reason is that we do not often have these debates—which is an excellent reason for having them more often. Another reason is that GATS is intensely complicated and difficult for us to take on board. In passing, I support the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun on events in South Africa and the need that they underline. Almost half South Africa's health spending is on drugs; the current challenge against it by the international drug companies in the courts will have a huge impact on the way in which it deals with AIDS and other health issues. International trade agreements and international drug companies may have the law on their side, but surely we must recognise that morally they have very little case indeed. It would be useful if the Government would help to negotiate with the drug companies based in the United Kingdom.
  After a long debate, it seems that we are running out of time. I conclude by reiterating my party's policies. We support an increase to 0.7 per cent. of GDP to be spent on international aid. We would support any party which set that as its objective. We want to see a switch from military expenditure, which unfortunately is to rise by £4 billion in the comprehensive settlement, to international development. We would argue the virtues of a Tobin tax on international currency exchanges, with the proceeds of that tax diverted directly to international development.
  I am grateful for having had the opportunity to take part in the debate.
  9.20 pm
  Ms Oona King: Like all my colleagues, I sincerely welcome the Bill. Anyone who feels a moral compunction to lessen poverty, as we all do on both sides of the House, will congratulate the Government on the Bill.
  Happily, morality is not the only winner. Yes, there is a moral compunction to eradicate poverty, educate children, reduce infant mortality, stem the flow of arms, reduce conflict, prevent environmental degradation, provide debt relief, promote the rule of law and safeguard human rights, but even among those who do not have a single moral bone in their bodies there is a growing recognition that we cannot afford not to deal with those issues.
  The best way to deal with all those issues of life and death, prosperity and deprivation, is to safeguard a poverty-focused approach. That is what the Bill will enshrine in law. It represents a profound shift in international development policy, first introduced by the Government's White Paper in 1997. That approach is entirely different from the policy of the previous Government. We have refocused our entire development effort on the reduction of extreme poverty and we have untied all UK aid. That is an extremely important step.
  What reduces poverty most? It is trade, coupled with the equitable redistribution of its benefits. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said many times, in the past 50 years we have lifted more people out of poverty than in the past 500 years. Most people have been

  237
  pulled out of poverty not because they have been handed official development assistance, but because they or their families have been given access to an economy that permits them to earn a living wage and provides social sector investment in schools, hospitals, clinics and so on.
  I refer anyone who has an interest in the matter to the Select Committee's 10th report on the WTO, entitled "After Seattle—the World Trade Organisation and Developing Countries", as well as DFID's own White Paper, "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor."
  Issues associated with trade and globalisation are central to the Bill's poverty-focused approach. We must generate pro-poor growth. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about what constitutes pro-poor growth. I eagerly await DFID's research into that. I welcome the range of financial instruments that the Bill makes available to DFID so that it can influence reform in the private sector. There is no point in influencing only the public sector, when many of the poorest people are never reached by the public sector. The recognition of that fact has infused Government thinking.
  Without economic growth and access to markets, poor countries are condemned to an unbreakable cycle of poverty, so one anti-poverty strategy must be tariff-free access to developed countries' markets. At present, all the aid that the richer countries give the poorer countries still amounts to only 5.6 per cent. of what the poorer countries generate from trade.
  Imagine if the terms of trade were fair. Imagine if the EU and the USA were not among the biggest protectionist culprits on the planet. Imagine if we could find it in our hearts to increase the miserable share of world trade that is apportioned to the poorest countries—to raise it from its current microscopic level of 0.4 per cent. Imagine if the international system was not riddled with double standards and the poorest of the poor were at the top of our agenda. They are at the top of the DFID agenda, but how do we make that dream world a reality that spreads across other organisations and institutions?
  We should start with the development targets, which are otherwise known as Development Assistance Committee targets. They include halving the proportion of the world's population who are living in extreme poverty, getting all children into primary school, progressing gender equality, reducing infant mortality rates by two thirds and reducing maternal mortality by three quarters. The aim is to achieve all that by 2015. Those targets are the biggest challenge facing the world; they are the planet's "to do" list.
  A woman in sub-Saharan Africa has a one in 12 chance of dying from pregnancy-related causes. In the developed world, she has a chance of one in 4,000. On current trends, 100 million children will be out of school in 2015. Developing countries carry the burden of 90 per cent. of the world's disease, but they receive less than 10 per cent. of its health resources. AIDS single-handedly threatens to roll back hard-won development gains. For example, it has knocked a staggering 22 years off average life expectancy in Zimbabwe. In Zambia, 42 per cent. of hospital beds are filled with AIDS victims, but despite all that, drug companies still want their pound of flesh. Given those appalling statistics, we need accelerated progress
  238
  towards the DAC targets and not just more of the same. That is why the British Government's poverty-focused approach, which the Bill entrenches in legislation, is so critical if we are to reach the targets that I have mentioned.
  I shall discard many parts of my speech because of lack of time, but I want to mention the change in approach by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. That is another example of the British Government using their influence to change the global institutions that affect policy on these matters. The World Bank and the IMF have followed the example set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and made poverty reduction a part of their working ethos.
  I used to be one of those who stood outside with placards and banners shouting and demonstrating against the IMF and the World Bank. I can hardly believe my ears when I hear the leaders of the those organisations, Jim Wolfensohn and Horst Kohler, exhorting member states to redouble their efforts to reduce poverty. Others working on the ground with those institutions might say that seeing is believing, but there is no getting away from the fact that the new World Bank and IMF approach, which is enshrined in the poverty reduction strategy papers—or PRSPs—contributes to helping the poorest people.
  Equally importantly, PRSPs give ownership to developing countries. Interestingly, although they emerged from the process of debt relief, they are now being used as a tool in other areas. That highlights the importance of the cross-fertilisation of ideas in development—another area in which the British Government have taken the lead. We have also unilaterally provided 100 per cent. debt relief for any developing country that is committed to using the proceeds to benefit the poor. For example, we have moved heaven and earth to help the poorest people in Rwanda. Again, we have done so through debt relief, good governance and building a modern and effective state. The Government have led by example and put their money where their mouth is. Surely, politicians could never ask for more.
  Between 1997–98 and 2003–04, our aid budget will have increased by 45 per cent. in real terms. It will total £3.6 billion in the final year, which is the largest UK aid budget ever. The Bill ensures that poverty eradication remains the focus of every penny of that money. For that reason, I welcome it unreservedly.
  9.29 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Perhaps I am getting old, or perhaps I am mellowing, but I agreed with many hon. Members' comments. I therefore begin by congratulating everyone who has spoken. The Secretary of State may have to pick herself up off the floor when I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill.
  The range of topics that hon. Members have raised shows how keenly the House has missed debating international development under this Government. We have covered drugs, AIDS, mine clearance, child labour, plague and pestilence, war and peacekeeping, the European Union, other institutions, the Commonwealth Development Corporation, climate change and even devolution. A common theme permeated the debate: we

  239
  all want poverty to be reduced throughout the world, and we are unstinting in our praise for the NGOs and others who try to bring help and succour to the world's poorest people.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on producing the Bill like a rabbit out of a hat. I am sure that she was amazed when the usual channels gave her a slot for the measure. She did not have as much success in securing debates, but her Bill has reached Second Reading.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who gave praise where it was due, and was unstinting in his comments on the Department's achievements. However, many hon. Members were sufficiently mean-minded to snipe at him, whether he was present or not. Those criticisms were hurtful and a little unfair.
  I shall not go through every hon. Member's contribution in detail. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), tor Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), and my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) all made speeches, while my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) intervened. Every contribution had merit; every hon. Member spoke with authority.
  I want to reserve most of my comments for two hon. Members, albeit Conservative Members, who will retire at the next election. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on their contributions today. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent showed his abiding concern for children and economic migrants. I pay tribute to the Youth Parliament that he promoted throughout the United Kingdom for the millennium. It was a magnificent project and a fitting tribute to his time in the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford is sitting right behind me. He has enjoyed a long and distinguished career in the House. Sinc e 1981, his stint on foreign affairs and development matters has been broken only briefly by a foray into the Whips Office. He soon returned to international development as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and, since 1997, as Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development. He has made a genuine contribution. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, he gave up 12 years of his life to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. He is now treasurer of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. He does not stint on his work load.
  I have a list of the papers and reports that the International Development Committee has published. It is too long to read out in full. It includes reports on Montserrat, Sudan, and women and development—I found that report especially important. My hon. Friend has not shirked difficult issues such as the Ilisu dam and Mozambique. Three reports are currently under
  240
  consideration. They cover HIV-AIDS, corruption and the globalisation White Paper. I trust that the Secretary of State will ensure that the election is not called before my hon. Friend has an opportunity to complete them, because the next Conservative Government will rely on their outcome. We can all agree that my hon. Friend's wisdom, knowledge, dedication and commitment are a credit to the House and to international development. He will be sadly missed.
  The Bill seeks to anchor the goals of the Department within the framework of the reduction of poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon said, we do not oppose the main theme of this legislation. We share a common goal, and we recognise the commitment of the Department, the Secretary of State and her Ministers. I miss my exchanges with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who is now the Minister of State, Scotland Office, but I look forward to my exchanges in Committee with the new Under-Secretary.
  We wish to explore the areas between the lines of the Bill and highlight issues that might be helpful to the Government and could contribute to our shared goal of reducing the pain and suffering of the poorest people throughout the world. Our methods may differ from those of the Government from time to time, but our ultimate aims do not.
  The central plank of the Bill is poverty reduction, and we need to explore with the Secretary of State how that new emphasis will affect the Department and our development work. Let us take the example of good governance that has been mentioned again and again in the debate. The Government have not made governance a priority in the Bill. However, to lift a country and its people out of poverty, it is indisputable that one needs a framework of competent and responsible Government, open and accountable institutions and the rule of law. When good governance goes out of the window, poverty quickly rushes in through the door.
  One has only to look at Zimbabwe, which was mentioned by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. In Zimbabwe last week I saw productive farms that had been reduced, in less than a year, to little more than patches of dirt, producing so little that they can hardly support the squatters' families who have prevented the legal owners from planting and producing food. A farm that only last year could produce an income to support the many now struggles to provide sustenance for just a few. The destruction and the absence of good governance are an open invitation to famine and destruction.
  In the light of the Bill, we need to ensure that democracy building, good governance and the activities that ensure the development or maintenance of legal systems can definitely continue. Indeed, I hope for reassurances on activities such as Customs and Excise operations, which are essential in relation to drugs, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will bring to the Standing Committee an assurance that such activities will continue. We need to know what activities are acceptable, and what activities will fall within the parameters of the Bill.
  Commendable though the poverty focus may be, nowhere in the Bill do we find a definition of poverty. That issue was raised by several hon. Members, including

  241
  my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, who spotted it first. In the absence of such a definition, we need to know, for example, how there can be any clarity concerning the parameters to be set by the Secretary of State, and how we can discover which countries and which peoples would qualify for, or be denied, aid under the Secretary of State's new formula. The hon. Members for Stevenage and for Clydebank and Milngavie raised that point earlier, and we shall need to explore the issue in more detail in Committee.
  We shall also need to know how the new focus affects our international relationships. Many hon. Members raised the issue of how the Secretary of State will deal with the European Union aid budget. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon pointed out that the bias in expenditure is towards the relatively rich countries of the Mediterranean and eastern Europe, rather than towards Asia and Africa, where most of the world's poorest people live. As 30 per cent. of the Department's budget goes directly to the EU aid programme, how will that expenditure be justified when the legislation sets out different aims and objectives and, certainly, a different set of priorities for the UK aid spend?
  The reform of the EU institutions may well be on its way. We wish it good speed, but progress has been painfully slow and I am not holding my breath waiting for it. This legislation will be in place before the reforms are anywhere near completion. We know that the Secretary of State cannot reduce the amount of money delivered through the European Union; she will therefore be on a collision course with it. I hope that the Minister will tell us in Committee how the Secretary of State will deal with that anomaly.
  I want to touch on two matters of particular concern to me: the British Council and the overseas territories. Both are in need of guidance from the Department as to their future status. The relationship between the Department and the British Council has fundamentally changed since the Department was split off from the Foreign Office. Indeed, the value of contracts between the Department and the British Council has fallen dramatically, from £62 million in 1996–97 to £23.3 million in the last financial year, and we need to examine how the Department's actions have affected and will affect the British Council's activities.
  Back in 1997, the Secretary of State referred to the British Council in the White Paper as
  "a key partner in developing and implementing programmes",
  but unfortunately the rhetoric does not necessarily match the reality these days.
  Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because she keeps returning to the issue of the British Council. There is a muddle over its role. The British Council, which is a fine body, is the cultural arm of British diplomacy. It was funded by the two Departments, but we transferred our funding to the Foreign Office because it is inefficient to have accountability to two organisations, as I assume she knows.
  The British Council also manages a lot of activity for us. That activity varies and does not relate to its core budget. It depends on the effectiveness of the management of a particular project. There has been no diminution of
  242
  the British Council. The hon. Lady is obsessed with the issue, but she does not seem to understand that the British Council is not a development agency. It is the cultural arm of British foreign policy and it performs that function extremely well.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is an aid organisation.
  Clare Short: No it is not.
  Mrs. Gillan: I wish the Secretary of State would let me develop my point, because British Council operations are being slashed—in Namibia by 37 per cent., in Zambia by 33 per cent. and In Malawi by 45 per cent. The country directorates in Belarus, Ecuador, Lesotho and Swaziland are closing. Three offices in Nigeria will shut and £18.6 million is being spent on redundancy and ancillary payments to make redundant 800 locally appointed staff and 100 staff in the UK.
  All that is happening to a "key partner", but what is happening to the Department in some of those locations? Is it scaling down its operations? Is it redirecting aid elsewhere? No. British Council operations face reduction, but the Department is increasing its presence. It appears that the Department is trying to ensure that it replaces the British Council and substitutes for it in certain areas. Indeed, under the Secretary of State's stewardship, the Department has grown by 323 staff since 1996–97, which is a considerable in,,trease. The administrative budget will have grown by £9 million, to £74 million—a sum greater than the aid given to any country in 1999–2000 apart from the top three recipients of bilateral aid, and greater than the money given to Bangladesh, Mozambique, Sierra Leone or even South Africa.
  I asked the Minister a question about the British Council and he had the decency to write to me after he had inadvertently misled the House in an answer. Perhaps he will take time to examine the British Council's case carefully and give the reassurance that we seek that the Department is not empire-building at the council's expense.
  I must refer briefly to the overseas territories, and in particular, to the implications of the poverty focus for aid to some of the islands. Although many overseas territories are economically self-sustaining, certain issues still concern them. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Department's attitudes to the overseas territories and give us the reassurances that we seek. Despite the wording of the White Paper, they do not know where they stand in terms of priority for aid from the Government; and their fears were epitomised by the reaction in the early days to the volcanic eruptions in Montserrat. Questions still remain over long-terns development aid and there is particular concern over the lack of such aid for housing. Perhaps we can consider that in Committee.
  St. Helena is another example. For many years, it has been agreed that further economic development will be difficult to achieve unless access is dramatically improved either by an airfield or by a wharf development project. That contention has been supported by every business plan undertaken for the island. Considerable funding would be involved in such a project, but it would provide for the significant economic development that would allow St. Helena to become economically independent.

  243
  I hope that the Minister will say in Committee whether such a project would stand or fall under clause 1. Will help be forthcoming to the island, and when can the islanders expect a decision?
  I hope that the Minister will still confirm that there will be no cuts in the Department's overall budget. I hope—especially on a day when the Prime Minister is making such a fuss about his environmental credentials—that there is no truth in the rumour that cuts may be made in the global environment facility fund for the overseas territories, because that fund makes available money for environmental conservation. Given that Britain's overseas territories protect some of the most important wildlife sites in the world, any reduction or elimination of that fund would be nothing short of a disaster. I hope the Minister will confirm that there will be no change, and indeed that the possibility of supporting wildlife and environmental projects will remain after the passage of the Bill.
  It is almost the end of term, and we are now writing the Department's report. There have been many plaudits for the Secretary of State and her Ministers, and rightly so but it is a little sad that, despite all their good intentions, there have been so many failures. There has been the failure to be tough on corruption, and to introduce the promised legislation; there has been the failure to tackle waste and mismanagement in the European Union. The Government's own debt-relief targets have not been reached. Members have referred to the absorption of teachers and nurses from developing countries, and to the fall in the percentage of gross national product that is spent on aid.
  It seems remarkable that, three years after the publication of the White Paper, there is finally a Bill before us. It is hardly a magnum opus, but I believe that it could make a difference to many people's lives, and it surely deserves better than being sneaked into the parliamentary schedule in the dying days of a Labour Government.
  We will not vote against Second Reading; we will not seek to oppose the Bill. We will, however, seek to improve it in Committee.
  9.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): We have had a good debate. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) started well. Like others, he paid tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that of the Department, and I am grateful for that. He said that we had a common goal, and that we were singing from the same hymn sheet. I am grateful for that as well, although I confess that the longer he went on, the more I began to wonder. He gave an undertaking that a future Conservative Government would not re-link aid and trade. I am grateful for that too, especially in the light of the last Government's shocking record in that regard, of which the Pergau dam affair is only the most glaring example. From that point onwards, however, the hon. Gentleman's performance became increasingly shameless.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) observed, the hon. Gentleman's critique of Government policy came ill from one who had supported a Government who abused just about every aspect of overseas aid, and took so little interest in the subject over nearly 20 years that they
  244
  published no White Paper on it. I am sure we all welcome the rather slim document recently published by his party that the hon. Gentleman brandished, but I put it to him that it is just about all that that party has had to offer by way of strategic thinking on development during the past 20 years. At least he had the good grace to blush when, as he was telling us off for not presenting a statement as well as a White Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked him how many White Papers had been published during 18 years of Conservative government.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. I shall deal with the main ones; others may have to wait until the Committee stage. Like others, he asked why we needed the Bill. The short answer is that the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 is outdated and open to misinterpretation; it provides for the use of only a limited range of financial instruments; and, most importantly, it no longer reflects the Government's focus on the elimination of poverty. Above all, the Bill will prevent future Governments from misusing aid budgets, as has sometimes happened.
  The hon. Member for South-West Devon stressed the Conservative party's commitment to promoting good governance. I welcome that. However, when one sees senior members of his party—Lady Thatcher and Lord Lamont come to mind, cheered on by The Daily Telegraph—fawning over the odious General Pinochet, there is bound to be some scepticism about how deep that commitment to good governance actually is among everyone in his party. I do not question his motives or those of most Opposition Members who referred to the issue—[Interruption.] However, there is bound to be that scepticism. [Interruption.] They do not like it, do they? Have you noticed that, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Mullin: Not for the moment, because several minutes of my time were taken up by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
  The hon. Member for South-West Devon very reasonably raised the issue of the scandalously inefficient European Community development programme. However, his protestation that Conservative Members can be relied upon to sort out those problems have to be matched against the inconvenient fact that it was a Conservative Government who, at the Edinburgh summit, agreed that the EC's share of our development budget should rise massively to 30 per cent.
  As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development—who is not backward about coming forward—has been in the forefront of trying to reform the EC's development programme. I am glad to report that some progress has been made, although there is still a considerable way to go. [Interruption.] I do not think that we disagree about that, despite the heckling from those on the Opposition Front Bench. I can assure the House that we shall not relax our vigilance.
  Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members may take comfort from the fact that one of those charged with reforming the EC is their former right hon. Friend Chris Patten, who I know is much admired on the Opposition Benches.

  245
  I have one other point on the hon. Gentleman's speech. He raised, unwisely one might think, the current percentage of gross national product that is spent on aid. As we have already announced, we expect the figure for the calendar year 2000 to be about 0.29 per cent. We are on target to achieve our aim of 0.33 per cent. in the financial year 2003–04.
  Mr. Eric Forth: It says here.
  Mr. Mullin: It says that here because I wrote it.
  Let me be the first to admit that that is a long way from the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent., but the essential fact is that we inherited a budget that was declining year on year, but it is now increasing year on year. If we are re-elected, it will continue to increase year on year. I thought that it was just a little cheeky of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham to demand a guarantee from us that there will be no cuts. She represents a party that is committed to £16 billion worth of cuts. Goodness knows where they will come from, but it would not surprise me if one or two of them came from the aid budget.
  Mrs. Gillan: No.
  Mr. Mullin: We shall see—or perhaps we will not.
  I regret that it is not possible for me to respond to all the points that have been made in the debate—although I suspect that many of us are destined to meet again in Committee, where we shall have a chance to explore some of the more detailed points.
  The contribution of the hon. Member for South-West Devon aside, we had a number of very thoughtful speeches. I join the tributes that have been paid to the speech by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who I know has taken a long and consistent interest in development matters. He will be missed when he leaves the House. He asked whether the Bill should define humanitarian assistance. I think that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) made a similar point.
  We believe that to embed any definition of humanitarian assistance in the Bill would unnecessarily constrain our ability to react quickly, to learn from existing programmes and to reflect those lessons in future ones. By doing so we would run the risk of making unlawful certain interventions that would contribute to reducing suffering. For the same reason, we think that it would be wrong to try to define poverty—but these matters can be discussed in more detail later. All we would be doing is attempting to make absolute concepts that are relative, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford recognised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)—[Interruption.]—I am sorry that I mispronounced his constituency; it is the place where they have civic balls. My hon. Friend asked whether assistance should be limited to the poorest people in the poorest countries. The effect of that would be to constrain our ability to support good governance or the strengthening of financial systems, which are often among the most useful assistance that we can offer the Government of a poor country. We also recognise that pockets of severe poverty exist in the so-called middle-income and transitional countries.
  246
  My hon. Friend also asked whether DFID expenditure in eastern Europe would be subject to the same tests as other expenditure. I can assure him that it will. He asked why Northern Ireland is not mentioned in the Bill. I should clarify that the Bill does extend to Northern Ireland, although the Northern Ireland Administration recognise that they have no competence in international development matters. No statutory bodies for which the Northern Ireland Administration is accountable are currently listed in schedule 2 to the Bill. However, we recognise that such bodies could be added to the schedule in future. The Northern Ireland Assembly has asked that any consultation with the Secretary of State which might arise from the addition of such statutory bodies to schedule 2 and their subsequent activities should be handled under the memorandum of understanding in respect of devolved Administrations rather than requiring consultation under the Bill. The Bill reflects that position.
  The hon. Member for Richmond Park was concerned about why clause 1(3) allows the Secretary of State to decide whether development is sustainable in her opinion. The hon. Lady missed out the qualification that follows immediately afterwards:
  "having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided."
  That opinion must be reasonably held. If it is not, it may be challenged. If the Bill did not provide for the Secretary of State to exercise her judgment, the matter would have to be settled solely in the courts. I should add that the Secretary of State is answerable not only to the courts but, of course, to the House.
  The hon. Lady also asked about the defence offset schemes. They could not be financed under the Bill as their prime purpose is to sell military hardware, and not to reduce poverty. She asked whether clause 5 paved the way for tied aid. It does not; its purpose is simply to set down the forms of assistance that can be provided. There is no requirement or implication that such assistance must be sourced from the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about assistance to overseas territories. The Bill explicitly recognises the special relationship that Britain has with the overseas territories. It will allow the Secretary of State to continue to provide all types of support—including budgetary support—for the overseas territories. The Bill does not require any reduction in the level of resources available to the overseas territories and I hope that the hon. Lady will not stir up any mischief on that point.
  In conclusion, we have a good story to tell. Under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the British development assistance programme has been transformed. We inherited a budget that was declining year by year; it is now increasing year by year. Our development programme is no longer a tool of foreign policy, still less a tool of trade policy. DFID is an independent Government Department with its own seat in the Cabinet. Our assistance is now firmly targeted at the poorest people in the poorest countries, and the Bill will ensure that it remains that way.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

International Development Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the following provisions shall apply to the International Development Bill:

International Development Bill (Programme)

  Standing Committee
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
  3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 15th March.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
  6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords
  7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Mullin.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Streeter: I am staggered and disappointed that the Minister should have moved this important programme motion formally. It is an affront to democracy. The Bill has been presented under Standing Order No. 50. If we are to debate the motion properly, I hope that the Minister will explain how Standing Order No. 50 interacts with the programme motion. Will he say what the implications are of that for the programme motion? I should be happy to give way to him. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) is speaking.
  Mr. Streeter: Does not it beggar belief that a Bill can be presented under Standing Order No. 50 without the Minister explaining its import, and its impact on the programme motion? Is not that another example of the contempt with which the Governimnt treat the House of Commons?
  The Government's action is an affront to democracy because the Bill is about international development and supporting democracy around the world. This country invented democracy, and exported it around the world. Over many years, we have taken steps to underpin democracy throughout the rest of the world. The House has been discussing all day ways in which to support
  248
  democracy elsewhere in the world. Is not it ironic that democracy is coming under threat in this country? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to a hearing.
  Mr. Streeter: Shouting down Members in the House of Commons is another affront to democracy. In the two years that I have been in my post, I have visited some central and eastern European countries that used to be crushed by communism. I have visited many African states where there has been no history of democracy. People in those countries know that their new-found democracy is a fragile, precious creature. Many of those countries hold their democracy very lightly and very preciously, because they know that it is easy for it to be snatched away.
  Mr. John Gummer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the subject under discussion this evening is too important for us to restrict the debate? Why do Labour Members not want to discuss something about which the House in general agrees? Should we not spend more time, rather than less, on such an important subject?
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Give him a beefburger.
  Mr. Gummer: Moreover, does not my hon. Friend think that some hon. Members, who rarely make sensible contributions to debates, should remain quiet in their seated positions?
  Mr. Streeter: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is interesting to note that when Labour Members do not want to hear important arguments from Opposition Members, they simply talk among themselves and do not pay attention. They really are an unholy rabble.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman wonders why there is some noise from Labour Members. Some of us remember when the previous Government guillotined Bills and rammed them through the House time after time. When Conservative Members complain about this Government, it does more than smack of hypocrisy: it smells of it.
  Mr. Streeter: I am rather sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He does not seem to understand that we are talking about an entirely new procedure. We are talking about the programme motions imposed by the Government on the House of Commons, against its better judgment.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Has my hon. Friend noted that a new precedent has been set in the House tonight? Like me, he will remember when gagging motions such as this were introduced by the Leader of the House. That changed, and such motions were proposed by the Secretary of State of the relevant Department. Even the Under-Secretary disdains the House so much that he did not explain the reasons for this gagging motion.
  Mr. Streeter: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. The Secretary of State, who is the head

  249
  of the Department, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, has left the debate, so unimportant is this to the Government.
  All around the world people are cherishing their new-found democracy. Is it not ironic that here, in the mother of all Parliaments, the Government are placing our democracy under threat by treating the House of Commons with contempt?
  How could the Government decide, even before Second Reading, how long we should spend considering the Bill in Committee? Who will speak in Committee? What arguments will be put? The Government have no idea how long will be necessary for us to scrutinise this important Bill.
  Mr. Gummer: Did my hon. Friend hear the Minister say from a seated position that we agreed with the Bill? Is that not an opportunity for us to discuss it properly and not to hold it up, but to be useful? Are the Government frightened that somehow they cannot give vent to normal discussions, as the House has always done down the years of history?
  Mr. Streeter: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Many constructive contributions from Conservative Members have been made in this debate and many constructive contributions from Conservative Members will be made in Committee—if there is enough time. Yet the programme motion says—it is almost beyond belief—that the Bill must have finished its Committee proceedings by Thursday 15 March.
  Next Monday is 12 March. The Bill was first printed on 15 February. It was presented to the House of Commons out of the blue. No one was expecting it. This morning I met the non-governmental organisations and charities that are expert in this field, and they were not expecting such a Bill. The Government gave no signals that it was coming. It has been introduced for party political pre-election purposes, and has come out of the blue.
  The Bill was printed on 15 February and came before the House today. We are asked to finish its consideration in Committee by Thursday 15 March.
  Mr. Mullin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Streeter: In a second. Amendments must be tabled by Friday lunchtime if they are to be considered by the start of Committee proceedings next Tuesday. Tomorrow is Budget day; Second Reading has taken place today. We have precious little time in which to seek expert opinion on some important matters, which I shall cover shortly. What a shocking example of a Government railroading legislation through Parliament and not giving the Opposition an opportunity to scrutinise and improve it. I will now give way to the Minister and I hope that he will explain what Standing Order No. 50 is all about.
  Mr. Mullin: I wonder whether I could insert a little killer fact into this discussion. I understand that the
  250
  timetable was agreed through the usual channels, so if the hon. Gentleman has any complaints, perhaps he should discuss the matter with his Whip.
  Mr. Streeter: I am sorry to say that, not for the first time today, the Minister is misinformed. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I still feel that the hon. Gentleman is not getting the hearing to which he is entitled. The House must calm down.
  Mr. Streeter: For at least the second time today, the Minister is misinformed. We oppose these programme motions on a point of principle as well as practicality. In no way has the programme motion been agreed through the usual channels.
  What are we to take from this motion? A Bill that has had its Second Reading today starts its Committee proceedings next Tuesday and must be finished by next Thursday. There is no time to take expert advice or to consider matters properly, yet important issues have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in today's debate.
  The Bill intends to place at the heart of international development policy-making procedures a focus on poverty reduction. We have asked many probing questions about what poverty reduction entails. Does it preclude the Government from supporting democracy-building measures, or from focusing on good governance? Does it preclude the Government from supporting action against human trafficking? We need to know what poverty reduction means, and we shall need plenty of time in Committee to study that question in depth.
  We have discussed the collision course on which the Bill will place the Government as regards European Union aid. The Bill says that international development must all be about poverty reduction, but 30 per cent. of DFID funding goes through the EU. From recent experience, we know that the EU is doing anything but focusing funding on poverty reduction. How will the Government square that circle? How will they reconcile their focus on poverty reduction with their treaty obligation to put 30 per cent. of DFID' s budget through the EU? We shall need plenty of time to consider that point in detail. I should like to take legal advice, but it seems that there will be no time.
  We want to explore the money spent by DFID on publications—£2 million over the past four years on glossy brochures. How will that come into the focus on poverty reduction?
  We oppose the programme motion on principle, but also for reasons of practicality. It does not give us enough time to do a proper job. I have no doubt that the Government will approach us in a few weeks' time once the Bill has passed through this House; it is unlikely to complete its passage through the other place in time for the almost-certain election on 3 May. They will ask us whether the Bill can be fast-tracked with our support before the House is dissolved for the general election. I want to put down a substantial marker today.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman says anything rash, will he reflect on two points made on Second Reading? First, the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, which the Bill seeks to bring up

  251
  to date, was passed in exactly three minutes. Secondly, the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that the Bill is not necessary. If that is so, why is he so excited about the programme motion?
  Mr. Streeter: The right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. The Bill contains many complex issues and we have asked many complicated questions and legal questions that the Government have failed to answer. I asked the Secretary of State—when she was still here—what difference the Bill will make to the way in which she conducts international development, but I had no answer. That is exactly the kind of point that we need to get to the bottom of in Committee.
  Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that if a premature election meant that the Bill failed to be properly considered or to reach the statute book, it would be the Government's fault for calling an election at a time that truncated the Bill's progress? I hope that my hon. Friend will feel under no pressure or obligation to fall in with an artificial timetable imposed by the Government.
  Mr. Streeter: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. No doubt the Government will tiptoe up to us towards the end of March to ask for help in getting the Bill on to the statute book before the election, which, as my right hon. Friend said, is about to to called 12 months before it is necessary. I must put down a marker for the Minister. Unless the Bill is amended in Committee to place at centre stage our strong belief that we must get behind developing countries on good governance, which must be the main focus of our assistance, and a crackdown on corruption, we shall not support fast-tracking of the Bill. Unless we are satisfied in Committee that the Government have thought matters through and have dealt with the inevitable conflict between EU aid provision of 30 per cent. and the poverty focus that the Bill is intended to introduce, there is no way in which we shall be able to support the Bill on a fast-track procedure. I hope the Minister is listening. That is one of the reasons why the Government are so mistaken in trying to railroad the Bill through the House.
  I have said that we oppose the Bill on a point of principle—
  Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Streeter: We oppose the programme motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am sure that is what I said—[Interruption] I am sure that Hansard will confirm that is what I said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, it will not."' It will when I pop upstairs in a moment.
  We oppose the programme motion on a point of principle because it does not give us adequate time to do our job properly—to scrutinise the measure, to improve it, to take expert advice and to move sensible amendments in the Standing Committee next week. The Government have made a terrible mistake. They have taken us for granted, they have taken the House for granted and they have taken our constituents for granted They have shown once again their utter contempt for the House of Commons—it will not do.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Rogers: I do not normally speak on programme motions. Obviously, I fully support the motion. I agree with the generosity of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench in giving as much time as possible to Opposition Members so that they can voice their objections to the motion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development on moving the motion formally.
  I do not understand why the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), the Opposition spokesman, wants to hold up the Bill, when the Opposition—apparently—support every part of it. He has a point when it comes to European aid, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to resolve the matter in Committee.
  I have sat through many debates on programme motions recently and the Opposition's only saving grace lies in the sometimes brilliant tactics employed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whom I admire greatly. When I presided over the European Parliament, I dealt with Members such as Marco Pannela; but the right hon. Gentleman is far better than the Italian anarchists—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Machiavelli."] The right hon. Gentleman is a man of superb ability.
  However, that skill is all that I can admire about the Opposition. The hypocrisy of their stance on the measure flabbergasts me. I sat on the Opposition Benches with a bad grace for a long time, while the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) arrogantly scoffed as his Government pushed through Bills—
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rogers: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can have his chance later.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Rogers: Very well, I give way.
  Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have been Members of the House for a long time. He will be good enough to remind the House that the general practice when the Conservatives were in office was not to timetable a Bill until it had been in Committee for approximately 100 hours. What is different at present is that the Government are timetabling a Bill in advance of consideration and before there is any reason to suppose that its discussion will be artificially extended.
  Mr. Rogers: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in government, he shoved legislation through the House on many occasions—
  Mr. Alan Duncan: No, no.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman bleats away, but he was not in the House then, so he does not know about it. The Government were ramming things through—
  Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rogers: I have given way once—
  Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rogers: I will give way when I have answered the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
  Measures were pushed through—gas privatisation, transport privatisation, privatisation of the coal mines. The measure on the atomic weapons establishment was pushed through. All those Bills were pushed through and whenever there was any difficulty, they were guillotined. That was why the issue of the modernisation of the House arose. Those guillotines were nothing to do with modernisation; the Conservatives wanted to ram their business through the House.
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Rogers: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who has done enough ramming in his time.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has the honour to be the Member of Parliament for Rhondda, and I ask him whether he can think of a single one of his predecessors who would have accepted a timetable motion that was introduced before there had been at least 100 hours of debate. I challenge him to mention a single occasion on which I introduced any programme motion on a Bill that had not already been the subject of at least 100 hours of debate. I have been entirely supportive of the Secretary of State for International Development, but will he explain why we must have a timetable motion on the Bill—about which we are agreed, but on which we might be able to help the Government—given that we could have debated it in this Parliament without such a timetable being inflicted?
  Mr. Rogers: I should have thought that it would be pretty obvious, even to the right hon. Gentleman, that the timetable motion has been moved because there will be an election. Although we shall be returned, we obviously want to get the Bill on to the statute book in this Parliament, given its significance for the underdeveloped world. It is a good Bill and it contains—
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are being told that we should hurry our consideration of the Bill because there is to be an election. Would you be good enough to confirm that the fact that we may be facing an election on 3 May relieves us of the obligation to scrutinise legislation properly?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman inadvertently seeks to draw me into the debate. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has put his case, and it can be rebutted by any Back Bencher who catches my eye.
  Mr. Rogers: I am amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his considerable legal background and knowledge of the constitution and make-up of the House, should make such a spurious point of order.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is obviously in pain, so I shall give way.
  Mr. Bercow: I am certainly not in pain; I am richly enjoying the hon. Gentleman's oration. Is not it
  254
  extraordinary that he insists with such alacrity that two days' consideration in Committee will suffice, given that he cannot possibly know—assuming that he is not psychic—how many new clauses and amendments will be tabled?
  Mr. Rogers: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should assume that I am not psychic. We Welsh have many attributes, and I shall be disappointed if I cannot create a small Celtic aura.
  Mr. Forth: Get on with it.
  Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to move along, but he wants me to do so to create a bit of space for himself. He has spent considerable time honing his special skills, and I shall not go on for too long because I like to listen to his speeches. I hope that you will find it in your heart, Mr. Speaker, to call him so that we can enjoy his speech a little later.
  The Bill contains much that is good, and it needs to be passed quickly.
  The hon. Member for South-West Devon raised the important issue of the diversion of our aid through the European Union. With the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I spent five years in the European Parliament and I saw the way in which the European Community's aid budget was blatantly used for certain national interests. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister realise, when they negotiate in the European Union, that certain countries have used the aid budget to further their own interests and not necessarily the interests of those who deserve the aid most.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has great experience and knowledge of European affairs, so will he explain to us how he expects a Committee of the House of Commons to introduce measures to ensure that European aid is spent on relieving poverty? We know that a huge amount of money goes on graft and corruption, so how is a Committee, with its pathetic limited powers, expected to do anything on the subject in two days?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now discussing the Bill's substance and not the programme motion. I ask the hon. Member for Rhondda not to reply to that intervention.
  Mr. Rogers: I shall certainly do whatever you say, Mr. Speaker. However, the hon. Member for South-West Devon cited the issue of European aid as a fundamental point in his contribution on the programme motion. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) should ask that question, because his Government put through the Maastricht treaty. Baroness Thatcher came back to the House and said what a wonderful—
  Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see any relevance

  255
  whatever either to the Bill or to the programme motion—which is the subject of this debate—in the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  Mr. Speaker: That is the first proper point of order that I have heard for some time. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. We should not be talking about the Maastricht treaty in this debate on a programme motion.
  Mr. Rogers: I accept what you say, Mr. Speaker. I would never want to dispute your ruling. Of course it was a proper point of order, but its substance was wrong.
  As I understand it, as a result of the Bill, an obligation will be placed on the British Governapnt to channel some aid through Europe. The obligation has arisen out of various treaties that the British Government signed with the Europeans. One was the Maastricht treaty, which was shoved through the House. All we are doing is fulfilling our treaty obligations. I am sure of one thing: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will not sell us down the river as Secretaries of State in the Conservative Government did on issues such as the common agricultural policy in all the years that they were in power. My right hon Friend will defend our interests.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must talk about the programme motion.
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for South-West Devon gave such examples to support the Conservative party's opposition to the programme motion. However, because you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that I am out of order by repeating his points, I shall not proceed any further.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Gummer: A real issue is at stake, and I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will accept that I am being serious about it. This is an important Bill and I support almost every part of it. The right hon. Lady has had an exemplary period as Secretary of State and I want to help her on a couple of issues.
  Conservative Members support much of what the right hon. Lady has done and we want to help her with other matters. However, there is little discussion in this country about the issues with which she is concerned. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Scotland Office, has commented from a sedentary position throughout this short debate. He must accept that overseas development and its relationship with the environment and so on have occupied my mind for a long time. They should be discussed more widely.
  The right hon. Lady should think about whether it would have been better to give us longer to discuss those issues. The Opposition would not try to stop the Bill, because much of it is good, but this country needs to have a more serious debate about the nature of overseas aid and the way in which we redevelop and recreate the economies of countries that are in great poverty.
  I agree with the need to concentrate on the eradication of poverty. Anyone who lives in a rich country must be worried about that fundamental issue. It is important to engage the Government and the Opposition on those issues on which we can work together, such as the
  256
  environment. Overseas aid is another part of what should be a common agenda among rich countries that deal with those for whom justice cries out to be done.
  Some of us had hoped that the right hon. Lady would tell her Government that we do not need a timetable motion on the Bill because the whole House can genuinely engage on it. The issue is important. Some of my hon. Friends go on about the European Union, but I believe that with proper leadership from this country, we can much improve EU aid. A great deal of what we are able to do through that organisation we could not do individually. However, I am not happy with the procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has made a criticism, but we do not have time to discuss the issue that concerns him. I suspect that the right hon. Lady and I might agree on that aspect of the Bill, but it is difficult to understand why our time for debate needs to be restricted.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Opposition did not vote against this Bill or the Criminal Justice and Police Bill on Second Reading. However, I have just come from the Committee on that Bill, and 24 clauses, one new clause, two schedules and 44 amendments received no attention at all.
  Mr. Gummer: I share my hon. Friend's concern, but this Bill involves a stronger issue, which I hope the right hon. Lady will take seriously. It is important to discuss such issues even if we agree with the principles, because they are not widely discussed in this nation. If I go banging on doors in my constituency and elsewhere, overseas aid is not often raised in a friendly and proper way. Unattractive comments are sometimes made, and the subject is not usually discussed in the way in which we in the House would want to debate it. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady finds that.
  Clare Short: I find that traditional political meetings are crumbling across the country and that development meetings are growing and flourishing and are widely attended. I respect the right hon. Gentleman's interest in the environment, but he was not present for the Second Reading debate. However, he is always here to oppose programme motions. I do not think that it is development that concerns him tonight.
  Mr. Gummer: I know that the right hon. Lady is present in Chamber a great deal. I am not always present to oppose timetable motions, although I disagree with them in principle. On no occasion have I discussed a Bill in the terms in which I am discussing this one, and I do so because the Department for International Development is crucial and says something about this country's moral attitude to the rest of the world. If I have a criticism of the Governments in which I served—and I say this clearly—it concerns their behaviour towards the rest of the world. I have a similar criticism of this Government. However, this is an issue on which we ought to try to engage the whole House.
  If I may say so, the right hon. Lady is a woman of great strength and is perfectly able to stand her corner. I want to take this opportunity to tell her that this could have been an occasion on which she told the rest of the Government, "I can manage without a timetable motion.

  257
  I can have the debate and, what is more, I know that we will get this through in time and we will have engaged the whole House of Commons."
  I shall conclude by referring to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). 1 have close connections with Wales.
  Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman used to call himself John Selwyn Gummer.
  Mr. Gummer: Exactly. May I tell the hon. Gentleman that Members from Wales have always been entirely in favour of free speech and the involvement of the whole House? Frankly, although some Members laughed at his speech, I was saddened by it because, to be direct, he betrayed his predecessors, none of whom would have spoken in that way about free speech in the House. I can think of several of my relations who would turn in their graves if they heard his words on that subject in the House. Together, those two things are not worthy of him, and I am sorry that he spoke like that.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Wells: It makes me sad to take part in this debate on the programme motion, because I am sure that the Government and Opposition could easily have agreed how much time we needed in Committee.
  The issues that we must discuss in Committee are of great importance and need proper exploration. Clause 1, which is the essence of the Bill, enshrines the principle of applying all international development aid to the reduction of poverty. The definition of the reduction of poverty needs exploration through the normal means of amendment and discussion, so that we are entirely clear what it means and what the Secretary of State's intention is.
  That definition is not easy, and it is not intended to be, because the Secretary of State needs flexibility to administer her budget, which cannot be examined in a court of law. We accept that. On the other hand, does poverty reduction mean that, for example, we concentrate only on the poorest of the poor? Or do we mean to look at comparative poverty within certain countries? What is the upper limit of that kind of flexibility? That kind of thing should be discussed and needs to be discussed, which may take some time.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend clearly makes an important point. Would he care to remind the House that in Committee, there will be only a small number of Opposition Members? The Report stage is the only occasion on which the House as a whole has an opportunity to address those important questions. Consequently, is it not extremely undesirable that debate should be truncated in the way the Government propose?
  Mr. Wells: The motion is entirely unnecessary, and it is detrimental to the reputation of the House that we should push it through. I shall not go through all the clauses, as that would be wasting time, but in the debate I raised the question of whether humanitarian aid should be closely defined, so that it will be clear that such aid will not be used for spurious political purposes. There
  258
  needs to be a debate on that, and an amendment. The matter requires thorough exploration. That would not be wasting time; it is what we should do.
  We must examine how a poverty-focused Bill will work in relation to the overseas territories. As I understand it, the Bill exempts the overseas territories from the poverty reduction focus, but why should the overseas territories be in that position? They have traditionally had first call on the overseas development budget, but that is not reflected in the wording of the Bill.
  Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is possible, as was said earlier, that this might be the last exchange that he and I have on the Floor of the House about international development. On behalf of everyone on the Government side, and probably the whole House, may I say that the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the subject has been enormous?
  This is a small Bill and we want to get it right. Is it not striking that there are far more hon. Members present for the timetable motion debate than were present for the Second Reading debate? When I was in opposition, I liked to use time to hold the Government to account, but on the Bill there is not an issue. We have enough time to scrutinise the Bill properly and get it through the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to make time the last issue on which he speaks, in relation to a subject that has honoured the whole of his political career and to which he has made such a great contribution.
  Mr. Wells: I thank for the Secretary of State for the generosity of her remarks, which I deeply appreciate. However, I am not speaking to waste time. I am genuinely concerned that we should have enough time to debate the issues, which I am sure she wants to explain. No doubt she wants to listen to other points of view and possibly accept them.
  I am not trying to waste time, and I shall not go on much longer. I appeal to the right hon. Lady, in return, to give us an undertaking that, should we need more time, she will persuade the Government to give the Committee more time to explore all the issues properly, without endangering the Bill by holdng it up.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Hogg: With two minutes left, I shall necessarily be brief. It was with great sadness that I heard the Under-Secretary proposing the motion formally. He used to be a custodian of the liberty of the House, yet he moved a motion of some importance formally, did not try to defend it, and has now gone.
  When I first came to the House, as I reminded hon. Members in an intervention—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary is back. He has betrayed his own reputation. He used to be a guardian of liberty, yet he moved a gagging motion without even troubling to tell the House the justification for it.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a bizarre speech, probably the last that he will make in the House. That is probably no bad thing. He accused the Government of which I was member of ramrodding legislation through. We never, ever timetabled in advance. We never timetabled Committee stages until a Committee had sat for about 100 hours. We never timetabled unless

  259
  there was evidence of an attempt arificially to prolong discussion, but the present Government do so as a matter of course.
  I know that you are about to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that we are running out of time. Suffice it to say that I regard the motion as shameful. We will consistently and continually oppose these gagging measures, as they are simply wrong in principle.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Forth: Apart from anything else, the Bill contains several provisions that will require extremely close consideration and perhaps rather lengthy scrutiny.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: Yes, of course—
  It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 303, Noes 138.

  Division No. 141]

  [10.45 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cann, Jamie

  Allen, Graham

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Casale, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Chaytor, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clapham, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Austin, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Barren, Kevin

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cohen, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Colman, Tony

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Best, Harold

  Corston, Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Cox, Tom

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cranston, Ross

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Crausby, David

  Borrow, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cummings, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burden, Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  260

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Doran, Frank

  Lammy, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Drew, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Efford, Clive

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lock, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  McCabe, Steve

  Flint, Caroline

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Flynn, Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonnell, John

  Foulkes, George

  McFall, John

  Gapes, Mike

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McNulty, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  MacShane, Denis

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Goggins, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Meale, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Healey, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Heppell, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hill, Keith

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morley, Elliot

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mountford, Kali

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mudie, George

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pike, Peter L

  Joyce, Eric

  Plaskitt, James

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pond, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  261

  Rammell, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rapson, Syd

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Timms, Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooney, Terry

  Todd, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruane Chris

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salter, Martin

  Tynan, Bill

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sawford, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Soley, Clive

  Wills, Michael

  Spellar, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Winnick, David

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stevenson, George

  Woolas, Phil

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wray, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Flight, Howard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Beggs, Roy

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bercow, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Blunt, Crispin

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Boswell, Tim

  Gibb, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brady, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gray, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burnett, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Burns, Simon

  Hammond, Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hayes, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Chidgey, David

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Cran, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jenkin, Bernard

  262

  Keetch, Paul

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Key, Robert

  Sanders, Adrian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

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

  Lansley, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Loughton, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Syms, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Madel, Sir David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Maples, John

  Tredinnick, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Trend, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tyler, Paul

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Walter, Robert

  Öpik, Lembit

  Webb, Steve

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Paterson, Owen

  Whittingdale, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Prior, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Rendel, David

  Willis, Phil

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. John Randall and

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  >Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the International Development Bill:

  Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords

    Sanding Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
    3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 15th March.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords
    7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion

    263
    to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That for the purpose of any Act resulting from the International Development Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of this Act;

(b) any sums required by him for fulfilling any guarantee given under this Act;

(c) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 312, Noes 65.

Division No. 142]

[10.59 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Cann, Jamie

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Caplin, Ivor

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Casale, Roger

Atherton, Ms Candy

Caton, Martin

Atkins, Charlotte

Cawsey, Ian

Austin, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bailey, Adrian

Chaytor, David

Barnes, Harry

Chidgey, David

Barron, Kevin

Clapham, Michael

Battle, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Bayley, Hugh

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Begg, Miss Anne

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Benton, Joe

Clelland, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Clwyd, Ann

Berry, Roger

Coaker, Vernon

Best, Harold

Cohen, Harry

Betts, Clive

Colman, Tony

Blackman, Liz

Connarty, Michael

Blears, Ms Hazel

Corbett, Robin

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Corbyn, Jeremy

Borrow, David

Corston, Jean

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Cousins, Jim

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cox, Tom

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cranston, Ross

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Crausby, David

Browne, Desmond

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Buck, Ms Karen

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Burden, Richard

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Burgon, Colin

Dawson, Hilton

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Dean, Mrs Janet

264

Denham, Rt Hon John

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dismore, Andrew

Keetch, Paul

Dobbin, Jim

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kidney, David

Donohoe, Brian H

Kilfoyle, Peter

Doran, Frank

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Dowd, Jim

Kirkwood, Archy

Drew, David

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lammy, David

Edwards, Huw

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Efford, Clive

Laxton, Bob

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lepper, David

Ennis, Jeff

Leslie, Christopher

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Flint, Caroline

Linton, Martin

Flynn, Paul

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Follett, Barbara

Lock, David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Love, Andrew

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McCabe, Steve

Foulkes, George

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Gapes, Mike

George, Andrew (St Ives)

McDonagh, Siobhain

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Macdonald, Calum

Gerrard, Neil

McDonnell, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

McFall, John

Gidley, Sandra

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Godman, Dr Norman A

Mackinlay, Andrew

Godsiff, Roger

McNamara, Kevin

Goggins, Paul

McNulty, Tony

Golding, Mrs Llin

MacShane, Denis

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mallaber, Judy

Grogan, John

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Hain, Peter

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hancock, Mike

Martlew, Eric

Hanson, David

Meale, Alan

Harris, Dr Evan

Merron, Gillian

Healey, John

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Miller, Andrew

Hepburn, Stephen

Moffatt, Laura

Heppell, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hill, Keith

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hinchliffe, David

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Morley, Elliot

Hood, Jimmy

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mountford, Kali

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Mudie, George

Howells, Dr Kim

Mullin, Chris

Hoyle, Lindsay

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Iddon, Dr Brian

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Illsley, Eric

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Hara, Eddie

Jenkins, Brian

Olner, Bill

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Öpik, Lembit

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pickthall, Colin

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Pike, Peter L

Joyce, Eric

Plaskitt, James

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Pond, Chris

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pope, Greg

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pound, Stephen

265

Powell, Sir Raymond

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Stringer, Graham

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Prosser, Gwyn

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Purchase, Ken

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Quinn, Lawrie

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Rammell, Bill

Temple—Morris, Peter

Rapson, Syd

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Raynsford, Nick

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Timms, Stephen

Rendel, David

Tipping, Paddy

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Todd, Mark

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Touhig, Don

Rooney, Terry

Trickett, Jon

Ross Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rowlands Ted

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Roy Frank

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ruane, Chris

Twigg Derek (Halton)

Ruddock, Joan

Tyler, Paul

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Tynan, Bill

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Salter, Martin

Walley, Ms Joan

Sanders, Adrian

Ward, Ms Claire

Savidge, Malcolm

Wareing, Robert N

Sawford, Phil

Watts, David

Shaw, Jonathan

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Willis, phil.

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wills, Michael

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wilson, Brian

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Winnick, David

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

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Soley, Clive

Woodward, Shaun

Spellar, John

Woolas, Phil

Squire, Ms Rachel

Worthington, Tony

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Wray, James

Steinberg, Gerry

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stevenson, George

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Stoate, Dr Howard

Mr. David Jamieson.

NOES

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Horam, John

Beggs, Roy

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bercow, John

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Brazier, Julian

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Burns, Simon

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Butterfill, John

Leigh, Edward

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Chope, Christopher

Loughton, Tim

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Luff, Peter

Cran, James

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Day, Stephen

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Donaldson, Jeffrey

McLoughlin, Patrick

Duncan Smith, Iain

Madel, Sir David

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Maples, John

Evans, Nigel

May, Mrs Theresa

Fabricant, Michael

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Flight, Howard

Page, Richard

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Paterson, Owen

Gill, Christopher

Prior, David

Green, Damian

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Grieve, Dominic

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Hawkins, Nick

Ruffley, David

Hayes, John

St Aubyn, Nick

266

Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

Syms, Robert

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Whittingdale, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Wilkinson, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Yeo, Tim

Spring, Richard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Tellers for the Noes:

Steen, Anthony

Mr. James Gray and

Swayne, Desmond

Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  FINANCES
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13572/00, Protecting the Communities' Financial Interests—the fight against fraud: Commission's Annual Report 1999; and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 20th December 2000 submitted by HM Treasury relating to the Court of Auditors' annual report for 1999; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to promote and support measures to improve financial management and fight fraud against the EU budget.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  AGRICULTURE
  That the draft Pig Industry Development Scheme 2000 (Confirmation) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 74) on Threshold Payments (HC 209), which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February],
That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Hon. Members: Object.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
Line 31, at end add—
'( ) The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
( ) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
( ) The quorum of the sub-committ:e shall be three.'.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Sutcliffe]
Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr Sutcliffe.]
Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOIN Is MEETINGS)
Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Road Safety (Somerset)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
11.15 pm
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important issue for my constituency—road safety in the county of Somerset. I intend to refer to a few specific problems that have been experienced in my constituency. I accept straight away that many of the roads concerned will be in the direct control of Somerset county council rather than of the Minister, but I hope to persuade him that Somerset county council is taking a proper view of its responsibilities in terms of road safety and to encourage his support.
I should also mention one major road scheme which is the direct responsibility of Ministers via the Highways Agency—the A303, particularly the stretch between Sparkford and Ilchester. It is an especially dangerous stretch of road that has caused a number of accidents over recent years and desperately needs attention.
The county of Somerset has a great number of roads. Indeed, it has some 6,641 km of road—a long distance per head of population. It works out as 13.5 km per 1,000 people which is twice the national average and poses specific problems for the county council, which has to maintain a large number of principally minor, unclassified roads. When one adds to that the geography and topography of the county and the settlement pattern—it has a dispersed, relatively rural population scattered across the county with a lot of very small communities traversed by roads which are often inadequate for the vehicles that use them—it is clear that there is a serious problem.
Somerset also has a higher percentage of heavy goods vehicle traffic than the roads are capable of taking or we would like. That comprises partly vehicles associated with local industries such as the quarrying industry in my constituency, and partly vehicles seeking access to the further south-west peninsula, or following north-south routes. As a result, there are unfortunately 40 to 50 fatal accidents every year. That has been a fairly consistent figure over the past 10 to 15 years.
As I said earlier, the county council is adopting a responsible attitude to the problem. It is keen to secure a substantial reduction in the number of fatal accidents by means of the local transport programme. The principal feature of that programme is the need to tackle speed, which is very often the principal contributory factor in accidents. The council also wants to tackle road safety for all road users, not just for motorists. Road safety measures should apply to all pedestrians, cyclists and local residents, especially those who live in smaller communities and use country lanes without pavements. That is a priority. Finally, the council also wants to develop a hierarchy of routes appropriate to their uses. That is a significant factor.
The A303 is the county's major trunk route, bringing people from London to the south-west, and vice versa. It is an extremely busy road, used by a huge number of people each year, especially in the summer months. I raise this matter with some trepidation because when I put a question to the Minister's former departmental colleague, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate

269
(Ms Jackson), her reply was about Stonehenge. The monument is about 50 miles from my constituency, so I fear that she had been inadequately briefed. I am sure that that will not be the case with the Minister tonight.
The stretch of road between Sparkford and the Podimore roundabout at Ilchester is dangerous for several reasons. It is a single carriageway stretch between stretches of dual carriageways. That poses problems in terms of traffic movements. It carries a large volume of traffic, especially when there is summer holiday traffic. There is even more traffic when the Yeovilton air show is on, but that is not happening this year.
The distance of the single carriageway stretch from London is also a factor. People drive from central London, through the suburbs and along the M3 and the A303 corridor, and the section about which I am speaking is the point at which tiredness begins to take its toll. Lack of concentration in that area also plays a part.
For many years, demands have been made for safety improvements along a stretch of road that is about 3.5 miles long. The proposal is that the road should be turned into a dual carriageway in order to separate the traffic streams.
I am aware of the concerns about other parts of the A303. Improvements have been suggested for parts of the road that lie in constituencies other than mine. Proper environmental considerations for those proposals must be taken into account, but the scheme for the stretch that I am describing has not occasioned significant adverse comment. Over recent years, it has been supported consistently by the county council, by the south Somerset district council, by the parish councils that would be affected, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown), and by me. There is no obvious reason why the scheme should have to wait for the multimodal study which, we are told, is the reason for the current delay.
The future capacity of the road is not in question, and neither is its role in the overall transport arrangements for the south-west peninsula. The problem is simply that the piece of road about which I am speaking is very busy and dangerous, and it needs to be looked at. The previous Conservative Government agreed, and the public inquiry has been successfully completed. The Secretary of State has confirmed the orders, and the line orders and the orders for the side roads have been made. In short, nothing is stopping this scheme going ahead other than the ministerial say-so and its positioning in the capital programme. That is why, irrespective of the view that is eventually arrived at through the regional consultation study on the multimodal study for the rest of the A303, we believe that this stretch could be dealt with in isolation.
One consequence of taking this action would be to support and amplify the work that the county council has put into effect and that the Government have supported to remove heavy goods vehicles in particular from the A359 from Queen Camel in my constituency, and from Marston Magna, and Mudford in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil. We believe that this is so important because it would stop unnecessary movements, particularly of lorries, on roads which are less suitable.
There are concerns in my constituency that an unwanted effect of putting in place measures to deter vehicles on the A359 would be to divert lorries on to the A357 through Templecombe and Yenston. I hope that that
270
will not happen—the temptation will certainly be reduced if the Minister could give a positive response with regard to the A303.
In the brief time that I have available, I should like to mention a few other schemes around the county. I do not believe that the Minister will suddenly wave a magic wand; I simply want to alert him to the many concerns of small communities that live by busy roads or roads incapable of taking the traffic that goes through them across the county. In Doulting, for instance, there has been a succession of accidents because a busy road bisects the village. People have been waiting for some time for relief of some kind. Podimore—not the roundabout, but the village—takes vehicles travelling far too fast that are trying to avoid queueing on the A303 at busy times. The Terry Hill crossroads on the A362 is another very dangerous junction that needs attention, and I would like the county council to address the problem. The very picturesque and important village of Barrington, which has many beautiful listed buildings, is spoilt by the vehicles using it.
There is a long list of small communities—Kingsdon, Charlton Mackrell, Charlton Adam, Berkley, Lamyatt, Long Sutton, Long Load—that are troubled by the effects of heavy goods vehicles and speeding cars. I believe that the county council is very much aware of its responsibilities to those communities and wants to do something to help them. However, it faces substantial problems, many of which are to do with funding. This is not yet another whinge on behalf of a county council that considers itself hard done by. Nevertheless, it is a fact that for as many years as I can remember, there has been a shift of resources within the county council from highways to education, simply to maintain the schools in the county as they should be maintained. That is a fundamental problem in terms of the standard spending assessment distribution for education.
Some of the problems are associated with the costs of many of the traffic-calming and improvement schemes that should be in place. I sometimes wonder whether they are over-engineered, and whether there is a need for the forest of signs in a rural area which often accompany sensible moves to reduce speed and improve road safety.
I want the Minister's support for the county council's plans and his recognition of the needs of rural counties. I suggest that there is a need for a national programme for rural communities to deal with the environmental effects of vehicles going through the smaller villages. We were able to able to undertake a national programme of bridge strengthening. Many of us thought that it was absurd to strengthen inadequate bridges so that ever-larger trucks could go through our villages, but that was Government policy. The point is that that highly expensive project always had assured funding. We seek the certainty and commitment that that programme produced, to underpin the efforts of local authorities to deal with traffic in our rural areas.
I shall finish with a letter from a 10year-old girl, which I received last May. Jennifer Collins, who lives at Glenville House, Long Load, near Langport, wrote:
"I am one of the chilclren from Long Load. Motorists just zoom through our village as if it was a motorway and I want to put a stop to it … I used to think of the country as a nice peaceful place to relax, with slow country lanes. Part of it may be that but our village isn't. Please do something."
That is my plea to the Minister. I hope that he can give me a positive reply.
11.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): As usual, I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on obtaining this important debate, which gives me an opportunity to explain what national and local government have done, and are doing, to improve road safety in Somerset. The hon. Gentleman highlighted his concerns about the section of the A303 between Podimore and Sparkford. I shall therefore turn first to safety on the motorway and trunk roads in Somerset.
The motorway and trunk road network in Somerset comprises the M5 and the A303. The M5 is a rural section of road and, like all motorways, is statistically safer than all-purpose roads. The A303 trunk road between Podimore and Sparkford is an unimproved section of single carriageway road between the Ilchester and Sparkford bypasses, both of which are dual carriageways. In October 1999, the Highways Agency undertook a study along the unimproved length of road between the Sparkford and Podimore roundabout.
At that time, the personal injury accident severity rate was above the national norm. A small safety scheme was therefore carried out, which involved changes to white lines and road signs and the introduction of gateway treatment at either end. A 50 mph speed limit was also implemented, with a speed camera at West Camel crossroads. The House will be pleased to know that in the 12 months after implementation of those remedial measures, the accident severity rate on that section of road fell from 0.25 to 0.08 fatal and serious accidents per kilometre of trunk road. Although there has, sadly, been one serious accident during that 12-month period, that is a significant reduction on the 14 fatal and serious accidents in the previous five years.
A study of the remaining unimproved sections of the route has been completed. It includes a detailed analysis of all reported personal injury accidents between 1 January 1994 and 30 June 2000 and a review of the present double white line system. Another important aspect of the study has been the setting up of local working groups with representatives from the local parish councils and the use of their local knowledge fully to investigate local road safety issues.
The Highways Agency is currently considering the findings of that study with a view to carrying out further small local safety schemes in 2001–02. The agency is also undertaking a route management strategy at the M5, including the length through Somerset. That approach to road investment planning looks fully from the user's point of view at the service that a road delivers. It focuses on better use of existing roads rather than building new ones. The strategy will deliver a 10-year vision for the road and the improvements that the Highways Agency would like to make.
Following the trunk road review, a total of eight trunk road improvement schemes on the A303, A30 and A38 were placed on hold pending the outcome of the London to south-west and south Wales multimodal study. As I understand it, the Liberal Democrats support the multimodal study approach, which seeks to examine the potential of all transport modes to resolve transport problems in key corridors. The study's terms of reference specifically require the consultants to consider safety
272
problems on sections of the A303. In Somerset, the A303 Ilminster bypass improvement, the A303 Ilminster to Marsh improvement and the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester improvement are all being considered under the study.
The Government office of the south-west leads the study; it is managed by a steering group, which meets regularly. The group includes representatives of the Government office of the south-east, the Welsh Assembly, the south-west and south-east regional assemblies, the south-west and south-east regional development agencies, the Highways Agency, the Strategic Rail Authority, the regional chamber of the CBI and Sustainability South West.
In March 2000, consultants were appointed to carry out the study. They have been identifying the problems and issues associated with those three schemes and others. The study will consider solutions, including safety and the scope for reducing congestion by better management and modal shift in the whole A30-A303 corridor, in a strategic manner. An over-arching strategy for the study is being developed; we expect that to emerge in the summer—around June. Following the establishment of the strategy, consultants will develop detailed local solutions to the problems identified. The study is due to report by about February 2002. Progress can be followed through a website established by the consultants—the address is www.swarmms.org.uk. For the less computer literate, newsletters will also be issued to keep people informed.
In addition, the south-west regional assembly has recently considered recommending road schemes to be added to the Government's targeted programme of improvements. No schemes on the A303 were recommended, as they are being considered under the multimodal study. No decisions on taking forward any of the A303 improvement schemes will be taken before the study reports.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in Somerset, there is an excellent story to tell about road safety in local transport plans. Road safety is a high priority locally, and local transport authorities, such as Somerset, have a vital part to play in helping us to achieve national casualty reduction targets. Somerset has continued to build well on the foundation of its 2000–01 provisional local transport plan—the LTP—in developing its five-year LTP to 2006.
I was delighted that after a generous LTP settlement last year—£6.6 million, the fourth highest in the south west; of which £2.3 million was for integrated transport and £4.3 million for maintenance—the Government were able substantially to increase transport resources for Somerset, in last December's LTP settlement. Somerset's overall LTP allocation for 2001–02 is more than £16.6 million, of which £11.5 million is for road maintenance, especially to tackle the backlog of repairs to non-principal roads; but, equally important, more than £5.1 million is for integrated transport—more than double the previous year's allocation. Those allocations recognise the quality of Somerset's LTP.
Local road safety and casualty reduction issues cannot be tackled in isolation. They are an integral part of local transport planning and it is absolutely vital that other transport strategies such as safe routes to schools, home zones and other measures to encourage more walking and cycling are well integrated with road safety in transport planning locally.

273
We were particularly impressed that Somerset has developed its local transport strategy in that way. The county has a very comprehensive strategy, which demonstrates well the linkages to a variety of other local transport themes and deals with highway safety on a number of fronts: education, training, publicity and engineering. Furthermore, it is important that Somerset has adopted a multi-agency approach to local safety issues, which is to be commended. I look forward to learning about its progress through the LTP annual reporting cycle.
Even with the previous valuable work undertaken by the county council, I know that it regards the rate of death, injury and suffering caused by traffic as unacceptable. The role of excess speed as a contributory factor in traffic accidents needs to be tackled, so that speeding is considered as anti-social as drinking and driving.
Somerset's safety strategy is concerned with tackling these issues to enable people to travel in safety by giving advice on education, training and publicity and by taking measures to minimise conflict and to make safe the sharing of space on the highway.
The consultation programme undertaken by the county in developing its LTP revealed that safety was the most important issue in most people's minds, especially for children travelling to and from school.
The LTP capital resources that we have provided have enabled Somerset county council to respond positively to those concerns. It has allocated its LTP funding to reflect the priority of safety-related initiatives. It has undertaken a review of speed management policy, by setting up an independent working party designed to encourage free-ranging debate from several outside perspectives.
The working party recommendations, many of which the council has adopted, include implementing a speed limit strategy—for example, 30 mph speed limits in all settlements and 20 mph speed limits outside all schools. The county council is also supporting positive enforcement by the police and is using improved technology and hypothecation of the revenue from speeding fines to fund speed management.
274
I have mentioned the concerns about safety on school journeys. A "safe routes to school" programme is another initiative that is benefiting from the LTP resources that we have given. Somerset county council is adopting a bottom-up approach, in which the schools themselves are closely involved in the production of their own school travel plans—a package of measures to facilitate safer and more sustainable travel to and from the school.
The plans can include physical works—for example, road crossings, footway improvements, school front safety measures, cycle parking, speed reduction features and school crossing patrols—as well as initiatives such as promoting safe and sustainable travel to new parents and pupils. Some 46 schools throughout the county are currently working on those plans and seven schemes are in the process of being constructed.
I hope that the number of schools participating will now increase as a result of Somerset's successful bid for a three-year grant from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to fund a school travel co-ordinator, who will work closely with the schools to deliver those plans.
The use of local safety schemes—covering sites, routes and areas and combining engineering and education, training and publicity—is a key focus to ensure that the problem is tackled from all angles. Somerset county council has allocated approximately £1.2 million of its LTP integrated transport block allocation to delivering those local safety schemes.
The county is sensitive to the needs of rural communities and is committed to the concept of developing quiet roads. Work is currently being done on two pilot projects, aimed at benefiting the most vulnerable road users.
In conclusion, therefore, I hope that that provides the House with an adequate assurance of the importance that the Government and Somerset county council attach to local road safety issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Nursery Nurses
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
9.30 am
Charlotte Atkins: I am absolutely delighted to be opening this important debate and I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) for suggesting it.
Nursery nurses have been the unsung heroes of early-years education and living proof of the need for trained specialists for children during their important, early, formative years when their personal, social and emotional development is so crucial. For too long, the early years have been seen as the province of the well-intentioned but untrained mother figure. In saying that, I do not wish to underestimate the fundamental role of mothers and fathers as children?s first teachers, protectors and play partners because their role is central and must never be eclipsed by carers or paid professionals. Indeed, I am pleased that early-years practitioners now accept the importance of involving parents at every stage. However, because the early years have always been seen as an extension of the home environment, early-years practitioners have been seen as the poor relations in the child development world. Nursery nurses have been living proof that young children need particular support and special skills to help them to progress positively through the early challenges faced by all children.
Children are starting school earlier and earlier and nursery nurses provide the bridge from home to school. Whether in school, nursery or other settings, nursery nurses have provided the essential understanding of early child development, which has sometimes been lacking. Primary school teachers may end up teaching reception classes or even nursery classes without specialist training and I am pleased that the Government intend to change that and to insist that all teachers have specialist training in crucial early-years education. Nursery nurses are invaluable as experts in their field.
Happily—and after a long time—we now have a Government who value early-years education and recognise its huge impact on the lifelong potential of children, particularly those from disadvantaged homes. Replacement of the previous Government's nursery voucher scheme was a welcome first step. It created damaging competition between schoo1s, playgroups and private nurseries for early-years pupils. Many pre-schools have closed since 1995 and only recently has the number of pre-school places increased under this Government.
Competition between the different providers led to schools hastily setting up nurseries and nursery classes to capitalise on vouchers when many were ill prepared to do so. I am concerned about the child-adult ratio that
2WH
frequently exists in the school setting, which is often less favourable than in private settings. The establishment of a partnership between the voluntary, private and state sector through the early-years development partnerships is a welcome change. Some partnerships work better than others, which is to be expected at this early stage, so I welcome the Government's appointment of advisers to help these early-years development partnerships.
The boost that those partnerships will give to the training of early-years practitioners, be they in education or in child care, will be crucial. The national framework for qualifications, which was launched in September 1999, rationalised the existing 1,600 qualifications and gave individuals and employers clear information on the qualifications that are appropriate to different jobs. That is a good start, but in its recent report on early years, the Select Committee on Education and Employment, of which I am a member, went further. It recommended national targets for training, so that within 10 years all early-years practitioners will have appropriate specialist training, and all heads of centres and nurseries will be graduates or of an equivalent level. Moreover, all early childhood workers should be at national vocational qualification level 3 or equivalent.
That is not the entire story. Continual professional development is also a must. It is not easy to keep abreast of new developments, especially given that many child care workers have their own family and care commitments. Professional development should be a right and should be available flexibly. It should be available during the day in flexible training packages—including distance learning, workplace learning and modules—to allow qualifications to be built up progressively, and to increase access to training across all sectors of child care and early-years provision.
I welcome the Government's efforts to expand training in early years, and their commitment to provide appropriate training and development in early education for all qualified teachers and practitioners by 2004. Access to an average of four days relevant training for all early-years practitioners is crucial, but it is not enough and should be expanded further. For too long, early-years practitioners have been the poor relations of other education practitioners who get Baker days and associated training packages that help them to develop their professional expertise.
If we are to improve the quality of early-years provision, the dissemination of good practice is vital. I am excited at the prospect of helping to develop a rural sure start for pre-four-year-olds in my constituency, but we should not underestimate the difficulty of building such a project in areas where little infrastructure exists. Ensuring that rural villages and towns have the benefit of early education and health intervention will be a real challenge, especially in low-income areas. In practice, the so-called rural idyll can mean isolation and poverty. That is particularly true now of rural areas that face the devastation associated with foot and mouth disease.
I want to see a huge expansion in good-quality and affordable early-years provision. I am grateful to the Minister for supporting the expansion of nursery classes in Leek within the All Saints and Beresford schools, which are in my constituency, but we need to go further. Nursery nurses have blazed a trail for early-years education, and working as part of the early-years team

3WH
they have played a vital role in its expansion. I should stress the need for teamwork. Nursery nurses must be involved in planning. monitoring and developing good practice, and in helping to develop the skills of colleagues, including classroom assistants. In my view, the role of classroom assistants is underdeveloped. Schools such as Kelvin Grove—of which I have been a governor for many years, and which was the most improved primary school in London last year—have used classroom assistants creatively. They should not be left out of the equation, but they are often an undervalued part of the team. They are usually paid on local government manual pay scales, so their pay is low and their training can be neglected.
Nursery nurses have a different role, but I believe that classroom assistants can complement them. We must have a proper strategy for developing the skills of classroom assistants and nursery nurses as part of a ladder of qualifications through to graduate status.
I should like to see more men in early-years education to teach young boys at an early stage that learning is for them too. Unusually, a private nursery in my constituency, Nursery Thymes in Craigside Biddulph, has helped to develop young men interested in entering early-years education. I am delighted that it is successfully developing that interest among young men. Of course, the boys who attend the nursery also benefit, so it should be congratulated on its initiative.
Nursery nurses have shown us the way in early-years care and learning; we owe them a great deal. However, we must ensure that that message is expanded. We must ensure that the important role played by nursery nurses and early-years practitioners is properly rewarded and recognised because they play a crucial role that complements parents in developing young children's early lives. I should be interested to hear how the Minister anticipates that qualifications in early-years education will be developed so as to improve pay for nursery nurses and other early-years practitioners.
9.42 am
Mr. David Lepper: I should begin by declaring an interest: my daughter is a qualified nursery nurse. Throughout her career she has worked in a private-sector nursery. I hope that that will not be seen as the only reason why I feel that it is important to debate the topic. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on securing today's debate.
I echo my hon. Friend's remarks about the importance of the Government's national child care strategy. It has been welcomed by everyone in the education sector and by many parents in my constituency. Last week, the Minister had the opportunity to meet some of the people involved in early-years education in the Brighton and Hove local authority area, and I know that the comments that she made to our local press were valued by those people. I add my congratulations to those working in my local area.
The Brighton and Hove early-years development and child care partnership offers an example of good practice to other parts of the country. Its regular
4WH
newsletter "Partners" informs those working in early-years education and parents about services. As my hon. Friend said, partners form the keynote of a strategy that involves a partnership between the state and private sectors. The Government's laudable ambitions for early-years education need a relationship with the private sector.
In Brighton and Hove, we have secured a free nursery place for every four-year-old and we are making progress on our commitment to provide places for threeyear-olds. Thanks to additional funding from the Government, we hope by April this year to be able to offer a place to all three-year olds from the term after their third birthday. We are making progress toward achieving our ambition—and the Government's—that a free place should be available to all three-year-olds by 2004.
My interest in early-years education was sparked not only by my daughter's job, but by the suggestion made last year that the name of the job done by nursery nurses be changed. Many people in the profession were surprised and dismayed by the suggestion that their job title should be "classroom assistant" or "teaching assistant". My hon. Friend talked about the important role of classroom assistants and teaching assistants and the way in which that role should be developed, expanded and given greater recognition. However, nursery nurses were hurt by the notion, which seemed to come from Government sources, that their role was merely to provide assistance, whether in a nursery classroom, reception class or private sector nursery.
I was interested in the wealth of correspondence published in Early Years Educator magazine from practising nursery nurses who were shocked and dismayed by what appeared to be undervaluing of their professional status. In the course of that correspondence, Dr. Vivian Robbins of De Montfort university described nursery nurses as the invisible profession, relied upon throughout early-years education, but often overlooked in terms of professional status and qualifications.
The role of nursery nurses is extremely wide ranging. I received a letter from a Brighton and Hove resident who works not in the Brighton and Hove education authority area, but under East Sussex county council. She said that, in the course of any one day, nursery nurses have to
"teach, care, comfort, change children, be first aiders, prepare activities, plan work, display work, clean up, set up equipment, have a detailed knowledge of early learning goals, have meetings, speak to parents/carers, carry out assessments of children, liaise with other professionals and carry out individual responsibilities relating to the job. We do not get paid for our one hour lunch break, during which we usually manage to sit down for half an hour."
That is an interesting summary of the range of educational and caring responsibilities that are common to any nursery nurse in whatever setting she works. As my hon. Friend suggested, the profession is largely female, and I echo her sentiments about the need to attract more men in to the profession.
More than merely the name of their job lay at the heart of the concertns expressed by many nursery nurses last year, but that issue was symptomatic of their feeling that their professional expertise, acquired during two or

5WH
more years' training, is not properly recognised. That expertise is vital to the success of the Government's strategy, which I am sure all hon. Members support.
There are two related issues, the first of which is pay. The basic scale from 1 April last year for nursery nurses in schools ranged from £9,531 to £12,444. For most nursery nurses working outside London and its fringe areas, the second figure is the maximum that they could hope to earn, irrespective of their qualifications. Although there are higher pay scales for nursery nurses working in social services departments, the majority working in education feel that the main pay scale does not sufficiently recognise their training, expertise or experience.
We can understand that feeling if we examine the new earnings survey carried out in April 1999, which examined the average earnings of many related professions. At that time, the average earnings of nursery nurses were £10,777, whereas the average earnings of classroom assistants, who probably have far less training although, no doubt they bring other expertise to their work—were £10,385. The difference, which is just a couple of hundred pounds, does not recognise the qualifications of dedicated nursery nurses. The Professional Association of Nursery Nurses has recommended that a pay scale of between £11,628 to £18,000 would be reasonable recognition of the professional status of a nursery nurse.
I have been talking about pay in the state sector, but the picture is quite different in the private sector, where pay often depends on the whim of the manager or owner of the nursery. Often, nursery nurses working in the same nursery have no idea of differences in pay between colleagues because there is no clear pay structure. My daughter, who works in a private sector nursery, has had a different experience. Her nursery has developed a clear pay structure that recognises training undertaken since employment. It is a pity that many other private sector nurseries do not follow that example.
Career structure, like pay, is important. Many nursery nurses felt that the Government's suggestion that nurses who want to earn more or increase their professional status ought to train as teachers might appeal to some. However, the survey suggested that the majority of women and men in nursery nursing are doing that job because it is the job that they want. They do not want to be teachers, but prefer instead to concentrate on a particular age group and use the skills that they learned during training.
There is a need for a career structure. My hon. Friend outlined some of the proposals that Government agencies have made on the recognition of qualifications. That is a step forward, but I suggest that the Government take a leading role in that respect. I recognise that the Government car not intervene in the relationship between employer and employee in the private sector, because that is a matter for nursery staff and their employers, but they should indicate the direction that ought to be taken.
The emphasis must be on partnership. The Minister's letter to nursery nurses, which said that the role of nursery nurses was to support teachers in primary, secondary and special schools, suggested a lack of understanding of the professional role of the nursery nurse. Obviously, nursery nurses provide support, but they often take a lead role in their institution as well.
6WH
My plea is that the Government play a clear and leading role in bringing together the public and private sectors to work on creating properly recognised career structures and pay scales across both sectors. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. Nursery nurses are the valuable people on whom we will rely to deliver the child care strategy of which the Government can be justly proud.
9.56 am
Helen Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) on the work that he has done to raise the profile of the subject. The child care workers whom we are discussing are an important but often neglected group who have an important role to play in the Government's agenda on raising standards. Nursery nurses work in a variety of settings, but I will concentrate on their role in the early years, when they can and do play a part in improving standards for our youngest children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moorlands mentioned the Select Committee on Education and Employment report on early years. The Committee, of which I, too, am a member, emphasised clearly that the early years—from birth to five—plus are crucial in determining a child's life chances. That had been said before, and all the evidence that we received confirmed it. My experience as a secondary school teacher has led me to think that more money invested in the early years would lessen many of the problems that emerge at later stages of education. The Government, to their credit, have recognised that and, starting from a very low level of provision, they have done much to improve early-years provision. However, it must be recognised that, unless we can recruit and retain qualified and well-motivated staff, we will not be able to raise standards of provision. The Select Committee stated clearly its desire for integrated provision across health, education and social services.
We received much evidence regarding the importance of involving parents as partners in their children's education, especially in the early stages. However, that would require far more early-years staff than have previously been employed, they would need a range of skills to deal with the social, physical and intellectual development of children, and they would have to work proactively and constructively with parents, many of whom may have had a poor experience of the education system. In some settings, such as early excellence centres, parents are encouraged to learn and take courses themselves.
The job of working with young children, especially in disadvantaged areas, giving confidence to them and, in some cases, to their parents, is not one for a gifted amateur. There was much debate about that in the Select Committee, as my hon. Friend knows. The job requires staff who are highly skilled, take a broad view of education and recognise the importance of developing their own learning. We hear much about teachers in those settings, but not enough about the nursery nurses who work with them. Those who have worked in the education sector know that teachers and nursery nurses work as a team, and that the nursery

7WH
nurse does not have merely a support role. They also know how much teachers value the nursery nurses who work alongside them.
In practice, nursery nurses are involved in planning, assessment and record keeping, as well as dealing with parents. They are increasingly involved in delivering the national literacy and numeracy strategy. We require a lot from them. Despite that, theirs remains a low-paid, low-status job, with the low pay deriving from that low status. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion said, the average salary of a nursery nurse in education is just over £10,700, and the maximum that she can earn, whatever additional qualifications she may have, is just over £12,400.
It is no wonder that the Select Committee heard repeated evidence of the difficulties of attracting men to work in the sector. There is a gender issue, springing from the view that the job done by a nursery nurse is somehow an extension of women's natural role—that it is just a caring role. As a mother and a teacher with a higher degree in education, I have to say that I would not last five minutes in a nursery. I could not do the job.
Mr. Phil Willis: I would last even less time.
Helen Jones: Yes, so it is time that we valued properly the skills of those who do the job.
The Select Committee was adamant about the need to recruit a stable and highly qualified work force. We want to have a qualified teacher in every setting, but we also want a ladder of qualifications to ensure that nursery teachers can progress to a qualification equivalent to that of a qualified teacher. I am convinced that the key is not only to improve the qualifications of those staff who are currently poorly skilled, but to provide a proper career structure for the qualified nursery nurses that we have. At present, even if a nursery nurse obtains an additional qualification such as an advanced diploma in child care and education, it makes no difference to the sort of job that she can do or to the pay she receives. It is that lack of career structure that leads to a high turnover of staff and difficulties in recruiting men into the profession.
Members of the Select Committee were impressed with what we saw in Denmark. Pedagogues are a separate profession, trained to deal with children in the early years and in after-school activities, with a proper, recognised and valued qualification, and a pay scale that is almost on a par with that of qualified teachers. Unless we work towards a similar structure in this country, we shall neither achieve what we want to achieve in early years nor attract and keep the right staff. We should aim to put our best teachers and nursery nurses into the early-years sector, where they can do the most good.
I hope that the Government will consider that proposal seriously. Nothing will happen by telling nursery nurses that they can go on to become teachers. That approach does not value their existing job, nor does it recognise the different skills that they bring to a classroom or an early-years setting. I hope that the Minister will say something about improving the pay of nursery nurses. We need a proper job evaluation scheme
8WH
to examine what nursery nurses do. I hope that other measures to provide an interim boost to pay will be considered. It says much about our priorities as a country—we are all involved—that when money was given to improve pay in higher and further education, it was given to all staff whether or not they were lecturers, whereas similar action was not taken in early-years education. Perhaps it is time that we lobbied my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the money to do that.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the problem of nursery nurses being replaced in some settings by classroom assistants. I valued the classroom assistants with whom I worked when I was a teacher—in fact, I valued them so much that one of them is my son's godmother. However, they are not the same as qualified nursery nurses and they do not do the same job. The current practice of many local authorities of replacing nursery nurses with unqualified classroom assistants or making nursery nurses take jobs as classroom assistants on lower pay cannot be allowed to continue because, in the long term, that is detrimental to good education.
I am not merely talking about the pay and conditions of one group of people, important though that is. It is crucial to raise standards and to deliver the Government's agenda on social exclusion and poverty. Unless we retain the right staff, we cannot deliver what we want to achieve. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that on board and that, in future, we can raise the profile and status of such key child care workers.
10.6 am
Mr. Phil Willis: It is a rare privilege for me, either here or in the House, to be able to agree with virtually every word that has been spoken. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on introducing such an important debate. The quality of the contributions from the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) emphasised the seriousness and importance of early-years development. The only matter that I question is the title "nursery nurse". It is outmoded, as the hon. Member for Pavilion said. A more comprehensive title is "early-years learning assistant", but I urge the Government and their spin doctors to work out an appropriate title with the Department for Education and Employment.
As a member of an opposition party that has been committed over the years to early-years education, it is important to put on the record our support for the Government's actions. It would be churlish not to recognise the framework that has been put in place during the past four years. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) agrees that nursery vouchers were an abomination. They have now been abolished. We have got rid of the ludicrous idea of creating a market place within early-years education and turned rightly to a comprehensive framework for early years that brings together the voluntary and the state sectors into one organisation.
The early-years and child care partnerships in the North Yorkshire county council area, in which my constituency is situated, have provided opportunities, particularly in some of the remote rural areas, which

9WH
until now often had only scant provision. We must recognise that. I am delighted that, during this Parliament, the Government have adopted Liberal Democrat policy on free places for a11 three and four-year-olds. It is always good to see the Government adopt ideas that we proposed in our manifesto. It shows great strength on the part of the Minister and her colleagues that they have done that.
The provision of places for three-year-olds by 2004, however, is a target that lacks vision. Given the resources at the Government's disposal, and the money that tomorrow the Chancellor will undoubtedly give to all who need it, delaying the introduction of free nursery places for three-year-olds until 2004 is a step that I hope that the Government will revisit. I am not making a cheap point, but I am sure that the Minister will recognise that a significant number of early-years settings are struggling desperately, given the resources that they receive. Despite what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands said, there is still a drive by schools—particularly primary and i infant schools—to hoover four-year-olds into school settings.
I was especially interested in the Lady's comments about staff-child ratios. If I understood her correctly, she said that the Government were; committed to a uniform structure for such ratios. If the Minister will clarify that point, particularly with respect to four-year-olds in schools, it will be a remarkable achievement from this morning's debate. I strongly disagree with the Government that it is acceptable to set rigid ratios in early-years settings that are not schools, but that such ratios should not to apply to schools themselves. If the hon. Lady has advance information of the contents of her party's manifesto, I should be delighted if they could be revealed today. If the uniform structure is included, the Minister will have my wholehearted support.
We should move on from the subject of universality and, rather than simply looking at quantity, we should feel the quality. A satisfying aspect of the debate has been that all those who have spoken have mentioned raising the quality of the settings. Liberal Democrats support that. However, I ask the Minister to clarify what resources are being used to support quality and training. There is clearly confusion about the announcement on 27 February by the Minister and the Secretary of State about the £58 million that was allocated for additional training. Will the Minister confirm that £30 million of that money is coming from Europe, and that such resources have not yet been accessed? If she says that we have the money, that is great, but it is not Government money, it is money from Europe. Although I welcome the money and the fact that we are receiving resources from Europe, I hope that the Minister will clarify where the re sources are going.
Will the Minister also clarify how much of the £113.5 million, introduced as part of the comprehensive spending review for 2001 to 2004, will be used for training? [Interruption.] I believe that the Minister said that all of it would be used for training, but the press release clearly states that a lot of the money will be allocated for recruitment and advertising. That is a separate budget, and I do not regard it as training.
I understand that some £57.5 m Ilion of the £113.5 million announced in the comprehensive spending review is allocated specifically for training. Will the Minister make it clear that 47 per cent. of that—some
10WH
£27 million—will have to be found from the budgets of local education authorities because of the match funding arrangement? That money is not Government money, but will require local authorities to pay more. The Government cannot claim to be spending such large sums of money when a significant amount—about £90 million—is coming from other sources.
The two press releases show confusion about the Government's training targets. I totally support the Government's ambitious targets to professionalise early-years settings. As hon. Members have said, for far too long it has been accepted that anybody can teach in such settings and that training does not matter. I reject that view, and I hope that we can clarify the matter.
On 27 February, a DFEE press release stated that new resources would provide enough
"to recruit a further 150,000 childcare and early years workers by 2004."
The Minister confirms—she nods from a sedentary position—that the resources referred to are for training, which is welcome. However, the press release that accompanied the comprehensive spending review stated that the Learning and Skills Council's target for training was 230,000 workers for child care and early-years education by 2004. Are those figures coterminous? Is the figure of 150,000 part of the 230,000, or is it 150,000 plus 230,000? If the latter is the case, I congratulate the Minister, because that ambitious target goes beyond my expectations.
I presume that the Learning and Skills Council will provide training for 230,000. Will the Minister put on record what additional resources have been given to the council for that purpose? My investigation reveals that its budget contains no additional resources for that element. If the Learning and Skills Council is to rob Peter to pay Paul, will the Minister be kind enough to let hon. Members know where the cuts will be—in the funding of sixth forms perhaps?
Will the Minister tell us to what standard the training will be done? If the figure is 230,000—we will keep with the Learning and Skills Council target for the moment—to what level will people be trained? Will they be trained to level 2, level 3 or, as many have hinted this morning, do the Government want to see more graduates in early-years settings? A breakdown of the figure would be useful because the level of training often determines the cost. Therefore, one cannot have one without the other.
On the same theme, how will the training costs of people in the voluntary sector be met? The voluntary sector felt enormously let down by the Select Committee's report. It was not that the report did not emphasise the need for training—the voluntary sector, especially the Pre-school Learning Alliance, supports the idea of training—but Government announcements make virtually no mention of resources to reflect the need to help the voluntary sector with training costs.
Staff in virtually every small voluntary sector early-years setting that I visit tell me that they cannot afford to let staff go on training courses because they do not have the wherewithal to cover supply costs. Indeed, there are often no supply teachers or nursery nurses available. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us how the voluntary sector is to be supported.

11WH
The Select Committee should be applauded for the emphasis that it rightly placed on training in its report. If the figures materialise at the levels that I mentioned earlier, the Government's response marks a turning point in the professionalisation and training of staff in early-years education. However, I need to explore that a little. There appear to be two level 3 NVQs for early-years training. There is the traditional National Nursery Examination Board route, which is tried and tested, and is recognised in the market place. The second principal route is the diploma in child care and education at level 3.
I disagree with some of the comments made earlier—especially those made by the hon. Member for Warrington, North—about the Government's agenda for growing professionals. It is an exciting agenda. People can leave the process at whichever stage they desire, but it creates a real opportunity to grow professionals from inner-city communities, not only in education but throughout the public sector. There will never be enough "middle class" people who want to work in inner-city areas, so we must encourage growth from within. I hope that that is not an either/or situation, but that both options are possible.
Does the Minister agree that, given the present structure, it is virtually impossible to move from level 3 to level 4? A level 4 NVQ in early-years education has been on the cards for some time, but one of the criteria for people moving from level 3 to level 4 in that course is that they must be in a management position. In reality, the vast majority of people who work as nursery nurses are in not management positions but support positions. I do not decry that, as it is right and proper that people should occupy such positions but, if they want to move on, we must remove artificial barriers rather than erect them. Will the Minister outline the Government's policy or vision for progression from level 3 to level 4?
Will the Minister respond to some joined-up thinking? I am sure that she has read the national skills taskforce reports word by word so that they are emblazoned on her heart, especially the significant piece of work by Chris Humphreys published last year. The final report stated that our major problem was with level 3 qualifications. One cannot disagree with that conclusion as, behind Greece and Mexico, this country has the fewest people qualified to that standard in the first world.
The report made two recommendations. The first was that people should have access to training at level 2 throughout their lives and the second was that 16 to 24year-olds should have access to free level 3 training. My party supports those recommendations and argued during consideration of the Learning and Skills Bill that the Government should support them. The Government rejected them at that time because the Chancellor had yet to unlock his war chest and provide additional resources. Does the Minister intend to press for that level of commitment for training at levels 2 and 3? Many people—certainly in my constituency and the others that I visit—find the costs of training prohibitive, especially in the private sector. Such a commitment
12WH
from the Government would unlock an enormous amount of potential at the crossover to which I referred and give people free access to child care training.
Another question raised by the national skills task force and many of the national training organisations is how people may receive the right to time off for study. In the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, the Government committed themselves to giving 16 to 19year-olds without level 2 qualifications the right to time off for study. An extension of the right to time off for study, if it is paid for by the state, will be of enormous help to the voluntary sector, which desperately needs support in training its staff.
The hon. Member for Pavilion made a tremendous speech about pay. I applaud his critical comments about the Government's policy on pay. He was right. Pay cannot be ignored. We cannot talk about a high-quality early-years setting, valuing people and giving youngsters a flying start, while we pay people at appalling levels. we are not only talking about salaries in the state sector or local authority settings. Pay levels are extremely low in the voluntary sector. I visited two early-years settings, one on the Stockwell estate in Knaresborough, and one on the Knaresborough Road estate in Harrogate, both of which questioned the minimum wage because they could not afford to pay it to their staff. I said, "My goodness, you must afford it, and you must go beyond it." We must tackle that issue. How do the Government intend to ensure that people in the voluntary sector who receive training and develop their expertise are paid appropriately for the job and are not expected simply because they live in rural or poor areas to do the job for the love of it rather than as professionals?
10.26 am
Mr. John Hayes: I echo the welcome given to the debate. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) deserves our congratulations. She has achieved what few could. For some time I have been pressing the Government for a debate on early years on the Floor of the House, and I have written to the Secretary of State on the subject. He tells me that he is discussing the matter with the Leader of the House, and I hope that we shall have such a debate. I am delighted to see the Minister nod.
I should declare an interest in that I have an adorable three-month old son, who is a potential client for early-years education. Despite my enormous respect and affection for you, Mr. Jones, given the choice of being here with you or holding him in my arms, I would have him in my arms. Notwithstanding that, I turn to the job in hand.
There will be little debate or disagreement in the Chamber about the importance of early-years education. Since I became a member of a local education authority many years ago, I have held the view that early-years education is vital, and all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have made that point. We understand and apreciate the importance of early-years education. The hon. Lady said that it has an impact on lifelong potential, which was an apposite phrase. We also know from Select Committee evidence that early-years education is important, and the hon.

13WH
Lady and others are right to say so We know from academic work on child development and early learning that the first interface and experience of learning and socialisation has a significant impact on subsequent progress. We are all happy with that conclusion.
Provision is, however, patchy. Genuine problems are experienced in securing access to early-years education. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) rightly drew attention to the problem in rural areas, and mentioned north Yorkshire. The same would apply in many parts of Lincolnshire, including my constituency, where access to early-years education is difficult simply because of physical issues, such as travelling, especially from remote and sparsely populated areas, to sources of such education.
The problems of patchy provision are significant and also apply to some inner-city areas and social groups. Take-up of early-years education among some minority groups is much lower than for the majority population.
Parents have different expectations for their children and different requirements for early-years provision. That may be because they have a particular view of what is right for their child or because of their personal circumstances. All sorts of factors impact on people's opinions about what they want. There is no uniform demand; different parents have different demands in different parts of the country.
Parental involvement and the link between home and school are also vital. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) referred to the select Committee's findings in that respect. My discussions with teachers have shown that that is a real problem n in many schools and communities. It is an important aspect of addressing the issue of early-years provision, and I shall deal with that in respect of the trends and changes that have taken place under the Government's stewardship.
We also understand that a child's experience should not be merely about learning. Play, for example, is an important feature of the early-years experience. Rigidity and formality in early-years education are not always desirable. The education provided requires a degree of flexibility and informality and, certainly, a high level of diversity. The hon. Member for Moorlands, in an unfortunate remark, talked about damaging competition. I am not entirely happy with the concept of damaging competition. I am not so arrogant as to believe that any single solution is the right one in every circumstance on every occasion. Diversity of provision is needed not only to allow for choice, but, more importantly, to allow for a variety of approaches to develop and prosper in order to identify best practice.
Charlotte Atkins: The damaging competition was drawn to the Select Committee's attention by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which complained that school settings were taking potential pupils and making pre-schools unviable. That was the damaging competition in question, which the alliance felt was unfair.
Mr. Hayes: Now that the hon. Lady has made her position clearer, I endorse what she says. She is right to say that in many ways there is less choice than there was four years ago, which I shall illustrate later. That is because of the unfair and unreasonable competition
14WH
from schools, as a result of which the number of alternative providers, especially playgroups and preschools, has shrunk dramatically during the past three or four years.
Flexibility and diversity in the sector, to which the hon. Lady alluded, are genuine concerns. It is true that parents want choice, and it is true that diversity has diminished. The facts are clear enough. The Minister will remember that, in November last year, I asked her what had happened to the number of pre-school and playgroup places under this Government. In a clear and frank answer, she told me that there were 30,000 fewer places than in 1997. She will also know—although it was not included in her answer—that the number of providers has reduced dramatically. According to one of the provider organisations, there are nearly 20,000 fewer providers. I would be interested to hear the Minister's precise interpretation of that.
There is a danger that we are producing uniform, vanilla flavoured provision. Perhaps that has been caused by the damaging competition that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Moorlands. The matter needs to be addressed, and I wonder whether the Government's current policy does that sufficiently, as there is no sign yet of that trend being reversed.
There are also issues concerning the diminishing level of parental involvement due to the reduction in community and volunteer provision of an informal nature. The great feature of the system of early-years provision that developed in part by accident—or, perhaps, by evolution—until 1997 was that it guaranteed a high level of self-help, community involvement and volunteering. Many parents, grandparents, and other members of the community became involved who would, perhaps, never have thought of becoming involved in a professional capacity had they not come through such informal routes. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough talked about some of them becoming professionals as a consequence of their first involvement as volunteers, but the current policy puts that in jeopardy.
Volunteer and community involvement is diminishing, but there are also other problems, such as the difficulties of establishing private provision. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion talked about the matter at length, but he did not, perhaps, have enough time to add that it is extremely difficult to set up a private nursery. A considerable amount of bureaucracy is involved. One has to be registered, secure planning permission and find suitable premises—and trying to find suitable premises in which to set up a private nursery in some London boroughs must be a nightmare. It is a lengthy and intimidating process, and many people who might wish to establish private provision are deterred from doing so.
Mr. Leppert: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the highest standards of property, administration and management need not be insisted on for private sector nurseries. His remarks seem to suggest that.
I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the Government's introduction of the neighbourhood child care initiative, which is aimed at providing capital

15WH
and revenue resources to help set up child care places, particularly in the 20 per cent. most deprived wards in England.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is correct that standards need to be guaranteed. However, I have received correspondence from someone who is very interested and committed to the private sector and who has no particular political prejudice. The letter tells of a group of people who offer early-years provision to small rural communities from a local church. They have been told that they are obliged to have low-level toilets, in other words, separate toilets for staff and children, and other health and safety facilities that are beyond the limits of many premises that are designed for general community use. Those early-years providers were using a building that was, perhaps, also satisfactorily being used for other community activities, but they have been asked to make changes that they cannot afford. That will prevent them from continuing to provide a popular and valuable service that displays good practice in an area where there is, perhaps, no alternative on offer.
A balance needs to be struck with regard to our expectations of voluntary and private sector providers between the hon. Gentleman's desire for regulation and my desire for self-help, entrepreneurship and the widest possible provision. I am sure that the Minister will want to address that.
A recent report by the National Early Years Network addressed the problem of the decline in the number of nursery schools. The Minister will be aware that that report also described the Government as opting for the "lowest common denominator" with regard to early-years provision. The report suggests that up to 100 of England's 513 state nursery schools will close because of damaging competition unless the Government recognise the service that they offer. The National Early Years Network believes that the Government's current policy is a further threat to diversity and choice in nursery schools, in addition to the threat to the voluntary and private sectors.
My next point concerns the complexity of the system. The Minister knows that there are more than 20 separate funding streams for early-years education. It is very difficult for those involved to comprehend the process and simplification is required.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge)indicated assent.
Mr. Hayes: I am delighted to see the Minister nodding in agreement.
The number of initiatives, new schemes and pet projects has led to a multiplicity of funding streams, which has created confusion and perhaps incoherence. We must examine that.
Perhaps the greatest indictment of the current regime, and I am angry about it, although I know that one should never become angry or animated in this Chamber, is that now, in 2000–01, more children are being taught in early-years classes of more than 30 than was the case in 1996. That information came from the
16WH
Library, which stated clearly that, in 2000, 29 per cent. of pupils were taught in early-years classes of more than 30; in 1996 that figure was 27.3 per cent. and in 1997 it was 26.5 per cent. One result of more children being educated in reception classes and the unequal requirements for the pupil-teacher ratio, to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough drew attention, is the irony that the Government, who are determined to teach five to seven-year-olds in smaller classes, are teaching an increasing number of younger children in larger classes. We have heard the argument that the younger the child, the more important the direct contact with a teacher, but that is contradicted by the results of the Government's policy. I am entitled to be angry about that, not on my behalf but on behalf of the children, parents and others who feel cheated—
Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hayes: I shall not give way because I have done so a couple of times and I want to conclude.
I am angry on behalf of those who feel cheated by that policy.
I welcome the helpful comments in the Green Paper on the Government's national accreditation scheme. I thought of that excellent idea at the same time as the Department for Education and Employment. I came up with it alone, working by candlelight, and the Department for Education and Employment matched me. I am proud of that very good idea and I welcome it. However, significant problems exist that are not addressed in the Green Paper or in anything that we have heard from the Government. They include lack of flexibility, diversity, choice, volunteering and involvement, over-regulation, bureaucracy, a multiplicity of funding streams and, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, difficulties in meeting recruitment targets.
Perhaps the Minister will refer to retention when she responds because I believe that there is an issue concerning not only graduate recruitment, but retention. How long do we retain people when they enter early-years teaching? Is that trend improving or worsening and what impact will it have on meeting targets, even with ambitious targets on recruitment? What is the balance between European money and other money? How much of the extra money targeted on the expansion is being taken from the standards fund? The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked whether it is new money or whether it is being taken from elsewhere, which is an important point that I want to amplify.
Can the Government assure us that they will address the issue of clarity in the funding of early-years education? We must ensure that people are not disincentivised from establishing voluntary and private nursery provision. Diversity must be allowed to continue to flower because that is the prerequisite for choice in a healthy sector.
I am delighted that we have had today's debate. I hope that the Minister will address some of my questions in her response and write to me about the remainder.
10.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) on securing the debate. I also congratulate those hon. Members who have participated.
Two weeks ago, I had the good fortune to visit the local authority in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). I was impressed by the work that is being done by the partnership there and delighted that it has endeavoured to bring forward the introduction of free nursery education for three-year-olds as well as for four-year-olds in advance of national targets.
This is a period of massive expansion in services. I shall quote two relevant figures. First, we are doubling spending from £1 billion to £2 billion to secure free nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. Secondly, the Department for Education and Employment budget for child care has tripled. Furthermore, we are securing European resources and have secured a new budget of £155 m Ilion from the new opportunities fund, which will enable us to create 1 million places for 1.6 million children by 2004.
On the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), we want to time the implementation of places for three-year-olds in a way that assures us of quality: I took that on board when we decided the timing. We could bring more resources to bear more quickly, but, if we went too fast, it would be difficult to train sufficient people to obtain the quality of nursery education that we want. Child care and early years is the second fastest growing sector in the labour market. We have added 122,000 jobs in the past three years, so we have more than 660,000 people working in it, which demonstrates the extent of the task. On top of that, we have the 150,000 additional jobs alluded to by the hon. Gentleman.
I say to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that competition damaged diversity. The legacy that we inherited from the previous Government led to many private and voluntary groups losing four-year-olds to the nursery sector as competition drove schools to grasp children. We have proved that competition damages diversity; cooperation through partnership enhances it.
I shall put to rest the charge that playgroups are experiencing a continuing decline. They were declining as a result of parents' changing demands and the damaging nursery vouchers scheme. It has taken time to turn that round, but, in the last year for which figures are available, nearly 6,000 extra place,, were available in playgroups. We addressed that through the way in which we distributed money for three-year-olds, the massive resources that we have given to the PLA and the money that we have set aside to help struggling playgroups. I hope that the pre-school of sector will play a role both in our new plans for neighbourhood nursery expansion and in our other initiatives.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's negative and rather pessimistic attitude about the role of the private and voluntary sectors in the expansion of neighbourhood nurseries. I am in constant conversation with them. We are determined that they will play a
18WH
proper and appropriate role in creating the 900 new or extended nurseries in deprived inner-city areas, giving for the first time high-quality early-years experiences to young children in need.
On the issue of nursery schools, the hon. Gentleman has missed some of what we have been doing. We woke up a long time ago to the threat that nursery schools were under, which is why we gave them specific money to look at new ways in which to extend their services and to remain part of the diverse provision that is on offer.
I have talked about expanding numbers and how we value everyone who works in the early-years sector: nursery nurses, teaching assistants and all others. Far from devaluing them, our policy is about enhancing their esteem and enabling them to participate in training and development. It is not our intention to abolish names. I say again to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that we are leaving that matter for people to decide locally. If he wants to change the name in Harrogate, he can do so, but the Department for Education and Employment is not taking a view on names. We are investing £350 million in the next three years not only in nursery nursing, but in teaching assistants. Many teaching assistants have the NNEB qualification, so there is some synergy between teaching assistants and nursery nurses.
Our overriding vision of the early years is about greater integration of care, education and health. Many of the traditional structures and jobs will be recreated over time to form a new early-years profession. As the early-years world becomes more integrated, nursery nurses, whom we value and whose contribution we recognise, will become part of a greater offer and fit into that greater structure. I do not want to hold on to past definitions and past professional jealousies and divisions. I want to bring the best of the worlds of care, early-years education and health together to create a new highly valued profession. That period of change has caused some tension in the teaching profession and in the nursery nurse sector.
We are tackling recruitment with energy. This year, we are spending £8 million on a recruitment campaign and we have had 60,000 calls to our telephone line since it started. We contacted the people who had telephoned six months later, so it was not a matter of hitting them when they first contacted us. Interestingly, 79 per cent. have taken action, such as looking for job vacancies, with a further 6 per cent. intending to do so; 32 per cent. have enrolled on training courses; 16 per cent. have found work in the sector; 39 per cent. have applied, attended an interview, or been successful in finding a job as an assistant in a day nursery; and 20 per cent. did the same for nursery nursing. I am proud of our efforts to bring more people into the sector.
On the issue of training, generous money is available. We are using some of the money that is available for learning and skills councils, which have traditionally trained people in early years and child care, but there is extra money from the Government and, I am happy to say, from Europe. I am delighted that we have been able to use that European money. A sum of money also comes through the standards fund—there will be a local authority contribution. The investment is massive. I shall write to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough with the details. I assure him that included in that sum is £7 million from the Government

19WH
and £15 million from the European social fund. It is all about unblocking the barriers to training, so it deals with issues such as supply cover and course costs. Training is across the private, voluntary and statutory sectors.
I accept entirely the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) about the importance of working with parents, and the additional skills and competences that are required in that regard. We are trying to build those factors into the core competence.
I am proud of the framework that we established in 1999, which recognises 16 qualifications, including the NNEB qualification. We have asked the Learning and Skills Council to train 230,000 people to NVQ levels 2 and 3. We must remember that, according to the 1998 work force survey, 44 per cent. of existing staff have no such qualifications. That is why a pot of money is being provided. It will include funds from the Department for Education and Employment and from elsewhere.
NVQ 4 is an exciting development that will provide a route—as my hon. Friend the Member for Moorlands will recall, we call it a climbing frame—to enable those with an NNEB qualification that is equivalent to NVQ 3 to progress. I do not accept that those with NVQ 3 cannot work in management. We have negotiated with a number of universities to ensure that, with a little underpinning knowledge, those with NVQ 4 can regard it as equivalent to 240 credit accumulation transfer points, which is two years off a degree. Our Green Paper makes it clear that, by 2004, we hope to be working with 1,000 people towards establishing a new senior early-years practitioner route that will be just below degree level and that will enable the desired careers progression for those who enter at NNEB level.
20WH
On pay scales, which a number of hon. Members mentioned, there is the single status agreement, which presumably takes account of such issues, given that it was based on a job evaluation scheme. We have asked partnerships to report on pay in this year's plans and we will see what comes of that. Of course, pay is determined locally and we must work hard in the coming years to raise the status and pay of early-years workers.
We recognise that ratios in reception classes are an issue. We have said that we want a ratio of 1:15. We have invested money to ensure that, in this Parliament, the 60 most deprived IEAs can establish such a ratio and recruit more staff through the standards fund. We need to make further progress throughout the country, but there is nothing to prevent any LEA from making ratios a priority: all LEAs have plenty of additional resources to enable them to do so.
In terms of gender, we have a very distorted early-years work force. Much of that distortion relates to status and to equal pay for equal value. At the moment, only 2 per cent. of the work force consists of men. Our target is that, by 2004, 4 per cent. of those working in the early-years sector will be men. We have also set targets in respect of ethnicity, disability and age. The work force tends to be very young and we want to encourage older people.
There has never been a more exciting time in the world of early-years education and child care. We take to heart many of the issues t hat hon. Members have raised and I hope that they will accept that we are making progress. We want to work A with the private and voluntary sectors through the successful local partnerships that we have created to provide the best start for young children, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands said, makes all the difference to outcomes in their adult lives.

Neurology
10.59 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I suspect that this is the first debate on neurology in the House for many years, and possibly ever. I have not double-checked that with the Library, but the House does not seem to have given much consideration to services provided to people with neurological conditions. On the day that I received notice from the Speaker's Office that I had secured the debate after several weeks of applications, I was delighted to hear that the Secretary of State for Health had declared the Government's intention to draw up a national service framework for long-term health conditions, with a special focus on neurological conditions.
Three million people in the United Kingdom suffer from neurological conditions—only heart disease and cancer affect more people—and one in five of all admissions to medical wards are accounted for by acute neurological cases. Despite those facts, neurology has been something of a Cinderella service in the national health service—in part because until recently little could be done beyond diagnosis and amelioration of symptoms. However, that is changing , so now is a good time to have a debate in this Chamber and to turn the spotlight on neurological services with the aim of raising them to the standard of the very best NHS services. We need to improve the standard of excellence in neurology across the whole country, so that everyone has access to good-quality services on a level playing field.
Neurological conditions result from damage caused by illness or accident to the brain, spinal column or nerves. They have many causes, many of which are not yet known, and they affect young and o1d, rich and poor, men and women and people from all cultures and ethnicities. Some neurological conditions, such as epilepsy, are lifelong and people can experience their onset at any time of life; some, such as cerebral palsy, are present from birth; some, such as muscular dystrophy, commonly appear in early childhood; and some, such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, affect mainly older people. Certain conditions have a sudden onset owing to accident or illness, such as head injury, stroke or cancers of the brain and spine. Neurodegenerative conditions, such as multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, can affect people at any age and often cause a slow deterioration of a person's quality of life and ability to live independently.
Of those conditions, some can be life threatening, most severely affect people's quality of life and many cause long-term disability. Their impact often extends far beyond the individual concerned. because they have knock-on effects on family members and others who have a caring role. Caring for someone with a debilitating illness is often such an onerous task that carers have to give up their own employment. That, added to the inability of the person with the condition to continue to be economically active, can have a devastating impact on a family's quality of life, financial circumstances and long-term being.
Today's debate is not about the needs of carers, but we should bear it in mind that they carry a massive burden, especially where neurological conditions are involved, and their role is often unstated, unrecognized
22WH
and undervalued. It is important to say, however, that some of the Government's initiatives on carers' grants and respite care are making a difference to many of our constituents.
Neurological conditions are poorly understood. Public awareness is low, even of relatively common conditions such as epilepsy. Many rare conditions are largely unheard of and poorly understood, even by nonspecialist health professionals. That can lead to problems with the quality of initial diagnosis and the care pathways down which people are directed.
My interest in the topic has developed over the past three and a half years. It started with my constituency mailbag, through helping constituents who were battling to be prescribed beta interferon for their relapsing-remitting MS. I approach the debate from a Back Bencher's perspective, having been struck by the patchiness of the provision of services across the country. There are wide variations in access to services, not only for MS, but for the whole spectrum of neurological conditions.
That interest led me to undertake a survey of NHS trusts last year. I am grateful for the support given to me by the Neurological Alliance, especially Nikki Joule, and for the advice of the Association of British Neurologists in drafting the survey. Their support and advice ensured that the information gained was useful and could inform the debate about how neurological services might be better provided.
I found wide regional variations in access to neurological services—it is yet another postcode lottery. Two out of three patients wait for more than 13 weeks to see a neurologist and the average waiting time in non-urgent cases is 25 weeks. In 44 per cent. of hospitals, patients wait for as long as six months for an out-patient appointment; the worst waits to see a consultant neurologist lasted up to two years. My survey also found that six out of 10 hospitals could not offer a 24-hour response to a neurological emergency. Yet early diagnosis and treatment can make all the difference to a person's chances of recovery and a better quality of life.
The reason that access to services is so patchy is quite simple: there is a lack of capacity, with not enough neurologists to meet demand. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that a key bottleneck is the shortage of training places, which are needed to expand the work force and fill vacancies for neurologists throughout the country. My survey found that, on average across England and Wales, there is one neurologist for every 165,641 people. In Wales, the south-west, the north-west and the north-east, the number of neurologists is less than one per 200,000 people. Recently, a neurologist told me:
"If the UK was to have the same provision of neurologists for the population as the United State there would have to be 2,000 consultants; for the same provision as Europe (excluding the UK obviously) 1,000 would be required. In fact we have just over 200 (allowing for part time academic posts etc). Quite how this situation has been allowed to go on for decades is beyond me; we appear to be where the US and Europe were at the end of WW2. The shortage will take decades to correct."
It is hardly surprising that most patients' groups to which I spoke said that, if it does nothing else, the national service framework must address the serious shortage of neurological consultants. The Association of British Neurologists and the Neurological Alliance

23WH
recommend that the number of neurologists must rise to a minimum of between 600 and 700—roughly double the current number—if the service is to start to improve.
Access to specialists can make an enormous difference to how an individual copes with diagnosis, especially as the specialist can explain the progression of the condition and the options for treatment. That shortage, however, masks a deeper problem: the shortage of sub-specialists. There are only 60 consultants in the whole country who have specific expertise in Parkinson's disease, and fewer than 40 who specialise in treating MS. The rarer the condition, the scarcer the expertise. I wonder, for example, how many neurologists specialise in progressive supranuclear palsy.
In neurology, access to specialist centres is, a key way to make effective use of NHS resources and give patients the chance to receive the best possible care. I hope that the national service framework will address that. The current out-of-area treatment scheme, OATS, is often an obstacle to appropriate treatment. Many trusts have suspended specialist procedures unless they are under contract or being paid for privately. Many patients who have been referred to specialists under OATS are put on waiting lists that continue to lengthen.
Some patients' home health authorities have offered to pay for operations, but trusts refuses to perform them because there is no mechanism for funds to be transferred to them. Occasionally, trusts agree to undertake an operation, but only after much correspondence and often when hon. Members and others have lobbied on the patient's behalf. Operations have been suspended not because of lack of funds, but because of bureaucracy. I hope that that problem can be resolved, because it has put services at risk, and they are being run down. Last April, the Department of Health announced a review of OATS. It will help if the Minister can shed some light on the timing of that review and the publication of its results, so that we can see what reforms are planned and what issues are to be addressed.
In anticipation of the national service framework, I should like to raise a few issues. First, the Department of Health has asked the Medical Research Council for trials to test the treatment of Parkinson's disease through deep brain stimulation therapy. Will the regional specialised commissioning groups have complete responsibility for commissioning specialised neurosurgery? Will that be governed or monitored nationally and will it be reflected in the national service framework in future? Is there a timetable for the trials and will they account for all deep brain stimulation therapy during the trial period? Will those who opt out of them still have access to deep brain stimulation therapy? People with Parkinson's disease and the Parkinson's Disease Society of the United Kingdom will appreciate clarity on those issues.
Secondly, a few years ago, Scope conducted research into the effects of ageing on people with cerebral palsy and found that few sufferers visited their doctors for regular check-ups. The majority had not seen a consultant since leaving school and had not seen a physiotherapist for at least five years. General practitioners, physiotherapists, social workers and occupational therapists are often insufficiently familiar with cerebral palsy and, in short, many sufferers simply
24WH
give up on treatment in the belief that they cannot be helped. That underlines the fact that the national service framework must address social and primary care as much as secondary and tertiary services. Primary care begins from the time of the initial referral and, alongside social services, has a long-term role after diagnosis.
The third issue relates to multiple sclerosis, which originally drew my attention to neurology. The Minister will know that new and emerging treatments can slow the progress of neurological conditions and may pave the way for even more effective treatments. For most people with multiple sclerosis, the national service framework offers the prospect of improved multidisciplinary working and enforceable standards of service. However, it will not deliver the improvements that one group is looking for. It appears likely that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will deny access to disease modifying drugs to all or most people with multiple sclerosis who would benefit. The national service framework holds out the promise of better services for such people once they are disabled, but does not offer the hope of a brake on the progression of their disease.
At 3 o'clock on the day before the Christmas holidays began last year, after most people had gone home to start celebrating, NICE smuggled out an announcement, 10 days before its pre-programmed date for the release of the decision from its appraisal committee, which effectively kicked into the long grass its decisions on beta interferon. We will not know now whether beta interferon and copaxon will be available on the NHS until July at the earliest, and a final resolution will probably not emerge until even later. That is not acceptable. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the conduct of NICE on that day in December and its behaviour in respect of assessment of treatments. It appears to have ignored the voice of the patients, who have not been allowed to come to the table and express an opinion.
Fourthly, the Minister will know of the value that patients and patients' groups place on access to specialist nurses. The Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Parkinson's Disease Society contribute to the funding of a growing network of specialist nurses. That network should force us to examine how such nurses are supported, trained and funded in the NHS. While it is welcome that charities make contributions to the funding of such posts—in many cases, they fund them fully—in the long run, the NHS, in the context of neurology, must properly support the service.
The Department is addressing the recruitment and training of specialist nurses and considering how to ensure that commissioning bodies take such matters into account. Will the Minister say what progress has been made in the review of specialist nurses? When is that review likely to be concluded? Will it be affected in any way—I hope that it will not—by the national service framework? Time is pressing and clarity is needed sooner rather than later. The national service framework, which will be published in 2005, is welcome, but too far in the future.
Fifthly, I have received strong representations from several groups in respect of pain management in the NHS, about which, as the Minister may recall, the House had a debate last year—although it was held late in the evening and was therefore almost as well attended

25WH
as today's debate. The issue is important, but not often debated in the House. The point has been made to me forcefully that chronic pain should be included within the national service framework. Given the prevalence of chronic pain in the UK, it is surprising how poorly coordinated services remain. At best, a person can hope to be referred to a pain management course after a long wait; at worst, he can find himself being passed around the specialists and offered a range of different medications on a trial and error basis until something turns up that might alleviate the pain.
My final point relates to the prevalence of neurological conditions generally. I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution that 3 million people in this country suffer from neurological conditions, but the truth is that we do not know precisely how many there are, because no method exists for recording the diagnosis of neurological conditions. There is no disease register or systematic means of capturing such information, even though that information would be invaluable to effective research and deepening our understanding of such conditions, and must be central to effective commissioning of services at a local level. As a starting point, the national service framework must include better recording of prevalence in the population, so that we can allocate resources according to need.
Patients' groups have an important role to play in the development of all national service frameworks, not least in the context of the national service framework for long-term conditions. Umbrella organisations play a key role in that work by bringing together the disparate interests that a national service framework often covers. I suspect that that will be the case when the Government and the Department begin their detailed work on the national service framework. The Secretary of State has given a welcome indication of willingness to provide extra support for umbrella organisations, to facilitate their task of engaging in robust and real dialogue with Government, but it would be useful to know whether the Department and Secretary of State would be minded to provide additional resources to facilitate the involvement of non-governmental organisations in the preparation of national service frameworks. That would be helpful to the Neurological Alliance and other Nongovernmental organisations with interests in other national service frameworks.
As the national service framework under discussion is likely to cut across already existing national service frameworks—especially those covering older people—it will be important to have cross-sector interests represented in the process to deal with those concerns. We must make sure that there are no gaps between the various national service frameworks. It will be interesting to hear how the Government will ensure that such gaps are not created.
I understand that the national service framework is unlikely to be published until 2004, and that it is intended that it will be implemented from 2005. It is essential that the Government's commitment to producing that national service framework in no way derails existing work that will benefit people with neurological conditions. I shall cite three examples. First, in a debate a couple of years ago, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), referred to the production of a compendium of good practice for GPs and primary care
26WH
groups on the commissioning of neurological services. Publication of that compendium is a year overdue; when will it be published? It will be an invaluable aid to primary care trusts and others who have a responsibility for commissioning, and the sooner it is being used, the better.
Secondly, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is to begin work on clinical management guidelines for MS for publication in 2002. I have made some representations about the pace at which NICE intends to proceed. Given the range that must be covered, it is important that its work is not lost within the work on the national service framework. Thirdly, I have referred to the Department considering specialist nurses in neurology; it will be useful if the Minister can say when that work will be promulgated.
The national service framework and the other work that is in train within the Department are welcome. I introduced today's debate because the findings from surveys show that we have a long way to travel to reach the standard of service that the Government and all hon. Members want for people with neurological conditions. We need a people-centred approach that develops services around individuals and builds on the ideas in the national health service plan. We must ensure that an appropriate multi-disciplinary range of services follow people throughout their lives, and that services are at all times tailored to be appropriate to their needs and those of their carers.
11.21 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) not only on securing the debate, but on setting out the reasons behind it so clearly and excellently. I am disappointed that there has not been an enormous Back-Bench contribution to the debate, but his speech makes up for that.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is quality that counts.
Dr. Brand: It is.
My hon. Friend has made many valuable points, but I shall concentrate on a few. The national service framework is welcome, but I hope that it is not an alibi for not proceeding with the planning and thinking surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of neurological conditions. Over the past few years, the world of neurology has moved on tremendously. Some 30 years ago, when I trained, cerebral doctors who seldom handled patients considered it to be an intellectual exercise. That was probably appropriate because there was little that they could do.
Neurologists tend to be people who wear extremely expensive suits and silk ties and spend much of their time in Harley street. In fact, the man who taught me the Babinsky reflex, which is the awful test where doctors tickle the sole of a person's foot to see which way the toe goes, said that the only implement that should be used to carry out such a test satisfactorily was a Bentley key. Since then, I have never aspired to neurology, or to a Bentley, given that I did not think that owning such a key was appropriate.

27WH
My hon. Friend was right to point out that neurology covers a wide range of diagnoses. Neurological illness can result from catastrophic events, accidents, intercranial bleeds, nerve injuries during accidents and conditions that are either contracted in utero or around birth, such as cerebral palsy. Indeed, some conditions that appear in the first six to 12 months after birth are difficult to distinguish from the effects of immunisations going wrong. Many neurological diseases are neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, MS, motor neurone disease and the big condition of Alzheimer's, which is not a uniform disease and requires diagnosis.
It is important to recognise that, although much more can now be done about neurological conditions, it is no good taking a scatter-gun approach to treatment. A precise diagnosis is required. In that sense, we have progressed tremendously over the past 10 to 20 years. It is no longer acceptable for a condition such as epilepsy to be treated by taking the approach that might be taken in cookery: trial and error, starting with a dollop of phenobarbitone, going on to a dollop of epilem, and over five years a suitable drug regime might be found. It is important to have precise diagnoses and not to rely solely on pharmaceutical intervention. Neurosurgery now has a significant place, but only an appropriately skilled neurophysician can establish which patients are suitable for treatment and the form that that treatment should take.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that we are woefully short of capacity in diagnosis and treatment. Liberal Democrat Members have highlighted not only neurologists but the role of nurse practitioners. I commend to the Minister the role of nurse practitioners, who should be funded more meaningfully. One of our practice nurses trained as a nurse practitioner in epilepsy services, but it is difficult to secure meaningful funding for her, so that she may use the expertise that she has acquired.
Much of the work that nurse practitioners might do can also be done by nurse assistants under supervision. I shall return to that matter when I deal with the long-term care proposals that are being considered in another place.
In addition to nurse practitioners, in providing treatment, we desperately need more speech therapists. Many neurological conditions have as sequelae significant communication problems. Speech therapy has moved a long way in targeting treatment for particular conditions. It now involves not only speech therapy in the traditional sense but access to modern communication aids. A lot of electronic equipment can now be extraordinarily helpful to people with degenerative neurological diseases, but it remains hard to get hold of. When I first became involved in the matter, we had regional funds for environmental aids. That budget has now been dispersed, and in dispersal seems to have been virtually lost. I am sure that all hon. Members encounter cases in which people are denied what should be standard equipment to help with communication.
In addition to speech therapists, it is important to have access to psychologists who understand degenerative neurological conditions. Some conditions
28WH
can be difficult to diagnose, especially degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's or Korsacov's encephalopathy. The different causes of the disease are not always clear except through expert assessment such as neuropsychology.
Once a diagnosis has been made, patients should have access to a physiotherapist with a special interest in neurology, which is especially important for children suffering from cerebral palsy. It is not good enough for a small child to be assessed once and to be referred again only three years later. Much of a physiotherapist's work could be carried out by physiotherapist assistants or other carers, but expert supervision is required to check that the correct treatment is given.
I am enormously concerned about the Government's definition of what treatment is allowable under the new long-term care regulations. The Government do not recognise how the world has moved on. Care is now delivered through therapeutic teams. They may be headed by a registered nurse, but much of the work may be carried out by another health professional. It is ridiculous that only time spent by the registered nurse qualifies for funding through the national health service, not work carried out by care assistants, whether with children or with those at the other end of the age spectrum. I hope that the Government will think again about their definition because it makes no intellectual or practical sense.
We have not yet mentioned the great strides forward in diagnostic imaging. In the past, my neurological colleague with his sharp suit and Bentley key was required to perform all sorts of magic—there was also a test involving gold coins, but I have forgotten what it was. We can now be somewhat more scientific and specific by using appropriate scanning techniques. However, we still rely too heavily on charities and voluntary organisations to equip communities and district general hospitals with the necessary imaging equipment. Throughout the country, many scanners that were bought with funds raised through an extraordinary amount of hard voluntary work are coming to the end of their useful lives.
I hope that the Government will conduct an audit of available equipment to determine whether it is available in the strategic places in which it is required. Access to good scanning equipment is just as important as access to good cancer services or cardiology; indeed, scanning equipment is necessary for those services. There is no evidence at present of a sensible national or even regional framework for ensuring that such facilities are available.
I present a good example of how things have moved forward. There used to be a rare treatment for a strange condition called to torticollis that gave one a wry neck. What I am now doing is difficult for the Hansard writers to report, but the condition gives one an uncontrollable twitch. It is treatable through injections of botulism. It is amazing that that treatment is carried out predominantly in the private sector for cosmetic reasons—to get rid of wrinkles—yet in the national health service, there is an enormous waiting list for operations for genuinely distressing conditions.
I hope that the Minister will consider what is available and what can be done within the national health service framework. We should ensure that people who rely on

29WH
the national health service for treatment of real conditions have priority over those who simply opt for "botulism-injection tea parties", as I recently saw them described, attended for three months by middle-aged ladies who want to have their wrinkles controlled. Personally, I like wrinkles, as they suggest a degree of experience.
The abolition of extra-contractual referrals has had a dramatic effect. In the past, money would follow the patient and specialist centres would vie for that patient. The mechanism ensured that patients were referred and accepted. The out-of-area treatment scheme, which replaced ECRs, does not do the same job. Payments are often delayed. One may have to guess how many rare conditions are likely to occur in one?s district and place a contract that may be unnecessary.
When some years ago I challenged the Secretary of State on the effect of the introduction of the OATS arrangements, he assured me that doctors could still refer patients anywhere within the United Kingdom. Doctors can do that, of course, but the hospital to which a patient is referred is under no obligation to accept the referral. Hospitals are increasingly turning down patients because they are not sure that they will be funded for the work.
A process such as neurosurgery for epilepsy, for example, is complicated and expensive. The diagnosis must be firm, the lesion causing the epilepsy must be identified through specialist techniques and the patient must be prepared psychologically for such a dramatic operation. On the other hand, the results of such surgery can be dramatically good. Patients may be able to come off a complex drug regime and begin to function anew—they may, in a sense, wake up. Those operations are worth while, therefore, but the few centres that perform them are working to capacity and to unwilling to expand and to increase their work load, owing to the uncertainty over funding.
I pay tribute to carers and patients themselves. Doctors, like all other health professionals, are good at networking and learning about conditions in which they have an interest. That is positive and useful, but it is high time that patients and carers do more networking, so that they become aware of the treatment available and adjust their expectations. Patient with neurological conditions have for too long accepted that they are suffering from a Cinderella condition and that they cannot do much about it, apart from swallowing a few tablets. Much can be done, however, and through patient education and empowerment we can hope for a change in the present position, which is very much top down. Patients may begin to make reasonable and achievable demands, which are currently held back because of the restraint on resources.
11.39 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is always a privilege to speak after my neighbour across the western Solent, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). who brings his professional expertise, wisdom and plain common sense to debates.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this timely and important debate, which has produced speeches of high quality. I congratulate him, too, on the amount of work
30WH
that he has done in bringing the matter to our attention. I secured from his website a copy of his report, dated 3 January, on the neurological service in England. It is a real achievement for an ordinary Back Bencher, who does not enjoy a great deal of administrative support, to provide such a high quality document, backed up by a significant amount of research.
I am glad that the debate so far has concentrated not only on neurologists, because the matter goes beyond their numbers. The hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Sutton and Cheam referred at length.to the failure of the out-of-area treatment scheme. That system is log-jammed, so an increase in neurologists alone will not necessarily address the problem. The OATS arrangements deserve attention.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight drew attention to speech therapists, thereby raising the question of rehabilitation in general and of strokes and similar conditions in particular. If patient outcomes are to improve, such specialist provision must be made. All the evidence suggests that establishing specific rehabilitation centres and facilities is the best way to achieve that.
As for the provision of drug treatments, I share the concern that was expressed by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam with respect to beta interferon. I entirely agree with his analysis of the history and the behaviour of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. It is 19 months to the day since NICE was asked to investigate and appraise the situation as regards beta interferon. On 6 February, at Health questions, we were told that guidance was expected from NICE in November; by that date, it will be 26 months since the matter was referred to the organisation. In the announcement that foreshadowed the creation of NICE, we were told that it would provide a mechanism by which the arrival of new drugs in the health service could be speeded up. In that role, however, the body has not covered itself in glory.
We are told that more economic modelling is required by NICE. I am not against that, in principle; one of the things that we do badly in this country is clinical appraisal, which should be accompanied by economic modelling. Many clinicians agree with that. They sometimes take a cynical view of the media-to-market approach—as they term it—of some pharmaceutical companies, and would like there to be a much more robust means of testing and appraising the value of drugs. However, I question whether, when the process has already been going on for so long, we should consider yet more evidence for beta interferon, given that it is no longer a new drug. Prescribing habits in the United States and in continental Europe are much wider than they are here. It is legitimate to ask how many patients who would have benefited from beta interferon have lost their window of opportunity as a result of the delays.
Dr. Brand: Is it not essential that, when a decision is made about making a drug available, the economic modelling should include the effects outside the national health service, for instance on benefits and the provision of social services? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that that economic modelling should be done by the Government collectively rather than by NICE?
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. Both hon. Gentlemen are on the edge of being out of order on this issue.
Mr. Swayne: There is much force in what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight says.
To return to the subject of neurological conditions, will the Minister answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 6 February, which the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), failed to answer—why is copaxone being treated as an interferon when it is chemically and pharmacologically different? It has been tested for eight years and has reduced relapses by 70 per cent. In addition, what stage has been reached with respect to treatments for Alzheimer's disease, especially donepezil and rivastigmine. When will we know the outcome of an expensive trial that has been conducted in the west midlands with respect to donepezil?
I shall not dwell on Conservative policy in respect of NICE for fear of you bringing me sharply to order, Mr. Jones. However, we want a radically different approach to the problem. We want an exceptional medicines fund, with prescribing criteria laid down by a committee serving that fund. We want to remove from NICE's responsibility consideration of what we would regard as the availability of overall resources. We believe that that is not a decision for NICE. It is a political matter, and a Minister should decide what is available for the exceptional medicines fund.
I come now to another issue raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam concerning the provision of specialist nursing, and I want to illustrate a point that he made. Currently, one of the log-jams in the system is a significant shortage of specialist nurses. I have in my possession a letter from Mr. Palmer, the consultant neurosurgeon at Derriford hospital, dated 17 November. In the letter, he warns his colleagues about the effects of having to devote time and resources to train overseas nurses to fill the vacancies. He stresses that
"All elective admissions have been cancelled until probably at least February."
He wrote that in November. The letter continues:
"The neurosurgical unit can no longer provide a secondary referral service for Derriford Hospital. We will not accept direct emergency admissions from GP practices or receive referrals from the Accident and Emergency staff directly. Only tertiary referrals will be accepted i.e. from an admitting consultant team. We will provide 24 hours notice of return to secondary care but need the hospital's support to take these patients back into the admitting consultant's service without delay. When patients are not accepted back further emergency referrals will only be accepted on the agreement to swap with our blocked bed. If this is not possible the only option would be a transfer to another neurosurgical unit."
In respect of transfer to another unit, his letter states:
"We know that the neurological units in Bristol, Southampton and Oxford are in similar crisis precluding transfer of care."
If that is the situation in the acute neurological service, it requires urgent attention. Perhaps the Minister, in her response, will say what the Government have in mind.
If I were to summarise and simplify the report produced by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, its key feature is that it draws attention to unacceptable waiting times for neurological disciplines. Its principle
32WH
recommendation is that we must increase the number of neurologists by 60 per cent. That might by true, but I have a slightly different focus. We are increasingly moving toward evidence-based medicine and so my focus, along with that of many other commentators, is on patient outcomes rather than becoming fixated by our input into that process. Of course, inputs are important because they largely determine patient outcomes. Nevertheless, it is important to focus primarily on outcomes rather than on inputs.
An interesting fact that comes out of the hon. Gentleman's report is that in Denmark there are 100 neurologists for every 1 million of the population, in the United States there are 40, in Germany there are 12, but in the United Kingdom there are only six. The question that immediately occurs to me is: what about patient outcomes for the neurological conditions to which those figures relate? Why is there this extraordinary number of neurologists in Denmark? Are patient outcomes in Denmark much better than in the US or Germany, which has only 12 neurologists per 1 million of the population? With half their number of neurologists we do not compare too badly with Germany, which poses some interesting questions.
There is a nice line in the report when the hon. Gentleman refers to the British Brain and Spine Foundation stating hat UK patients are half as likely to wake up with a neurological condition and find that there is a neurosurgeon at the bottom of their bed than they are in the rest of the developed world. To my mind, the key question is not who is standing at the bottom of the bed, but whether one is likely to wake up. Patient outcome is the key issue, so the discipline of the consultant who is responsible for care does not matter to the patient, so long as he or she is capable of delivering the best care available. It may be that it is vital that a neurosurgeon or neurologist should be at the bottom of the bed, but that is an issue about which we must acquire more evidence.
My conversations with neurologists have revealed that we function differently in the United Kingdom. Traditionally, neurologists have avoided dealing with the commonest causes of brain failure, be they stroke, dementia or sequelae of head injury; geriatricians and other physicians have made up the shortfall. The conditions upon which neurologists have traditionally had a therapeutic impact are epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and other rare disorders such as myasthenia gravis and post-infectious demyelinating polyneuropathy. I read about an hon. Member who had an episode of myasthenia gravis, although I must say that he has subsequently functioned as an outstanding parliamentarian, so he is clearly over that.
The diagnostic skills of neurologists have been useful traditionally in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease and peripheral neuropathies, spongiform encephalopathy and a host of rare and esoteric disorders. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight drew attention to the fact that there has been a great increase in our ability to deal with many of those conditions in the past 10 years and longer. I know that, for patients, those conditions are not esoteric at all. However, many neurologists say that, in dealing with some of those conditions, their impact is quite limited, and neurology is predominantly an out-patient discipline.

33WH
One of the complaints made by neurologists performing that out-patient role is that many of the referrals that they receive from general practitioners arise because the GPs are themselves least comfortable with their own neurological diagnostic skills. Consequently, many neurologists find their case load taken up by people suffering from tension headaches and those who believe that their symptoms are indicative of a brain tumour or some other disease. Perhaps addressing the diagnostic skills of general practitioners would have an impact on at least some of the out-patient problem. I hope that, within primary care groups, there will be an exchange of patients, and a cross-referral between general practitioners who are becoming more specialist in particular conditions. That might relieve some of the pressure on secondary care referrals to hospitals.
Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman is confident that general practitioners can become more expert, but he must recognise that, if we are to meet the Government's own standards in accessing general practitioners, we need an extra 10,000. Giving them an extra job in this area will not solve the overall problems in the national health service.
Mr. Swayne: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says and the difficulties facing general practitioners involved in primary care, and I recognise the need for more of them to meet the demands of the national plan. We are now talking about the huge shortage of neurologists, which raises the question of which issue to address first, or which should be given the greatest leverage for an improved patient outcome.
Most patients with serious conditions, for example, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease, are relatively easy to diagnose on clinical grounds alone. As the hon. Gentleman said, we now use a great deal of high-tech equipment to confirm such diagnoses. About 40 years ago, it might have cost just a few pounds to diagnose a multiple sclerosis sufferer. Given the Gentleman's remarks when describing his teachers, it might be more appropriate to say that it would have cost a few guineas all those years ago to diagnose someone suffering from multiple sclerosis. Now, it might cost as much as £1,000, using high-tech equipment. It is legitimate for us to ask by how much our skill and ability in diagnosing these conditions has improved.
I was particularly enthusiastic about paragraph 3.8 of the report in which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam drew attention to the importance of speed of diagnosis and stated:
"A large number of neurologists and stroke physicians … are now saying treating stroke as a medical emergency the way a heart attack is would improve survival after stroke, reduce post attack depression … and the risk of being institutionalised."
That bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond ) was told when he visited the Royal Hallamshire hospital on Friday last week.
We all understand that a heart attack is an emergency and requires rapid treatment. The public also understand that, as do ambulance men and hospitals, but does the same understanding exist, especially among the public, about strokes, which also require swift treatment? All district general hospitals have coronary
34WH
care units and they are successful in terms of patient outcome, but not all district general hospitals have stroke units, although experience shows that they can also achieve successful results.
Whether stroke units need to be staffed by neurologists or geriatricians, as they largely are now, is not a matter on which I have the expertise to make a judgment. It may be right to encourage a greater supply of neurologists to take on that work, but I would want to see the clinical evidence of improved patient outcome before huge resources were diverted to such an end.
I come to the national service framework announced by the Government, which, significantly, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam called for on 3 January. It was a notable success for him to have secured such a swift response from the Government, and one that he deserves.
We favour a national service framework, but we have some reservations and want to ensure that it does not become over-prescriptive. However, we are confident that it will improve matters. Hon. Members are entirely right when they say that the national service framework, which may be in place in 2005, must not be allowed to delay development in the meantime. There is a tendency to produce a report, put a framework in place and believe that the problem has been dealt with. I remind the Chamber of Florence Nightingale's words when she drew a problem to the attention of a senior officer in the Crimea who assured her that it was unnecessary for her to trouble herself with it because there was already a report on it. Her response was that in her experience such reports were not necessarily self-implementing.
12.3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I confess that I am too young to recall the words of Florence Nightingale, but I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on a polished close to his speech.
It is customary to congratulate an hon. Member on securing a debate, but the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) should also be congratulated on the timing of his thoughtful debate. I agree that it is the quality and not the quantity of hon. Members in the Chamber that matters.
Hon. Members have raised a number of specific issues. If, inadvertently, I do not provide specific answers, I shall certainly return to them in more detail. However, I was somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to a national crisis in neurological services. I do not agree that there is such a crisis, but I accept that there are problems, which are more severe in some areas than in others. Our stated aim is that the worst services must make progress to deliver the best, but that will take time.
Hon. Members will be aware that the NHS was in survival mode for many years, but we are turning the corner and it is now in expansion mode. There is record investment and we are working towards shorter waiting lists. In many ways, the debate has illustrated why we need national frameworks and coherence in respect of the services that we deliver. It has also demonstrated that we need an expansion in staff. Virtually every hon. Member mentioned shortages in certain areas and the practical problems that arise when nurses are recruited and trained as specialists.

35WH
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has made a number of points about waiting times, and it is important that I clarify them for the record. He said in January that waiting times for appointments are horrendous—up to two years—but that is not the case. For in-patients, the maximum wait is 18 months. Since 1997, no patient in England has waited more than 18 months for neurology treatment. The average in-patient waiting time in England is 9.48 weeks. The vast majority of out-patients—about 95 per cent.—are seen within 26 weeks and the average waiting time in England is 10.6 weeks.
The hon. Gentleman also said in January that only 20 per cent. of hospitals are able to give waiting times of less than three months for an out-patient appointment to see a consultant and that 44 per cent. of hospitals make patients wait longer than 26 weeks. Again, that is not the case. More than 85 per cent. of hospitals are able to give appointments within 13 weeks.
Dr. Brand rose—
Mr. Burstow rose—
Ms Stuart: May I finish my point about waiting times before giving way?
According to the press release that was issued by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, the number of neurologists in England and Wales would have to be increased by 60 per cent. to reduce waiting times to meet the Government's target of three months. However, it is not clear to which target the press release refers. There are two different targets in respect of the three-month maximum waiting time: one for in-patients and another for out-patients. The NHS plan refers to reducing the maximum waiting time for out-patient appointments to three months by the end of 2005, and reducing the maximum waiting time for in-patient treatment to three months by 2008. We are confident that those targets are achievable.
Mr. Burstow: I will look at the figures that the Minister has given today with some interest, but I hope that she will accept that the report is a faithful representation of the results of a survey of NHS trusts. The information was not converted or altered—we merely reported what we found.
Ms Stuart: I accept that the hon. Gentleman desires to do nothing other than act on the basis of his findings. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest, West by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his efforts as a Back Bencher. I simply want to put on the record the findings of our survey, which is, I hope, more reliable and thorough. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that.
Dr. Brand: When the Minister conducts her surveys, does she ask each trust whether it defers putting people on the waiting list, especially in respect of out-patient appointments? In my experience, it is not uncommon for patients to be sent a letter stating, "We have received
36WH
your referral, but we are not in a position to put you on our waiting list as yet. You will hear from us in about six months' time."
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I call Dr. Gisela Stuart—
Ms Stuart: There are some doctors in the Stuart family, Mr. Winterton, but I am not one of them.
People should not be put on a waiting list for a waiting list, so I will take up the hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam described the wide variations in waiting times throughout England and Wales as a postcode lottery for neurological services. As he knows, waiting times in Wales are a matter for the Welsh Assembly. Waiting times in England do vary. We recognise that patients can wait a long time for neurology treatment. The NHS plan says that all patients will have a maximum wait of three months for out-patient appointments and six months for in-patient appointments. We are confident that we will be able to meet those targets.
The hon. Gentleman said that the figures show that the non-urgent average waiting time to see a consultant neurologist is 25 weeks, with 44 per cent. of hospitals having to make patients wait longer than six months for an out-patient appointment. That is not the information that I have been given. The national average out-patient waiting time for neurology is 10.6 weeks. In December 2000, only 12 per cent. of neurology out-patients had waited as long as six months for an appointment.
We all accept, however, that that is not good enough. We need to make progress in a co-ordinated manner. Some hon. Members have expressed a fear that the national service framework would be a hindrance to further progress. It will not be—far from it—but the various initiatives must go hand in hand in dealing with the situation in the short term and in the long term. It is essential that they work in tandem.
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) for his enlightening anecdote about the Bentley key, and I am delighted to say that we have moved on from that. Funding for diagnostic imaging equipment was announced in the NHS plan, and 150 replacement computed tomography scanners, 50 additional CT scanners and 50 additional magnetic resonance imaging scanners will be funded by 2004. Those will be used in the diagnosis of cancer and other diseases, including neurological diseases. The hon. Gentleman said that we must consider strategic availability. Again, we must ensure that immediate and long-term strategies develop in tandem.
Reference was made to deep brain simulation therapy. The Medical Research Council is considering a trial of the effectiveness of such therapy. We are also working closely with the Parkinson's Disease Society and others. I understand that the trial would cost about £1.3 million over three years.
Hon. Members mentioned nurse practitioners and the availability of specialist nurses. The NHS has huge capacity problems. We simply do not have enough doctors and nurses of any specialisation. We must address long-term problems through more training and short-term problems through putting the available work force to best use.

37WH
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred not only to nurse practitioners, but to speech therapists and physiotherapists. I am delighted that the Multiple Sclerosis Society is working with the NHS to provide more specialist nurses. The further development of a specialist nursing post is an integral part of neurological services. It will be addressed with NHS commissioners and providers. Specialist nurses will be important stakeholders in developing the national service framework.
Mr. Burstow: The Department is considering the recruitment and training of specialist nurses. Will that work be concluded before the implementation of the national service framework?
Ms Stuart: If there is information a bout precise dates, I will pass it on to the hon. Gentleman.
We must invest extra money. Hon. Members will acknowledge that we are dealing with that matter, not only through extra funding this year, but thereafter. I am pleased that the debate has not been a sterile discussion about solving the problem with pockets of money here and there. The problem is more fundamental than that.
The creation of national service frameworks to deal with the huge divergence of services is an important development. Hon. Members have lightly pointed out that there is a danger of creating various channels. We do not want that to happen. Other Government policy allows close working, for example with social services. The Bill to establish care trusts will facilitate such working together. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured that those are all parts of a jigsaw, which will be fitted together carefully.
Neurology covers a huge range of complex issues and conditions. Some neurological disorders are rare, but others are common, such as epilepsy, which affects more than 400,000 people in the Unitcd Kingdom, and multiple sclerosis, which affects a further 85,000 people. Most neurological disorders are chronic and disabling and have a profound impact on the lives of individuals and their families. One third of the British population lives with a long-term health condition. Therefore, our decision about the national service framework for such conditions, which was announced on 28 February, is important to people with neurological conditions and to their families and carers. Hon. Members have drawn attention, rightly, to the needs of carers and to the need to take their experiences into account in developing the national service framework.
The national service framework will focus on the needs of people with neurological diseases of the brain and with spinal injuries. It will include services for people with epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease or similar conditions. The question has been raised of whether the treatment of chronic pain will be included in the framework. What place that will have within the framework will be addressed during the consultation with stakeholders.
The aim of the national service, framework is to overcome the lottery in care and to ensure that health and social services work together in all parts of the country to provide the right level of care and treatment for people who live with long-term health conditions.
38WH
Many such people are poor, or live in the poorest parts of the country. There is an especially strong correlation between social class and long-term health conditions such as diabetes and epilepsy, as well as a fundamental and consistent link between poverty and ill health. The Government have a responsibility to break that link.
The Government have been successful in developing and publishing national service frameworks for mental health, coronary heart disease and the national cancer plan. Those frameworks have helped our programme to deal with inequalities and raise standards and to reduce unacceptable variations in NHS services. Later this year, a national service framework will be introduced for older people and for diabetes. The illnesses covered by the five national service frameworks account for half total NHS spending. The frameworks are part of the Government's commitment to ensuring that patients have fair access to high standards of care, wherever they live. The NHS plans commit us to developing more of them.
Each national service framework is developed with the assistance of an external reference group that brings together health and social care professionals and managers, service users and carers, partner agencies and other advocates. That inclusive process ensures that a range of views is heard and can contribute to the development process. A decision on the chair of the national service framework for long-term health conditions and on its scope and membership will be announced in due course.
I pay tribute to the constructive and important work of voluntary organisations. The Neurological Alliance has given an unequivocal welcome to the national service framework for long-term health conditions and is looking forward to collaborating with the Department of Health to produce a framework that will benefit people in that neglected area. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam paid tribute to the support that he received in producing his report.
With long-term health conditions, patients are the specialists in how best they can receive care: whether it is best to receive it in the acute sector or at home. The Government recognise the important role of the voluntary sector and specialist patient representative bodies not just in being advocates for patients, but in bringing extraordinary expertise to the debate. That is why we work closely with the voluntary sector in other areas of neurology.
Mr. Burstow: That point provides the opportunity to seek clarification from the Minister, who rightly welcomes the important work and support provided by non-governmental organisations in supporting patients and so on. I specifically asked her about the Secretary of State's indication that the value of such work might be recognised with additional funding for umbrella organisations. Might that translate into additional support for the Neurological Alliance and, particularly, the work on the national service framework?
Ms Stuart: Of course, we are all optimists and everything is possible. If my brief is correct, the hon. Gentleman may be referring to applications by the Neurological Alliance under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. We are

39WH
considering those applications to allow services to be expanded. I am sure that his representations will be heard, but it would not be right and proper for me to make an announcement now and he would not expect me to.
I refer to our work with Epilepsy Bereaved and the comprehensive clinical audit to investigate the unexplained death of people with epilepsy. Tragically, some 1,000 people with epilepsy die every year. That audit should allow us to move forward in a more coordinated way. Hon. Members have recognised that some conditions are rare, but we must try to develop an understanding of them. We are working with the Human BSE Foundation to provide standards of care for people with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. We are also working with the Parkinson's Disease Society, which has just received £36,000 for advice helplines. Only a couple of months ago, the society launched a fascinating CD-ROM, which took patients through the adaptations that they could ask for in their houses. We work with and support the voluntary sector. I put on the record that it is uniquely able to do something that neither the Government nor the NHS can do.
I turn to whether we have enough neurologists. I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, West, who graphically illustrated that ultimate numbers do not necessarily show us the picture, or whether more specialists in an area will provide a better outcome for patients. We know that neurological disorders account for up to 17 per cent. of all general practice visits and almost 20 per cent. of all acute hospital admissions. Studies suggest that up to 2,000 people in a population of 100,000 will have a disabling neurological condition. More than one quarter of those will require daily help to remain living at home.
There have been difficulties in filling consultant neurologist posts in some areas. The Speciality Workforce Advisory Group has reviewed the number of consultants in neurology annually. The average length of training in the speciality is six years and past recommendations by SWAG take time to be felt on the ground. Current trainees in neurology will provide approximately 90 additional trained specialists by 2006: an increase of almost one third between 1999 and 2006. We shall continue to keep the specialty under review with the Royal College of Physicians and NHS management. In particular, we want to find ways of resolving local shortages that have been reported in some areas.
We are aware that most neurological conditions have no cure at present. Often, their causes are not fully understood and the diagnosis of individual conditions is difficult. That is why, in improving our understanding of how to treat and manage such conditions, it is important to consider research, too, hence the Government's support for the Medical Research Council, the NHS health technology assessment programme and other research streams that help us in our drive to understand the causes of neurological diseases. In England, the main Government agency for research is the Medical Research Council, which receives funding via the Department of Trade and Industry.
40WH
The Government keep their priorities for research under review. NHS priorities are identified through widespread consultation with those using, delivering and managing services. Account is taken of the burden of disease, potential benefits and Government objectives as well as the responsibilities and work of other funders. It is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments not to prescribe to individual research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing priorities. That is best decided by researchers and research users. The MRC will take all such factors into account when it decides whether it wishes to fund research projects into neurological and other conditions. I remind hon. Members that, in 1999–2000, the MRC provided about £18.6 million for research into neurological conditions. That research will help to improve our understanding of such conditions and aid the development of treatments for them.
I was not surprised that hon. Members raised the issue of beta interferon and multiple sclerosis. Although we shall have divergent views about the language with which we described the action that NICE has taken, it is probably best to put on record why it has asked for more evidence. There seems to be genuine uncertainty about the appropriate use of beta interferon. That was reflected in the different prescribing patterns throughout the country. We therefore asked NICE to conduct an authoritative appraisal of the evidence on beta interferon as part of its first appraisal programme. To us, that is a high priority.
I stress that NICE has not yet issued guidance on the use of beta interferon for multiple sclerosis. As part of its appraisal process, NICE circulated its final appraisal determination to patient groups, professional groups and manufacturers. All were given 10 days to appeal. NICE rejected eight appeals against the FAD. An appeal panel considered the appeals on 22 and 23 September 2000. Part of the appeals were upheld and, as a result, NICE's appraisal committee reconsidered its guidance on 13 December 2000.
During its appraisal of beta interferon and a similar drug, glatiramer acetate, NICE considered evidence that included economic models supplied by manufacturers and independent researchers, including data not previously submitted. Those models are used to inform NICE's judgment on the cost-effectiveness of beta interferon. The evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of those medicines is critical to NICE's appraisal of the drugs. NICE considered those models and concluded that such detailed examination raised several issues, which its appraisal committee, using the information available, has been unable to resolve.
After considering the deliberations of the appraisal committee, NICE commissioned further economic modelling. It advised that the commissioning, construction and evaluation of a further economic model will take some months. It is therefore extending the time scale of its appraisal of both beta interferon and glatiramer acetate to enable further research to be undertaken. It anticipates that the appraisal committee will reconsider the evidence, which will consist of a new model and any other new material available at the time, in July 2001. Unless there are further appeals, NICE expects to issue its guidance by November 2001. We shall have to wait for that final guidance. I do not wish to pre-empt what it might say.

41WH
I hope that today's debate, which has been informed and welcome, has reassured hon. Members that we acknowledge the great importance of neurological services. The development of the national service framework will mean that good service will be available wherever in the country a patient must call upon it. However, sometimes long-term solutions will be needed to get that right and improvements may be made more quickly in other areas. That will happen, but, as ever, our biggest present constraint is the work force, the training of whom will take time.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I thank the Minister for her reply. We move to the next debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).

Asbestos Claims
12.30 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: It is a joy to be under your tutelage, Mr. Winterton, although you mispronounced my constituency.
I thank the Minister for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) last week about this matter, which has caused immense anger and disgust among sufferers of asbestos-related diseases and their relatives, and in communities such as mine, where there has been a long record of abuse caused by the appalling poisoning of people due to the use of asbestos. Clydebank has had the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases in the United Kingdom, because we had shipbuilding and ship repair industries and an asbestos works. We also had employers who poisoned their workers long after the health hazards of asbestos were known.
Earlier this year, Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd went bankrupt. That company held the employers liability insurance for more than 2,000 firms—often long dead—many of which worked with asbestos. Therefore, its collapse threatened the prospects of compensation for many people who will die from asbestos-related diseases. Many such people will not currently know that they will contract a disease such as mesothelioma because its incubation period may be many decades.
Frank McGuire, the most prominent lawyer in Scotland dealing with such cases, calculates that about 5,000 people in Scotland are affected by the issue, and around 50,000 people affected in the UK. Thompsons solicitors, the largest legal firm in the field, has calculated that Chester Street held about two thirds of employers liability claims relating to asbestos in the country.
The appalling occurrence is that the solvent part of Iron Trades Holdings Employers Insurance Association Ltd. was sold to QBE International Insurance Ltd., an Australian firm. The loss-making element of that company, which included the mounting asbestos claims, was retained as Chester Street Holdings. I contend that that company was knowingly set up to fail and to deprive sufferers from the compensation to which they are entitled. I back up that contention with the 2000 annual report of Iron Trades Holdings' auditor, Ernst and Young, which, only two months after the deal had gone through stated:
"Considerable uncertainty exists as to whether the undertaking can continue as a going concern."
Sure enough, the company collapsed at the beginning of this year. The liquidators, PricewaterhouseCoopers, found that Chester Street's assets of £30 million were dwarfed by liabilities of £250 million.
Incredibly—I say that carefully—the Financial Services Authority, which was set up by the Government to safeguard the consumer, had approved that company restructuring. The deal went through in February 2000, following approval from the FSA. Two months later, Ernst and Young raised totally justified doubts about the viability of Chester Street. Why was the approval given? Why did the FSA not protect the interest of people who will inevitably die from asbestos-

43WH
related diseases? Why did it act on the side of Robert Hardy, the former chief executive of Iron Trades, whose income rose from £204,000 in 1998 to £668,000 the following year? That is a difference of almost £450,000. A mesothelioma case might be expected to obtain between £50,000 and £100,000 in compensation. I hope that Mr. Hardy realises that he has taken the compensation of between six and 12 people who are dying from mesothelioma. He ought to be ashamed of himself. Those are immoral earnings, but his chairman congratulated him on his "outstanding achievement" as he pocketed the money and left the firm before the collapse that he had set up.
The FSA seems to be washing its hands of the matter. Thousands of seriously ill clients will lose out. The insurance industry must act to protect its name. The essence of insurance is that one wins on many occasions and loses on a few. We insure ourselves against things that we hope will not happen, but the insurance company has to pay out in the minority of cases in which the worst has occurred. Cases concerning asbestos-related diseases are the worst, so what kind of scurrilousness is involved when insurance companies renege on those policies?
Lawyers have written to me expressing concern about the domino effect with regard to other insurance businesses. Field, Fisher and Waterhouse suggested that regulations be put in place to prevent other insurance companies from dividing the profitable from the unprofitable parts of their businesses in the way that Iron Trades and Chester Street have done.
The insurance industry must give a lead and face up to its responsibilities. To its credit, the Insurance Times is forcefully pointing out the damage that such cases are causing to the industry. The Government must act to ensure that not a single victim loses out due to the appalling behaviour of Chester Street and Iron Trades. The Government acted to secure restitution for people who had been conned due to pensions mis-selling in the financial services industry. They must act again in this case.
The Government must give an immediate assurance that people who are dying from asbestos-related diseases will not suffer at all financially. That assurance must be extended to their relatives, because in many cases it is the dependants of the victims who receive the insurance money. There must be 100 per cent. restoration. Imagine what it must be like for someone who is dying from mesothelioma to hear that the chance of securing compensation for their relatives has been shattered by this deal.
I do not want a vague assurance from the Minister that there will be investigations. I want a commitment that those who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases will not lose out in any way. I also want an independent inquiry conducted by an independent person or body, rather than by the FSA, which is already tarnished by its approval of the deal.
The inquiry must focus primarily on the conduct of Iron Trades and Chester Street, but there is also a wider issue. Firms and insurance companies in the United States of America are being brought to their knees and bankrupted by the rising tide of asbestos-related cases.
44WH
The inquiry must ensure that the interests of the victims of asbestos-related diseases are safeguarded. In particular, the interests of people who were in contact with asbestos before 1972 must be examined. There are many such people and they have been left without any protection. After 1972, victims receive some statutory protection from the Policyholders Protection Board, which has been backed by the insurance industry and is supervised by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However, that has limitations; the figures are calculated on a percentage basis.
Can the Minister confirm that victims who contracted their illnesses while working at a publicly owned firm will be protected? I also need to know why Iron Trades was sold by Chester Street for £77 million less than the valuation of its accountants. The sale price of £175 million was £50 million less than the valuation of the company, and the Australian firm QBE held back £27 million in an escrow account. Why was it sold for less than its value, when that extra money could be used to pay claims? Is it true that Iron Trades Management Services is receiving money for helping in the winding-up of Chester Street Holdings? It is still receiving income, but not meeting its liabilities. There are so many questions to be asked about that shady deal.
The inquiry also needs to look at the confusing involvement of the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I and others have been trying to extract from the Government a coherent statement on the matter, but although Chester Street Holdings collapsed in January, not one word has come from the Government voluntarily. Two months ago, Chester Street Holdings announced that it was insolvent. I hope that the Minister's statement will show that the Government are on top of this issue.
I am trying to get through my speech as quickly as possible in the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, the chair of the all-party asbestos group, may attract your eye, Mr. Winterton.
In urging that a statement be made on the matter, I am conscious that we should not have to rely on a Member's luck in winning a raffle for an Adjournment debate. Such issues are of serious concern to my constituents. There is much anger about what has been done by Chester Street Holdings. I hope that the Government will recognise that and ensure that no one loses out. We can afford it. We acted strongly on the pensions mis-selling and we must act strongly now. It is absolutely wrong for someone dying from mesothelioma to lose the compensation for his family because of the shady actions of Chester Street Holdings.
Mr. Michael Clapham: rose—
Mrs. Margaret Ewing:rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), it is the usual custom that a Member who wishes to speak in a half-hour Adjournment debate receives the permission not only of the hon. Member

45WH
who initiated the debate, but of the Minister and the occupant of the Chair. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has the permission of the Minister to speak.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I am happy for my hon. Friend to contribute to the debate. However, the more contributions that are made, the less time I shall have to respond.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Indeed. I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone heard what the Minister has said. I am happy to use my discretion in this case and call the hon. Gentleman, who happens to be the chairman of the all-party asbestos group.
12.42 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I will be brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) clearly pointed out that this matter reflects the unacceptable face of the insurance industry. The decision in 1990 to hive off the liabilities between the two companies was taken in a calculated way. I regard such action as a dumping of the liabilities for asbestos-related diseases into Chester Street Holdings in 1990. To do so without ensuring that those liabilities were covered clearly shows that there was some callousness in the decision that was made at the time.
Will the Minister institute a Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' inquiry under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985? My hon. Friend suggested a completely independent inquiry, but I have legal advice that it is possible for a DTI inspectors' inquiry to be set up under that Act. Is it possible to call the insurance industry together to review the policy protection scheme to ensure that a better scheme could be instituted, which would cover the pre-1972 cases, so that we are not again likely to encounter a similar situation?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I call the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who I hope will speak for no longer than about 60 seconds.
12.44 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I will literally take one minute. I shall check. The clock now shows 44 minutes past.
When I was first elected to this Parliament in 1974 to represent the adjoining constituency to that of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), the issue was raised with me. I have pursued the matter in the Scottish Parliament, too, because of health board responsibilities for diagnosis and treatment.
I fully support the points made so eloquently by the hon. Gentleman about Chester Street. The distress of the disease is enough without the additional distress caused by lack of compensation and insurance.
12.45 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on having secured the debate and on the energy with which he pursues the issues that he outlined. The Government understand the anxieties expressed in today's debate, which has been triggered by the news of the insolvency of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. In particular, the Government understand the anxieties, revealed by today's debate, of those suffering from asbestos-related diseases as a consequence of employment in firms whose employers' liability insurance is provided by Chester Street. It is for that reason that I welcome the opportunity to respond to today's debate.
It may help if I clarify several issues raised today. There are three main aspects—first, the company's history, secondly, employers' liability insurance policies, and, thirdly, arrangements for protecting policyholders of insolvent insurance companies.
The history of Chester Street is of much interest to people, judging from the letters that we recently received. Chester Street Insurance Holdings is an insurance company that is authorised to do business in the United Kingdom. As hon. Members will be aware, there is a general principle in law that employers are required to take out insurance policies to cover their liabilities towards their employees. That requirement is specified in the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.
Chester Street's main line of business was the provision of employers' liability cover. Its main customers were therefore in the business sector rather than individual retail customers. The history goes back much further than the 1969 Act, however. Indeed, Chester Street is the new name of an insurance company that had its origins at the end of the 19th century.
As a mutual, Iron Trades, which was founded in 1898, could write insurance business only for customers who were members of that mutual organisation. In the 1940s, that feature of the mutual status of the organisation was recognised as unhelpful and constraining business freedom by not allowing business to be written to nonmembers as well as members. The association therefore created a new subsidiary that it used to write business to non-members, and that subsidiary was called the Iron Trades Mutual Insurance Company Ltd.
In the late 1980s, association members agreed to restructure the Iron Trades group further. In view of rapid changes in the insurance market, it decided that all the group's insurance business, whether for members or non-members, should in future be written in the subsidiary company. The original association would no longer write new business itself but would remain the owner of the subsidiary and run off outstanding contracts. The changes took effect at the beginning of 1990, and the subsidiary was renamed Iron Trades Insurance Company Ltd. As the subsidiary was 100 per cent. owned by the association, all the benefits from its performance in writing new business accrued to the benefit of the association in run-off.

47WH
Further restructuring took place in 1997, at which point all the association's assets and liabilities, including ownership of the subsidiary insurance company, were transferred from the association to a new company, Iron Trades Holdings. The transfer had no effect on the underlying position of either the run-off business or the continuing subsidiary.
In early 2000, Iron Trades Mutual Insurance Company was sold to QBE International Insurance Ltd. The sale converted the asset represented by the subsidiary into cash that could be invested and from which claims payments could be made. As part of the deal, the name Iron Trades was sold to QBE and that is how Iron Trades Holdings Ltd. became known as Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd.
Claims for asbestos-related diseases incurred before 1990 are likely to continue to rise for many years. The management of Chester Street received information on claims developments earlier this year that indicated that the company had become insolvent. That triggered the decision to appoint provisional liquidators on 9 January 2001. The scheme of arrangement was unanimously agreed on 5 February at the creditors meeting. The scheme ensures that the assets of Chester Street are protected for the benefit of all outstanding and future claims on Chester Street and it has been sanctioned by the court. The provisional liquidators are assessing the available information about existing and potential claims.
I will now deal with employers' liability insurance—the main type of business that Chester Street wrote—the impact of insolvency and, in particular, one key area of potential misunderstanding. The general position is that employers are required to take up such insurance under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. The employer, rather than the employee, would have taken out a policy. That an employer has such a policy does not affect the fact that employers remain liable for any valid claim brought against them by a current or former employee. A claim might relate to an injury sustained or an illness contracted in the workplace, and an employer can turn to the policy in the event of a successful claim against them.
However, the insolvency of the insurer with which an employer has placed its employers' liability risk does not affect the liability of the employer to its employees or former employees. Therefore, despite the insolvency of Chester Street, employers who placed their risk with the company remain liable for claims made against them by employees or former employees. That is the case for all employers, whether they are in the private or public sector.
On the arrangements for ensuring the protection of policyholders when an insurance company becomes insolvent, as in other areas of financial services, specific statutory arrangements exist to protect the interests of financial services customers. The Policyholders Protection Act 1975 was established to protect the interests of policyholders of insolvent insurance companies. In the case of compulsory insurance policies, and to the extent that the insolvent insurer is unable to meet the claim, the Act provides for 100 per cent. protection for eligible claims. The cost of protection is
48WH
met by levies on the insurance industry under a scheme administered by the Policyholders Protection Board, which was created under the 1975 Act. The Government expect the board to work closely with the provisional liquidators and others to ensure that eligible claims are processed promptly and that the provisions of the Act are fully implemented. To the extent that Chester Street is unable to meet the terms of the insurance contract in full it is for employers to establish whether any protection is due to them under the 1975 Act.
Today's debate has rightly raised the position of employees whose employer no longer exists. We are investigating their position carefully. It is not correct that no arrangements exist to protect workers suffering from asbestos-related diseases whose employers have gone out of business.
Initially, many sufferers will be eligible for industrial injuries disablement benefit and other related Department of Social Security benefits. Above and beyond that, the Government have recognised the case for making further compensation arrangements for workers unable to claim damages from their former employers. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 exists to compensate those workers. Since 1980, the scheme has compensated around 8,500 workers and their families with approximately £10.5 million.
Several concerns have also been raised about the management of Chester Street, its predecessor organisations and the reorganisation of the Iron Trades Holdings Employers Insurance Association Ltd. Concerns about the management of Chester Street are a matter for the provisional liquidators, who are required to review the company's affairs and the actions of the directors and other parties. I understand that the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) raised in relation to company law could be a spin-off from the liquidators' investigation into the insolvency.
Finally, questions have been asked about the role of the regulator. As an insurance company authorised to do business in the UK, Chester Street has been supervised by insurance regulators to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Since 1 January 1999, the FSA has been responsible for the prudential supervision of insurance companies. The Treasury is in touch with the FSA about both the reorganisation and the concerns that I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Worthington: I asked the Minister for two basic assurances. First, I asked that no sufferer from asbestos should suffer further by loss of compensation because of the actions of Chester Street. Will the Government give an assurance that the goal that they are pursuing is for no one to lose out, which would mean that the insurance industry would have to contribute? Secondly, I asked for an independent inquiry because the FSA has lost our trust by approving a failing firm.
Miss Johnson: On the latter question, I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but the liquidators are examining the issues surrounding the insolvency. When that information is publicly available we will be able to see which further issues emerge.

49WH
On my hon. Friend's earlier question, I reiterate that the Government understand the concerns that have been expressed in debate. It is obviously desirable that people should receive the compensation that they seek. Treasury officials are in close contact with other Departments, the Policy Holders Protection Board, the FSA and the relevant parts of the remainder of the financial services industry to ensure that the concerns raised by the insolvency of Chester Street are dealt with as quickly as possible. I assure hon. Members that the Government are monitoring the situation carefully in the interests of those affected by the insolvency of this insurance company.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): We can move on to the next debate, which has been initiated by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).

Central Railway
12.58 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject in debate. It has been raised on several previous occasions, but I make no apology for raising again a matter that is of importance to my constituents. A major threat has been posed to hundreds of households in my constituency and thousands of households along the length of the proposed route of a railway line. Since the subject was properly debated in the House, there have been considerable changes in the surrounding landscape and the company has announced that it intends to pursue a different route in seeking approval for the project.
The proposal for a freight line from the north of England to the channel tunnel goes back to the 1990s. In 1996, an application made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for the proposed railway on an alignment that took it through south London was resoundingly defeated on a vote in the House of Commons. Many people thought that that would be the end of the matter, but in July 2000, the company resurrected the scheme with a revised alignment taking the route around the south-western quadrant of the M25 and off towards the channel tunnel. That would have a direct impact on my constituents, who—like everyone else, including the Government—assumed that the project would again proceed by means of a Transport and Works Act application: that is, it would be considered in accordance with the processes of that Act and voted on in the House. They were confident that if it were subjected to the proper processes, the scheme would ultimately be rejected on its merits. I shall address the scheme's merits and demerits later.
During the latter part of last year, my constituents concluded that the problem was the continuing blight that they were suffering as a direct result of the proposal, rather than concern about its eventual approval. Throughout that period, I asked Ministers several questions about the matter. The Government took the view that they could not comment because the Secretary of State might have to exercise a quasi-judicial function in respect of a future Transport and Works Act application. I acknowledged the legitimacy of their position. In the meantime, however, my constituents faced a potentially open-ended blight on their properties. As long ago as last summer, it was clear that the company had no intention of submitting a Transport and Works Act application until after the general election.
The whole process has highlighted the serious weaknesses in the Transport and Works Act procedure. It allows a company—which, as in this case, may be very thinly capitalised—to promote an extensive and expensive scheme without demonstrating its economic viability, producing any sound environmental impact assessments, or, most importantly, having to commit to any timetable for progress. Under the procedure, homes can be blighted for years without any obligation on the person or company causing that blight to make progress. I gave the Minister's predecessor some suggestions about how the law might be revised to deal with that problem. Although the Central Railway issue

51WH
has moved on, my appetite for reforming the Transport and Works Act procedure has been whetted and I shall want to pursue my ideas further.
In January this year, the company raised the stakes considerably by publicly announcing that it would not make a Transport and Works Act application and that it was seeking the Government's backing for a hybrid Bill to enable the scheme to proceed by Act of Parliament, thus bypassing the proper processes of scrutiny that a Transport and Works Act application would have entailed. In a sense, the company moved the application from the planning process to the political arena, and it did so at a moment that was probably not of the Government's choosing. The Government's line that it would be inappropriate for Ministers to comment on what might become the subject of a quasi-judicial application under the Transport and Works Act procedure is no longer applicable—it has been shot out of the water. The purpose of today's debate is to try to elicit a clear statement of Government policy about the project now that it is clear that, if the Government give their backing to a hybrid Bill, it will not proceed by means of a Transport and Works Act application.
No doubt the Government thought that they were being rather clever in bouncing an awkward ball into the long grass by asking the Strategic Rail Authority to consider Central Railway's proposal. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear outline of the terms of reference given to the SRA, including the timetable for its report. Those of us of a slightly cynical disposition might guess that that report will not be completed until after the general election. The proposal for the freight railway, albeit on a different alignment, has been around for years so it is not credible for the Government to say that they have no position on the project. The Strategic Rail Authority may or may not be the right body to review the overall implications of the proposed scheme. The company claims that there will be a clear impact on road freight volumes if the railway is given the go-ahead, but it is not clear that the SRA is the best body to comment on or evaluate that effect.
Whatever rationalisation the Government may offer, neither it nor the scheme will not be acceptable to my constituents in Runnymede and Weybridge. They are suspicious of the Government's record on transport infrastructure in our area, for reasons that I shall explain. The people blighted by the current proposal are the same people—residents of communities alongside the M25 motorway—who were blighted by the previous Government's proposals to build the infamous M25 link roads. My predecessor, Sir Geoffrey Pattie, fought long and hard against his own Government and eventually persuaded them to drop that scheme. Some of the houses that are now blighted by the Central Railway proposal have only recently—since my election to Parliament—been sold by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, having been compulsorily purchased for the link roads scheme. My constituents have had enough of blight resulting from one project after another along the M25 corridor. The Government's refusal to come clean about where they stand on the Central Railway project perpetuates that blight.
52WH
Before the previous general election, the Labour party clearly implied its hostility to the proposed widening of the M25 between junctions 12 and 15—a section of the motorway that will be affected directly by the Central Railway proposal. The current Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions described the scheme as "lunacy". The then Opposition spokesman for the Department, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), described it as £100-million motorway madness. The local Labour candidate in that general election went a little further in declaring specifically that a Labour Government would scrap the scheme on day one. A Labour Government were indeed returned, as history records, but once safely in office, after a series of reviews, the Government did a 180-degree U-turn. On 31 July 1998—the last day of the parliamentary Session they announced that the widening of the M25 to five and six lanes would go ahead after all. In so doing, they betrayed the many voters of all political persuasions in Egham, Thorpe and other communities along that stretch of the motorway who had voted Labour because of specific or implied pledges on motorway widening. The memory of that experience lingers.
Voters in my constituency want to know, and have a right to know before the general election, whether a Labour Government would support the Central Railway scheme proceeding via the mechanism of a hybrid Bill with no opportunity for proper local scrutiny. If the Government insist on postponing the moment of truth until after a general election, my constituents will draw their own conclusions, regardless of their broader political persuasions.
The backers of the scheme claim that it will take freight off the roads. The argument for moving freight from road to rail is essentially environmental, yet the scheme will be highly environmentally damaging. The railway will pass through built-up residential areas in my constituency, as well as areas to the north and south that are of great landscape value. Elsewhere, it will pass through areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Technical issues also arise. We are told that, due to design constraints, the railway will have a maximum gradient of 1 per cent., but it will have to pass over the top of major transport infrastructure such as the M25-M4 intersection, with which many hon. Members will be familiar. In effect, there will be an elevated railway for miles on either side of that and other intersections, which will have an enormous impact on visual amenity and generate huge amounts of noise. Nor will the railway carry cars of normal size: they will be wide-gauge and taller than normal cars of the shuttle freight type that is used to contain full-size freight vehicles on the channel tunnel line. There is even talk of using double-decker freight cars, and it is almost certain that overhead electric cables will be used. In sum, the railway will be elevated, with very high cars and exceptionally high electric pylons. The scheme simply is not environmentally acceptable—a view that is supported by many local authorities along the route. It appears that the environmental damage will far outweigh the environmental benefits.
The assumptions that are necessary to demonstrate the project's economic viability are open to question. So far, there is no sign from the company of anything resembling rigorous analysis to support its contention

53WH
that the project will lead to a substantial reduction in road traffic; nor is there any sign of an environmental impact assessment. Without producing a shred of evidence in support of its claims, the company is inviting the Government to support a hybrid Bill process that will side-step the usual checks to which such a scheme should be subject. Indeed, it is clear to all who have met the company's representatives that the scheme has not been properly worked out—it is simply a line on a plan. Requests for information about the vertical alignment of the railway, which will be vitally important to measuring the impact on the communities through which it will pass, have remained unanswered.
Given its undoubtedly huge environmental impact, even those who tend to support the scheme acknowledge that it should not go ahead without a public inquiry. Given the broad agreement to the proposed reform of compulsory purchase procedures, it would surely be wrong for a scheme with major compulsory purchase implications to be fast-tracked ahead of any changes to such arrangements. My constituents, who are suffering from the continuing blight arising from the project, are horrified at the thought of the promoter trying to erode proper scrutiny of the scheme by seeking Government support for a hybrid Bill.
I do not believe that in the years that the scheme has been around, the Government have not considered and evaluated its merits. My constituents demand answers to very simple and straightforward questions this side of a general election, so that they can decide how to cast their votes when the election comes. The first question is: do the Government support the scheme? The second is: will a Labour Government support the proposed hybrid Bill and thus allow the scheme to go ahead without the usual scrutiny of a planning inquiry? I look forward to receiving two straight answers to those simple and straightforward questions.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secret try of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): In the traditional way, I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on securing the debate. I am aware of his concerns about the scheme as he has raised the matter on several occasions, but I am surprised at his desire to turn this into a blatantly party political issue. As Members of Parliament, we all have to decide how best to represent our constituents' interests in any given situation. Along with the other decisions that his constituents have to make, they will perhaps have to consider how he has represented their problems on this occasion.
As has been confirmed to the House previously, Central Railway has informed the Government that it does not wish to pursue its application under the Transport and Works Act 1992, but instead has requested our support for a hybrid Bill. It must be for the company to decide whether to allow its proposals to be examined openly under the TWA procedure. That would not preclude the possibility of the Government promoting a hybrid Bill if we considered it to be an appropriate means of authorising the scheme. However, Central Railway has yet to provide more details of its scheme, so I cannot say now whether the Government will sponsor a Bill to support it. It is, of course, open to any Member to propose a Bill, but this should not be
54WH
seen as a means of bypassing the due consultation process. As with any major TWA application, a hybrid Bill must be debated in both Houses, and individuals and businesses directly affected would be given the opportunity to put their case.
Central Railway maintains that its project is an entirely privately funded scheme and that it is economically viable, but for a proposal of such scale and complexity, it is vital that the technical and commercial aspects are examined carefully. To that end, the Strategic Rail Authority has initiated a review of Central Railway's proposals. Until we have seen the results of that, it is impossible for the Government to take a view on the scheme, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment, let alone to give the assurances that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wants.
The hon. Gentleman asked for the terms of reference that had been given to the Strategic Rail Authority. The purpose of the review is to identify those factors that are critical to the success of the project and to give an indication of the level of risk attached to each. Consultants should examine, but not be limited to the following areas: volume and market share forecasts; revenue and operating cost forecasts; capital costs; technical feasibility of the construction and operation of the project; planning issues, especially on the southern section of the proposed route; commercial and regulatory issues surrounding the use of Railtrack infrastructure and interfaces with Eurotunnel and Société Nationale des Chemin de Fer Francais—SNCF; capacity issues on the route; interchange location and other assumptions regarding terminals; and assumptions on rolling stock and rolling gauge.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House such detail on the terms of reference that have been given to the SRA. I did not hear him mention the environmental impact of the scheme, but I am sure that he will correct me if that was an oversight. Is he convinced that the SRA is the right body to evaluate the company's claims with regard to the potential of the project for removing traffic and freight from the roads?
Mr. Ainsworth: The SRA is the body set up by the Government to examine how we implement our desires to move a significant amount of freight from road to rail, which it is doing. I know of no other body that would be more appropriate to undertake such a study on behalf of the Government, into Central Railway's proposal. It is worth bearing in mind the Government's clearly stated policy with respect to rail freight. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), restated that policy in the House during the recent debate on this issue. It is relevant to our consideration of Central Railway's request for support for a Bill, and it is important to reiterate it. He said:
"We are committed to more freight on rail as part of an integrated sustainable freight transport distribution system. We have set out in our 10-year plan for transport an unprecedented investment programme to enhance the capacity and capability of the network. Through the Transport Act 2000, we established the Strategic Rail Authority with a remit to promote rail freight. We have also revitalised the freight grant regime to encourage

55WH
companies to transfer more freight off the roads. We have made it clear that we wish to see greater investment in the railways to cater for growth in both passenger and freight traffic over the next decade. We have asked the SRA to take forward the detailed plans for applying that investment. As a first step, it will shortly produce its strategic agenda."—[Official Report, 12 February 2001: Vol. 363. c. 135.]
As the hon. Gentleman said, and as you will recall, Mr. Winterton, the last time that Central Railway's proposal was put before the House, hon. Members rejected it overwhelmingly. If the Government are considering supporting a Bill now for a revised and expanded proposal, it is right that the SRA should seek to learn more about it. I have outlined the basis of the Government's commitment to rail freight and the SRA's role in helping to achieve the industry's objectives. I cannot anticipate the result of that review, but I am confident that the SRA will examine Central's proposals in the context of the 10-year plan and the authority's strategy for freight. We will follow the SRA's review with interest, and will be happy to make a further statement about Central Railway in due course, taking into account the SRA's findings.
The main constituency issue raised by the hon. Gentleman was the question of blight. That is of great concern to many other hon. Members whose constituencies lie along the proposed route. Blight is caused by the presence of any major proposal in the public domain, whether or not a formal submission is imminent. Regrettably, and to varying degrees, blight is inevitable in connection with major infrastructure proposals. One cannot consider a case such as Central Railway in isolation. The sort of problems arising from the proposal under discussion can arise from any major infrastructure project, regardless of the form of the statutory consent being pursued. Nor is blight merely an issue in relation to major projects. It might also arise on a smaller scale in relation to any bad neighbour development that has a long gestation period, regardless of whether compulsory purchase powers are required.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that legislation to regulate developers such as Central Railway would be appropriate. Realistically, one cannot impose a time scale on the period between the inception of a proposal and its formal submission, nor can one dictate how the promoters of a scheme should act in the meantime. We would not want to inhibit developers from making their proposals public. Prospective applicants must surely be free to develop a proposition as they see fit, and to apply for approval when they feel best placed to do so.
Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister agree that as the law stands, there is nothing to prevent a wholly spurious, even malicious, scheme being proposed? There is simply no test. Anyone could propose to build an airport in the middle of the Minister's constituency without any real intention of progressing that proposal. His constituents would be blighted by the local authority's obligation to reveal that proposal in local searches. Does that not offend against the principles of natural justice?
Mr. Ainsworth: I do not know how the hon. Member would propose to change that. How could we without, as I have already said, stifling development proposals and preventing schemes that may be important to the future of the country, not merely a particular
56WH
neighbourhood? An over-regulatory approach to the pre-application planning stage would stifle legitimate development of schemes essential to the well-being of the country as a whole.
The best approach to consultation is through flexible non-statutory guidance. That is why, as part of the Department's fundamental review into the laws and procedures relating to compulsory purchase and compensation, we published a code of practice on the dissemination of information during major infrastructure developments in October 1999. That emanated from the recommendations of an interdepartmental Working group on blight. The code's approach is commended to private sector promoters of major infrastructure development, as its aim is to minimise blight.
A further recommendation arising from the blight review was for a property purchase guarantee and compensation scheme that would offer guarantees of future value for a property and thus help to maintain the stability of a local property market.
Mr. Hammond: I realise that the Minister has only a few minutes left, but as we seem to be straying from the main thrust of the debate, I want to put this point to him. He has explained that he does not want to commit the Government to supporting or refusing to support the scheme until he has heard the result of the SRAs review. What is the Government's position on the use of a hybrid Bill as a too1? My constituents believe it to be a transparent mechanism to avoid proper scrutiny of the proposals. Regardless of whether the Government, having heard the SRA's report, think that the proposals are good, should they not commit themselves now to asking the company to take the TWA route so that all the players have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposals?
Mr. Ainsworth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we were expecting Central Railway to take the TWA route. We did not encourage it to propose a hybrid Bill. It was the company's decision to do so, and we are trying to deal with the proposition on the table. Before we take a definitive view on whether the proposition should be allowed to go forward, or given any support, we have decided to ask the SRA to undertake the review. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like that, but it seems to be a sensible approach and it would be seen as such by anyone who, rather than playing politics with the issue, is attempting to get the proposition on the table dealt with appropriately.
As part of the same review, an independent advisory group into compulsory purchase and blight compensation was established. The group published its final report last July, and we are currently considering its recommendations and the comments that we have received on them. As soon as possible, we will publish for consultation a statement of future policy on compulsory purchase procedures and compensation arrangements that takes those issues and the recommendations of the working group on blight into account. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is now clear about what is happening and about how we propose to handle Central Railway's proposition.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): We can move on a little early to the debate on coastal erosion and its impact on neighbouring communities, initiated by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar).

Coastal Erosion
1.29 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: What a pleasure it is that you always preside in this Chamber whenever I speak, Mr. Winterton.
I am grateful for this opportunity for the debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply, as I know that he has more difficult problems to deal with. He is familiar with my constituency and has visited it on several occasions. Only recently, he met a delegation from my constituency of Redcar and Cleveland councillors and residents about the floods in Skinningrove. I put on record my appreciation for that useful and productive meeting.
The basic thrust of my subject affects only a small number of my constituents, but that small number is faced with serious worries. Their fears are shared by others living in neighbouring areas that are represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) and other hon. Members representing constituencies along the North sea coast. I refer to coastal erosion, coastal stability and the problems that they cause for people living on the edge of cliffs and shorelines—problems that threaten them as property or business owners.
Many of the seaside towns and villages in the region started as fishing villages or small ports and, save become residential holiday and retirement centres. Along the coast in my constituency, the ground is made up of what geologists call glacial till, clay shale resting on harder sub-surface rock. By its nature, this is an unstable geological formation. With little water penetration the clay can rapidly acquire a plasticity that makes it vulnerable to landslides. The local shale is by its nature oily and slippery. A combination of those surfaces, along with the pounding that cliffs and foreshores receive from the remorseless action of the sea, makes slippage inevitable.
The instability is exacerbated by the constant erosive removal of material by wave action from the base of our local cliffs, some of which are around 600 ft high—the highest in Britain. That erosion results in the undercutting of the cliff, leading to more cliff falls and steepening, setting up a cycle of erosion that is so pronounced that its progress can be measured year by year and, indeed, month by month. I do not intend to enter the debate about global warming as we do not have the time, but weather patterns have changed significantly in the past few years and heavy storms and prolonged rain happen more frequently. If we accept the basic premise of global warming, we must accept rising sea levels and rising levels of coastal erosion.
I am pleased that the Government take the problem seriously and thank my hon. Friend the Minister for overseeing the new shoreline management plan, which involves an examination of the North sea shoreline. The plan process is democratic, embracing the local councils, communities and local water and drainage companies. The study also involves scientific engineering, and outlines in scientific and technological terms where the process of erosion can be halted and checked, where the line can be held and where there can be only a managed retreat, as it is called. That is where the problems start for my constituents.

59WH
I refer to the small village of Cowbar as an example of the problem. It is situated high on the cliffs overlooking the picturesque and much larger fishing village of Staithes, where Captain Cook learned his seafaring skills. It has about 50 residents. Most of them are local people, some of whom are employed at the Boulby potash mine, which is nearby. Among the other inhabitants of the village are fishermen, retired people, and also the owners of holiday homes who, although they are only occasional visitors, are residents none the less.
About a year ago, those responsible for the shoreline management plan visited Cowbar, where the problems caused by erosion are well known and thoroughly understood. The road that serves the village snakes along the cliff edge. It has had to be repaired and re-sited twice within living memory; the last occasion was very recently. It is well known that rocks sometimes fall on to the shoreline below; that has been recorded for a long time. Engineers and academics have studied the area, and they have reached some sombre conclusions. The evidence before them suggested that, although there were no immediate problems, the erosion was unstoppable and that, within the next few years, subsidence might threaten some houses in Cowbar.
The impact of that prediction must be understood. The fact that it was stated in a public document was enough to frighten the financial institutions. The value of many houses fell because what had to be said had been said. No surveyor could ignore the findings of engineering professionals and no estate agency or mortgage lender could disregard the possible financial consequences of negotiating a property sale that ignored those findings.
The family home of Mr. Colin Mann, the chairman of the local residents' association, is situated far away from the cliff top. However, his mortgage lender has sent him a letter stating that it considered his home to be "unsuitable security" and, therefore, that it could not proceed further with his application.
I emphasise that I am not saying that public agencies should keep such reports secret. That would be a hundred times worse and could lead to charges that central and local government were keeping people in the dark about potential threats to them and their communities.
Increases in coastal erosion are starting to have an impact on people as well as on the countryside and the Government have a moral duty to take action. Coastal erosion will also start to impose costs on the wider community. Those costs are often unexpected.
I want, briefly, to adduce another example from my community that also arose as a result of the shoreline management plan process. One of the highest and most prominent natural features in my constituency is called Hunt cliff. It towers over the seaside resort town of Saltburn. Indeed, the town's very successful secondary school is named after it. A single-track railway line runs along the cliff top. It was constructed by Victorian railway engineers who sought a direct route from Teesside to Whitby. The line was an outlet for the limestone that was mined in dozens of local pits to feed blast furnaces. Passengers are no longer able to
60WH
appreciate the great views from the cliff, but freight trains still use the line, carrying steel blooms into the Skinningrove steelworks and finished steel out.
The line is also constantly used by heavy freight trains moving potash and salt from east Cleveland's biggest employer, the Bou by potash mine, to which I have already referred. Heavy and bulky loads are moved quickly, cleanly and efficiently by rail and are, therefore, kept off the local road network, to the great relief of local people. However, the line has been indirectly threatened by the shoreline management plan, which takes a pessimistic view of the long-term stability of the cliff edge on Hunt cliff. It is recognised that there is not an immediate problem, but I am worried that the seeds of doubt might now have been sown. If big investment decisions were to be made about infrastructure repairs or new job creation projects, the report could have an impact on such matters. Increased movement of goods by road may be considered—movements that would have an impact on the environment of the area and the quality of life of local people and which would impose a cost on road maintenance and repair. For those reasons, the Minister and his Department should carry out an investigation.
That investigation should include whether the scope of the coastal protection budget—a budget informed by the work of the shoreline management projection—could be extended to cover the impact of coastal erosion on homes, businesses and infrastructure. Such a budgetary extension could be catered for by the existing public finance provision that applies to, for example, the compulsory purchase of properties needed for new roads or civil works. It could, in effect, be ring-fenced by saying that in a 30-year period it would apply only to properties that party or wholly lie within 200 m of a coastline.
Such a scheme could operate on a basis similar to the compulsory purchase order where, if agreement cannot be reached between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the individual affected by erosion, the matter could be subject to a public examination. The scheme would have a marked effect on restoring confidence to home and property owners who have an interest in land adjoining the shoreline, and investors and lenders would know that they were not running a high risk. I am aware that legal and insurance remedies exist for people affected by coastal erosion.
Given the increasing importance of the issue and of climatic change, we must look to new remedies. Our response to climate changes must be more than merely ensuring that the pumps are operating or that enough sandbags are on hand. We must recognise that coastal erosion has a profound impact on our society—an impact that takes a financial and legal as well as an environmental form The adoption of such a scheme would make a start on recognising that impact, as well as giving much hope to a small number of householders in my constituency, who at present feel threatened by a combination of natural forces.
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and Cleveland, East

61WH
(Dr. Kumar) on so clearly expressing the problems that people face in respect of coastal erosion. He has been to see me several times about the problem and I have visited his constituency. I pay tribute to the energetic and effective way in which he has represented his constituents in taking such issues up with the Ministry. I fully understand that coastal erosion, with the associated loss of land and property, is a highly emotional subject. It puts great stress on people and not only in economic terms. I have the utmost sympathy for my hon. Friend's constituents who are facing such problems.
Although natural events such as coastal erosion can never be prevented entirely, it is right that maritime district councils should take measures to alleviate the risk when it is sustainable to do so. However, it is unrealistic to expect to maintain all the coastline as it is now. We cannot completely surround the country with a wall of concrete. That is not only unrealistic, but undesirable. It would have consequences, given that our coastline is dynamic and erosion is part of a natural process. In that respect, we should base defence measures on an understanding of such natural processes and work with the processes as far as possible, while keeping the impact on defences elsewhere on the coastline in mind, rather than work against them.
As my hon. Friend stated, that is the reason why the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has encouraged the setting-up of coastal defence groups to provide a forum for discussion and co-operation. That leads to the preparation of shoreline management plans. They provide a basis for a sustainable coastal defence policy and set objectives for future coastline management, while taking into account natural coastal processes, coastal defence needs, environmental considerations, planning issues and current and future land use. Shoreline management plans are in place for the whole English coastline and are intended to be living documents, which can adapt to changing circumstances and which will be reviewed regularly to ensure that they are relevant to the needs of the people whom they protect and the coastline that they manage.
I understand my hon. Friend's strong case about the financial consequences of planning blight on people whose homes are identified in shoreline management plans as being at risk from erosion. However, I am sorry to say that compensation is not payable to people who are affected by flooding or erosion except in limited circumstances. That includes cases where it has been decided not to defend a particular area or to undertake managed realignment. That is not the case in this instance, as it is natural erosion.
That approach, which has been adopted by successive Governments, is justified by current legislation, which provides operating authorities with permissive powers to undertake flood and coastal defence work. Apart from the requirements of the habitats directive, there is no general obligation to build or to maintain defences at all, or to a particular standard. Consistent with that approach, the legislation makes no provision for compensation payable from public funds for people whose property or land is affected by erosion or flooding.
That sounds harsh, but coastal erosion is not a new process. It has occurred for centuries and people who live in areas that experience coastal erosion are aware of
62WH
the inherent risks. The use of funding for flood and coastal defence would be unsustainable, given the funds that are available, although such funds have been increased. MAFF does not have the framework to provide such compensation. We do not have assessors or people who can advise on compensation levels. Also, we cannot compete with insurance companies, which have a role in flood and coastal defence, and nor should we.
I understand that that is not of great comfort to people who face such blight. However, I can offer my hon. Friend words of comfort about the grant aid that is provided for capital for flood defence and coast protection schemes that meet the criteria of being technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally acceptable. The priority score arrangements that we use for that are under review and a formal consultation is under way.
Schemes that meet such criteria may receive grant and approvals from MAFF to allow local authorities to borrow the balance of the cost of the approval schemes, net of grant. That funding has been increased in the past two spending reviews. Further funding has been announced as a result of the severe floods that the country has experienced. MAFF funding for flood and coastal defence capital is set to increase by 50 per cent: from £76 million this year to £114 million in 2003-04.
In recent years, MAFF has given grant aid for emergency coast protection works that have been undertaken by Redcar and Cleveland council at Redcar and Skinningrove and has funded strategic studies. My hon. Friend brought representatives of the local council to see me. I was impressed with them because, in contrast to others I have met, they did not sit wringing their hands and expecting the Government to step in and do everything for them. The council allocated its own resources and got on with the job of dealing with the coastal erosion problems and severe flooding that Skinningrove has experienced. It did not wait: it recognised the needs of the people that it represents and tried to provide for them. The council put forward some of its own money and attracted MAFF grant money. As my hon. Friend knows, I have agreed to consider a retrospective grant application for the flood defence works at Skinningrove.
Redcar and Cleveland council is undertaking some works at Cowbar. I assure my hon. Friend that, if the works meet the normal criteria, grant funding will be available to help the local council to provide coastal defences. That is a far more appropriate way of using Government funds. Although we cannot take on compensation for any type of blight, we can remove the blight by contributing to properly costed and evaluated flood and coastal defence schemes. The local council, which is considering that, is welcome to submit any proposals to MAFF to establish whether they qualify for grant aid. That may deal with the problems that my hon. Friend's constituents currently face.
I stress that we have clear criteria for giving grant aid, as my hon. Friend is aware. The key objectives of our flood and coastal defence policy are, first, to encourage the provision of adequate and cost-effective flood warning systems. No Government can guarantee that floods will not happen. We can, however, reduce the risk of floods and coastal flooding by encouraging people to provide good advanced warning. Secondly, we will

63WH
encourage the provision of adequate, economically, technically and environmentally sound and sustainable flood and coastal defence measures. Thirdly, we will discourage inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding and coastal erosion—a policy that has not been given sufficient weight in years gone by. Lessons have been learned from planning policies in the past.
Authorities are being asked to report on the extent to which local authority development plans contain coastal erosion statements and on planning applications in which coastal erosion was a material consideration. That does not affect Cowbar, but it is part of a strategic approach for the future. We must try to consider the future as well as dealing with the present.
I can offer my hon. Friend some support on the question of research and development. We should investigate the forces behind flooding and coastal erosion; the knowledge that we acquire will help to shape the technical means of responding to them. Local authorities would naturally find it difficult to find the resources for such research and development and we would not expect them to do so. It is appropriate that the Government take on the considerable spending involved to find the information needed to understand the forces along the coastline represented by my hon.
64WH
Friend. That will give us some ideas in predicting the rate of erosion and about the responses that we need to make.
We are increasingly aware that we should regard holistically such issues as coastal erosion and flood defences. If one considers only one particular spot on the coastline and installs defences, it may have implications for other parts of the coastline. That consideration is taken into account in the research that we have commissioned and the funds that we have made available to assist the schemes that I am sure my hon. Friend wants.
We cannot, unfortunately, help with compensation for the sort of blight that my hon. Friend outlined so well. He made a strong case, but there is no facility for the Government to do that. However, we can help with capital support for his local council to enable it to defend some areas where it is sustainable to do so. That must be a key condition. I have a lot of respect for my hon. Friend's local council, which has done a good job in looking after the people whom it represents. If it suggests a scheme in accordance with the criteria that I have outlined, I shall be sympathetic to its case for Government grant support.
Question put and, agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the representations to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Mohammed Rafiq. [152452]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 1 March.

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in establishing the scheme of regulation for immigration advisers and service providers; and if he will make a statement. [152674]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Office of The Immigration Services Commissioner published a Code of Standards, Guidance to Advisers on Competencies, The Commissioner's Rules and a Complaints Scheme in October 2000. An office has been established at 6th floor, Fleetbank House, 2–6 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8JX. Application packs for registration and exemption have also been sent to advisers and organisations known to the Commissioner?s office. The Commissioner is about to start a publicity campaign designed to ensure that those who are required to make an application to him know of the need to do so.

  I am pleased to announce that, following discussion with the Commissioner, I propose to bring the remaining provisions of Part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 into force on 30 April 2001.

  The Commissioner has, however, made representations to me about a large number of voluntary organisations which provide immigration advice and services and are committed to applying for the Community Legal Services Quality Mark. Organisations which have gained this Quality Mark are regarded as having met some of the Immigration Services Commissioner's requirements as set out in the Code of Standards. The Government have no wish to impose unnecessary regulatory demands on voluntary organisations which are already committed to a recognised quality programme and we propose to make an order under section 84(4)(d) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. As a result of this order, voluntary bodies which commit themselves to the Community Legal Services Quality Mark before 30 April 2001 will not breach the general prohibition on providing immigration advice or services which will come into force on that date. The protection for qualifying voluntary bodies will cease to have effect on 31 January 2002. The understanding will be that, by this date, the voluntary bodies will have applied to the Office of the Immigration Services
  122W
  Commissioner for exemption from the regulatory scheme and that successful applicants will be included in the Commissioner's list of exemptions.

  Other candidates for inclusion in a section 84(4)(d) order remain under consideration.

  Training Police
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what average sum of money is allocated per serving police officer for training within the Metropolitan police force in the current financial year. [151614]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that as training is provided on the basis of need, it is not possible to provide an average sum of money allocated per serving officer for training. The Metropolitan police service has allocated £99.5 million for training both police officers and civilian staff for the current year.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training police staff are required to undertake prior to being involved in child abuse inquiries. [151615]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All child abuse inquiries are undertaken by specially trained officers. Training in each force is a matter for the chief officer concerned but would generally entail a minimum of five days of joint training with social workers.

  Football-related Offences
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many football-related offences there were in each of the last six years. [151626]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The data requested are not available. However, information on the number of arrests in connection with football-related offences for the last six seasons is set out in the table:

  Data on football-related arrests between seasons 1994–95 and 2000–011

  Season/year

  Total arrests

  2000–012

  1,834

  1999–2000

  3,137

  1998–99

  3,341

  1997–98

  3,307

  1996–97

  3,577

  1995–96

  3,441

  1994–95

  3,850

  1 Provided by the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Football Banning Orders Authority

  2 As at 26 February 2001

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables applied(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully to become full-time police officers in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [151757]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, my hon. Friend may like to know that some Home Office funded research completed
  123W
  in May 2000 on wastage in the special constabulary in five forces found that of the 293 former specials questioned, 18.8 per cent. (55 people) had left the Specials in order to join the regular force.

  Suicide (Prisons)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many self-inflicted deaths there were in each year since 1992 in(a) all prisons, (b) young offender institutions, (c) male prisons and (d) female prisons; and if he will make a statement. [151747]

  Mr. Boateng
  The figures requested are given in the table. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 5 February 2001,Official Report, column 441W, a suicide prevention strategy to be implemented progressively from April 2001. The strategy will invest most resources where the risks are highest and aim for year on year reductions in prisoner suicide and self-harm.

  Self-inflicted deaths in Her Majesty?s Prison establishments in England and Wales, by establishment type, 1992–20011

  Year

  Total

  (a) All prisons

  1992

  41

  1993

  47

  1994

  62

  1995

  59

  1996

  64

  1997

  68

  1998

  82

  1999

  91

  2000

  81

  2001

  110

  Total

  1605

  (b) Young offender institutions

  1992

  4

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  1995

  2

  1996

  7

  1997

  7

  1998

  2

  1999

  8

  2000

  6

  2001

  12

  Total

  140

  (c) Male prisons

  1992

  35

  1993

  45

  1994

  60

  1995

  55

  1996

  55

  1997

  58

  1998

  67

  1999

  78

  2000

  67

  2001

  18

  Total

  1538

  (d) Female prisons

  1992

  2

  1993

  1

  1994

  1

  1995

  2

  1996

  2

  1997

  3

  1998

  3

  1999

  5

  124W

  Self-inflicted deaths in Her Majesty's Prison establishments in England and Wales, by establishment type, 1992–20011

  Year

  Total

  2000

  8

  2001

  10

  Total

  127

  1 As at 27 February 2001

  Office of Surveillance Commissioners
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what system is in place to ensure democratic accountability of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners. [152122]

  Mr. Straw
  The Chief Surveillance Commissioner appointed under the Police Act 1997 has a statutory responsibility to make an annual report to the Prime Minister on the exercise of his functions under the 1997 Act, and since 25 September 2000, of his additional functions as described in section 62 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). This report must be laid before Parliament. A copy of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner's most recent report is available in the Library. (Police Act 1997 Chapter 50 Report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner for 1999–2000—Cm 4816).

  The responsibility for appointing the Chief Surveillance Commissioner rests with the Prime Minister who is also responsible for appointing such Surveillance Commissioners and Assistant Surveillance Commissioners as he thinks fit.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual budget is of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners. [152124]

  Mr. Straw
  The Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC) was allocated £405,000 for the financial year 2000–01. The regional offices of the OSC were allocated £84,000 by the Nothern Ireland Office and £41,000 by the Scottish Executive for the year 2000–01.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been employed by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners in each year since its inception. [152123]

  Mr. Straw
  The Office of Surveillance Commissioners was set up in 1998. It currently has four support staff in the Central Office in London, a part-time member of staff in Northern Ireland and a part-time member of staff in Scotland. The staff joined between November 1998 and February 1999.

  A Chief Surveillance Commissioner was appointed in July 1998. He is supported by six part-time Surveillance Commissioners appointed in November 1998. One Commissioner resigned in April 2000 and was replaced in February 2001.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) aims and (b) work programme are of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners. [152125]

  Mr. Straw
  The aims and present work programme of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC) are twofold:
  125W
  First, for the Chief Commissioner to keep under review the performance of functions under Part III of the Police Act 1997 and, so far as they are not required to be kept under review by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner or the Investigatory Powers Commissioners for Northern Ireland, the exercise and performance, by persons on whom they are conferred or imposed, of the powers and duties conferred or imposed by Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 (RIP(S)).

  Secondly, for the Surveillance Commissioners to carry out their statutory functions of (a) scrutinising and considering whether to give their prior approval to decisions to grant or renew grants of authorisations for property interference and intrusive surveillance and (b) scrutinising decisions to cancel authorisation for property interference and intrusive surveillance.

  The work programme is currently being reviewed to incorporate oversight of directed surveillance and the use of covert human intelligence sources by the public authorities listed in Schedule 1 to RIPA and section 8 of RIP(S). A team of Assistant Commissioners and inspectors is to be recruited to assist with this.

  Elections (Postponement)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps would need to be taken to postpone the elections scheduled for 3 May; and when an announcement would be made to the House. [152609]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have no current plans to postpone the local elections schedules for 3 May. To do so would require changes to the current law.

  Departmental Policies (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Stroud constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152401]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000' and 'Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000' can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Stroud constituency or the immediate locality:
  126W
  Two Intervention Schemes and two Bail Supervision Schemes are being funded by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in Gloucestershire that includes coverage of Stroud.

  Intervention Schemes

  (a) Gloucestershire Mentoring Scheme.

  This is a mentoring project which is targeting 14–16 year olds causing concern to partner agencies by way of offending behaviour and disaffection with the education system. The objectives include supporting and re-focusing the young people through the provision of adult mentors and to re-engage these young people in education and training through intervention.

  The YJB contribution is approximately £76,000 (September 1999 to March 2002).

  (b) Developing Skills Accredited Community Service (Education, Training and Employment)

  This project provides support to parents of young people who are offending so that they may help their child reduce offending.

  The YJB contribution is approximately £357,000 (September 1999 to March 2002).

  Two Bail Support Schemes

  >(a) South Gloucestershire Bail Supervision and Support Scheme

  The main objectives of the project are to reduce the incidence of custodial/secure remands and/or to reduce to a minimum the length of time young people spend on such remands.

  The YJB contribution is approximately £59,000 (April 1999 to March 2002).

  (b) Gloucestershire Secure in the Community Scheme

  This project aims to identify young people who meet the criteria for remand to secure accommodation. Then to provide robust and acceptable alternatives to Magistrates that will ensure that these young people remain in the community in appropriately supervised accommodation.

  The YJB contribution is approximately £123,000 (April 1999 to March 2002).

  Youth Offending Teams (YOT)

  In conjunction with Police and Courts, Gloucestershire YOT, which includes Stroud, is reducing the time from arrest to sentence for all Persistent Young Offenders.

  Having now established the interagency YOT model, developments in 2000 have established the beginnings of a working model between the YOT and local District Crime and Disorder strategies. Using the Data Protection legislation, information is shared on Young Offenders and local Peer Group with a view to jointly reduce local crime and target key indicators to prevent the development of criminal behaviour in younger children subject to delinquent influences.

  The application of the Final Warning Scheme is demonstrating a 10 per cent. reduction so far in the number of repeat offences by young people. This compares with the previous application of re-offending when looking at the use of Cautions in 1998–9.

  With the application of Reparation Orders and Action Plan Orders, written evidence from victims and local commercial sector indicates improved satisfaction.

  The re-organisation of the local Attendance Centre by the YOT has reduced re-offending rates from 73 per cent. in 1999 to 51 per cent. by November 2000.

  Gloucestershire YOT is assisting local police in the preparation, and in some cases the prevention, of Anti Social Behaviour Orders. This is achieved by closer liaison and examination of public complaints into anti-social behaviour by young people. A joint plan of prevention and enforcement is then initiated, which via the police is fed back to the general public.

  Gloucestershire YOT has commissioned the support of Parent Line Plus to provide training for the parents of teenage offenders. We are targeting up to 100 parents. There is growing evidence of satisfaction both by the courts and parents as a result of this initiative.

  127W
  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Stroud to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000;
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website. (www.homeoffice.gov.uk).

  Masonic Membership
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has decided to make registration of Masonic membership compulsory for police officers; and if he will make a statement. [152451]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a decision when he has completed his consideration of certain issues raised during consultation with the police service. In particular he wishes to give further consideration to whether compulsory registration would be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make extra funds available to the police in order to meet the extra demand on police resources following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [152612]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are concerned to ensure that all relevant bodies who face additional work as a result of undertaking their responsibilities to cope with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease are able to discharge those responsibilities comprehensively. We will be keeping under review all aspects of this, including funding.

  Departmental Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152319]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000", is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be 128W
  found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Warrington, North constituency or the immediate locality:

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
  One scheme, "Warrington Action Toward Community Harmony", was awarded approximately £32,000 under the first round of the CCTV Initiative, for a mobile scheme covering areas of Warrington, North and Warrington, South. The system is a mobile unmarked vehicle that will be used to address a variety of problems, including; car park or neighbourhood hotspots for car crime, for use in surveillance operations where there is suspected drug dealing and to record incidents of anti-social behaviour.

  There is one Intervention Scheme and one Bail Supervision Scheme being funded by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) within the Warrington area.

  Intervention schemes
  (a) Facing Up (Restorative Justice Project)
  The project will use three different but interlinked approaches to reducing offending:

  1. Enabling young offenders to face up to the consequences of their behaviour by making amends to their victims

  2. Involving young peoples' supporters in making plans to reduce their offending behaviour

  3. Providing additional support and supervision to the most vulnerable young offenders

  The YJB contribution in is approximately £203,000 (September 1999 to March 2002).

  Bail Support Scheme
  The bail placement support project provides accommodation, care, support and guidance to young people who have been remanded by the courts in connection with criminal offences. The projects main objective is to reduce the incidence of custodial remands for 10 to 17-year-olds.
  The YJB contribution is approximately £110,000 (April 1999 to March 2002).

  Youth Offending Teams (YOT)

  The following in formation is taken from Halton and Warrington's Youth Offending Team Youth Justice Plan for April 2001–02.
  The YOT is now fully staffed, including representatives from Education, Health, Police, Probation and Social Services.
  Priority developments include Connexions, Teenage conception and health issues, substance misuse, youth nuisance and fear of crime. The time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders in the Warrington Youth Court averages 89 days. In Halton, the average is 127 days. The YOT manager is represented on the Cheshire Youth Justice working group which is especially addressing this issue, and YOT pre-sentence reports for persistent young offenders are prepared within 10 days in order to speed up the process.
  A survey conducted in both Halton and Warrington courts sought views on the quality of pre-sentence reports being submitted. In all cases, magistrates stated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall quality of the reports. In all but two of the reports, they were described as clear and concise in all aspects, with risk assessments and victim impact particularly well covered.
  Early results from the ASSET assessment process show improved scores in relation to education, cognitive skills, attitudes and motivation.
  129W
  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Warrington, North to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  Racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  The asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website. (www.homeoffice.gov.uk).

  Terrorist Organisations
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2001,Official Report, columns 708–09W, on terrorist organisations, which of the organisations listed is primarily active (a) against a democratically elected Government, (b) to achieve secession from a UN member state and (c) in resisting illegal occupation by a foreign power; if he will list his criteria for selecting the organisations listed; and if he will indicate for each organisation which of these criteria are met. [152630]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter and accompanying paper which I sent to all Parliamentary colleagues on 28 February at the same time as I announced that a draft Order had been laid listing organisations intended for addition to Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Copies of this letter and paper were also placed in the Vote office and in the Library.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce public notification of sex offenders being released into the community. [151871]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no plans to introduce measures which would require the police automatically to inform the public of the identities and addresses of sex offenders. We do not believe that this would enhance our ability to protect children. The police already have powers to inform any individual or organisation about the presence of a dangerous person in the vicinity, if they believe it would be in the interests of the public to do so.

  We have, however, introduced a package of measures to improve public protection in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2001. Those measures build upon arrangements which were already in place and include, among other matters, a specific duty on the police and the probation service to establish local arrangements for assessing and managing the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders and powers to issue guidance to those agencies about the information which they should publish about the arrangements.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure the availability and use of sex offender treatment programmes for offenders convicted of offences relating to the viewing and distributing of child pornography including via the internet; and if he will make a statement. [151622]
  130W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme, the Probation Service in England and Wales has been developing three programmes for sex offenders based on evidence of what is known to be effective (the What Works Initiative). The three sex offender programmes will be developed to the standard set by the Joint Prison and Probation Accreditation Panel. Once accredited, they will be rolled out across the Probation Service nationally. The quality of delivery will be audited by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation on behalf of the Accreditation Panel. Implementation of the first programmes to be accredited will begin this summer.

  The three sex offender programmes aim to reduce the risk of re-offending by men who have committed any type of sexual offence such as rape, child abuse, viewing and distributing child pomography including via the internet. The programmes take between nine months and two years to complete and accept men on Probation Orders and post-custodial licences, providing the licence is sufficiently long to enable the programme to be completed.

  In addition, the Prison Service Sex Offender Treatment Programme is available to men serving a prison sentence for a sexual offence or any offence with a sexual element. Similar treatment methods are used in both the prison and community programmes.

  Police Manpower
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers, (b) civilians and (c) special constables were available to each police force in England and Wales for each quarter from 1992 to 2001; and if he will make a statement. [150417]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: Information on police strength is collected twice a year (March and September). Copies of tables showing police officer and civilian strength on a force by force basis for six monthly intervals from March 1992 to September 2000 will be placed in the Library.

  Officer numbers are for those available to each force for normal duty. Secondments to central and other duties are excluded.

  Statistics of the strength of the Special Constabulary have only been collected twice yearly since 1995. Before 1995, figures were collected annually. The figures for 1992 and 1993 were compiled at the end of the calendar year, the next collection was at the end of the 1994–95 financial year in March 1995. Copies of tables showing Special Constable strength from December 1992 to September 2000 will be placed in the Library.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151515]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 30 January 2001, Official Report,

  131W
  column 165W. The reply contained a list, in table format, of the current major Information Technology (IT) projects within my Department and its Agencies (excluding non-departmental public bodies). This has been placed in the Library.

  Further information on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) casework programme was given in a parliamentary reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on 6 February 2001, Official Report, column 497W.

  The following provides an update on the details contained in the list on the Asylum Support project. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is developing the Asylum Support IT by taking a step by step approach, building on the minimal "day one" system implemented in time for the start of the National Asylum Support Service on 4 April 2000. One possible area for

  Police force

  1 May 1994 to 30 April 1995

  1 May 1995 to 30 April 1996

  1 May 1996 to 30 April 1997

  1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998

  1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999

  1 May 1999 to 30 April 2000

  Since 1 May 20001

  Essex

  1

  2

  4

  41

  19

  34

  31

  Hampshire

  55

  17

  28

  36

  14

  33

  8

  Hertfordshire

  15

  11

  0

  0

  106

  141

  34

  Kent

  35

  61

  64

  44

  25

  32

  13

  Surrey

  0

  0

  42

  34

  30

  16

  12

  Sussex

  0

  93

  151

  97

  35

  56

  15

  Thames Valley

  0

  94

  127

  19

  46

  33

  21

  1 As at 16 February 2001

  Information relating to the other forces in England and Wales is currently being obtained from them. I shall write to my hon. Friend when the information is available.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review his policy on the sale of police housing. [151121]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The disposal or redevelopment of police dwellings is a matter for Police Authorities. Individual Authorities take various factors into account when developing policies in this area. These include the age and suitability of the buildings forming part of the police estate. And, following its recent launch, the Government's Starter Homes Initiative which aims to help 10,000 key workers including police officers buy their own homes in urban and rural areas where high prices would otherwise prevent them from living in or near the community they serve

  Prison Education
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the(a) education service

  11997–98

  11998–99

  11999–2000

  22000–01

  Ford

  Education and library services (£)

  248,350

  237,268

  247,731

  236,296

  Education materials (£)

  26,887

  22,805

  27,827

  11,397

  Average population

  448

  422

  371

  378

  Average cost of services per head (£)

  554

  562

  668

  625

  Average cost of materials per head (£)

  60

  54

  75

  30

  Brixton

  Education and library services (£)

  410,479

  297,719

  491,919

  396,850

  Education materials (£)

  28,804

  14,851

  10,233

  11,143

  Average population

  598

  659

  785

  776

  132W
  enhancement is in the use of software to develop document scanning and workflow techniques allowing case data to be passed electronically.

  Police Houses
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police houses were sold in the periods(a) 1 May 1994 to 30 April 1995, (b) 1 May 1995 to 30 April 1996, (c) 1 May 1996 to 30 April 1997, (d) 1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998, (e) 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999, (f) 1 May 1999 to 30 April 2000 and (g) since 1 May 2000, (i) in England and Wales, (ii) by Surrey police force, (iii) by Kent county constabulary, (iv) by Thames Valley police force, (v) by Hertfordshire constabulary, (vi) by Essex police force, (vii) by Hampshire constabulary and (viii) by Sussex police force. [151116]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested in respect of the individual police forces has been supplied by those forces. It is as follows:

  budget and (b) the budget for education materials for (1) Ford, (2) Altcourse, (3) Brixton, (4) Wormwood Scrubs and (5) Walton prisons expressed as (i) total figures and (ii) expenditure per head for each year from 1997 to 2001. [151928]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The information available is set out in the table and how the spend on (a) education and library service providers and (b) the purchase of education materials for the years 1997–to 1999–2000 and forecast spend for 2000–01. The figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are on a different accounting basis to earlier years in that they do not include Value Added Tax refunds. The information for Altcourse is only available for the 2000 calendar year.

  The expenditure per head has been calculated by dividing the costs by the average annual population but because not all prisoners are engaged in education, particularly in the four local prisons which hold large numbers of prisoners on remand, this will not give a realistic indication of the average education spend per prisoner.

  133W

  11997–98

  11998–99

  11999–2000

  22000–01

  Average cost of services per head (£)

  686

  452

  627

  511

  Average cost of materials per head (£)

  48

  23

  13

  14

  Liverpool (Walton)

  Education and library services (£)

  310,118

  341,823

  416,214

  423,867

  Education materials (£)

  22,364

  24,047

  36,242

  65,500

  Average population

  1,460

  1,447

  1,420

  1,252

  Average cost of services per head (£)

  212

  236

  293

  339

  Average cost of materials per head (£)

  15

  17

  26

  52

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Education and library services (£)

  274,137

  264,243

  353,023

  425,994

  Education materials (£)

  15,393

  16,709

  26,552

  18,547

  Average population

  1,333

  1,122

  725

  794

  Average cost of services per head (£)

  206

  236

  487

  537

  Average cost of materials per head (£)

  12

  15

  37

  23

  1 Spend

  2 Forecast

  Note:

  1999–2000 and 2000–01 services spend includes VAT payments but not refunds.

  Altcourse

  £

  Main education contract

  453,000

  Materials budget

  28,000

  Librarians

  46,000

  Books and other publications

  20,000

  Security supervision

  48,700

  Total

  1595,700

  1 For the period 1 January to 31 December 2000. There were no VAT payment and no refunds.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Mongolia
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has received from Mongolia for assistance arising from the impact of severe winter conditions; what response has been made; and if she will make a statement. [152265]

  Mr. Mullin
  Mongolia has been hit by two consecutive winter disasters or 'dzuds' (1999–2000 and 2000–01) caused by severe and widespread drought in the summer, unusually cold temperatures in the autumn and heavy snow fall in winter. These conditions are seriously affecting both animal and human welfare. Last year's dzud affected 450,000 herders and killed approximately three million livestock. Compared with the same period last year the current situation is much more severe in terms of the impact of the disaster on people and livestock and on the national capacity to respond. Over 300,000 herders are affected in 20 out of 21 provinces and 600,000 livestock have already died.

  The Government of Mongolia have been active in disaster preparedness and relief assistance in dzud affected areas. However the two consecutive dzud have overstretched national capacity. The Government have therefore requested international relief assistance following a needs assessment, in which my Department was involved. An appeal for $11.8 million has been launched by the Government of Mongolia through the United Nations.
  134W
  The appeal aims to target vulnerable groups in the most severely affected provinces and seeks to fulfil unmet relief needs. It focuses on building the disaster management of the Mongolian State Emergency Commission and other relevant national partners to enhance preparedness and future response.

  We have offered US $1 million for the provision of emergency relief under the framework of the UN appeal to be channeled through humanitarian agencies working in Mongolia.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the WHO Bellagio meeting on tuberculosis and the launch of a global TB drug facility. [152188]

  Mr. Mullin
  The first meeting of the co-ordinating board of the Stop TB Partnership took place in Bellagio, Italy from 21–22 February. There was wide representation, including from high burden countries.

  The meeting was a success and reached agreement on the mission, priorities and mechanisms for governance for STOP TB and the Global TB Drug Facility (GDF). The GDF will be formally launched on World TB Day (24 March 2001). The outcome of the meeting lays the foundation to accelerate the collective and co-ordinated response to the Amsterdam Declaration, to build on the commitment of existing partners and encourage others to join this global movement to stop TB.

  Aid Projects
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid projects were supported by her Department, and what financial help has been given to,(a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Sri Lanka and (d) Kenya, during each of the last three years. [1518691]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have given Kenya debt relief and financed projects targeted on poverty reduction, in natural resources; rural and urban development; private sector and trade development; economic governance including public sector and law reform, and the fight against corruption; political empowerment and legal rights; education; health and population; and for relief of the
  135W
  country's worst drought in 40 years. We have also part-financed the development of Kenya's Poverty Reduction Strategy, and given budgetary assistance in support of the reform programme agreed with the World bank and the IMF.

  Our assistance to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Kenya over the last three years has been:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  India

  81.0

  90.0

  106.0

  Pakistan

  27.9

  24.3

  22.7

  Sri Lanka

  4.8

  6.0

  6.1

  Kenya

  29.4

  33.1

  27.1

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Retail Petrol Industry
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on recent changes in the degree of competition(a) nationally and (b) locally in the retail petrol industry. [152102]

  Dr. Howells
  Under UK competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anticompetitive behaviour.

  The Director General has investigated the petrol retail industry a number of times in recent years and has found it to be competitive. He has said that he will continue to monitor this market very closely.

  NERC Studentships
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of NERC studentship awards went to(a) the less prosperous UK regions, (b) North-East England, (c) North-West England, (d) East Kent, (e) Humberside and (f) South West England. [151912]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The information is as follows:

  Percentage

  North-East England

  21

  North-West England

  17

  Humberside

  0

  East Kent

  0

  South West England

  15

  This includes PhDs, MSc and MRes.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how NERC have met the Government's requirements for transparent decision making in awarding its recent round of studentships. [151908]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The vast majority of our students are allocated via an algorithm, which takes into account research funding (through grants, staff and fellowships) provided by NERC to all university departments with an RAE (research assessment exercise) score of 3 and above. We have been using essentially the same algorithm for six years and it is therefore well known to the departments. Not only do we provide the heads of department with a136W
  letter each year outlining the algorithm and any minor changes that have taken place since the previous year, but we publish it on the Internet. During the summer months we provide the departments with the information that will be used to generate their allocation. They are asked to check that they agree with the information. We also allow them to challenge any decisions once they have been publicised.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of NERC's recent awards of studentships were awarded for work on contamination and land remediation. [151914]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  It is for the universities to decide in what areas the students conduct their research.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of MSc studentships awarded by NERC go to new universities. [151913]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There are no NERC MSc studentships at "new" universities.

  Miners' Compensation (Erewash)
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in Erewash have(a) claimed and (b) received payments in compensation for (i) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (ii) vibration white finger. [151651]

  Mr. Hain
  In the area of South Derbyshire, as defined by the postcodes DE7, DE72, NG9 and NG10, which encompasses the Erewash constituency, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 551 claims in respect of compensation for respiratory disease and 391 claims in relation to vibration white finger—VWF. To date, there have been 113 individual payments totalling £599,702 in respect of respiratory disease and 97 individual payments in respect of VWF amounting to £502,933.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of sales of depleted uranium materials by BNFL was in each year since 1990. [151042]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: I understand from BNFL that prior to 1992, it made sales of machined components made from depleted uranium to the Ministry of Defence. BNFL has also, since 1990, made sales of depleted uranium to a number of industrial customers and universities for a variety of research and commercial purposes. Details of individual contracts are a commercial matter between BNFL and its customers.

  Objective 1 Funds
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much in(a) European regional development funds, (b) European Social Fund, (c) European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and (d) other relevant European structural funds has been (i) committed to and (ii) received by projects in each of the EU objective I regions. [152014]

  Mr. Caborn
  The figures in the table show the latest commitments and r payments made under each of the EU structural funds for the three objective 1 areas of
  137W
  England. Payments under these programmes lag behind commitments because the fund regulations require ERDF expenditure to be defrayed before it is claimed. ESF projects may receive an advance payment at the beginning of the project but subsequent ESF payments take place after expenditure has been defrayed.

  Objective 1 programmes in England

  £000

  Programme

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF

  FIFG

  Total

  Commitments to projects

  Cornwall and the Scilly Isles

  9,000

  16,900

  400

  0

  26,300

  Merseyside

  15,581

  32,062

  0

  0

  47,643

  South Yorkshire

  16,000

  8,000

  0

  0

  24,000

  Total

  40,581

  56,962

  400

  0

  97,943

  Payments to projects

  Cornwall and the Scilly Isles

  0

  800

  0

  0

  800

  Merseyside

  711

  7,028

  0

  0

  7,739

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  711

  7,928

  0

  0

  8,539

  Note:

  Responsibility for the implementation of the West Wales and the Valleys objective 1 programme rests with the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much regional selective assistance is available for objective 1 projects in Cornwall for(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [152011]

  Mr. Caborn
  In principle, the whole of the RSA spend in Cornwall is available for match funding of objective 1 projects. Because spend on the scheme is demand led, the Department has recommended that the local partners plan on the basis of the average spend over the previous three years.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent assessment he has made of the number of public match funds available to applicants for EU objective 1 funds; and if he will list those funds allocated by(a) Government Departments and (b) other sources; [152012]

  (2) if he will indicate the level of funds available for this and each of the next two financial years in each of the public match funds available to applicants for EU objective 1 funds in the areas of (a) Merseyside, (b) South Yorkshire, (c) Cornwall and (d) West Wales and the Valleys. [152013]

  Mr. Caborn
  In October 2000 the Government published a revised list of potential central Government sources of match funding in England. It is available at www.dti.gov.uk/europe/mf1.htm on the internet. Copies of the document have also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Government are unable to quantify the amount of match funding available in particular English regions or objective 1 areas because many sources are national programmes which are not regionally allocated but respond to demand. Moreover, the Government do not have information on match funding provided by local authorities and other non-central Government public bodies.

  Administration of the structural funds in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 281W, on BNFL, how many (a) non-management employees, (b) managers, (c) senior managers and (d) directors were (i) dismissed and (ii) disciplined by BNFL as a result of the MDF data falsification at Sellafield. [151663]

  Mr. Hain
  The detail of the changes made and actions taken by BNFL in response to the MOX data falsification issue is a matter for the company. The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) report on the MDF data falsification incident, published on 18 February 2000, included 15 recommendations which BNFL had to address to HSE's satisfaction. A number of the HSE recommendations related to identifying and dealing with specific workforce problems and improving management arrangements. A copy of the HSE report is in the Library of the House. A copy of BNFL's response to the HSE report, which was published on 18 April 2000, is also in the Library of the House. That response set out details of the programme of work through which BNFL planned to address HSE's recommendations. On 18 December 2000, HSE closed out its 15 recommendations, since they had been satisfactorily addressed by BNFL. On 22 February 2001, HSE published a further report updating the progress made by BNFL in responding to the three HSE reports published in February 2000. A copy of this report is also in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 281W, on BNFL, when he was first informed that the quality control worker who discovered the falsification of data at the Sellafield MDF plant was a non-BNFL employee; and for what reason this information was not included in the Health and Safety Executive's report published on 18 February 2000. [151664]

  Mr. Hain
  I first received information about this matter when receiving advice on how to respond to the hon. Gentleman's previous question on the same subject, which I answered on 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 281W.

  The question of whether to record in the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) report, published on 18 February 2000, the fact that the member of BNFL's Quality Control Team at MDF to whom you refer was, at that time, employed as a contractor to BNFL through the Employment Agency NRL, is a matter for HSE. I understand that HSE will be writing to the hon. Member shortly on this matter in response to his recent letter to it.

  Glass Industry
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for regional selective assistance grants for the glass industry were received by his Department during February. [152447]

  Mr. Caborn
  No applications for regional selective assistance grants for the glass industry were received by this Department during February.
  139W
  However, an application was received in January, though rules on commercial confidentiality prevent my identifying the names of applicants without first obtaining their approval for disclosure.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the review of the British glass industry being undertaken by his Department. [152445]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry hopes to release the results of new market research commissioned by the Department into the glass packaging industry later this month.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria have been included in the review of the British glass industry being undertaken by his Department. [152446]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The review concerns only the UK glass packaging industry and is focused on the market prospects for the industry.

  Rural Petrol Stations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural filling stations closed in 2000; and what action he is taking to ensure the viability of rural petrol stations. [152363]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The Institute of Petroleum's (IP) UK Retail Marketing Survey (last published in March 2000) shows that the total number of petrol retail outlets in the UK in 1999 was 13,716, a reduction of 42 compared to 1998. The IP survey for 2001 will be published shortly.

  On 1 March, the Government announced their implementation plan for the Rural White Paper "A Fair Deal for Rural England". In the plan, the Government stated that they intended to extend the village shop rate relief scheme to certain food shops, pubs and garages in small rural settlements as soon as parliamentary time allowed. This would give many petrol retail outlets mandatory rate relief of 50 per cent. provided their rateable value was less than £6,000.

  Departmental Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152321]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department does not maintain statistical information at constituency level.

  My hon. Friend's constituents, like many others throughout Warrington, will have benefited from our employment rights policies, which include the national minimum wage, the working time directive, part-time working regulations and improved maternity leave.

  In addition, the ward of Burtonwood is eligible for regional selective assistance and the enterprise grant scheme.
  140W
  In the north-west region, my Department's policies have contributed to growth in employment by 107,000 and a fall in unemployment by 63,000, and to reductions in youth unemployment by 75 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 54 per cent.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many commercial fireworks were imported into the United Kingdom in the last 12 months for which figures are available; what controls apply as to their end use; and if he will make a statement. [152369]

  Dr. Howells
  The overseas trade statistics do not separately identify commercial fireworks or provide numbers imported. The value and weight of fireworks imported into the United Kingdom during the 12 months from December 1999 to November 2000 are £22.4 million and 12,575 metric tons respectively.

  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 introduced comprehensive controls on the types and sizes of fireworks which can be sold to the public.

  Provincial Newspapers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations he has undertaken into monopolies in provincial newspapers; and if he will make a statement. [152292]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Under UK competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour including abuse of monopoly position. Any evidence of abuse or anti-competitive behaviour should be passed to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  E-mail Procedures
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what way his Department is revising its internal guidance to staff for writing and distributing e-mails for what reasons his Department is revising this guidance; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the current internal guidance on e-mail procedures. [151903]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department regularly reviews its internal guidance on e-mail procedures. This is to ensure that e-mail is used effectively to meet the business needs of the Department and its customers including the need to keep accurate records and to take account of advances in technology and best practice in the private and public sector.

  I have arranged for a copy of the current internal guidance on e-mail procedures to be placed in the Library of the House.

  PetroChina
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the recent discussions held with his Chinese counterparts concerning BP's stake in PetroChina. [151594]
  141W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: HM Government have had no recent discussions with the Government of the People's Republic of China about BP's stake in PetroChina. However, during his recent visit to China, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade emphasised to his counterparts the importance of incorporating the best modern environmental and social standards into the development of major projects in China. He also pointed out that the best British companies operate to those standards.

  Community Finance Initiative
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out(a) the timetable and (b) the criteria for the introduction of funding to support businesses in deprived areas under the Community Finance Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [152147]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am pleased to be able to report that the chief executive of the Small Business Service announced on 1 March 2001 that 15 organisations have been successful in securing awards from the first round of Phoenix Fund support for Community Finance Initiatives (CFIs). These awards amount to £5.5 million over the next three years.

  CFI support from the Phoenix Fund is allocated on a competitive challenge basis. The assessment process has two elements being, (i) review by SBS against key criteria stated in the bidding guidance, (ii) an independent assessment panel to advise the SBS Chief Executive on the final award of Phoenix Fund support. In reviewing the bids the panel was concerned with the soundness of each proposal, its impact on entrepreneurship in areas of disadvantage, impact on the growth of the CFI sector in the UK and development of appropriate models and good practice.

  Bidding guidance for the first round of Phoenix Fund support for CFIs was issued in June 2000 and copies are held in the Library of the House.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much certified timber has been purchased over the past six months; and what proportion of total timber purchases this represents. [152044]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry has an environmental management system in place accredited to BSEN ISO 14001. Within that system DTI has "opted in" to include the procurement of timber and timber products to ensure that such items are procured in accordance with the Government's commitment on buying from sustainable and legal sources.

  The interdepartmental timber working group is working to develop a common reporting template which will form the basis for future reporting by all Departments on timber procurement. However, that system is not yet in place, and DTI is unable to provide data on the proportion of certified timber purchased over the last six months without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152046]
  142W
  Ms Hewitt
  No. The DTI will report through the next Green Ministers Annual Report, which is expected to be published in November 2001.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Schemes
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if it is his policy that alternative options should be considered in undertaking an appraisal under the Government's new approach to appraisal for major road schemes; [150897]

  (2) how many of the bids for major schemes submitted by local authorities in their full local transport plans contained appraisal summary tables for each of the alternative options which had been considered. [150898]

  Mr. Hill
  Consideration of alternative options is part of the New Approach to Appraisal.

  Authorities (including the Highways Agency) submitting proposals for all major road schemes as part of their plans were required to follow the Guidance on the New Approach to Appraisal (GNATA). The GNATA appraisal summary table (AST) includes a box for a statement of other options considered when putting forward a road proposal.

  Where major public transport schemes formed part of plans, authorities were asked to include an appropriate assessment of the proposed scheme against alternative options, including an AST for each. However, production of separate ASTs was not considered necessary where the choice between options was clear-cut or the scheme was in relative terms small, so in practice ASTs for alternative options were prepared for about half of the major public transport schemes given full or provisional approval in the local transport settlement.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many staff are employed by regional development agencies in offices outside the United Kingdom; at which locations; and at what cost; [149505]

  (2) which non-UK based regional development agency maintained offices share facilities with (a) each other and (b) other Government agencies or local authority offices. [149506]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The table sets out the offices currently maintained by the regional development agencies outside England, with details of how many staff are employed by regional development agencies in offices outside the United Kingdom; where; and at what cost and where facilities are shared with each other and other Government agencies or local authority offices.

  The table has been updated since the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Regions on 25 January 2001, Official Report, columns 667–70W. Yorkshire Forward has opened an

  143W
  office in Brussels since the original question was answered. In addition, the information given for North West Development Agency and One NorthEast in the previous answer was not complete and this has been corrected in the table.

  RDA/Office location

  Opened

  Number of employees

  Annual cost to RDAs (£)

  Other comments

  Yorkshire Forward

  Asia Pacific

  Japan

  1983

  2 full-time

  130,000

  Europe

  Brussels

  February 2001

  3 full-time

  30,000

  Yorkshire Forward contributes to costs. Office is run and staff are employed by Regional Assembly

  North West Development Agency

  Asia Pacific

  Japan

  Late 1980s

  2 part-time

  50,000

  Also have Marketing Agents since 1993 operating in Taiwan (£20,000)

  Europe

  July 2000

  1 full-time

  45,000

  Co-funded by the Regional Assembly in an office co-habited by Sub Regional Officers (Lancashire, Cheshire, Manchester, Merseyside)

  Advantage West Midlands

  Europe

  Brussels

  November 2000

  6 full-time

  170,000

  The West Midlands in Europe Office is a joint office with the West Midlands Local Government Association, Higher Education, the CBI, NEC Group, Engineering Employers Federation, Chambers of Commerce, Voluntary Sector, Further Education and has close links with Eversheds and PWC The total cost is £500,000 of which the RDA contributes £170,000 One rep in Germany since September 2000, that incurs salary costs only of £80,000. One part-time rep in Taiwan since April 1998, incurring salary costs only of £40,000 Two part-time agents in Korea since April 1996, incurring salary costs of only £20,000 From January 2001 six month contract for one rep in Australia incurring salary costs of £65,000

  East of England Development Agency

  Europe

  Contribute 4 per cent. of total cost of office to East of England European Partnership Office in Brussels. The office is sponsored by local authorities and the seven TECS in the region. EEDA's contribution is £12,000

  North America

  East of England Investment Agency, who carry out inward investment on behalf of EEDA, have a number of strategic alliances overseas, but at negligible cost. There is one part-time marketing agent in the USA at an annual cost of £5,000

  East Midlands Development Agency

  Europe

  (Germany)

  2 part-time agents

  28,000

  Asia Pacific

  1 part-time agent

  50,000

  2 part-time agents

  South East of England Development Agency

  Europe

  Brussels

  September 2000

  1 full-time1

  79,000

  Collaborative office with South East Local Authorities and Regional Assembly

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  Asia Pacific

  Japan

  1990

  3 full-time

  174,0002

  North America

  Also have five staff working from their homes in Sonoma California, Chicago, and Boston The total cost of American and Japanese operations is £565,000 (£391,000 from public and private sector partners)

  144W
  A condition of funding for 2001–02 will be that ministerial prior approval will be required for any proposal to extend or create new RDA overseas offices involved in inward investment or trade promotion activities.

  145W

  RDA/Office location

  Opened

  Number of employees

  Annual cost to RDAs (£)

  Other comments

  One North East

  Asia Pacific

  Japan

  1974

  2 full-time

  200,000

  Korea

  1990

  1 x 0.5

  30,000

  Taiwan

  1989

  1 full-time

  45,000

  275,000

  Europe

  Brussels

  September 1992

  43,0003

  The Agency makes a financial contribution towards the running costs, including staff costs of the North of England Office in Brussels, which is a partnership for the region

  50,0004

  The office also receives funding from the North East Regional Assembly

  North of England Collaborative Office

  North America

  (Chicago, Boston5, Atlanta5, West Coast)

  October2000

  15 full-time6

  500,000

  Joint operations between; One NorthEast, North West Development Agency and Yorkshire Forward Official Launch February 2001 Total cost of the Collaborative Office is £1 million. 50 per cent, of costs come from other public and private sector funding Balance met equally between the three RDAs

  Midlands Collaborative US Office

  North America

  Chicago

  October 2000

  2 full-time

  448,0007

  Pre-September 2000 EMDA had office in Virginia at annual cost of £90,000

  San Diego

  October 2000

  2 full-time reps

  Joint operation between East and West Midlands

  Pittsburgh

  May 1992

  Cost is shared between each RDA

  Midlands Collaborative Japanese Office

  Asia Pacific

  Japan

  1997

  2 full-time

  200,000

  As above

  1 part-time

  London First Centre

  Asia Pacific

  Please note that London First Centre are a private company limited by guarantee, and they carry out inward investment promotion on behalf of London Development Agency.

  North America

  No overseas offices, however do use consultants/agents in selected locations 0.5 of two people in Taiwan since 1998, cost £22,500

  0.5 of one person in Korea since 1998, cost £7,500 Two agents in USA since 1996, cost £165,000

  1Regional Assembly contributes 50 per cent. to salary of full-time officer.

  2 Combined cost of American and Japanese operations.

  32000–01

  42001–02

  5 Operations in Boston and Atlanta predate the establishment of the Collaborative Office

  6 Projected

  7 Includes UK seconded staff costs

  Housing (Repairs)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of changes in the regulations governing the major repairs allowance for local authorities on the ability of local authorities to provide accommodation through housing associations. [152047]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Council housing is a major public asset which needs to be maintained and modernised. The introduction of the Major Repairs Allowance will provide local authorities with the resources they need to meet the on-going capital costs of maintaining their housing stock. This and the virtual tripling of resources 146W
  provided to authorities for housing investment between May 1997 and 2003–04, are central to delivering our commitment to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010.

  The provision of additional affordable housing in areas of high demand is also a priority. Within the same period, we are nearly doubling resources for the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme.

  Housing Health and Safety Rating System
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will consult on his proposals to replace the housing fitness standard with the new rating system. [152676]
  147W
  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has today published a consultation paper setting out a framework of legislation and guidance within which local authorities would use the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) as the basis for action against unacceptable housing conditions.

  We published a report on the development of the rating system in July. The system will bring a modern, risk-based approach to health and safety in the home and will underpin our commitment to improving the housing conditions of the most vulnerable people.

  The HHSRS illustrates our recognition of the close relationship between housing and health. Considerable steps have already been taken to familiarise local authorities with the new system and we now want to hear their views, as well as those of landlords' and tenants' organisations, on the enforcement proposals. The system will also underpin our licensing scheme proposals for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

  Legislation to allow authorities to use the rating system as a basis for their enforcement decisions will be introduced as soon as the opportunity arises.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Habitats Directive
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with his counterparts in European Union maritime member states to establish the scientific basis on which these states have excluded navigational channels and working port areas from designation under the European Union habitats directive. [151998]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Most member states have yet to complete the assessment and selection of possible sites to be designated. All should be using the same guidance offered by the European Commission's Interpretation Manual. Opportunity for collective consideration of the outcomes will occur at the next moderation meeting for the Atlantic biogeographic region, scheduled for September in Amsterdam.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that English Nature has acted under the terms of the European Union habitats directive regarding the protection of estuarial features under the terms of the European Union habitats directive where their action leads to the designation of an entire estuary; and if he will make a statement. [151989]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  English Nature were asked by Government to identify sites hosting habitats listed in Annex I of the habitats directive; estuaries are one of the listed habitats. In considering such sites English Nature has used the European Commission's own Interpretation Manual for guidance. The nature conservation agencies' advice is that estuaries are complex ecosystems containing many interdependent components within which other. Annex I listed habitats are represented. Consequently,148W
  boundaries have been drawn to protect the form and function of the entire estuarine ecosystem necessary for its long-term maintenance.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met the chairman and chief executive of English Nature to discuss its interpretation of its designation requirements under the European Union habitats directive and that of other member states; what steps he is taking to ensure that there is consistency of interpretation of the habitats directive across all member states; and if he will make a statement. [151997]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  No meeting has taken place. English Nature is following the European Commission's own guidelines pertaining to the interpretation of the habitats directive. It is for the European Commission and member states collectively to ensure that there has been a consistent scientific approach adopted by all member states in the selection and designation of Natura 2000 sites. Opportunity to do so will occur at the next moderation meeting for the Atlantic biogeographic region, scheduled for September in Amsterdam. The UK will question any instances where there appears to have been inconsistency of approach.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria have been applied by English Nature in evaluating those sites which it has recommended for designation as special areas of conservation under the European Union habitats directive programme; what steps he takes to ensure that its evaluations are scientific; and if he will make a statement. [151987]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  In advising Government, the statutory nature conservation agencies, including English Nature, must apply the criteria set out in Article 4 and Annex III of the habitats directive, and that given additionally at EU moderation meetings. In this process they may only use relevant scientific information to identify sites eligible for selection as Special Areas of Conservation. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) acts with the other statutory nature conservation agencies in collating information, moderating and providing quality assurance on recommended sites before providing formal advice to Government.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make available the list of European Union member states that have complied with the requirements of the European Union habitats directive in designating navigational channels and working port areas as being outside environmental designations. [151901]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Member states are still in the process of revising and submitting new designated sites. No lists have yet to be circulated and there has not, therefore, been any opportunity to examine final designations. Site details proposed by member states in the Atlantic Biogeographical Region will be circulated by the European Commission in advance of the next moderation meeting for that region, scheduled for September in Amsterdam.
  149W
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps English Nature has been asked to take to ensure that the basis of their scientific evaluation of sites for designation under the European Union's Natura 2000 programme is consistent with the evaluations of other member states; and if he will make a statement. [151988]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  It is for the European Commission and member states collectively to ensure that there has been a consistent scientific approach adopted by all member states in the selection and designation of Natura 2000 sites under the Habitats. Directive. English Nature's role, through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, is to advise Government on the scientific merits of sites in England they consider meet the criteria in Article 4 and Annexe III of the Habitats Directive.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent to which the recommendations of English Nature concerning the designation of sites as special areas of conservation under the European Union's Natura 2000 programme is consistent with the Government's sustainable development guidelines; and if he will make a statement. [151990]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  In May 1999 the Government published "A better quality of life; a strategy for sustainable development for the UK". One of the four main objectives that together underpin the Government's view of sustainable development is"effective protection of the environment"
  The Natura 2000 programme contributes in part to the achievement of that goal.

  Planning (Sites and Monuments)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to require planning authorities to include data from their sites and monuments record to be incorporated into their development plans. [151866]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We advise local planning authorities in Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 "Archaeology and Planning" to incorporate in their development plans policies for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of archaeological interest and of their settings. The proposals map should define the areas and sites to which the development plan policies and

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue support grant

  100.7

  109.0

  112.6

  111.1

  117.5

  Income from national non-domestic rates

  57.9

  60.4

  65.6

  74.5

  72.7

  Housing investment programme

  6.5

  6.0

  7.0

  15.9

  17.9

  Capital receipts initiative

  —

  3.3

  3.8

  —

  —

  SRB funding (see note 1)

  4.2

  3.4

  3.5

  —

  —

  Neighbourhood renewal fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.7

  ERDF funding (see note 2)

  —

  0.4

  1.4

  1.6

  —

  Transport supplementary grant

  0.3

  0.6

  1.8

  —

  —

  Transport annual capital guideline

  0.1

  0.7

  1.8

  —

  —

  Transport block supplementary credit approval

  1.5

  0.6

  0.8

  2.9

  6.5

  150W
  proposals apply. It is for individual authorities to determine the extent to which they draw upon their sites and monuments records in preparing their development plan policies.

  E-mail Procedures
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what way his Department is revising its internal guidance to staff for writing and distributing e-mails; for what reasons his Department is revising this guidance; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the current internal guidance on e-mail procedures. [151902]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  General advice to staff on the use of e-mail is contained within the Staff Handbook, in particular rules governing inappropriate use of Departmental resources, and is supported by guidance. It is being reviewed to ensure it remains appropriate and conforms to recent legislation on human rights, data protection and regulation of investigatory powers. When the review is completed the resulting policy, procedures and guidance will all be placed in the Staff Handbook.

  Concern about the effects of information overload on the work of the Department has led to some simple 'golden rules' that help everyone to handle e-mail efficiently. An expanded set is to be considered by the Departmental Board for issue shortly.

  I am arranging to place a copy of this material in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effects on Bolton, West of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [150606]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The principal kinds of funding which this Department has allocated to Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council in 1997–88 to 2001–02 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowings approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much money has been spent on Bolton, West. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are invested.
  151W
  Notes

  1. Derby, Daubhill and Dean, Bolton

  A four-year scheme from the local authority-led partnership. A holistic approach to regeneration in an area with a significant proportion of ethnic residents.

  SRB total is £11.8 million.

  Scheme total £80 million.

  2. European Funding

  The Bolton partnership received approvals between March 1998 and November 1999 for five action plans and one free standing project with a total grant of £9.6 million against a total eligible expenditure of £31.6 million. To date they have claimed £3.4 million, but are expected to claim the remainder by the end of the programme in December 2001.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects part L of the building regulations to come into force. [152172]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) on 5 March 2001,Official Report, columns 60–61W, in which he announced the intention to amend Part L of the Building Regulations in August this year. These amendments should come into force six months later, in February 2002.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the average consumption is of energy in kilowatt hours per square metre of new homes built to existing building regulations in(a) England and Wales, (b) Sweden, (c) Germany, (d) Denmark and (e) the Netherlands; and what will happen in England and Wales following the proposed changes to Part L of the building regulations; [152170]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the most recent changes to energy conservation standards in building regulations in each EU member state. [152171]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department does not systematically collect data on the development of energy efficient building regulations in all member states. However, in 1998, a study of the standards in Denmark, Germany, Holland and Sweden was commissioned as a preliminary to the current review of energy conservation standards in England and Wales. The results of these investigations were published in January 1999. Our proposals for improving standards published in last summer's consultation document took these results into account, and would keep us broadly in line with NW Europe while remaining proportionate in our national efforts to control carbon emissions from buildings without running excessive risks of construction defects.

  We do not have data on the average consumption of energy in kilowatt hours per square metre of new homes built to existing building regulations in Sweden, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. With regard to England and Wales, and in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington
  152W
  (Mr. Plaskitt) on 5 March 2001, Official Report, columns 60–61W, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning indicated the fabric insulation performance standard we propose to introduce as a result of the review of Part L of the Building Regulations. The table gives an indication of the average energy consumption of an indicative new home in the UK built to the current Building Regulations, and of one built to the proposed new standards.

  For a new semi-detached dwelling in England and Wales having a floor area of 80 m2 and gas fired central heating

  Requirements

  Average annual delivered energy consumption per square metre of floor area for heating and hot water kWh/m2 pa

  Current (1995)

  136.6

  As announced on 5 March as intended to come into effect in February 2002

  103.4

  Hydropower
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he is examining to extend the length of the licence period for hydro schemes. [152176]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Environment Agency has recently announced that time limits for abstraction licences will generally be for 12 years, striking a fair balance between environmental protection and abstractors' needs for stability. There will be a presumption of renewal of licences, so that where sufficient water resources are available licences will be renewed.

  Time limits longer than 12 years may be given in particular circumstances, such as for infrastructure investments, subject to detailed economic and environmental appraisal. The Agency works closely with abstractors to take into account their particular circumstances, and will implement the new arrangements in a way which minimises the disruption to business.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the powers of the Environment Agency so that it can actively promote hydropower schemes. [152174]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The British Hydropower Association has made the same proposal. Officials from my Department are meeting representatives of the association on 8 March to discuss the proposition.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the British Hydropower Association concerning the draft Water Bill. [152173]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  At the request of the British Hydropower Association, officials from my Department are due to meet represntatives of the association on 8 March to discuss among other issues the draft Water Bill.
  153W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to end the requirement for low-head hydro schemes across existing weirs to have to apply for an abstraction licence. [152175]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Low-head hydro schemes, while they do not consume water, can affect river flows and other river users. We therefore have no plans to end the requirement for low-head hydro schemes across existing weirs to have an abstraction licence. Each case needs to be considered on its merits.

  Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the legislation under which community residents who rely upon septic tanks for the removal of sewerage still have to pay the same increase in charges as those on main sewers. [152169]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The charges made for the removal, transport or disposal of septic tank waste or cesspit waste are a commercial matter between the customer and the sewerage undertaker or other firm employed to undertake these services. It is not within the scope of the price regulation administered by the Office of Water Services (Ofwat).

  The suggestion has been made, in response to the public consultation on the draft Water Bill that Ofwat should be able to regulate these prices. This suggestion will be considered alongside other comments on the draft Water Bill before its is introduced.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the powers of the local government ombudsman with regard to complaints of maladministration, and to ensure more rapid response to complaints. [152177]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have now completed our consultation on the organisation and operation of the public sector ombudsmen in England, including the Local Government Ombudsman. This consultation was announced to the House on 15 June 2,000,Official Report, columns 722–23W by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and we expect to announce our conclusions shortly on how best to improve public access to the ombudsmen and their efficiency in dealing with complaints.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make extra funds available to local authorities in order to meet the extra demands on resources following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [152613]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are concerned to ensure that all relevant bodies who face additional work as a result of undertaking their responsibilities to cope with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease are able to discharge those responsibilities comprehensively. We will be keeping under review all aspects of this, including funding.

TREASURY

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the census is to be postponed as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. [151885]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated March 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the possible postponement of the census due to the foot and mouth outbreak (151885).
  I am continuing to monitor the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak, and the possible implications for the Census in England and Wales.
  No one can ignore the foot and mouth outbreak. Census activities will be in accordance with whatever else is happening in the areas affected by the outbreak, including restrictions on travel and contact.
  Delivery of forms to individual households is not due to start until April 9. It is not currently possible to assess what the situation in rural areas will be at that time. I will monitor the situation on a daily basis, but I recognise that it may be necessary to alter some aspects of the practical operation in rural areas, possibly at very short notice.
  High quality enumeration is crucial to the Census. The Census rests on the goodwill and trust of the people across all communities. In the past the rural population has been well motivated to complete their forms. To enable them to do so on this occasion I will be looking at any practical options including, for example, whether the enumeration period around Census day (April 29) should be extended. I will continue to discuss what changes and precautions for staff may be necessary with the relevant agencies, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other interested parties.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many earners receive working families tax credit in each unitary metropolitan authority and county of the North East region; and if he will estimate the proportion of earners in the region who are(a) in part-time work and (b) also in receipt of the childcare supplement. [152056]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For estimates of the number of families in each local authority in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 425W.

  There is no single definition of what comprises full-time work. The table shows an analysis by hours worked of families in the North East region receiving WFTC at August 2000, split also between those families whose awards include the childcare tax credit and other families.

  Thousand

  Hours normally worked per week by main earner

  Families whose awards include the childcare tax credit

  Other families

  Total

  16 less than 20

  0.8

  15.2

  16.0

  20 less than 24

  0.8

  7.5

  8.3

  24 less than 30

  1—

  4.3

  4.6

  155W

  Thousand

  Hours normally worked per week by main earner

  Families whose awards include the children tax credit

  Other families

  Total

  30 less than 36

  0.9

  8.4

  9.3

  36 less than 40

  1.4

  13.9

  15.3

  40 and over

  1—

  12.0

  12.3

  All cases

  4.5

  61.3

  65.8

  1 Estimates based on less than 25 sample cases.

  Note:

  Estimates based on 5 per cent. sample of awards, and therefore subject to sampling error. Estimates based on less than 25 sample cases.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many firms paying working families tax credit to their employees the payment of credits exceeds the amount they collect in national insurance and income tax; and how many employees in these companies receive the working families tax credit. [149858]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employers whose prospective payments of tax credits in any period (up to six months) exceed the PAYE tax and national insurance contributions that they expect to deduct can apply to Inland Revenue for the additional funding required over that period. One sixth of employers paying tax credits at 31 August 2000 received funding for payment periods that spanned that date. Fur such employers, the average number of employees with awards which include payment via the employer is about 1.5.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers(a) are administering the Working Families Tax Credit and (b) will be administering the employment credit. [152513]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At the end of August 2000 about 120,000 employers were paying Working Families Tax Credit or Disabled Person's Tax Credit to their employees.

  The numbers of employers involved in payment of the employment tax credit will depend on its detailed design.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Warrington, North constituency he expects to receive the children's tax credit. [151946]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An estimate of the number of families in the Warrington, North constituency who will be eligible to claim the children's tax credit (CTC) is unavailable, but an estimate of the number of families in the North West region of England who will be eligible to claim CTC is 625,000.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2001 to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb),Official Report, column 568W, on children's tax credit, how many taxpayers would be affected by changing the tapers in each of the options. [151017]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated number of taxpayers affected by reducing the annual threshold at which the Children's Tax Credit (CTC) begins to be tapered away for 2001–02 is given in the table:
  156W

  Reduction to CTC threshold

  Estimated number of taxpayers affected

  £1,000

  500,000

  £2,000

  600,000

  £3,000

  700,000

  £4,000

  800,000

  £5,000

  900,000

  Imports (Israel)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, in response to the communication of April 2000 from the EU Commission, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise requested certificates of origin from the Israeli authorities for(a) Ahava cosmetics, (b) dates, (c) carpets from Barkan, (d) wines and (e) any other items; how many such requests were made for each item; how many responses have been received; and if he will list those products on which the European Commission requested a posteriori verification of certificates of origin with the Israeli authorities. [151134]

  Dawn Primarolo
  UK Customs has initiated the following verification inquiries:

  (a) Ahava Cosmetics—13 certificates of preferential origin were returned to Israel for verification on 11 August 2000.

  (b) Dates—72 certificates were returned for verification on 31 October 2000.

  (c) Carpets from Barkan—nine certificates were returned on 17 August 2000.

  (d) Wines—18 certificates were returned between 1 September and 13 November 2000.

  (e) Other items—between 22 June and 20 November 2000: 1 certificate was returned for brandy and liqueurs; eight certificates were returned for pencils; 58 for plastic household items; 22 for key blanks and locks; three for electrical products; and seven for other bath and skincare products.

  To date, no responses have been received to these inquiries.

  In addition to the products listed above the EC Commission has requested that the customs authorities initiate inquiries in respect of biscuits and Soda Stream drinks makers, where the products have been imported from Israel into the member state concerned.

  NIRS2 Computer
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the cost to public funds of the NIRS2 computer problem; and when the backlog of payments arising from this will be cleared. [150502]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The compensation payments made by Inland Revenue and DSS to pension providers and benefit recipients, was £62.6 million to 31 January 2001.

  The arrears of work in both DSS and Inland Revenue caused by the delay continue to be cleared as quickly as possible.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average change in annual gross income tax paid in absolute terms about a 1 per cent. change in the basic rate of income tax in 2000–01 by income tax payers with

  Change in 200–01

  Average change in gross income tax paid in absolute terms from a 1 per cent. change in income tax (£)

  For taxpayers with taxable income exceeding £1,520 and lower than £28,400

  90

  For taxpayers with taxable income exceeding £28,400 and lower than £100,000

  260

  For taxpayers with taxable income exceeding £100,000

  265

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue lost to the Exchequer from United Kingdom-based heavy goods vehicles being licensed abroad in each of the last three years. [151883]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: No such estimate is available.

  Departmental Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152322]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Warrington, North, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 638, or 29 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 60 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 63 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 836 young people in the Warrington, North constituency gain valuable skills and experience—382 (46 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,400 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  Lead partner

  Title

  Central Government-led projects

  Cabinet Office

  e-learning for the voluntary sector

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)

  British Library—Citizenship in Schools

  DCMS

  Sport via the internet

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)

  Waterways license database

  DETR

  Air Quality Forecasts for Health

  DETR

  National Height Model

  DETR

  Net based Control of Hazards

  DETR

  Chemical Control for Health and Safety

  158W
  taxable incomes (a) exceeding £1,520 and lower than £28,400, (b) exceeding £28,400 and lower than £100,000 and (c) exceeding £100,000 a year. [151632]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The full year income tax effects in 2001–02 of making the change is set out in the table.

  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable all pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. As a result of the recent pre-Budget report, all pensioners, including 14,400 in Warrington, North, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 per week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 9,400 in Warrington, North.

  Unemployment Costs
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2001,Official Report, column 213W, on unemployment costs, what the cost is to the Exchequer per unemployed person per year in terms of all forgone taxes where the calculation assumes (a) the person to have been on average earnings and (b) the person to have been on average earnings for the manufacturing sector. [152468]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As the extent to which unemployment affects Government revenues depends on a number of assumptions, in particular the extent to which unemployment reflects permanent changes in output growth, no estimates of the effects of unemployment on taxes forgone are available.

  Invest to Save Budget
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the Government's Invest to Save Budget. [152739]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased to announce that 123 bids from across the public sector have been successful in Round 3 of the Invest to Save Budget, at a cost of £37.0 million in 2001–02, including consequential funding for the devolved Administrations, and £68.4 million in total over the three years to 2003–04. The table describes the winners of this round:
  159W

  Lead partner

  Title

  DETR

  Rent Service e-applications

  Department for Education and Employment (DfEE)

  Testing for dyslexia

  DfEE

  Time for citizenship

  DfEE

  Internet Service Provider

  DfEE

  Electronic Marking pilots for QCA

  DfEE

  Interactive Learning Authority

  DfEE

  Tameside Passport to Learning

  Department of Social Security

  Appeals Service on Video

  Department of Social Security

  Document Scanning and e-mail

  Department of Social Security

  Internet benefit advice

  Department of Social Security

  Digital TV E-mail Benefit advice

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Official Receivers Office video link with the Courts

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Debt Advice Pilots

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Biotechnology portal

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Export licensing on-line

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Metrology Connect

  HM Customs and Excise

  Drug Detection Pilot

  Home Office

  National Internet Portal for the Police

  Home Office

  Policing Online in Avon and Somerset

  Home Office

  Arson reduction initiative

  Home Office

  Equality Response

  Home Office

  Criminal Case Review e-links

  Home Office

  Data fraud and personal information

  Home Office

  Distraction and Bogus Official Burglaries

  Home Office

  Tackling anti-social behaviour

  Home Office

  Alcohol and Community Safety Proposal

  Home Office

  Truancy-Causes-Impact-Cure

  Home Office

  Mobile Rural Contact Facility

  Home Office

  Internet Police Services in Northumbria

  Home Office

  Targeting vulnerable groups using GIS

  Home Office

  Tracking identity through the CJS

  Home Office

  Short Term Offenders Programme

  Home Office

  Net Drug Training

  Home Office

  Video Conferencing Facilities

  Home Office

  Restorative justice for schoolkids

  Home Office

  Newham Domestic Violence

  Inland Revenue

  Tracing NINO information and preventing fraud

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Just Ask Consultancy

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)

  Use and discharge of chemicals in off-shore industry

  MAFF

  e-Navigation for Fishermen

  MAFF

  Joint Marine Regulation

  MAFF

  Electronic Pesticide Regulation

  Ministry of Defence

  NHS Forecasting Model

  Ministry of Defence

  Skill Force youth initiative

  Ministry of Defence

  Disposal sales

  Office of Fair Trading

  Competition Act pilot website

  Office of Fair Trading

  Shared Information on Consumer Regulations

  Ordnance Survey

  Data Integration for Coastal Mapping

  Other public authority-led projects

  Ashfield Primary Care Group

  Interlinked teams for older people

  Association of London Government Transport and Environment Committee

  e-Parking and Traffic Appeals

  Barking and Havering Health Authority

  Electronic register of young people who harm

  Barnet Health Authority

  Joined up advice for medical and social problems

  Birmingham City Council

  Foster Carers

  Bradford City Council

  Consumer focused database

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority

  On-line drug and alcohol service

  Brighton and Hove Council

  City Wide Portal

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Multi lingual community information system

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  Piloting e-government

  Cambridgeshire Health Authority

  National advice service for relatives of prisoners

  Cheltenham Borough Council

  Gateway to Public Services in Gloucestershire

  Coventry City Council

  Performance Management Database in Coventry

  Croydon Health Authority

  Safety.net

  Dartford Borough Council

  On Line licensing process

  Department of Health

  Pilot tool for communications to deaf-blind

  Devon County Council

  Career Portal

  Doncaster Health Authority

  Primary Care as a Community Resource

  Dudley Health Authority

  Pilot arrest scheme for offenders

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  Web Portal for Young People's views

  Essex County Council

  Live Community Networks

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  Seamless process for Discharge of Patients

  Isle of Wight Council

  Autistic Children

  Kennet District Council

  BITE IT—Tidworth

  160W 161W

  Lead partner

  Title

  Kent and Medway Drug Action Team

  IT network for drug misuse

  Kent County Council

  Child/Youth Oriented

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  Trialling information to citizens via cable TV

  Legal Services Commission for Merseyside

  Community Legal Service Provision

  Leicester City Council

  E-facilities for Consultation

  Leicestershire County Council

  E-delivery for people with disabilities

  Lincolnshire County Council

  Road Safety Project

  Liverpool City Council

  The Children's Network Online Service

  London Borough of Barnet

  Barnet web portal for local community access

  London Borough of Camden

  Portal for Advice

  London Borough of Croydon

  Ambassador One-Stop

  London Borough of Hackney

  Anti-fraud computer

  London Borough of Newham

  Smart Card for identity and access to services

  Drug and Alcohol Action Teams Kingston and Richmond

  ABC Project to minimise substance misuse

  London Borough of Southwark

  Engage Young People in services

  London Borough of Sutton

  e-delivery to socially excluded groups

  Manchester City Council

  e-delivery for maintenance services

  North Norfolk District Council

  Extension of Council website

  North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  Multi-agency teams for children with disabilities

  North Primary Care Group

  Demand Responsive Transport Services

  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

  Independent living for older people

  Reading Borough Council

  e-database for property of all tenures

  Rotherham Health Authority

  Community services for older people

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough

  Health/advice for Rotherham Youngsters

  Royal Borough of Kingston

  Single Public Access

  Somerset County Council

  Multi Agency call centres

  South Norfolk Council

  Communication between district and parish council

  South Staffs Health Authority

  Reducing risks of unplanned teenage pregnancy

  Southern Derbyshire Health Authority

  Drug Market Response Group

  Substance Misuse Advisory Service

  Advisory service for primary care drug treatment

  Surrey County Council

  Work/training for the disabled

  Swale Borough Council

  One Stop for Police Services

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  e-delivery for vulnerable people

  Tees Health Authority

  Shared system on substance misuse

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Dedicated peripatetic home

  Wakefield Health Authority

  Wakefield e-Health

  Wakefield Health Authority

  Immediate Support at Home Service

  Wakefield Health Authority

  Electronic care planning

  Warwickshire County Council

  Information service for the Aged

  West Devon Borough Council

  Link social exclusion to community work

  Wiltshire County Council

  Quality of Life in Wiltshire

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Single contact for vulnerable adults at risk of abuse

  Worecstershire County Council

  Data Sharing Portal

  Coroners' Certificates (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths recorded on coroners? certificates in the past 10 years mentioned(a) heroin, (b) methadone, (c) cocaine, (d) ecstasy, (e) anti-depressants, (f) painkillers and (g) anti-inflammatories. [151773]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated February 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the most recent estimate of the total number of deaths recorded or coroners? certificates in the past 10 years in which heroin, methadone, cocaine, ecstasy, anti-depressants, painkillers and anti-inflammatories were mentioned (151773).
  The information requested is only available on a comparable basis from 1993, when text from death certificates was first stored electronically. This enables named drugs to be identified. The most recently available figures are for 1999.
  162W
  The figures in the table show the numbers of deaths where specific substances were mentioned on death certificates.

  Number of deaths due to poisoning by selected substances in England and Wales 1993–1999

  Drug

  Number of deaths

  Heroin and/or morphine1

  3,131

  Methadone

  2,259

  Cocaine

  263

  Ecstasy

  113

  Antidepressants

  3,502

  Painkillers2

  10,771

  Non-opioid analgesics

  4,067

  Opioid analgesics

  7,130

  Anti-inflammatory drugs3

  366

  1 Deaths mentioning heroin and/or morphine, as opposed to heroin alone, are given. This is because heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, and it is the latter which may be detected at post mortem.

  2 Painkillers comprise substances identified in Chapter 4.7 of the British National Formulary (BNF). Opioids and non-opioids are given separately because heroin and morphine are opioids.

  3 Anti-inflammatories comprise substances identified in Chapter 10.1.1 of the BNF.

  Note:

  According to the BNF, aspirin is both a painkiller and an anti-inflammatory as it appears in both Chapters 4.7 and 10.1.1.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), on 29 January 2001,Official Report, columns 42–43W, on ECOFIN, if he will place a copy of the compromise proposal on the excise duties and mineral oils in the Library. [150061]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: Yes. Copies of Presidency proposal SN 1272/01 will be deposited in the House of Commons Library today.

  Ofgem
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2001,Official Report, column 682W, if he will provide a breakdown of the expected merger expenditure of £14 million broken down between (a) redundancy, (b) refurbishment costs, (c) dilapidation and (d) other. [150187]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Of Ofgem's forecast merger expenditure of, £14 million it is estimated that(a) £4.4 million will be spent on redundancy and severance, (b) £4.7 million on refurbishment, (c) nil on dilapidations and (d), £4.9 million on other costs.

  Chester Street Insurance Holdings
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the distribution of post-and pre-1990 cases is between Chester Street Insurance Holdings and Iron Trades Holdings Ltd; and which company has responsibility for pre-1972 cases; [150323]

  (2) what the (a) estimated asset value and (b) estimated liabilities are of Chester Street Insurance Holdings; and how they are divided between post and pre-1972 cases. [150322]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The provisional liquidators are currently assessing the information available about existing and potential claims.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that pre-1972 cases held by Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited are protected; and if he will make a statement. [150324]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is important to remember that it is the employer who holds the policy with Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited not the employee, and the employer remains liable for claims made against them by their employees or former employees. The Government are aware of the issue raised by pre-1972 cases and are considering this issue carefully.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value was of the bonuses paid to the directors of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited in each of the last three years. [150325]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is a matter for the management of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Limited, but I understand that this concern has already been brought to the attention of the provisional liquidator, who will look into such issues as part of the job in winding-up the affairs of the company.
  164W
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about Chester Street Holdings Ltd., formerly known as Iron Trades Holding Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [150320]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others on behalf of those suffering asbestos-related disease as a consequence of the employment in firms whose employers' liability insurance is provided by Chester Street Insurance Holdings.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons underlying the economic failure of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd.; and if he will make a statement. [150321]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the scheme of arrangement, the provisional liquidators are required to conduct a review of the affairs of the company, and the actions of both the directors and other parties.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  First Estates Commissioner
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment he has made of the work of the First Estates Commissioner; and if he will make a statement in respect of the role he anticipates him undertaking in future. [151855]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The role of the First Church Estates Commissioner is to chair the Church Commissioner's Assets Committee which, subject to any general rules made by its Board of Governors, has an exclusive power and duty to act in all matters relating to the management of the Commissioners' assets. No change in that role is envisaged.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding was given to the higher education sector in each year since 1990(a) in total and (b) per student. [151001]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 February 2001]: The information is in the tables:

  Table 1: Higher education publicly planned funding in England

  £ million

  1990–01

  3,266

  1991–92

  3,679

  1992–93

  3,976

  1993–94

  4,291

  1994–95

  4,559

  1995–96

  4,718

  1996–97

  4,627

  1997–98

  4,686

  1998–99

  4,834

  1999–2000

  5,153

  2000–01

  5,414

  2001–02

  5,826

  2002–03

  6,094

  2003–04

  6,392

  165W

  Table 2: Publicly planned funding per full-time equivalent higher education student in England at constant 1999–2000 prices

  1 £

  1990–91

  6,935

  1991–92

  6,585

  1992–93

  6,090

  1993–94

  5,745

  1994–95

  5,585

  1995–96

  5,335

  1996–97

  4,980

  1997–98

  4,845

  1998–99

  4,820

  1999–2000

  4,785

  2000–01

  4,750

  1 Unit funding per student is rounded to the nearest £5.

  Between 1989 and 1997, publicly planned funding per full-time equivalent higher education student fell by over 36 per cent. from just under £7,600 to just over £4,800. As a result, Lord Dearing's National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education concluded in 1997 that higher education institutions could not absorb a further reduction of over 6 per cent. in funding which was planned for 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  The Government accepted the recommendation of the Inquiry. Higher education institutions were asked to deliver no more than a 1 per cent. reduction in unit funding in both 1998–99 and 1999–2000. This was later extended for a further year.

  The Government announced last November cash increases in publicly planned funding of £412 million, £268 million and £298 million over the three years to 2003–04. Coupled with planned increases in student numbers this implies estimated annual increases in publicly planned unit funding of 3.2 per cent., 2.5 per cent. and 2.9 per cent. which themselves imply estimated real-terms increases in funding per full-time equivalent student of 0.7 per cent., 0 per cent. and 0.4 per cent. over the next three years.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much local discretionary funding was allocated to each of the Learning and Skills Councils for 2001–02; and what proportion of total funding allocated to each Learning and Skills Council this amount represents. [151667]

  Mr. Wicks
  There is no single definition of local discretionary funding. After the current transition period, local LSCs will have the decisive role in the allocation to providers of the vast bulk of the LSC's mainstream budgets, including those for further education and work-based training (although prices paid per individual learner will be determined by a national formula).

  For a range of other activities which total 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of LSC overall funds, and for which there will be no national formula, local LSCs will determine both the allocations and the prices paid. One element within that 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. category is the Local Initiatives Fund (LIF), offering maximum flexibility for the local LSC to support local projects which would not otherwise be funded through mainstream programme budgets. The total LIF budget for 2001–02 is
  166W
  £90.3 million, of which almost 90 per cent. has so far been allocated. The table shows initial LIF allocations to local LSCs for 2001–02.

  Decisions about the allocation of LSC overall funding to each local LSC have yet to be made by the national LSC. When they have been made, I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Local Initiatives Fund: LLSC initial allocation (December 2000)

  £

  LLSC

  2001–02

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  1,538,498

  Nottinghamshire

  1,848,478

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  858,230

  Leicestershire

  1,383,212

  Northamptonshire

  890,796

  Eastern

  Norfolk

  1,157,665

  Cambridgeshire

  949,765

  Suffolk

  894,042

  Bedfordshire

  815,356

  Hertfordshire

  1,288,419

  Essex

  2,057,655

  London

  London North

  1,875,419

  London West

  2,279,819

  London Central

  4,257,799

  London East

  4,268,075

  London South

  1,718,457

  North East

  Northumberland

  520,986

  Tyne and Wear

  2,387,779

  County Durham

  801,459

  Tees Valley

  1,518,689

  North West

  Cumbria

  748,602

  Lancashire

  2,032,225

  Greater Merseyside

  3,433,319

  Greater Manchester

  4,276,348

  Cheshire and Warrington

  1,161,393

  South East

  Oxford, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

  1,637,128

  Bracknell Forest/West Berkshire

  1,070,636

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  2,324,637

  Surrey

  1,143,987

  Sussex

  1,992,704

  Kent and Medway

  2,163,569

  South West

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,151,591

  Somerset

  605,899

  Dorset

  823,870

  Avon

  1,365,864

  Wiltshire

  743,296

  Gloucestershire

  764,412

  West Midlands

  Shropshire

  602,964

  Staffordshire

  1,572,865

  Black Country

  2,335,377

  Birmingham and Solihull

  2,990,819

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  935,019

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  1,246,575

  Yorks and the Humber

  North Yorkshire

  929,946

  West Yorkshire

  3,857,355

  South Yorkshire

  2,385,990

  Humberside

  1,693,012

  Student Debt
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the reviews his Department is conducting of(a) tuition fees and (b) student debt; and what the average estimated level of debt per student was in each of the last 10 years. [151831]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: We are not currently conducting any such reviews. The student support arrangements we have introduced are working well and share the costs of higher education fairly between students, parents and the taxpayer and we are monitoring the impact of the new arrangements. From September this year, because we have raised the income contribution thresholds, around 50 per cent. of all English and Welsh higher education students liable for fees under the Education (Student Support) Regulations will not have to make any contribution to their tuition fees. In 2001–02 new additional targeted support, in particular opportunity bursaries and a child care grant based on actual costs, will help students with dependants and those from poorer backgrounds. Annual figures on student finances are not collected. However, the average level of student debt was £840 in 1995–96 and £2,530 in 1998–99 for full-time students in higher education in the UK after their savings had been taken into account, according to data from the Department's periodic Student Income and Expenditure Survey.

  Early-years Inspectors (Homeworking)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what discussions he has had with Ofsted on the decision to organise the Early Years Inspectorate on the basis of homeworking by inspectors; what representations he has received on this decision; and if he will make a statement; [151937]

  (2) what risk assessments have been undertaken of members of the Early Years Inspectorate who will work from home; [151938]

  (3) what procedures will be put in place to ensure that (a) early years inspectors working from home have (i) ready access to their line managers and (ii) adequate means of liaison with other child care professionals and (b) proper child protection procedures are adhered to. [151939]

  Ms Hodge
  The organisation of Ofsted's Early Years Inspectorate is a matter for Ofsted. I have, therefore, asked HM Chief Inspector of Schools, Mike Tomlinson, to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  NIRS2 Computer
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims outstanding resulting from failures in the NIRS2 computer system remain to be processed; and what his estimate is of the time scales within which these will receive attention and payments be made. [151147]
  168W
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: As at 31 January 2001. Benefits Agency offices had less than 3 per cent. of the total number of cases they had received from NIRS2 waiting to be reviewed

  The outstanding cases will be processed as quickly as possible.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of families with dependent children who have been in receipt of Income Support for one year or more. [152010]

  Mr. Bayley
  As at November 2000 there were 896,000 families with dependent children who had been receiving Income Support for one year or more.

  Notes:

  1. Dependent children are defined as aged 0–15 years.

  2. Figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample and is therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. Figure is rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Claimants may have more than one dependent child.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2000

  Benefit Fraud (Liverpool)
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Liverpool city council. [152672]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of Liverpool city council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report makes recommendations to help the authority address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  Overall, inspectors found a number of weaknesses and poor standards of performance in benefit administration and counter fraud work that needed immediate attention. Inconsistent and ineffective work practices were found and there were substantial backlogs of work affecting over 30,000 benefit claims which had led to lengthy delays in claims processing.

  The BFI reports the authority's lack of effective performance standards and targets, inadequate management information, weaknesses in checks and controls, poor management and recovery of benefit overpayments and no formal assessment of the risks of benefit fraud.

  The report notes that although there is some good counter fraud work, it is not focused and significant effort is being wasted. Where management checking exists it is largely ineffective and provides little assurance.

  The report concludes that BFI has serious concerns about Liverpool's recent performance in managing and delivering a secure benefits service. More positively, however, the report notes that the authority has recognised the significant challenges it faces and is strongly committed to a significant change programme that will involve overhauling its systems, structures and processes.

  169W
  While BFI recognises the size of the task and that the necessary changes will be difficult, inspectors are encouraged by the authority's commitment to tackle these issues.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the authority for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Bilateral Concordat (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the bilateral concordat between the Department of Social Security and the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development. [152673]

  Mr. Darling
  The Northern Ireland Minister for Social Development and I have agreed the text of the concordat between the Department of Social Security and the Department for Social Development. Copies of the concordat have been placed in the Library and the text will be available on the internet at www.dss.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on the Stroud constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152399]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000), sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Stroud since May 1997.

  Measures in our first four Budgets will lift over 1 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Stroud 11,870 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the
  170W
  number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Stroud the number has reduced from 1,400 to 1,100. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in Stroud the number has increased from 900 to 1,000.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty, so we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Over 20,500 older people in Stroud have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 20,200 pensioners in Stroud will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over-75s of whom we estimate there are about 9,000 in Stroud. 2,500 pensioner families in Stroud are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152318]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual Opportunity for all reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (Cm 4865, September 2000), sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Warrington, North since May 1997.
  171W
  Measures in our first four Budgets will lift over one million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about seven million families receive Child Benefit, and in Warrington, North 12,778 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Warrington, North the number has reduced from 2,000 to 1,700. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Warrington, North from 1,700 to 1,300.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 16,300 older people in Warrington, North have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 14,400 pensioners in Warrington, North will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over-75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,700 in Warrington, North. 2,500 pensioner families in Warrington, North are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made to speed up the decision-making process on CSA departures. [152397]

  Mr. Bayley
  A parent may apply for a departure where they feel they have exceptional circumstances that should be taken into account in their maintenance assessment. The process by which the Child Support Agency deals with these exceptional cases includes gathering information from one or more sources. Details of the 172W
  application are then sent to the other party, giving them the opportunity to comment. Complex cases may be referred to the Appeals Service for determination. This process can often be time consuming especially when the information required is difficult to obtain.

  The reformed child support scheme, which we plan to introduce for new cases by April 2002, will not include any provision for departures. However, either parent will be able to apply for the child support rates to be varied in specified, exceptional cases. The decision-making process for variations will be streamlined. Applications for a variation will be accepted before the maintenance calculation has been made, thus enabling the system to operate more quickly.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what changes will be made to the Child Support Agency's procedures on disclosure following the proposed changes to the Child Support Agency to be introduced after April 2002; [152182]

  (2) if he will make a statement on Child Support Agency procedures for the disclosure of information on one partner to another; [152180]

  (3) what advice he has taken since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the Child Support Agency's approach to disclosure of information. [152181]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Child Support Agency treats the protection of personal information very seriously. A parent's details will not normally be disclosed by the Agency to anyone unless that parent consents. However, where a court makes an order requiring child support information to be disclosed, the Agency must comply with that order. The Agency also has the power to give any information it holds to a court or tribunal when child support cases are being considered, or to the appropriate authority for the calculation of Housing or Council Tax Benefits.

  Regulation 10 of the Maintenance Assessment (Procedure) Regulations 1992 sets out the information which the Agency is required to provide when telling parents about a new maintenance assessment, or a revision or supersession of an existing assessment. This information includes the net and assessable income of both parents, and the non-resident parent's housing and travel costs allowed in the assessment. This information will not include details of addresses unless permission is given.

  In the event that a parent appeals against a decision, they have the opportunity to opt into a confidentiality agreement so that any information which might lead to their whereabouts is not passed to the other parent.

  In the new scheme, less information will be required to make a maintenance calculation and consequently, less information will be communicated in explaining that calculation. Regulation 23 of the Maintenance Calculation and Procedure Regulations 2000 provides that the notification of a maintenance calculation will set out a limited range of information, including the non-resident's net weekly income

  Provisions for the disclosure of information are entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the constituencies(a) visited and (b) to be visited as part of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow. [151654]

  Mr. Vaz
  Since the launch of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" initiative in November 1999, I have visited over 30 towns and cities comprising the following constituencies: Norwich, South; Norwich, North; Edinburgh, North and Leith; Glasgow, Govan; Glasgow, Shettleston; Kirkcaldy; Cardiff, Central; Cardiff, South and Penarth; Islwyn; Reading, East; Swindon, North; Swindon, South; Oxford, East; Henley; Leeds, Central; Leeds, North-East; Elmet; Southampton, Itchen; Southampton, Test; Liverpool, Garston; Liverpool, Wavertree; Liverpool, Walton; Brent, North; Regent's Part and Kensington, North; Leicester, South; Northampton, North; Northampton, South; Birmingham, Ladywood; Wolverhampton, South-West; Poplar and Canning Town; Bethnal Green and Bow; Middlesbrough; Sunderland, North; Newcastle, Central; Gateshead, East and Washington, West; Houghton and Washington, East; Rotherham; Bath; Nuneaton; Hull, North; Manchester, Blackley, and Manchester, Central.

  I plan to visit Cambridge, Bedford, Brighton, Hove, Hastings and Twickenham later this month. We have not yet confirmed my appointments in each venue.

  China
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2001,Official Report, column 172W, if the issue of freedom of religious belief was discussed at the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue in Beijing on 12 to 14 February; and if he will make a statement. [151823]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 100W. Freedom of religious belief was an important part of the discussions at the sixth round of the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue on 12–14 February, which included a visit to Wenzhou to investigate reports of the destruction of churches and temples there.

  UK/India Round Table
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work programme of the UK/India Round Table. [151852]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK/India Round Table was established by the Foreign Secretary and the Indian Minister for External Affairs in April 2000. It has met twice so far (April 2000 in India, October 2000 in the UK), and is due to meet again in India in April. The Round Table has produced a series of constructive recommendations for enhancing the bilateral relationship between the UK and India.

  Guinea
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his UN and EU counterparts on the refugee situation in Guinea. [152189]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are in close contact with the UN and EU on the refugee situation in Guinea. Our UN Permanent Representative in Geneva discussed the issue with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on 23 February. The UK has committed £12 million in humanitarian assistance to Guinea and the region since December 2000. We have also sent a career diplomat to Conakry to strengthen the bilateral relationship and to ensure that our response to the refugee crisis is effective and well-targeted.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Foreign Office assessment of claims for compensation prior to the transmission of such claims to the United Nations Compensation Commission was taken with the approval of the United Nations Compensation Commission. [151907]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not assessed and does not assess claims prior to their transmission to the UN Compensation Commission. However, as the FCO was aware that the Commission had set a number of basic conditions that had to be met before claims could be accepted, claims were checked prior to dispatch to ensure that they met the known conditions.

  Northern Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet mayors from the occupied towns in Northern Cyprus during his visit to Cyprus in March; and if he will make a statement. [151870]

  Mr. Vaz
  The programme for my visit to Cyprus on 14 March is already extremely full. I regret therefore that on this occasion I will not be able to meet any of the mayors in Cyprus. I have written to my hon. Friend about the programme for my visit.

  COREPER
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received the document SN1247 of 30 January made available by COREPER; and when his Department placed it in the Public Paper and Vote Offices of each House. [152040]

  Mr. Vaz
  Document SN1247 containing the text of the Treaty of Nice was received by the Department on 30 January. On 6 February it was sent to the Libraries of each House and made available to Members, as were previous and subsequent revisions of the text. All up-to-date versions of the Treaty text have also been available on the Website www.europa.eu.int.

  Nice Treaty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and where his Department received the final text of the treaty of Nice. [152039]
  175W
  Mr. Vaz
  The final text of the treaty of Nice (document CONFER 4820/00), as signed in Nice on 26 February, was received by this Department on 23 February. This version is identical to document SN1247/01 in all but layout.

  On 26 February it was sent to the Libraries of each House and made available to hon. Members.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the IT projects currently undertaken in his Department; and if he will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project. [151500]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The following IT projects are currently underway:

  Firecrest
  We are continuing the deployment of Windows-based Office Automation to all FCO Posts and Departments. The expected completion date is spring 2002. The total cost is £80 million.

  FTN
  The provision of a global data and voice network, through a 10-year PFI contract to spring 2010. The roll out is due for completion in spring 2002. The contract value is £165 million.

  Prism
  The change programme to deliver improved management of finances and staff resources, through new integrated personnel, finance, payroll and procurement processes. The expected completion date is autumn 2003. We are currently in the procurement phase—financial information is therefore commercially sensitive.

  Internet project
  The aim is to provide a new UK portal website, and kiosks overseas, linked to the portal, and upgraded FCO site and Posts' websites. The expected completion date is spring 2003. The present contract value is £6.4 million. There is support from our Capital Modernisation Fund towards full project costs up to £12 million.

  Entry Clearance system
  This is to provide a standard entry clearance management system at all entry clearance Posts. We expect this to be completed by autumn 2001. The estimated cost is £1.4 million.

  Digital Passports system
  Providing the 12 busiest passport-issuing Posts with machine readable passport equipment and software to enable the production of digital passports. The estimated completion date is summer 2001, at a cost of £2.8 million.

  Global Consular Database system
  Providing a global database to meet the rising demand for improved consular services to the public. We expect to complete this by summer 2002. We are currently at the procurement phase—financial information is therefore commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the IT projects his Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if he will state in each case the(a) expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost. [151477]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The following projects are being planned:

  Confidential Firecrest
  A confidential version of the FCO's Windows Office system. Starting Spring 2001. Completion planned end 2002.
  176W
  High-classification networks
  A separate network to handle material classified higher than Confidential, where possible making appropriate use of the FCO's FIRECREST/FTN infrastructure. Starting Summer 2001. Completion anticipated Spring 2002.

  Firecrest future options
  Technology refresh and new support arrangements for the FCO's Window Office system. Detailed project planning starting Spring 2002. Contract anticipated from late 2001-early 2003.

  Entry Clearance Modernisation
  The Joint Entry Clearance Unit has applied for Capital Modernisation Funding for the modernisation of entry clearance at Posts and links to the Home Office's systems. Completion anticipated in 2004.

  Visa Warnings Index
  The current warnings index system at overseas Posts is reaching the end of its supportable life. Options are being explored. Starting Spring 2001. Completion spring 2002.

  Digital Passports
  The delivery of digital passport systems to other passport issuing Posts, beyond the top 12 which are being equipped by an existing project. Beginning Summer 2001. Completion Summer 2004.

  Consular Contact Centre
  An out-of-hours contact facility for British nationals overseas. No firm time-scales yet.

  No firm commitment has been made by the FCO to proceed with the above projects yet. Timings represent current projections only.

DEFENCE

  US-UK Strategic Defence Initiative Memorandum of Understanding
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the titles of the Letters of Offer and Acceptance agreed under the auspices of the 1985 US-UK Strategic Defence Initiative Memorandum of Understanding since 1 May 1997, specifying when each one was signed and the name of the United States Government agency involved in each case. [152051]

  Mr. Hoon
  Five Letters of Offer and Acceptance have been agreed since May 1997. All have been signed on behalf of the US Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation. US Federal Acquisition Regulations do not now require titles but contract numbers only. The five Letters of Offer and Acceptance were signed on 1 September 1998, 12 December 1998, 30 June 1999, 5 December 2000 and 1 May 2000.

  Dartmore Training Area
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to find alternative sites for dry military training on Dartmoor when the present licence expires. [151691]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Dartmoor Training Area covers an area of approximately 30,000 acres, of which 3,442 are the freehold property of the Ministry of Defence. The remainder is licensed from three landlords: the Duchy of Cornwall, the Maristowe Estate and South West Water. The Duchy and Maristowe licences do not expire until 2012 and we have not yet, therefore, begun exploring the possibility of alternative

  177W
  sites. The licence for the land on Cramber Tor and Combshead owned by South West Water does, however, expire later this year but the training currently conducted in this area could not be absorbed elsewhere within the Dartmoor Training Area, nor on other land in the vicinity. The Ministry of Defence has work in hand to extend its rights to train on this land.

  Explosions (Foulness Island)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the noise, shockwaves and vibration caused by the detonation of high explosives at Foulness Island upon those living in Herne Bay suffering from terminal cancer. [152134]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Two vibration assessments have been carried out between 30 January and 28 February 2000 and between 5 October and 5 November 2000.

  Both studies concluded that at no time during the survey period did any of the vibration levels, ground or airborne, approach those levels necessary for the possible onset of the most cosmetic of damage. The reports also highlighted that there seemed to be no correlation between events at Shoeburyness, recordable vibration levels and complains, and that passing traffic produced greater vibration levels.

  The reports did not cover the impact of noise and vibration levels on specific susceptible individuals; nor have any other assessments been made of effects on cancer sufferers.

  Veterans' Assessment Centre
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish a veterans' assessment centre. [151689]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: There is already a Ministry of Defence Medical Assessment Programme for Gulf Veterans and Porton Down Volunteers. The possible requirement for a Veterans' Assessment Centre to deal with health concerns that arise from time to time is addressed in the consultation document entitled "Introduction of a Voluntary Screening Programme Following Health Concerns in Respect of Depleted Uranium", published on 13 February. We will consider the merits of a veterans' assessment centre as part of our evaluation of the responses received.

  Departmental Estate (Plymouth)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which of his Department's properties and lands(a) are in the process of being sold in Plymouth and (b) are being considered for sell off; and what their value is; [152539]

  (2) which of his Department's properties and lands have been sold in Plymouth since 1997; and what their value was. [152538]

  Dr. Moonie
  Properties and lands sold by my Department since 1997 are provided in list 1. The value of each sale remains commercially confidential and is therefore withheld under exemption 13 of the Code of 178W
  Practice on Access to Government Information, unless the purchaser provides agreement to its disclosure. However, the total receipts from these sites were over £10 million. The properties and lands in the process of being sold in Plymouth and being considered for sell off are provided in list 2. Disclosing the valuations of such sites in disposal would not assist my Department in securing the best value for the taxpayer from the market.

  List 1—Sites sold in Plymouth

  1997–98

  Former Dockyard School, Devonport

  Royal Naval Engineering College Manadon (Part)

  Royal Navy Supply Depot, Crapstone, Roborough

  37, 39 and 49 Poole Park Road, St. Budeaux

  Harrowbear Storage Depot, Roborough

  Royal Marines Coypool Depot, Plympton

  Bowden Park, Eggbuckland

  16 Garages, Leatfield Drive, Looseleigh

  34 Highclere Gardens, Widewell

  1998–99

  Goschen Centre, Devonport

  Mount Wise Slopes, Devonport

  Royal Naval Engineering College Manadon

  Royal Marines Barracks Seaton

  100 Granby Street, Devonport

  1999–2000

  Oil Fuel Depot Radford Woods, Plymstock

  Barcote Walk, Eggbuckland

  Land at Weston Mill, Devonport

  Poole Farm, Estover

  2000–01

  Old Boiler House, Devonport

  Brickfields, Devonport

  List 2—Properties in the process of being sold in Plymouth

  Coleridge Training Area, Estover

  Ernesettle Lane, Ernesettle

  Oil Fuel Depot Turnchapel, Plymstock

  Alexandra House, St. Budeaux

  Furniture Store, St. Budeaux

  Mount Wise, Devonport

  Agricultural Land, Coleridge

  Agricultural Land, Coleridge

  Agricultural Land, Coleridge

  Sennen Place Car Park

  52 Married Quarters, St. Budeaux

  Millbay Park, Millbay

  Land at Mutton Monster, Devonport

  South Yard Sites, Devonport

  Land at Foulston Avenue, St. Budeaux

  Sites being considered for sell-off

  Bull Point Barracks, St. Budeaux.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Bills Agency for the financial year 2001–02. [152675]
  179W
  Dr. Moonie
  Targets have been set for the Defence Bills Agency for the financial year 2001–02 in accordance with the Agency's Service Level Agreement with the Ministry of Defence. The key targets build on the already high standards of service provided by the Agency since its formation in January 1996 and are as follows:

  (a) By the end of the financial year 2001–02 to reduce transaction costs by a further 6 per cent. for bills and a further 7 per cent. for invoices over the targets set in 2000–01.

  (b) Produce financial and accounting information to the ISO 9001/03 quality standard and to the times set out in the Service Level Agreement.

  (c) Pay 100 per cent. of correctly presented bills within 11 calendar days of receipt.

  (d) Raise 95 per cent. of invoices within four working days of receipt of a correctly presented claimable document.

  (e) Within the permitted tolerances, meet the performance targets prescribed in the Service Level Agreement.

  (f) Achieve during 2001–02 an improvement of at least one percentage point in the overall level of customer satisfaction compared with 2000–01.

  Depleted Uranium (Iraq)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many weapons dropped by the RAF on Iraqi installations since the UK began patrolling the no-fly zone have had depleted uranium tips; and what the total estimated amount of radioactive dust generated was; [152079]

  (2) pursuant to his oral statement of 26 February 2001, Official Report, columns 620–21, if the two weapons dropped by the RAF were tipped with depleted uranium. [152078]

  Mr. Hoon
  None of the weapons dropped by the RAF on Iraqi installations since the UK began patrolling the no-fly zone have had depleted uranium tips.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the demolition of part of Devonport Dockyard wall; and if he will make a statement. [152540]

  Dr. Moonie
  Preliminary plans have been drawn up to build a new single distribution facility, which will then enable the South Yard Wall of HM Naval Base Devonport to be realigned and thus some of the peripheral land to be given back to the local community.

  While no funds have yet been allocated for this project, and it must be judged against other pressing requirements, a number of potential funding routes are being explored.

  Beef Purchases (South Africa)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tonnage of beef from South Africa was purchased in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 for consumption by the armed forces; at which ports and airports it was landed; at which bases the beef was consumed; and how the swill was disposed of, and at which locations. [152614]

  Dr. Moonie
  No beef was purchased by "3663", the Ministry of Defence food supply contractor, from South Africa during 1998–99, or 1999–2000. There is a remote 180W
  possibility that a Royal Navy/Royal Fleet Auxiliary Ship may have purchased a small amount of beef while visiting a South African port. However, in the unlikely event that any such beef remained, it would be disposed of in accordance with the directives of the relevant Local Authority Environmental Health Officer on return to a UK port.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the special advisers working for him will relinquish their posts when the next general election is called. [149323]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 130W.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Court of Justice ruling on the requirement of public morality in each member state as it applies to fur farming. [150415]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 14 February 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 22 June 2000, Official Report, columns 300–01W.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the cost of the dispersal of(a) cattle from the over-30-months scheme and (b) the rendered material is recovered from the EU; and at what stage of the dispersal process the Government are entitled to the money. [152069]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The EU regulation governing the OTMS provides for compensation to be paid to producers on the basis of the weight of their cattle and for the UK to be reimbursed on the basis of a flat rate per head of cattle purchased and subsequently destroyed.

  No contribution is made towards the subsequent disposal costs.

  Animals which are consigned directly to incineration after purchase attract the full 100 per cent. of the amount claimable, currently 291 euros for cows and 328 euros for other cattle. The Government are entitled to claim reimbursement from the EU in respect of the payment made to the producer for the animal when the carcase has been incinerated.

  Animals which are consigned to rendering after purchase initially attract an 80 per cent. advance of the full amount claimable. The Government are entitled to claim reimbursement from the EU in respect of the payment made to the producer for the animal when its carcase has been rendered. The balance of 20 per cent. is

  181W
  claimable by the Government once the meat and bonemeal and tallow produced from the rendering process has been incinerated.

  Small Abattoirs
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will provide financial assistance to small abattoirs; and if he will make a statement. [152295]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: As announced in the Rural White Paper published on 28 November 2000, Agriculture Departments in England, Scotland and Wales have agreed to transfer £8.7 million to the Food Standards Agency for the three financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04; this will enable the Food Standards Agency to implement the principal recommendation of the Task Force chaired by Colin Maclean, to revise the method of charging for Meat Hygiene Service inspections in abattoirs and cutting plants. The Food Standards Agency has consulted the industry on its proposals. Implementation of the Maclean recommendation will significantly reduce inspection charges levied on many small and medium-sized meat plants and thus be of considerable benefit to the rural economy.

  Farm Produce Retailers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to introduce a code of practice for retailers of farm produce; and if he will make a statement. [152301]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The Ministry has no plans to introduce a code of practice for retailers of farm produce. However, last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek the agreement of the major supermarkets to a binding Code of Practice that addressed the specific concerns identified by the Competition Commission in their report on the supply of groceries from multiple stores. These concerns dealt with the relationship between the supermarkets and their suppliers, including farmers. The Office of Fair Trading is taking this forward and has recently sent a draft Code to representatives of suppliers for comment.

  BSE
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with EU ministers about preventing the export of meat from other EU countries with recorded BSE; and if he will make a statement. [152286]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The Agriculture Council takes advice on BSE from the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC). On 29 November 2000 the SSC published its opinion on the scientific basis for import bans proposed by three member states with regard to BSE risks in France and the Republic of Ireland. The SSC advised that BSE incidence figures, at that time, did not require modification of the BSE risk of France and Ireland. However the SSC is reviewing this position regularly in the light of BSE surveillance results.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the potential impact on human health of burning in the open air the carcases of animals carrying BSE in response to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [151683]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: The key arrangements for dealing with BSE and scrapie suspects have not changed as a consequence of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Carcases of animals slaughtered because of suspicion of BSE or scrapie will continue to be destroyed at incinerators. The movement of such carcases for disposal is exempt from the movement restrictions we have introduced in the response to the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  For non-BSE or scrapie suspects, pyres are being designed in a way to maximise good combustion, which will help to minimise air emissions and minimise incomplete burn-out and therefore potentially contaminated residues.

  We are currently assessing the implications of the possibility that small numbers of cattle affected by the FMD outbreak may be in the pre-clinical stage of BSE and may harbour some of the BSE agent. A previous independent risk assessment undertaken for the Environment Agency in 1997 indicated that any such risk was very low and the incidence of BSE is now considerably lower than in 1997. Nevertheless, we are revisiting these conclusions in the light of the current circumstances, and hope to receive a preliminary independent assessment shortly.

  Farm Investment
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the level of investment on farms in the last four years. [152300]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Statistics on the level of farm investment for the period 1995 to 1998 are presented in the table. Figures for 1999 and any revisions of previous years' figures will be published on 15 March 2001. Figures for 2000 will not be available until next year.

  Annual level of investment (gross capital formation) in the agricultural and horticultural sector: United Kingdom 1995–98

  £ million

  Year

  Investment

  1995

  2,620

  1996

  2,557

  1997

  2,544

  1998

  2,037

  Source:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1999

  Suckler Cows
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what payments from public funds are currently being made to farmers with suckler cows; and if he will make a statement. [152163]
  183W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The payments directed specifically at farmers with suckler cows are suckler cow premiums and related agrimonetary compensation payments. Farmers who keep suckler cows in the less-favoured areas are also eligible for Hill Farm Allowances. We are currently paying advance payments of premium to farmers whose claims are submitted toward the end of the 2000 application period. We intend to pay Hill Farm Allowances later this month and suckler cow premium balance payments early next month.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suckler cows there are in(a) the UK and (b) Gloucestershire. [152289]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The information is as follows:

  Number of suckler cows at June 2000 on main holdings

  Number

  UK

  1,829,464

  Gloucestershire

  15,388

  Notes:

  1. Gloucestershire excludes South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority (formerly part of Avon)

  2. Suckler cows are all cows and heifers in the beef herd that have calved

  Source:

  June agricultural and horticultural censes

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what business rate relief is available to farmers who diversify their businesses; and if he will make a statement. [152305]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: As part of their programme to assist farming and help the agricultural industry, the Government have recently consulted on introducing rate relief for new non-agricultural business on farms. Legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

HEALTH

  BCG Vaccine
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to target BCG vaccine towards areas with a particularly high incidence of TB when the vaccine is in short supply. [146326]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is our policy to direct BCG supply to those most at risk.

  BCG vaccine against tuberculosis is currently available for those individuals at higher risk of tuberculosis. Routine immunisation of all school children at age 10–14 was suspended in September 1999 following manufacturing problems encountered by the sole United Kingdom licensed source, Celltech Medeva. By the autumn school term last year sufficient supplies were available to allow health authorities to restart school immunisations in the London region, as the area with the highest rates and number of tuberculosis cases.
  184W
  Although stocks are now being delivered, we need to be assured that we have sufficient amounts to restart and support the routine schools programme in all parts of the country without further interruption.

  We are currently in the process of writing to all district immunisation co-ordinators to identify how much vaccine will be needed to restart the schools programme. Once this information is known, we will be able to make a judgment on when the programme can resume, and make an announcement.

  Beef
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has sought on the statistical risks involved in eating(a) French beef products and (b) beef-on-the-bone in the period leading up to the ban on beef-on-the-bone. [146402]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Responsibility for the provision of advice on food safety matters rests with the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  The FSA commissioned Dr. Christl Donnelly to research the risks associated with French beef and her paper was published in Nature on 14 December 2000, as was a letter from the FSA Chairman Sir John Krebs. Dr. Donnelly estimated that the risk from imported French beef from cattle aged no more than 30 months old at slaughter is essentially zero (no cattle within 12 months of developing clinical BSE). If the Over-30-Month-Rule is not fully enforced, the risk rises in proportion to the frequency of the breach. Dr. Donnelly estimated that if compliance with the Rule is 75 per cent., which Sir John Krebs considered to be reasonable on the basis of informal indications to the FSA from local authorities, the risk from French imports would be of the same order of magnitude as the current estimate for Britain's domestic beef.

  The FSA estimated that comparable if not greater risks to United Kingdom consumers could arise from imported meat products that contain French beef.

  The risk that applied in the period leading up to the UK's ban on beef-on-the-bone was estimated by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) at its 2 December 1997 meeting. At that meeting, SEAC considered the experimental finding in BSE infected cattle that dorsal root ganglia (DRG) became infective in the pre-clinical phase of the disease and that in one experiment bone marrow appeared to be infective. SEAC reviewed a risk assessment which estimated that 24 per cent. of the total infected DRG were attributable to bone-in beef. The remaining DRG related to infectivity arises from the ganglia that cannot be removed from cuts of joints of meat in the normal boning out process. The Committee estimated the risk to people from DRG in food to be "very small", and commented that
  "there was a 95 per cent. chance of no case of nvCJD arising as a result of this exposure and a 5 per cent. chance of one case arising".
  However, the Committee also noted that given the major uncertainties about many aspects of the transmission of the disease in cattle to humans the actual figure could be anywhere between 0 and 10 nvCJD cases being induced by eating infected DRG.
  185W
  The risk from UK beef has declined since 1997. In July 1999 the Chief Medical Officer assessed the additional risk of lifting the UK's bone-in beef ban as
  "tiny and unquantifiable in any meaningful way".

  Consultants and Advisers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on external consultants and advisers in each year since 1979. [150479]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 February 2001]: Departmental expenditure on external consultants and advisers, by financial year since 1992–93 is in the table.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Expenditure

  1992–93

  21.936

  1993–94

  19.097

  1994–95

  20.766

  1995–96

  20.564

  1996–97

  15.789

  1997–98

  13.480

  1998–99

  7.181

  1999–2000

  8.717

  2000–01

  14.428

  1 This figure covers the period April 2000 through January 2001

  Figures for the period 1979 to 1992 are no longer held locally and retrieving the figures from central archives would incur delay and disproportionate cost.

  The trend for the Department is downward but part of the explanation for the decreasing trend in departmental expenditure is the adoption of a new definition of consultancy, agreed by Ministers during 1997–98 and implemented in-year. This definition removed confusion between contracted services and consultancy proper; the figures for earlier years are therefore artificially inflated by including some doubtful categories. The significant reduction in 1998–99 is explained by being the first full year in which this distinction had been made.

  Resuscitation Policies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will (1) instruct the National Care Standards Commission to inspect all establishments for which it is responsible to ensure that(a) resuscitation policies which respect the rights of clients for whom they are responsible are in place, (b) such policies are understood by relevant staff and accessible to them and (c) such policies are subject to robust audit and monitoring arrangements; [151465]

  Date of visit

  Minister

  Visit

  Hon. Member met

  14 March 2000

  Mr. Denham Minister of State

  North Peterborough Primary Care Trust Peterborough Walk in Centre

  Helen Brinton

  14 March 2000

  Mr. Denham Minister of State

  South Peterborough PCT

  None

  1 August 2000

  Lord Hunt of King's Heath Parliamentary Under-Secretary

  Peterborough Hospital

  None

  186W
  (2) extend the remit of the requirement outlined in National Health Service Circular 2000/028, to require social services departments and private and voluntary providers to ensure that (a) all appropriate resuscitation policies which respect the rights of clients for whom they are responsible are in place, (b) such policies are understood by relevant staff and accessible to them and (c) such policies are subject to robust audit and monitoring arrangements. [151464]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Care Standards Commission will regulate a wide range of social care and independent healthcare providers. Regulations and national minimum standards are being developed to reflect the different nature of each of the services to be regulated. Depending on the nature of the service being provided, a resuscitation policy will be required for some providers but not others. For example we will require independent healthcare providers to have a resuscitation policy in which patients' rights are central, which is readily available to staff, patient's relatives and carers, and of which staff are informed. These policies will have to be kept under review to ensure their continued effectiveness.

  We published the national minimum standards for "Care Homes for Older People" on 2 March. These require care home providers to discuss with service users their wishes concerning terminal care. The standards also require them to provide staff with first aid training or employ nurses who will have basic life support training.

  There will, however, be providers for whom a resuscitation policy will not be necessary, such as fostering agencies or voluntary adoption agencies.

  It will not be necessary to extend the requirements in National Health Service Circular 2000–028 to local authority social services departments as the providers they contract with will have to be registered by the commission and therefore required to meet the relevant standards. This new regulatory framework will also require local authority owned care homes to be registered for the first time and these too will be required to meet the national minimum standards.

  Ministerial Visits (Peterborough)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Ministers in his Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough Unitary Authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a) the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local Member met the Minister. [151026]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The available information is given in the table:

  Pigmeat
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress there has been on enforcing accurate labelling of pigmeat products. [151671]

  Ms Stuart
  Legislation on false and misleading labelling is enforced by local authorities. We have issued guidelines to help enforcement officers tackle misleading origin labelling. We have also appointed a pigmeat verification officer to investigate misuse of 'British' labels on pork and pigmeat products. He has dealt with over 20 cases considered to be misleading to the consumer; in almost all cases the retailer and processor have either removed the product from the shelves or changed their labelling policy in line with Government guidelines.

  Abattoir Closures
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of abattoirs which have closed since 1 May 1997 due to costs of meat inspection. [151815]

  Ms Stuart
  No such estimate has been made. However, the Meat Inspection Charges Task Force says that it appeared to them that the main reason for small and medium-sized abattoirs going out of business at that time was the level of meat inspection charges.

  The level of meat inspection charges has not been the only reason for business closures. Other factors, such as market changes, would be a more likely explanation for the long-term decline in the number of red meat abattoirs (which in England and Wales fell from 1,056 in 1979 to 410 in 1997 and 351 at the end of last year).

  Runaway Children
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the needs of runaway children are provided for; and if he will make a statement. [152020]

  Mr. Hutton
  We will, jointly with the Home Office, shortly be issuing guidance to local authorities with social services functions and to the police, aimed at ensuring that services for children and young people who run away from home or care are developed and provided on a multi-agency basis.

  NHS/Social Services Care
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the further guidance on the joint NHS/social services funding for respite care, nursing care and long-term care of the elderly will be issued to health authorities. [151906]

  Mr. Hutton
  Revised guidance for National Health Service responsibilities on continuing health care will be issued shortly. Guidance on NHS responsibilities for nursing care in nursing homes will be issued shortly. Relevant aspects of respite care will be covered in these two pieces of guidance.

  Health and Social Services Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to publish(a) a code of practice for health authorities on the recruitment of nursing and
  188W
  medical staff from overseas and (b) guidance for local authorities on the recruitment of trained social workers from overseas. [151788]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: The Department issued guidance on international nurse recruitment in November 1999. A further code for international recruitment will be published shortly. The code will apply to the recruitment of doctors and dentists, nurses and midwives, allied health professions and scientists and technicians.

  We have not issued any guidance to local authorities about the overseas recruitment of social workers. We have, however, advised the two local authorities who approached the Department for advice about the recruitment of social workers from abroad to adopt the principles of the National Health Service guidance.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the risk to children and babies of parents sharing the same bed as their children; and what guidance he issues on this matter. [151897]

  Yvette Cooper
  My Department provided funds for the "Sudden Unexpected Deaths in Infancy" study. A copy of the ensuing report has been placed in the Library. The study evaluated risk factors associated with bed-sharing, the broad conclusions of which are reflected in our leaflet "Reduce the Risk of Cot Death". This advises against adults bed-sharing with a baby if one or both are smokers, take any form of drugs or medication which makes them sleep more heavily, have recently taken alcohol or are extremely tired.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to develop an agreed protocol for the review of child deaths; [151940]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the deaths of children which do not result from a clear organic cause are adequately reviewed. [151941]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department provided funding for the "Sudden Unexpected Deaths in Infancy" study published last year. This report advocated a protocol for the review of child deaths, including those for which there is no clear organic cause for death. We are exploring the implementation of recommendations arising from this source together with those aspects of the recently available advice from the Chief Medical Officer's review of the approach to post-mortem examination, "The Removal, Retention and Use of Human Organs and Tissue from Post-mortem Examination", where this advice has a bearing on the review of death in childhood. Copies of both these documents are available in the Library.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the social service inspectorate is taking in response to accusations of child abuse at the National Children's Home at Bourne Place and the home at Betts Way run by Bromley council and the Ravensbourne NHS trust; if the inspectorate is taking action in respect of officials employed by Bromley council; and if he will make a statement. [151996]
  189W
  Mr. Hutton
  We are aware of the two separate investigations into allegations of child abuse, at Bourne Place and Betts Way. The investigation into the allegations at Bourne Place School is continuing. The Betts Way investigation is drawing to a close. We will take the appropriate action when the investigations are completed.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department made an assessment of the report produced by the US Institute of Medicine in 1993 entitled, "Veterans at Risk-the health effects of mustard gas and lewisite", while compiling the published message (CEM/CM0/2000/15) on the Porton Down's medical assessment programme from his Department's deputy chief medical officer on 21 November 2000. [152001]

  Yvette Cooper
  No assessment was made of the report from the United States Institute of Medicine (1993).

  The Department's message was aimed at providing general practitioners and health professionals with urgent information on the medical assessment programme, since those seeking to use these facilities would need to be referred by their general practitioners. It was based on recent authoritative reviews, but it was not intended to provide a comprehensive review of the international literature. The names of two consultants in clinical toxicology were given as a source of direct specialist advice for health professions.

  Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when universal neonatal hearing screening will be piloted; in which health authorities it will be piloted; and how long it will be piloted before the Government announce the timetable for the national implementation of UNHS. [151925]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Universal neonatal hearing screening is due to be piloted, initially in 20 health authorities. This phase will start in March 2001 and will be staged over 12 months. An announcement will be made early next year about a timetable for national implementation taking account of the initial findings of the pilot. The first 20 health authorities are:

  Avon HA

  Bradford HA

  Buckinghamshire HA

  Calderdale & Kirklees HA

  Camden & Islington HA

  East London HA

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove HA

  Manchester HA

  Norfolk HA

  North Cheshire HA

  North Staffordshire HA

  North Trent Consortia (including: Barnsley, North Derbyshire & Sheffield HAs)

  Northumberland HA

  Nottingham HA

  Oxfordshire HA

  190W

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest HA

  Shropshire HA

  Southampton & South West Hampshire HA

  Stockport HA

  Wiltshire HA.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Coventry will be included in the Modernising NHS Hearing Aid Services Project. [152323]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department will study the results of the "Modernising National Health Service hearing aid services" project at the 20 participating NHS trusts to determine how changes to hearing aid services should be rolled out to the NHS. Pending the outcome of the project, other hospitals with the appropriate staff, training, equipment and experience are already able to access the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids.

  Physical Activity Promotion
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by health authorities in developing policies for promoting physical activity as required by the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease. [152528]

  Yvette Cooper
  Policies for promoting physical activity are being developed locally. The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease requires that by April 2001 all National Health Service bodies, working closely with local authorities, will have agreed and be contributing to the local programme of effective policies on increasing physical activity. The Department will assess progress after April.

  Children on Adult Wards
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of children in each health authority area who are currently being nursed on adult wards. [151943]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he has set to reduce heart disease over the next 10 years. [152624]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have set a target to reduce the death rate from coronary heart disease and stroke and related diseases in people under 75 by at least two fifths by 2010. The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease sets out a 10-year programme to transform the prevention and diagnosis of heart disease and the care and treatment of patients.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in descending order the health authorities with the highest incidence of heart disease; and if he will include the budget allocated for reducing the number of heart attacks in each of these authorities. [152623]
  191W
  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the incidence of heart disease is not routinely available. Data are available showing admissions for heart disease and these provide some indication of levels of heart disease in the population. The health authorities which show the greatest number of hospital admissions for heart disease are shown in the table.

  It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services. In addition to existing resources in unified allocations, extra funding made available in 2000–01 includes £100 million for heart disease.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where ischaemic heart disease is the main diagnosis (ICD10 codes 120–125), by HA of residence NHS hospitals, England 1999–2000

  Health authority of residence

  FCEs

  QD9 Birmingham HA

  7,210

  QET Norfolk

  7,027

  QD8 Avon

  6,716

  QCL Leicestershire

  6,297

  QAM East Sussex Brighton and Hove

  6,015

  QCM Lincolnshire

  6,015

  QDP Tees

  5,965

  QAX North Essex

  5,938

  QDE County Durham

  5,925

  QDH Leeds

  5,677

  QER Cambridge

  5,630

  QAF West Kent

  5,598

  QDW Dorset

  5,401

  QC2 Liverpool

  5,336

  QAY South Essex

  5,003

  QDV Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  4,921

  QAN West Sussex

  4,903

  QDR North Yorkshire

  4,876

  QDT Calderdale and Kirklees

  4,873

  QCF Suffolk

  4,816

  QCP Nottingham

  4,750

  QDA Wigan and Bolton

  4,724

  QCJ South Derbyshire

  4,709

  QAW East London and The City

  4,704

  QD6 South and West Devon

  4,532

  QCW South Cheshire

  4,527

  QAE East Kent

  4,487

  QCX East Lancashire

  4,457

  QC5 St. Helens and Knowsley

  4,375

  QDF East Riding

  4,363

  QAV Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow

  4,266

  QDJ Newcastle and North Tyneside

  4,234

  QCR Sheffield

  4,207

  QCC Northamptonshire

  4,135

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  4,036

  QCY North West Lancashire

  3,953

  QDX North and East Devon

  3,936

  QEJ South Staffordshire

  3,891

  QC6 Salford and Trafford

  3,872

  QC9 West Pennine

  3,822

  QA8 Buckinghamshire

  3,765

  QDG Gateshead and South Tyneside

  3,702

  QCN North Nottinghamshire

  3,691

  QA7 Berkshire

  3,655

  QD5 Somerset

  3,627

  QD7 Wiltshire

  3,594

  QAL West Surrey

  3,561

  QC3 Manchester

  3,524

  QD2 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  3,500

  QAH Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  3,427

  QA5 Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  3,413

  QCT Bury and Rochdale

  3,410

  192W

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where ischaemic heart disease is the main diagnosis (ICD10 codes 120–125), by HA of residence NHS hospitals, England 1999–2000

  Health authority of residence

  FCEs

  QEL Warwickshire

  3,401

  QDY Gloucestershire

  3,398

  QAJ Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  3,384

  QDD Bradford

  3,361

  QEH North Staffordshire

  3,361

  QEQ West Hertfordshire

  3,314

  QEN Worcestershire

  3,262

  QAR Brent and Harrow

  3,258

  QEP East and North Hertfordshire

  3,219

  QDC Wirral

  3,097

  QD1 North and Mid Hampshire

  3,091

  QCE Oxfordshire

  3,077

  QCG Barnsley

  2,989

  QCK Doncaster

  2,941

  QA6 Bedfordshire

  2,886

  QEA Coventry

  2,847

  QDQ Wakefield

  2,842

  QCH North Derbyshire

  2,817

  QDM Northumberland

  2,811

  QDN Sunderland

  2,718

  QAA Bexley and Greenwich

  2,671

  QDL South Humber

  2,642

  QCV North Cheshire

  2,614

  QC1 South Lancashire

  2,550

  QA4 Enfield & Haringey

  2,524

  QDK North Cumbria

  2,468

  QEF Shropshire

  2,464

  QAP Barking and Havering

  2,438

  QC7 Sefton

  2,341

  QEE Sandwell

  2,268

  QC4 Morecambe Bay

  2,173

  QEK Walsall

  2,125

  QC8 Stockport

  2,116

  QEC Dudley

  2,062

  QCQ Rotherham

  2,051

  QAQ Barnet

  1,906

  QAD Croydon

  1,901

  QAK East Surrey

  1,878

  QA3 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1,870

  QAT Camden and Islington

  1,851

  QEM Wolverhampton

  1,823

  QAC Bromley

  1,755

  QAG Kingston and Richmond

  1,561

  QA2 Hillingdon

  1,450

  QEG Solihull

  1,388

  QED Herefordshire

  889

  QD4 Isle of Wight

  808

  Scotland

  254

  Wales

  2,396

  Not known

  1,812

  Northern Ireland

  55

  Total

  364,168

  Notes:

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider.

  The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  Figures in this table are provisional (version 2) and have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in descending order the 100 council wards with(a) the highest rate of heart disease and (b) the highest rates of death due to heart disease. [152622]
  193W
  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the incidence of heart disease is not routinely available. We recognise the importance of better information, not least to ensure that we are able to identify and treat those with heart disease. That is why one of the early priorities for the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) is the systematic development and maintenance of practice-based CHD registers.

  Data for the 25 health authorities with the highest rates of mortality from all circulatory disease, which includes all forms of heart disease, for men and women, are shown in the table. Information at council ward level on rates of death from specific causes is not collected.

  Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced new national health inequalities targets to reduce the health gap between children in different social classes and to reduce the difference in life expectancy between areas with the lowest life expectancy and the national average. This is not a short term process, but it is only by tackling inequalities now that we can impact on the incidence of disease in the future.

  Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) for all circulatory disease (ICD9 390–459), 1997–99: 25 health authorities with highest (worst) mortality rates

  Health authority

  SMR

  Men

  West Pennine

  130

  Manchester

  128

  Rotherham

  128

  Liverpool

  125

  Sandwell

  124

  Wigan and Bolton

  122

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  122

  East Lancashire

  121

  County Durham

  119

  Bury and Rochdale

  118

  Northumberland

  118

  Barnsley

  117

  Wolverhampton

  116

  Tees

  116

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  114

  North Staffordshire

  114

  Doncaster

  113

  Salford and Trafford

  113

  Sunderland

  113

  Birmingham

  112

  East London and the City

  112

  Bradford

  111

  Coventry

  110

  Wakefield

  110

  North Cheshire

  110

  Women

  West Pennine

  128

  East Lancashire

  126

  Bury and Rochdale

  123

  County Durham

  123

  Northumberland

  122

  Doncaster

  121

  Wigan and Bolton

  120

  Rotherham

  119

  Manchester

  119

  North Cumbria

  119

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  116

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  116

  North Cheshire

  116

  Tees

  114

  North Derbyshire

  113

  Sunderland

  113

  194W

  Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) for all circulatory disease (ICD9 390–459), 1997–99: 25 health authorities with highest (worst) mortality rates

  Health authority

  SMR

  Sandwell

  112

  Barnsley

  112

  Morecambe Bay

  111

  Coventry

  111

  South Lancashire

  111

  North Staffordshire

  111

  South Staffordshire

  110

  Liverpool

  110

  Dudley

  110

  Source:

  Data from Department of Health Compendium of Clinical and Health Indicators 2000

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing avoidable heart disease for under-65s; and if he will make statement. [152616]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of deaths from coronary heart disease for the under-65s in England has decreased from 17,140 in 1995 to 14,158 in 1999 (the latest year for which figures are available). Advances in technology, new investment and an increased focus on prevention should reduce this number still further.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to use the findings of the genome project to identify and reduce the risks of heart disease. [152621]

  Yvette Cooper
  As indicated in the NHS Plan, the Department, in association with the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, is planning to establish a prospective survey to investigate genetic and environmental influences on the development of the commoner diseases of adult life, including heart disease.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of familial and hereditary factors in the occurrence of heart disease; and what measures he intends to introduce to reduce these factors. [152618]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department, in association with the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, is planning to establish a prospective survey to investigate genetic and environmental influences on the development of the commoner diseases of adult life, including heart disease.

  Heart disease risk is cumulative. The risk of heart disease can be significantly reduced, even for those individuals with a family history of heart disease, by stopping smoking, eating a low fat, low cholesterol diet and exercising regularly.

  Many of the factors which influence the occurrence of heart disease are linked back to inequalities. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced new national health inequalities targets to reduce the health gap between children in different social classes and to reduce the difference in life expectancy between areas with the lowest life expectancy and the national average. This is not a short-term process—but it is only by tackling inequalities now that we can impact on familial and hereditary factors in the future.

SCOTLAND

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to meet representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation in Scotland to discuss manufacturing industry. [150740]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I shall be meeting representatives of Scottish Engineering, the Engineering Employers Federation in Scotland, on 16 March.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met representatives of business and trade unions to discuss manufacturing in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [150757]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have frequent meetings with representatives of business and trade unions to discuss issues of relevance to manufacturing and other sectors of the Scottish economy. We shall continue to provide the sound economic foundation to provide the best environment for Scottish business.

  Chester Street Insurance Holdings
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on her discussions with the Clydeside Action on Asbestos Campaign concerning the firm, Chester Street. [150741]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I had a very useful meeting with Clydeside Action on Asbestos, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Thompsons, solicitors, on 12 February. Thompsons have now provided detailed information on the number of claims that might be affected by the liquidation of Chester Street.

  Tourism
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next plans to meet the British Tourist Authority to discuss the promotion of Scotland overseas. [150743]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I shall be meeting the Chairman, his Deputy and the Chief Executive of the British Tourist Authority tomorrow to discuss a range of issues, including the promotion of Scotland overseas.

  Drugs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 155W, on anti-drugs strategy, if she will make a statement on the progress made with matters raised in her meetings with the First Minister. [150744]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Progress has been made on a range of topics in my right hon. Friend's meetings with the First Minister.

  Effective co-operation between the Government and the Scottish Executive is vital to tackle the scourge of illegal drugs. Quarterly meetings of the relevant Ministers with the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator now take place, most recently on 19 February in Edinburgh, to review progress within the framework of objectives and priorities set out
  196W
  in the White Paper "Tackling Drugs to build a Better Britain" and the Scottish Executive's report "Tackling Drugs in Scotland: Action in Partnership".

  Single Currency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent advice she has received from the European Commission regarding the impact of a single European currency on the Scottish economy. [150745]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact of future UK membership of the single European currency on manufacturing industry in Scotland. [150748]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision to join the single currency is whether the economic case is clear and unambiguous. The Government have said that they will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the likely impact of the climate change levy on Scottish industry and business. [150746]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss a wide range of matters. The climate change levy will raise an estimated £1 billion in its first year, all of which will be recycled back to business by a 0.3 percentage point cut in employers' National Insurance contributions and £150 million of spending on energy efficiency. The Government expect the levy to be broadly neutral between services and manufacturing.

  The effect on any specific business, sector or region will depend on a number of factors, including their future energy consumption the level of employment, eligibility for discounts, use of renewable or combined heat and power energy, and take up of enhanced capital allowances.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about the implications of the disagreements on tariffs between the United States of America and the European Union on the Scottish textile industry. [150747]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 158W.

  Block Grant
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the First Minister regarding the method for calculating the Scottish block grant. [150749]
  197W
  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of matters. Details of the method of calculating the Scottish Assigned Budget were set out in the Statement of Funding Policy, which was published by HM Treasury on 17 July 2000.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the Scottish shipbuilding industry. [150750]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Shipbuilding in Scotland remains competitive. Orders for Landing Ships and First Class Type 45 destroyers for the Ministry of Defence and also orders for merchant ships for Stirling Shipping will all result in work for Clyde yards. Nevertheless, each year will have to continue to work hard to win orders. For my part, I will continue to do all I can to support shipbuilding on the Clyde.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on recent trends in unemployment in Scotland. [150751]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest labour market figures show that there are 2,391,000 people in work in Scotland, the highest level since 1960. The employment rate stands at 73.8 per cent., the highest level since 1975. Claimant count unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest level since January 1976 and has fallen by 49,900 since spring 1997.

  Fuel Taxes
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the impact of fuel taxes on the rural economy of Scotland. [150752]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the Scottish economy.

  The Chancellor announced a variety of measures in his pre-Budget report in November last year which will help mitigate the effect of fuel prices on rural areas. These include: the reduction in Vehicle Excise Duty for cars up to 1500cc; the abolition of Vehicle Excise Duty for tractors and agricultural vehicles; a transitional rebate of 50 per cent. for HGV Vehicle Excise Duty; a 2p per litre cut in cleaner ultra-low sulphur petrol and a 3p per litre cut for ultra-low sulphur diesel. He has also announced more recently that any reduction in duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol that is announced in the Budget will be matched by a reduction in duty on unleaded petrol for a temporary period until 14 June 2001.

  Television Licences
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners in Scotland are benefiting from the free television licences for over-75s. [150753]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Around 340,000 pensioners in Scotland aged 75 and over are benefiting, including an estimated 40,000 in accommodation for residential care.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Fuel
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about levels of provision of ultra-low sulphur fuel in Scotland. [150754]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss a wide range of matters.

  The continued roll out of ultra-low sulphur fuel across the country is being monitored regularly by the Department of Trade and Industry. The Government's objectives are to ensure that everyone should be able to share the environmental benefits of ultra-low sulphur fuel, and the benefits of the duty cut associated with it. The Government intend to match any reduction in duty on ultra-low sulphur fuel that is announced in the Budget with a reduction in duty on unleaded petrol for a temporary period until 14 June 2001 while ultra-low sulphur fuels are rolled out across the country.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many families in Scotland are estimated to have benefited from the Working Families Tax Credit. [150755]

  Mr. Foulkes
  This information is contained in the Working Families Tax Credit Quarterly Enquiry for August 2000, a copy of which is in the House Library. The Quarterly Enquiry shows that Working Families Tax Credit is paid to an estimated 108,000 families in Scotland.

  Economic and Social Policy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Scottish First Minister to discuss the impact of the Government's economic and social policy on Scotland. [150756]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of issues. The Government are pursuing a comprehensive and co-ordinated strategy to fulfil Britain's economic potential, building a stronger economy and a fairer society in which everyone can contribute to and share in rising prosperity. Scotland is benefiting and will continue to benefit from this comprehensive strategy.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the future of oil and gas industry businesses in Scotland. [150738]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government and industry are working together through PILOT to ensure that Scotland and the UK remains a centre of profitable activity well into the new century.

  The Oil and Gas industry continues to be a major contributor to the Scottish Economy. Renewed confidence in the UK Continental Shelf as a place to do business is leading to increased investment intentions. The major package of investment projects announced by the oil companies in December last year will generate 2500 jobs across the UK, around half of which will be in Scotland.

  199W
  These projects are excellent examples of how new ideas and initiatives—such as sharing knowledge on new technologies, improving communication across the supply chain, facilitation of asset trading technologies and commercial co-operation—are enabling access to previously undeveloped fields.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Brown Judgment
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Advocate-General for Scotland what advice she has given on the Brown case judgment and implications for road traffic and other cases in Scotland. [150760]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  As the hon. Lady will be aware, I give advice to Departments on various matters. In relation to the Brown case, I presented arguments to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in November of last year. Their Lordships decided that the current legislation was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

PRIME MINISTER

  Taoiseach
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government were consulted by the Office of the Irish Taoiseach concerning his planned visit to Scotland on 11 February. [150822]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Government were not consulted. However I understand that the Scotland Office, the Northern Ireland Office, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were aware of the visit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Summer Recess
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Council what representations have been received about changing the summer recess dates to more closely mirror school summer holidays. [150782]

  Mr. Tipping
  I have received no recent representations, although I am aware this is a matter which concerns many Members.

  Regional Select Committees
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has for establishing Select Committees for the regions. [150785]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no proposals to add to the establishment of the Standing Committee on the Regions.

  Modernisation Committee
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council what further proposals she plans to bring before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House. [150786]
  200W
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Council what further proposals she plans to bring forward to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. [150789]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have little to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 204.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council when she expects to(a) receive and (b) implement the SSRB report on the supply to and use of information technology by hon. Members. [150788]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The report is made to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and it will be dealt with in the normal way.

  Programming of Legislation
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the progress on the programming of legislation. [150790]

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress on the programming of legislation. [150792]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate),Official Report, column 145.

  House of Lords Reform
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what progress is being made on setting up the Joint Committee on the reform of the House of Lords. [150791]

  Mr. Tipping
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Council announced on 3 July 2000,Official Report, column 92W, that the Government aimed to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the parliamentary implications of the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords so that it should begin work as soon as possible after the summer recess.

  Unfortunately, discussions with the other parties in both Houses on the membership and precise terms of reference failed to reach agreement. We have therefore concluded that there is little present prospect of setting up a Joint Committee in the present Parliament.

  Business Co-ordination Unit
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress with the Government's Business Co-ordination Unit. [150787]

  Mr. Tipping
  Following its launch in September I am very pleased to report that the Unit has made good progress. In just a short space of time it has improved access to Ministers for the business community, through its co-ordination of invitations received across Whitehall.

  The initiative has been extremely well received both by the business community and the agencies that represent business. I am also pleased to say that this initiative is an

  201W
  excellent example of Government working together—the support the Unit has received from Regional Government Offices has been a key factor in its success.

  Paper Recycling
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans she has to set targets for the recycling of paper. [150781]

  Mrs. Roe
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  House of Commons Envelopes
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many pre-paid House of Commons envelopes have been supplied to hon. Members since May 1997. [150783]

  Mrs. Roe
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Messages from Her Majesty
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Council if she will put proposals before the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to allow messages from Her Majesty no longer to be communicated to the House by the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. [152456]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no such plans, but my hon. Friend may wish to raise the matter with the Procedure Committee.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been allocated to clear the dome site. [150929]

  Janet Anderson
  As indicated in the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) October 2000 forecast, which was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 October, decommissioning costs being borne by the company are estimated at £7.5 million. Further potential costs of approximately £15 million relating to certain decommissioning requirements will be borne by English Partnerships as indicated in the agreement of 12 January 2001 between English Partnerships and NMEC. English Partnerships are to be reimbursed from sale proceeds. I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions on 17 January 2001,Official Report, column 258W, which gives details of that agreement.

  Dancing Schools
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his estimate is of the number of dancing schools in(a) London and (b) England and Wales; if he will break them down by styles of dance predominantly taught; what funding is available for ethnic minority schools of dancing; and what the level of public expenditure was on each variety of dance in each of the past five years. [151627]
  202W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Council for Dance Education and Training (CDET), an independent body representing dance training providers, accredits courses at vocational dance training schools. CDET's membership includes 24 vocational dance schools in England: 13 in London, five more in the south-east, and six in the midlands or north-west. Ten of these focus on musical theatre (dance), six on ballet, four on contemporary dance, three on both musical theatre and ballet, and one on these three styles. In addition, the CDET is aware of at least 10 other schools in England which say they offer vocational training. Information on Welsh schools is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Funding for dance is provided through a range of public and private sources, at central Government and local levels. DCMS support for dance is undertaken by the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards. The information is not readily available in the form requested, but the Arts Council has provided the following breakdown of grant in aid for specific dance causes, and headline figures for Arts Lottery expenditure on dance, as follows:

  Grant in aid

  £

  Year

  Total

  Ballet

  Contemporary

  African/Asian

  1997–98

  23,548,016

  17,425,531

  2,354,803

  941,920

  1998–99

  23,165,756

  17,142,659

  2,316,576

  1,158,289

  1999–2000

  27,264,356

  19,902,979

  2,726,435

  1,363,217

  2000–01

  25,895,815

  18,903,944

  2,589,581

  1,297,790

  Arts Council Lottery dance expenditure/awards total £133,074,167. It includes:

  New Audiences Programme: £698,000;

  Regional Arts Lottery Programme: £4,850,109;

  Interim Funding Scheme £19,114,413 (includes awards to drama colleges, and a 50 per cent. grant from the DfEE).

  Sport England provides some support for ballroom and Latin dancing, and some physical movement related dance forms. Grant in aid provision totalled over £300,000 in the last five years, with Lottery awards of at least £420,000, although the overall figure is likely to be higher where dance has featured as part of broader Lottery applications.

  Sites and Monuments Records (Internet)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure local authorities maintain and develop comprehensive sites and monuments records and post them on the internet. [151865]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A recommendation that the Government should ensure that local authorities have access to comprehensive records of the historic environment and that such information should be widely available through the electronic media was included in English Heritage's recent report "Power of Place". The Government are considering all the recommendations made in that document and plan to issue a policy statement during the spring.

  Football Supporters Trusts
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial and other
  203W
  resources the Government have provided for the establishment of football supporters trusts in England; to whom the Government provided such resources; and on what dates. [152071]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Supporters Direct was established last year to offer advice to those wishing to form supporters trusts. Supporters Direct receives no funding from the Government. The Football Foundation has allocated funding of £250,000 to Supporters Direct for 2000–01, and funding arrangements for 2001–02 and subsequent years are under discussion.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152103]

  Janet Anderson
  In common with all other Government Departments, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will submit details of timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers. The Green Ministers' report is published annually and will make specific reference to timber procurement.

  East England Arts

  East Midland Arts Board

  London Arts

  Northern Arts Board

  North West Arts Board

  Southern Arts Board

  South East Arts Board

  Arts Board South West

  West Midlands Arts Board

  Yorkshire Arts Board

  Average

  1996–97

  Total administration and overheads

  1,172,567

  907,999

  1,788,826

  1,153,409

  1,346,020

  987,085

  837,920

  1,062,346

  1,163,108

  1,098,290

  —

  Total expenditure

  5,672,041

  5,039,043

  14,864,120

  8,267,016

  9,667,594

  4,396,563

  3,386,680

  4,980,592

  6,468,162

  7,641,412

  —

  Admin. and overheads as percentage of total expenditure

  21

  18

  12

  14

  14

  22

  25

  21

  18

  14

  18

  1997–98

  Total administration and overheads

  1,306,192

  1,022,998

  2,148,360

  1,191,143

  1,467,866

  1,152,545

  1,105,794

  1,076,834

  1,222,727

  1,232,622

  —

  Total expenditure

  5,921,244

  5,168,319

  14,872,438

  7,891,794

  11,219,265

  4,503,999

  3,615,520

  5,238,197

  6,822,659

  7,774,146

  —

  Admin. and overheads as percentage of total expenditure

  22

  20

  14

  15

  13

  26

  28

  21

  18

  16

  19

  1998–99

  Total administration and overheads

  1,356,880

  1,122,304

  1,967,743

  1,153,409

  1,548,197

  1,214,485

  1,133,405

  1,278,564

  1,277,346

  1,315,188

  —

  Total expenditure

  5,639,774

  5,365,203

  14,811,118

  8,267,016

  10,078,239

  5,079,650

  3,761,861

  5,297,039

  7,000,927

  8,021,625

  —

  Admin. and overheads as percentage of total expenditure

  24

  21

  13

  14

  15

  24

  30

  24

  18

  16

  20

  1999–2000

  Total administration and overheads

  1,627,448

  1,674,667

  2,329,840

  1,304,918

  1,685,940

  1,447,191

  1,474,50

  1,843,841

  1,480,836

  1,464,843

  —

  Total expenditure

  6,293,572

  7,006,544

  16,015,916

  9,405,899

  11,546,441

  5,819,415

  4,398,127

  6,183,189

  8,145,266

  8,814,294

  —

  Admin. and overheads as percentage of total expenditure

  26

  24

  15

  14

  15

  25

  4

  30

  18

  17

  22

  2000–011

  Total administration and overheads

  2,028,838

  1,534,075

  3,214,962

  1,407,115

  2,071,889

  1,565,038

  1,642,93

  1,426,484

  1,637,777

  1,665,275

  —

  Total expenditure

  9,690,169

  9,598,019

  31,498,337

  12,623,240

  18,643,253

  11,278,692

  7,210,107

  9,266,951

  13,766,026

  12,775,457

  —

  Admin. and overheads as percentage of total expenditure

  21

  16

  10

  11

  11

  14

  23

  15

  12

  13

  15

  1 Forecast

  Notes:

  1. Total administration and overheads figure includes staffing costs, costs related to premises, office costs, travel and subsistence and company costs. It excludes everything which may be considered to be direct arts spend.

  Source:

  All figures are taken from RAB audited accounts, with the exception of 2000–01 which are taken from RAB business plans
  204W
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much certified timber has been purchased by his Department over the past six months; and what proportion of total timber purchases this represents. [152119]

  Janet Anderson
  To answer the parliamentary question would incur disproportionate cost. Departments do not yet have systems in place to provide the data on the proportion of certified timber purchased over the last six months. The interdepartmental working group on timber procurement is working to develop a common reporting template, which will form the basis for the future reporting on timber procurement.

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the administration costs as a percentage of total expenditure were of each of the regional arts boards in each of the last three years; and what the forecast figures are for the current year, including the underlying data, on which the calculations are based. [152620]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information requested is in the table:

  Television Audio-description Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the level of audio-description services available to blind people with television sets. [151849]

  Janet Anderson
  The Broadcasting Act 1996 sets a 10 per cent. target for audio description to be reached by the 10th anniversary of the start of the digital terrestrial television (DTT) service. The Independent Television Commission (ITC) has set an interim target for at least 2 per cent. of programmes on DTT to be audio described by the start of the second year of the service. The BBC's policy is to at least match these targets. I understand from the ITC that the 2 per cent. target has been met, except by those channels which have been granted special exemption.

  Television Subtitling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the powers of Ofcom as proposed in the White Paper, "A New Future for Communications", will include the provision to ensure that television advertisements are accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing people through the provision of closed caption subtitles. [151850]

  Janet Anderson
  It is intended that Ofcom will have the same general powers in respect of the provision of programmes for deaf and hard-of-hearing people that the Independent Television Commission (ITC) currently possesses under section 20 of the Broadcasting Act 1996. There are at present no statutory requirements for advertisements to be subtitled on digital terrestrial television; indeed they are specifically excluded from the definition of "programme" under section 20(14). The ITC does not therefore monitor the level of subtitling in advertisements but has advised my Department that about 50 to 60 per cent. of advertisers currently subtitle advertisements voluntarily.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects the Independent Television Commission to commence its review on the feasibility of(a) Channel 3 and (b) Channel 4 increasing beyond 80 per cent. the target for subtitling on digital terrestrial television; and when this review is expected to be completed. [151851]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department recently published the results of a review of the statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling, sign language and audio description services on digital terrestrial television(DTT), which included our intention to raise the level of subtitling on DTT from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. The Independent Television Commission, which is responsible under the Broadcasting Act 1990 for setting targets on analogue services, have separately undertaken to review the feasibility of Channel 3 and Channel 4 increasing subtitling beyond 80 per cent. in respect of these services before the end of 2001.

  Athletics Championships (Funding)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding guarantees his 206W
  Department has given to the organisers of (a) Manchester 2002 and (b) the World Athletics Championships in 2005. [152519]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government have not given any funding guarantees to the organisers of the 2002 Commonwealth Games or the 2005 IAAF World Athletics Championships. However, the Government are providing £10.5 million towards the costs of the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2002 Commonwealth Games.

  Physical Activity Promotion
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans he has to appoint a joint special adviser between his Department and the Department of Health; [152536]

  (2) what plans he has to encourage physical activity (a) among young people and (b) in society to tackle increasing levels of obesity; [152531]

  (3) if he will set joint targets with the Department for Health for the promotion of physical activity. [152535]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department is working closely with the Department of Health to encourage physical activity, and we will consider the potential for developing joint targets and joint appointments. We have also been working together with the Department for Education and Employment to develop a number of initiatives to improve opportunities for children to enjoy sport in schools including an intention to offer school children an entitlement to two hours per week of high-quality PE and sporting activity within and around the school day. We are consulting on how best to do this. In addition, DCMS is part of the Inter-Ministerial Group to Improve Children's Diet and Activity which is considering cross-departmental action to promote the health benefits of physical activity and to tackle the increasing levels of obesity.

  Register of Exercise Professionals
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements have been made for funding the Register of Exercise Professionals. [152532]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport England has commissioned a feasibility report into the operation and funding of a Register of Exercise Professionals. Any decision on funding arrangements for the register will be made after the report has been completed and consideration has been given to its findings.

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152646]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Following the introduction of the Department's new name in July 1997, a detailed review of all of the Department's internal and external communications processes was undertaken.

  Part of this review included the production of a new visual identity or logo to replace the Government roundel which had previously been used.
  207W
  The cost of this element of the review was £26,000. The work included the development of the logo and the layout of all internal and external documents and stationery.

  Improvements identified during the process achieved a 25 per cent. saving on the purchase of the Department's printed stationery bill. Further efficiency gains have been achieved from the wider communications improvements put in place following the review.

CABINET OFFICE

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if her Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published; [152111]

  (2) how much certified timber has been purchased by her Department over the past six months; and what proportion of total timber purchases this represents. [152118]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Cabinet Office purchases timber wherever possible from sustainably managed sources. To quantify the proportion of certified timber that the Department has purchased over the last six months would incur disproportionate cost. The Cabinet Office will take advice from the interdepartmental timber working group on timber procurement monitoring and reporting arrangements, and in line with Government guidance to Departments, the Cabinet Office will report details of its timber purchases through the annual Green Ministers' report.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total cost was of pension contributions paid by the Government(a) to special advisers and (b) into the pension schemes of special advisers, during the period 1 April 1999 to 30 March 2000. [152062]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  (a) None. Pension contributions are paid direct by Departments into the individual special advisers' pension schemes.

  (b) Provision has been made for a maximum of £476,000 to be paid into the pension schemes of special advisers for the year 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000.

  In addition, National Insurance contributions are paid at the contracted-in rates.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the employers' contribution will be to the new civil service pension scheme due to be introduced in October 2002. [151867]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 542W. The aim is a new scheme which better reflects employment costs. The new scheme will have an important part to play in supporting the wider corporate objectives and reward strategies of the civil service reform programme.
  208W
  Employer contributions are set on advice from the Government Actuary. Salary-banded contributions averaging 13.5 per cent. of pensionable pay are paid by employers for staff in the existing defined benefit scheme.

  The first strand of the new arrangements is an improved defined benefit scheme. Employer contributions to this will be the same as for the existing defined benefit scheme, with the entire cost of the changes met through an increase in the member contribution rate. The second strand of the new arrangements is a defined contribution plan (delivered through stakeholder pension products). Employers will make contributions to this according to the age of the scheme member. In addition to the age-related contribution, the employer will match employee contributions to a maximum of 3 per cent. of pensionable pay. The Government Actuary has not yet finalised the contribution scale for the defined contribution plan, but the scale will be commensurate with the costs to employers of the new defined benefit option for those expected to be attracted to the defined contribution plan.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many press releases were issued by her Department in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; how many have been issued in the current financial year; and what her estimate is of the total number for the current financial year. [149254]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The total number of press releases issued each financial year by my Department is as follows:(a) 180 in 1996–97; (b) 253 in 1997–98; (c) 264 in 1998–99; and (d) 412 in 1999–2000. In this financial year (up until the end of January) my Department has issued 281 press releases. On a purely statistical basis I estimate that for the current financial year my Department will issue approximately 337 press releases.

  My press office also issues releases on behalf of the Privy Council Office.

  The figure for 1999–2000 includes press releases issued by the Year 2000 Media Co-ordination Unit, which also operated from the Cabinet Office.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate she has made of the effects of the European convention on human rights on the operation of magistrates courts in England and Wales. [150769]

  Jane Kennedy
  My Department will shortly publish an update on the early impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on all courts and tribunals for which the Department is responsible.

  Data provided by the magistrates courts in the period October to December 2000 show that there has been no significant impact so far on the operation of the magistrates courts as a result of the ECHR.
  209W
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on protecting local magistrates courts from closure. [150772]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is the Government's policy that decisions on the number and location of magistrates courts is best made by the local Magistrates Courts Committee.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent assessment she has made of the compatibility of the operation of magistrates courts in England and Wales with the provisions of the European convention on human rights. [150774]

  Jane Kennedy
  The responsibility for ensuring that magistrates courts meet the requirements of the Convention lies with the Magistrates Courts Committees in consultation with local paying authorities. The Lord Chancellor's Department has encouraged the Magistrates Courts Committees to review their courts in the light of the Convention.

  Data provided by the magistrates courts in the period October to December 2000 show that there has been no significant impact so far on the operation of the magistrates courts as a result of the ECHR.

  Sentencing Standards
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure(a) consistency of sentencing standards and (b) full information about evaluation of possible disposals of judges and magistrates. [150770]

  Mr. Lock
  On the assumption that the hon. Member's question relates to disposals of cases by judges and magistrates I refer him to the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, columns 164–65.

  Bail
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance is given to judges on granting bail in cases where the defendant is accused of murder. [150773]

  Jane Kennedy
  Bail in all criminal proceedings is governed by the provisions of the Bail Act 1976. A defendant accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that one or more factors set out in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act apply in his case. A person charged with murder who has a previous conviction for murder, manslaughter or rape may only be granted bail if the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which justify it (section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994)

  Solicitors
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the contractual arrangements for criminal defence solicitors. [150775]
  210W
  Mr. Lock
  The Criminal Defence Service (CDS) will be implemented on 2 April 2001, when the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988, which provide for the current system of criminal legal aid, will be repealed.

  Within the CDS, the primary mechanism for providing services to those being investigated for, or charged with, a criminal offence will be through private practice lawyers operating under contract to the Legal Services Commission.

  A draft contract for consultation was published at the end of August 2000, and a revised contract, significantly amended following detailed discussions with the Law Society, at the end of December.

  The Commission has invited firms to sign contracts, and signed contracts are now being returned to it.

  From 2 April, only solicitors' firms with a contract will be able to undertake criminal defence work funded by the Commission.

  County Courts
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the closure of county courts. [150776]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 154W, to his previous question on this subject. Responses to the consultation paper "Modernising the Civil Courts", which I mentioned in that answer, should be returned to the Court Service Agency by 21 April 2001.

  Lay Magistracy
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her plans to reform the lay magistracy. [150777]

  Jane Kennedy
  The report by Rod Morgan and Neil Russell, "The Judiciary in the Magistrates' Courts", published on 14 December, concluded that to abolish or greatly diminish the role of the lay magistracy would not be widely understood or supported in the country, and the Government agree with that view.

  Lord Justice Auld is currently conducting his independent review of the criminal courts. It would be premature to comment on that until he submits his report.

  Departmental Policies (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Warrington, North constituency, the effects on Warrington, North of her Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152320]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. We have taken steps to improve the management and effectiveness of the services we provide and to meet customer needs, including working closely with other agencies to provide a fair, swift and effective
  211W
  system of justice, improve the availability of affordable and good quality legal services and to improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families.

  In particular, the Warrington, North constituency is covered by the Warrington Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP). This has recently formed its Executive and met initially on 8 February 2001. There are currently 165 CLSPs throughout England and Wales.

  Across Warrington Borough Council, 15 agencies (13 solicitors, one Law Centre and one District CAB) have been awarded contracts with the Community Legal Services (CLS). The suppliers are located mainly in the centre of Warrington and this includes Warrington, North wards. The total 12-month value of contracts awarded amounts to over £249,000, and these cover categories including primarily family, but also debt, housing and welfare benefits.

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what decisions have been made on the changes proposed to the financial conditions for funding civil and family cases by the Legal Services Commission. [152740]

  Mr. Lock
  We have today published a report giving details of the Government's conclusions following consultation on these proposals. The introduction of these changes to the financial eligibility tests for funding in civil cases will move towards alignment of the eligibility limits for all levels of publicly funded legal services, provide simplified means testing arrangements for both applicants and suppliers and ensure a fair balance between publicly and privately funded litigants.

  We are raising the income and capital threshold for legal help so that an estimated 5 million more people can get the advice and assistance on everyday problems that they need. We will not be introducing contributions for legal help so all eligible clients will be able to receive legal advice entirely free of charge.

  We have listened carefully to the responses and we will not be introducing capital contributions from equity at the present time. We believe the implementation of these proposals might deter low-income homeowners from seeking legal advice.

  We will fully equalise the income eligibility limit for legal help with legal representation as soon as it is financially prudent to do so. This will bring a further 2 million people into the scope of the Community Legal Service Fund.

  The cost of these changes is £30 million over three years. We have been able to spend this money on increasing eligibility because of the success of our legal aid reforms in controlling and refocusing expenditure on priorities.

  We undertook to consult on the new eligibility limits for all levels of service once they were available and a consultation paper has been published today. Consultation will run until 1 May 2001. These changes will be implemented on 1 October 2001.

  Court Service Annual Report
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will publish the Court Service annual report for 1999–2000. [152741]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service annual report for 1999–2000 has been published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Law Commission Report No. 251
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will make an announcement on Law Commission Report No. 251, "The Rule against Perpetuities and Excessive Accumulations". [152742]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government accept the Law Commission's recommendations in Report No. 251 "The Rule against Perpetuities and Excessive Accumulations" and will legislate when parliamentary time allows.

  Review of Civil Enforcement
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made on Phase Two of the Review of Civil Enforcement. [152743]

  Mr. Lock
  We have been engaged in a comprehensive review of the enforcement of civil court judgments since 1998. I announced by way of a written answer on 26 July 2000,Official Report, column 715W, the completion of Phase One of the review. The rules of court arising from this phase are currently being drafted.

  I also announced on 26 July last year the terms of Phase Two of the review. These were:
  To implement costed recommendations, including the production of a unified set of rules of court for enforcement, and
  To identify, in the light of the amended procedures and revised powers of bailiffs, the type of agent or form of agency, which should be responsible for carrying out those enforcement procedures, and to make costed recommendations.

  I am pleased to announce that Phase Two of the review of enforcement procedures will now be broadened to include structures for, and the regulation of, civil enforcement agents generally, not just within the High Court and the county courts.

  It would be a wasted opportunity not to attempt to go further and devise a single model encompassing not just civil court warrant enforcement agents, but other private sector civil enforcement agents collecting money for central or local government. This will involve my officials exploring systems across all areas of enforcement, and they will now examine various possible options, including issues surrounding a new class of enforcement agents who would be officers of but not necessarily employees of, the court.

  For this reason we will publish in late Spring 2001 a Green Paper on the structure and regulation of enforcement, and a single piece of bailiff law, followed by a White Paper later in the year, setting out our proposals for legislation.
  213W
  This approach offers the best prospect of ensuring that there are real gains from the Review. Continuing with the narrower focus would pass up the opportunity of achieving a fundamental improvement in our enforcement system.

  Departmental Policies (Vale of Clwyd)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Vale of Clwyd constituency, the effects on the Vale of Clwyd of the Lord Chancellor's Department's policies since May 1997. [151933]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor?s Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. We have taken steps to improve the management and effectiveness of the services we provide and to meet customer needs, including working closely with other agencies to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice, improve the availability of affordable and good quality legal services and to improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families.

  The Vale of Clwyd is covered by Denbighshire Community Legal Service Partnership (CLSP). There are currently 165 CLSPs throughout England and Wales. Fifteen of these are based in Wales.

  Within Denbighshire 10 solicitor firms and two not-for-profit organisations have been awarded contracts whose total value amounts to over £273,000. The contracts cover a range of categories, including family, debt, housing and welfare benefits.
  214W
  Eleven of the organisations are based within the Vale of Clwyd constituency area and predominantly provide services to residents covered by the towns of Rhyl and Denbigh. Although one provider, South Denbighshire CAB, is based outside the Vale of Clwyd, its services can still be accessed by people living within the Vale of Clwyd.

  All 12 organisations above are holders of the Community Legal Service Quality Mark. In addition, the award of a specialist level Quality Mark is imminent for the Welfare Rights Unit at Denbighshire County Council, and should be issued no later than May 2001. North Denbighshire CAB has submitted an application at the General Help level and is due to be audited at the beginning of April 2001.

  Community Legal Service
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the changes which would be required in the budget of the Community Legal Service for civil cases for each 5 per cent. increase in solicitors' remuneration in criminal cases; and how many people requiring support for civil cases would be affected by each 5 per cent. increase. [152063]

  Mr. Lock
  Each 5 per cent. increase in remuneration for all categories of criminal legal aid would cost around £42 million, and would reduce the ability of the Legal Services Commission to support about 75,000 acts of assistance in civil matters.

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

Sports Clubs: Rate Relief
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider introducing mandatory rate relief for community amateur sports clubs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, in the Green Paper on Modernising Local Government Finance, the Government consulted on proposals to provide mandatory rate relief to all small businesses and nonprofit-making bodies including small sports clubs in England with rateable values below £8,000. We are currently considering the responses we have received and will publish our conclusions in a White Paper later this year.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's Answer. Does he accept the statistics of the Central Council of Physical Recreation: that this country has over 110,000 amateur sports clubs with over 5 million members? Does he accept that they are irreplaceable and indispensable institutions in our communities, worthy of as much support as this country can give them, particularly with the decline in school sports, the number of sports clubs and the importance of sports to the nation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that there needs to be support for these clubs. The rate relief will apply only to those clubs which have premises. Therefore, potentially a much smaller number will benefit from these figures. Nevertheless, a significant number of sports premises would so benefit. We have received a positive response to our consultation paper.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of clubs and sporting organisations are apprehensive that the local government finance measures will put them at a disadvantage? We should be aware of that.
Secondly, we inherited a chaotic situation. Is it not time to review the whole procedure and to consider the granting of charitable status for sports clubs which will enable them to claim tax relief and rate relief, and to be better off as a result?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think it follows that some clubs and activities will be worse off. Of the
124
16,000 or so clubs which we think would benefit as regards premises, 11,500 would be under the £8,000 rateable value figure. If more provisions were mandatory, some discretionary funds would be available. The local authorities could enhance their use of discretionary funds. However, these issues will be discussed positively in the light of the responses received from slightly larger and smaller clubs. I believe that we can deal with them more positively.
In relation to charitable status, I suspect that noble Lords will understand if I do not tread too far into the mire of charity law. A number of different considerations apply. In certain circumstances clubs can qualify as carrying out a variety of charitable purposes. The charity commissioners are undertaking a review of the extent to which the promotion of sport is charitable under the law as it stands. Certain criteria have to be met. The outcome of that review needs to be considered before we go further.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many volunteers who do so much for sport are driven to despair by the high increase in local taxation, both commercial and domestic, under the Labour Government? His comment that he is considering mandatory rate relief will be most warmly welcomed by those who do so much for sport in Britain.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's latter remarks slightly more than his first remark. While there has been an increase in local taxation under all governments, we believe that some degree of preferential treatment should be given to small sporting clubs. That is the issue we are addressing now.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Government have placed considerable emphasis on sporting activity being beneficial for the health of the nation. That has been endorsed by the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Does it not make sense to remove all burdens on the providers of sporting activities in our society? We should bear in mind the culture within our society of such organisations owning their own grounds.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is partly because of that culture, in particular at local level, that rate relief is an appropriate form of help.
However, when one looks more broadly at tax relief or other encouragement, one has to consider the requirements of the sporting organisations against other voluntary organisations. One has to have at least a degree of level playing fields (if I may use that term in this context) in order to have a sensible taxation and rating system. Nevertheless, we hope that our proposals will help specifically the smaller sporting organisations.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the estimate made by the Central Council of Physical Recreation that to go to 100 per cent mandatory relief would cost only £35 million and that

125
that would bring great benefit not only to sport, but to the health of the nation, and in particular to those pursuing policies for social inclusion? That £35 million would be a small price to pay for achieving all three objectives.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the eve of the Budget, I do not want to be quoted as saying that any sum, no matter how small, is a price worth paying for something. There are clearly benefits in encouraging sporting activities. The issue is not so much cost as equity. A number of other organisations pursuing a social inclusion agenda might have equal requirements for relief. We have to consider all the needs and not simply adopt a one-dimensional approach to sporting activities on their own.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that only non-profit-making clubs would be considered? Does that mean that, if a club has a bar, the proceeds of which bring the club's income above its expenditure, it will not be considered for mandatory rate relief?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the reference is to amateur non-profit-making organisations. Many of us have experience of bars being attached to other facilities that do not make a profit. Were the club to make income from a bar that did not make it a profit-making organisation overall, it would definitely qualify.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, as a member of the parliamentary golfing society, I should like to know whether the regulations will cover golf clubs.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that there are few golf clubs on which the rateable value is sufficiently low. There may be some and were they to be amateur and non-profit-making, the answer would be yes; but I should not like to raise the noble Lord's expectations.

Streetworks: Charges
2.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to introduce regulations under Sections 74 and 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, as amended by the Transport Act 2000, to enable charging for streetworks on highways.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we move from holes on the golf course to holes in the road. Draft Section 74 regulations for England on charging for prolonged occupation of the highway were laid on 27th February
126
and are due to come into force on 1st April. If they do not lead to a sufficient decrease in disruption caused by streetworks, we shall activate the Section 74A power for payment of a charge from the outset of works, which is known as lane rental.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The regulations were originally intended to come in at the end of last year. Can he give me an absolute assurance that the fact that they were laid a few days after I tabled this Question is a coincidence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord exaggerates his influence over the Government's business managers. We always intended to lay the regulations in time for them to come into effect on 1st April.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the big problems with digging holes in the road is the undisciplined way in which up to 100 statutory undertakers within a local authority area can move into a road, often with very little notice and often invoking what they call emergency powers? That will not be solved by charging a lane rental. Are there steps in hand beyond plans for charging to institute some control over the digging of holes in the road?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. In addition to the powers coming into effect in April, we shall introduce a new code of practice that strongly emphasises the need for co-ordination between the utilities and the local authority to limit the use of emergency powers strictly to emergency situations. There are also other initiatives, such as the central London partnership between the utilities and the local authorities. We hope that that will have demonstrable results for your Lordships from the beginning of May. Other progress is being made.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will be the first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon on having so successfully terminated the excessive period of gestation that the department has gone through in producing the order. Will he also bear in mind that "unreasonably prolonged occupation of the highway" is one of the most bromidic descriptions of an infernal nuisance that I have heard for a long time? As a word of criticism, am I right in thinking that the lethargic highway authorities are not brought within the scope of the measure? They should be urged to practice what I hope they will preach.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord could find a pithier way of describing the problem, but I am not sure that it would be acceptable to the parliamentary draftsmen. In however bromidic a way, the title describes what we intend to do. Local authorities are the highways authorities, so they have

127
some responsibilities for maintenance, but, as will be made clear in the new code of practice, they also have some responsibility for co-ordinating with the utilities on disruptions to the highway. If there are lethargic local authorities, they had better not be lethargic for much longer.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that roadworks are a contributory cause of road rage? As I understand it, the regulations to introduce charges have not been brought in as yet. As those charges will depend on the length of occupation, is it not important that they are introduced as soon as possible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I tried to explain, they will be introduced from 1st April so far as concerns overstay. Certainly I accept that a degree of irritation is to be found among road users who encounter works, particularly when those road users have encountered similar works only a few days or weeks earlier. Therefore, co-ordination, as well as financial penalty, is an important aspect of this matter.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend see a little irony in this Question? We are talking about Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Does he agree that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and the previous administration had six years in which to introduce these regulations, yet the noble Lord is saying that six months after the Transport Act received Royal Assent is too long a time to have waited?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly accept some of what my noble friend says. It was necessary to clarify in the Transport Act some of the details of the 1991 Act in order for the regulations to be made fully effective. We acted as soon as possible following the passage of the Transport Act.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while we are on the subject of the length of gestation of these regulations, can the noble Lord remember telling me not once but twice during the second half of last year that the regulations were due to be published by Christmas? Is not the logic of the situation that the Government could not make up their mind, which I do not believe to be true, that it took longer to consult on the orders, which, again, I do not believe to be true, or that the department's legal section is short-staffed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, substantial consultation has taken place on this issue with the utility companies and local authorities. It is not a matter of inadequate resources but, first, of the complexity of the orders that are required in order to meet the respective interests of the utilities and the highways authorities. Secondly, in order to get the regulations right, we had to await the passage of the Transport Act.

Wales: EU Funding Status
2.52 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the position on the granting of objective one status to areas of Wales, and what progress has been made on implementation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, West Wales and the Valleys was granted objective one status on 1st July 1999 when the European Commission adopted a series of decisions to allow the rapid implementation of structural funds for the programming period in the years 2000 to 2006. The list of objective one eligible areas drawn up at that time included West Wales and the Valleys. Implementation of objective one programmes in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, with regard to the boundaries for objective one status, will there be a measure of flexibility in order to meet changes in circumstances? I am thinking, for example, of the current serious crisis in the steel industry. If Llanwern were to be partially closed, that would result in a loss of jobs in the Valleys, where objective one status exists. Yet such a status does not apply in the area where the works are sited. How do the Government propose to deal with that anomaly, and does it not reinforce the need for flexibility?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by reassuring my noble friend Lord Islwyn that we are currently waiting to see whether any proposals which the unions might bring forward will persuade Corus to amend its plans. Recently, the Secretary of State for Wales and Rhodri Morgan each held very constructive discussions with senior Commission officials. Those officials confirmed their willingness to look at proposals which the Assembly and the Welsh partnership might put to them with regard to more flexible use of structural fund support.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is deep concern in Wales not only about the exclusion of Llanwern steelworks from the objective one area but also about the inadequate involvement of the private sector in the implementation of that status. Consequentially, there is a dearth of qualifying projects in the pipeline. Will the noble Baroness use her influence with the Lib-Lab executive in Cardiff to ensure that the fullest possible advantage is taken of the funds that will become available?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have great pleasure in reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that the CBI in Wales welcomed the involvement of the private sector. It considered that the private sector should be actively involved in bringing funding to projects in its ownership. The programme has got off to an extremely good start.

129
As I said in answer to my noble friend, the implementation of the programme is a matter for the Assembly. However, I could give examples of the Assembly announcing the first £27 million package of projects on 25th October, £8.8 million on 6th November, £2.6 million to the Further Education Funding Council, a third round of projects worth £3 million with objective one funding going to WDA projects, and a £3 million funding package towards the Baglan Energy Park. There is a list of such projects. In addition, Llanwern is within an area with objective three status. If any retraining of the workforce were required, it would of course be eligible for objective three funding.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, although I share the deep concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Islwyn about the crisis in South Wales, will the Minister confirm to me and to the House that the amount of money available under objective one status for Wales will be in excess of £400 million to £500 million, which is good news for West Wales and for the Valleys? Does she agree that it is imperative that that money is used quickly in order to resolve the deep crisis with which Wales, and in particular South Wales, is faced?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. There are 1.853 million euros available for objective one and 81,390 euros for objective two funding. A long list of objective two areas are awaiting transition to objective three status. Of course, it is for the Assembly to implement objective one status.
I was questioned at length in the House about the Government's intention to provide matched funding. Therefore, I want to place on record, and I am sure that the House will join me in expressing pleasure, that, for the first time, the Government have been able to provide additional funding outside the Barnett formula in order for Wales to benefit to the full from the work carried out in partnership between the Assembly and the Government to achieve this satisfactory status.

Indonesia
2.58 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they are helping the development of a civil society in Indonesia.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are supporting the growth of a responsible and effective civil society in Indonesia through a number of programmes; for example, through good governance, poverty reduction
130
and the development of trades unions. DfID consulted widely with civil society groups in Indonesia during the preparation of their country strategy paper.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I strongly welcome what the Minister has said to the House and, through her, thank her honourable friend Mr John Battle for the initiatives that he has taken in trying to develop civil institutions in Indonesia. Does she agree that the deepening economic crisis in that country is inevitably having a knock-on effect in damaging civil institutions and creating further communal strife? Does she agree that one useful thing that the Government might do would be to release some of the assets which were confiscated from the previous Indonesian regime and held in this country and elsewhere, and release them to the Indonesian Government? Will she also say what Her Majesty's Government have been able to do to help the people in Ambon and the Moluccas who have been suffering so grievously?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whom I believe attended the meeting in February on Indonesia with my honourable friend John Battle, that we are concerned about the complexity of the situation in that country and about the violence on several islands. We have tried to facilitate the peace talks in Ambon, although we recognise that a difficult process is involved and we continue to watch matters very closely.
On the question of the assets of the Suharto family, we have provided the Indonesian Government with the information that they need to begin the process of negotiating a mutual assistance treaty with the UK. Once in place, that treaty will allow the Indonesian Government to work through the English criminal legal system to pursue assets that are held in the UK, should they wish to do so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I acknowledge the important contribution that the Government have made to various organisations in Indonesia, such as Komnas HAM, which is a human rights organisation, and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation; I also acknowledge the initiative taken recently by John Battle, which the Minister mentioned—it involved consulting Members of both Houses and NGOs on the programme for aiding civil society. However, could the Minister look particularly at the situation in Aceh, where NGOs are subject to violence? For example, the torture aid organisation RATA recently lost three of its members—they were murdered—and the organisation Kontrast is constantly harassed by the police. Would not the best contribution to the development of civil society be to persuade the Indonesian Government to protect the NGOs that are trying so hard in difficult circumstances and to stop police harassment?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the whole House knows that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, knows far more

131
about human rights issues in Indonesia than many other noble Lords because he has campaigned about such issues for many years.
The situation in Aceh is currently up in the air, as the noble Lord will be aware. There have been no recent reports of serious atrocities. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we are continuing to press the Indonesian Government on these matters. We have been pleased by the way in which the Indonesian Government and civil society have come together to work on governance projects. Of course it is important for NGOs to be protected and to feel able to work in a constructive way in terms of conflict prevention and conflict resolution and in relation to the other social and economic issues with which they are concerned.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, will the Minister look into the possibility of giving additional funding to the Henri Dunant Centre in Geneva, which has done valuable work in reconciliation and in further conflict prevention in Indonesia? Will she also consider what work her department might do to help the development of small business initiatives in Indonesia? The plight of many people could be much relieved if some small business initiatives, particularly in the outlying areas, were given a boost.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that there has been some movement with respect to small business initiatives in Indonesia although of course there are problems with some of the more outlying and remote areas. I shall consider those concerns and examine what we can do.
On funding the centre in Geneva, I am aware that that centre has played a significant role in some of the conflict resolution talks. I shall examine the funding issue that the noble Baroness raised.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the prospect of that huge country beginning to crumble at the edges—I refer to the growing violence in Aceh, the Moluccas, west Irian and now in Kalimantan—is deeply worrying? That would threaten the stability of the whole region and this country's interests there. Does she agree that now is the time to engage the interests of regional powers to prevent the collapse of civil power and the imposition of military solutions of a sinister kind? What discussions have there been between Her Majesty's Government and, for example, the Australian and New Zealand Governments, the Singapore authorities—who are right next door to these horrors—the Malaysian Government and others? They might be able to provide the support that the United Nations and the IMF have not so far been able to mobilise.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that of course we want a democratic, prosperous and united Indonesia. However, he and we recognise that that will be difficult to achieve. The noble Lord mentioned some of the worrying conflicts that have occurred in many parts of Indonesia. I take his point about working with regional powers. That
132
has to be done collectively and collaboratively and we shall continue to work with neighbouring countries to seek to come up with a solution that will involve the Indonesian Government.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to support the independent trade unions of Indonesia, which are also part of civil society?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that it is only very recently that independent trade unions have been allowed to exist in Indonesia. During the past three years, the number of trade unions has increased dramatically. We are supporting a programme that is being implemented by the International Labour Organisation to train trade union officials in basic union management and organisational development skills—we are contributing £1 million over three years to that programme.

International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 24,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 25 to 28,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 29 to 34,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 35 to 37,

Schedule 5,

Clause 38,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 39 to 42,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 43 to 50,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 51 to 54,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 55 to 83,

Schedule 10,

Schedule 1.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, as I am sure the Minister realises, strong reasons are required when taking a schedule out of order, especially on Report. Why will Schedule 1 be taken at the very end of proceedings, and even after Schedule 10?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is the same order as that followed in Committee. It does not appear to be irregular or untoward.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Care Bill
3.9 p.m.
Lord Burlison: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Health and Social Care Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 9,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 10 to 36,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 37 to 47,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 48 to 51,

Clause 68,

Clauses 52 to 55,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 56 to 67,

Clauses 69 to 75,

Schedules 5 and 6.—(Lord Burlison.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that even in Committee it is unusual and undesirable to take a clause out of order unless there is a strong reason for doing so? Will he explain why, in relation to the configuration to be used during the Bill's Committee stage, Clause 68 is being promoted? That clause will be taken before Clauses 52 to 55.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the procedure has been agreed to. My noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal told the noble Lord what the procedure is. I trust that nothing untoward has occurred and that the approach conforms with the agreement reached through the usual channels.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Capital Allowances Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 17 [Requirement of registration for registration plate suppliers]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 10, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will have observed that this amendment attempts to remove paragraph (b) from Clause 17(3). Clause 17(3) requires anybody who produces vehicle number plates to be registered, but the paragraph which I suggest should be considered by the Committee provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulation, provide for people who are of a prescribed description to be exempt from that requirement.
I understand why the Secretary of State may want to make regulations to exempt various activities from the provisions of the Bill but not what type of person may be exempt entirely from the licensing requirements. It may be that there are deserving classes of person who should be allowed to make number plates without a licence but it would be helpful if the Committee were told who they are likely to be. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The effect of the amendment would be to remove a power to exempt prescribed persons from the requirement to register while retaining the power to exempt prescribed activities.
That would be an unnecessary and potentially damaging restriction on the powers contained in the clause to draw up regulations. Preliminary consultation has already revealed some areas which the Government will have to consider carefully before making regulations.
The reference to persons as well as activities was included to provide the greatest possible flexibility. It is recognised that there is a danger that exemptions may provide an avenue for abuse but that should be kept to a minimum and that is the Government's intention. Nevertheless, there may be genuine reasons why a person should not be subject to registration. For example, we have already received representations from the retail motor industry which we shall wish to explore further during the consultation process prior to the making of regulations.
We cannot guarantee that we could indicate exhaustively at this point how far the exemption should go. In any event, it is our view that the task of prescribing the exemptions is properly a task for consideration in secondary legislation. It would be a mistake to tie our hands in advance of the consultation process which will take place.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not seeking to tie the hands of the Government. I merely want to find out what they are doing or are likely to do. I am not in the least surprised that they have received representations from the retail motor industry. It is substantially the motor retail industry which sells number plates. When you buy a new car, you buy a set of number plates to

135
go with it, usually from the same supplier. If the retail motor industry were to be exempt from all this, there would be no point in this part of the Bill at all.
It would be extremely odd for part of the motor industry to be exempt when the whole point is that all those who sell number plates should be registered in the interests of stopping vehicle crime. It is rather difficult.
Can the Minister give any examples of people who will be considered, as a class, as a group of persons, to be exempt from the licensing requirement? I do not expect that the Government have made a firm decision to exclude anybody, but who are they likely to consider to be exempt, as a class, from the provisions?
Lord Whitty: I cannot answer that question directly because I should not wish to make any presumption as regards any whole class being excluded from these provisions. Clearly, there is a difference between those who provide second-hand number plates for cars already on the road and those who provide number plates as part of the package when one is buying a new vehicle. There is a difference between those who supply specialised number plates for specialised vehicles and those who supply the trade currently, more or less on demand, with little regulation. The structure of the trade is also important. There may be franchises and dealerships which must be dealt with in a slightly different way from the registration process itself.
If we were to delete this paragraph which the noble Lord seeks to delete, either by deleting that option or making specific prescription on the face of the Bill, we should eliminate any flexibility arising in the secondary legislation process and in the consultation process that goes with it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: This gets more confusing. It may be, therefore, that those who sell number plates for new cars will not he licensed—and that is the vast majority of number plates that are sold—but only those who are supplying a new number plate to replace a broken one or a number plate that has deteriorated in some way should be licensed. It appears that where there is a franchise or a dealership—that is, when large numbers of plates are being sold—it is less likely to need registration than is the case in relation to an individual number plate. That seems odd.
The Minister seemed to object to my use of the words "whole class". I confess that was my phrase. The phrase used in the Bill is,
"persons of a prescribed description".
I do not believe that I was misleading the Committee in using that phrase but if I was, then I shall revert to,
"persons of a prescribed description".
It is extremely odd. Do I see that the Minister has further inspiration arriving?
Lord Whitty: No, I do not have any further inspiration because this is a matter for consultation with many parties. What I was objecting to and why I have risen to my feet again is as regards the noble Lord's inspiration. Because I referred to different
136
categories, he immediately leapt to the conclusion that I was therefore going to exempt them. That is not the case. I am saying that there are a number of situations in relation to which representations have been made to us that they should be excluded or subject to a different form of registration from that pertaining to the trade as whole. There is clearly a difference between new-car dealers who supply number plates in conjunction with DVLA and those who are offering number plates in the form of a one-off service.
Nevertheless, I must make it clear to this Committee that I have not reached a conclusion on which groups should or should not be exempt. I am trying to preserve the clause so that it gives some flexibility if we consider that those representations allow appropriately for different treatment for different groups and different persons.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was not leaping to the conclusion that, just because the Minister mentioned persons of a prescribed description, they would automatically be exempt. But they will be considered for exemption. It seems to me that a potentially enormous hole is being driven through this Bill which seems to run flat counter to what the Government were attempting to achieve; that is, the licensing of number-plate suppliers.
Consideration at least will apparently be given to not requiring a licence for the vast majority of number plates sold. That would be an extremely odd and not very desirable outcome. That is certainly not something which has been included in the way in which the Government have represented the Bill until now.
Clearly further thought must be given to this matter, and we shall give further thought to it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 10, line 22, leave out "; and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly"
The noble Lord said: I suggest that the words be left out because of their obscurity. A few years ago, Sir Ernest Gowers wrote a book entitled Plain Words. It was required reading for all people on joining the Civil Service. It was published in various editions over a number of years and I hope that it is still in print. I should hope that copies are still circulated in the Home Office, at least among the new entrants to the Civil Service, but perhaps that may be asking too much.
Can we not have more simple wording so that the Bill is clearer to those of us who are not as well educated as some of your Lordships? Is it really necessary to use words of that character? I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, when I looked at the amendments this morning—after breakfast when my brain could register—I had to scratch my head and get out a dictionary. I was still not sure what

137
the Bill meant and I agree that it would be far better if it were expressed in plain, simple English rather than in such obscure language.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am truly amazed. I should have thought that noble Lords such as the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Brougham and Vaux, would be well familiar with the term "cognate". It is used by the parliamentary draftsman and counsel in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions rather than by those in the Home Office, who may have a different level of erudition.
An example of a cognate expression is the term "registration", which appears in Clause 17(4). It is used frequently throughout the Bill. Thus in Clause 19 it is clear that an application for registration is to be construed as an application to be registered within the meaning of Clause 17. That is why we have used the term,
"cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly".
The term "cognate" in Clause 31 means "of the same root". It is therefore not more vague or obscure but rather more precise than the term "related". Therefore, Amendment No. 57, by substituting "related" for "cognate", does not improve the clarity of the drafting. I hope that, despite his surprising deficiency in education in this respect, in this case we can leave the drafting as provided by the parliamentary draftsman.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I did not have the advantage of higher education; I was put into a counting house at an early age. Cognate is not among the words I habitually use, nor is it among the words I have frequently come across in legislation; and in various ways I have had a lot to do with legislation during the past few years.
I apologise to the Home Office because it is clear that Plain Words circulates in that department. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has failed to catch up with Sir Ernest Gowers and his sensible suggestions on writing.
The Minister explained that he did not believe that the word "relative" in Amendment No. 57 meant the same so I shall not press it. For that matter, I shall not press Amendment No. 32. However, I believe that the more legislation is written in English which we can all readily understand and which the poor garage owner can understand should he need to refer to it, the better. It is not only ourselves and lawyers who need to understand legislation; it is also the man in the street. If he cannot understand it, how on earth can he obey it? If he has to go to a large dictionary in order to look up a word, that is not helpful either.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I agree with him. I was working in Whitehall when Sir Ernest Gowers's book was first published. He described what he was commending as,
"taut and muscular English".
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is no wonder my noble friend asks such clear questions and makes such clear speeches. He obviously studied the work carefully.
I am sorry not to have prevailed on this occasion but in the course of legislation we should all bear in mind that wider point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 10, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in this Part shall prevent a person from manufacturing a registration plate for his own use."
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 54. The Bill does not prohibit a private person from manufacturing his own number plates. Am I correct in that interpretation? If it is the intention, what is the point of the Bill? What stops a rogue from making up his own number plates for his subsequent illegal activity? If it is not the intention, will the Minister's regulations make it impractical for a private person to manufacture his own number plates? If that is the intention, what is the position with existing number plates? Millions are currently in service on our fleet of vehicles. Is there any intention to replace all number plates with ones of a more secure system?
Is there any intention to reduce the number of suppliers of number plates? Will future developments in technology lead to only one facility in each centre of population for the manufacture of number plates? Is there perhaps a long-term intention to concentrate that facility in a local vehicle licensing office? Perhaps, when dealing with the DVLA electronically, it will no longer be necessary to have LVLOs unless they are involved in the manufacture of number plates. Alternatively, what assurances can the Minister give me that the manufacture of number plates will continue to be a commercial activity?
Amendment No. 39 relates to costs and requires the Secretary of State to produce a report. Perhaps the Minister could indicate the long-term plans. What will Part II cost to implement now and what will be the cost of future enhancements in security? Looking further ahead, what will be the cost of pressed metal number plates with sophisticated security devices?
Finally, my Amendment No. 54 is closely related to Amendment No. 33. It deals with the supply of materials to facilitate private manufacture. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I rise briefly to ask the Minister a question. Number plates are currently made from flimsy material and are placed on the most vulnerable parts of a car. Is the Minister discussing with the motor industry possible alternatives which would make it unnecessary constantly to replace number plates?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The answer to the noble Earl's first question is that as the clause requires the registration

139
of any business which acts as a plate supplier, persons who make their own plates without going into business as a supplier are not caught by the provisions. The noble Earl is therefore correct in saying that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent anyone providing his own plates for use on his own vehicle, provided that they comply with the legal requirement for construction and display. Therefore, the clarification provided by Amendment No. 33 is not necessary. Provided they are able to comply there is nothing to prevent their doing so.
Amendment No. 54 is also unnecessary as Clause 28(2)(a) makes clear that it is an offence to supply,
"a plate, device or other object to a person who is carrying on a business".
Therefore, supply by a business is important, but there is nothing to prevent supply to a person who wishes to manufacture a plate for his own use. I believe that the contrary implication would lead to serious complexity in enforcement.
The opposite question posed by the noble Earl is: what is there to stop a rogue making his own set of plates and disguising the identity of a stolen vehicle? Accepting that today number plates are not always made of the most robust material, nevertheless it is quite difficult to manufacture plates to the existing standards. On 1st September we shall introduce a new British standard for the construction and display of number plates, together with the new structure of letters and numbers on the plate, and regulations are already in place in relation to the font. Therefore, it will become increasingly difficult to manufacture number plates to those standards.
Looking to the future, I draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 34 which makes provision for additional information to be included on or in registration plates. That allows for the inclusion of security features which will make it even more difficult for individuals to manufacture their own plates. Therefore, there is a sequential process from the designation of a font, the production of a new standard which makes number plates more robust and the subsequent move to the inclusion of more security information on plates. Even with that, one cannot guarantee that criminals will not attempt to manufacture number plates, but to manufacture them solely for their own use is extremely unlikely. Throughout the Bill, therefore, we concentrate on the sale of such plates without appropriate identification from the owner of the vehicle.
The noble Earl also asked whether the Government had it in mind to end the supply of number plates as a commercial activity. The noble Earl displays the normal Tory paranoia about this matter. There is nothing in the Bill which nationalises the number plate system. There are no plans to have single number plate suppliers through the DVLA or its local offices, although there are examples of that system in other countries. We are looking at what prevails in other countries, but there is nothing in the Bill which moves us in that direction.
140
In response to the noble Earl's Amendment No. 39 which requires a report, the regulatory impact assessment that accompanies this part of the Bill already makes it clear that the whole scheme is to be reviewed after two years. Obviously, that would need to include information from the police as to the enforcement aspects as well as an assessment of the costs to business. We do not believe that it is sensible to include details of all prosecutions on an annual basis as the amendment proposes. That would be burdensome and disproportionate. Although the review will cover the overall effects of the prosecution and enforcement processes, we do not believe that the requirement in this amendment to include all the details is appropriate.
I hope that I have answered some of the many questions asked by the noble Earl and that he will see fit not to pursue his amendment.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. The noble Lord did not refer to the existing stock of number plates fitted to several million vehicles. Is there any intention that those should be replaced in future by more secure number plates? I still do not understand why the Minister is prepared to leave a huge loophole in the legislation. Why do the Government propose that any person who manufactures a number plate, as opposed to selling it in the course of a business, does not have to be registered? That leaves a large loophole. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the question of existing number plates before I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Whitty: The vast majority of existing plates would not be directly affected by these changes. There are some number plates which are, or have become, illegal following the prescriptions in the new font regulations. Once they became compulsory, existing number plates which used type faces that did not conform to them became illegal. But the vast majority of existing number plates are not touched by this legislation. As to the manufacture of one's own number plates, if one displays illegal plates one commits a criminal offence. There is no need for an additional criminal offence relating to self-supply. The provision applies to an individual who either trades in illegal number plates or supplies them to someone who is not entitled to that particular number.
Earl Attlee: I welcome the move to combat illegal fonts because that will facilitate the automatic reading of number plates. However, I put a very specific point. There is a large fleet of vehicles, most of which have legal number plates. In future will it be necessary for those number plates to be replaced at the motorists' expense by more sophisticated ones?
Lord Whitty: The answer is that that is not necessary either under the Bill or the regulations.
Earl Attlee: But what is the Minister's future intention?
Lord Whitty: With the gradual turnover of the fleet and the residual number of old plates, it is quite

141
possible that a future Minister will have to take further measures. However, since the turnover of the fleet will extend well beyond a decade I suspect that neither the noble Earl nor myself will have to debate those considerations. For the moment, there is nothing in the Bill, the existing regulations, or the measures proposed under this legislation which requires ordinary motorists to change their number plates, provided they are legal under the regulations.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Register of registration plate suppliers]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) Subject to subsection (6) below, information to be supplied under subsection (3) shall be available electronically."
The noble Earl said: The Committee may be assisted to know who will be able to access the register of registered suppliers of number plates. Will the motorist be able to assume that Halfords, or another motor factor, is properly registered without having to consult the register? The easiest way to consult any register is by electronic means. If everyone is able to access perhaps certain parts of the information, is it not better that that should be done electronically on the Internet? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The answer to the noble Earl's question is that it would be desirable but his amendment is not required to achieve it. As the noble Earl may be aware, the register will be held by the DVLA which has already begun to plan for the administration of the register and the release of information to interested parties as suggested in the amendment. Under the Modernising Government initiative, the DVLA is well to the forefront in working towards the provision of all its services electronically. Clearly, it would make sense for that facility to be made available electronically from the outset of the new service. We have not reached the point of a detailed user requirement, but in principle we have committed ourselves to providing information from the new register on the Internet with an interactive search facility. Responses to inquiries by e-mail are already part of the DVLA's normal process. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents that information being made available electronically.
Previously, in Committee, we indicated that references in legislation to information or record-keeping are nowadays construed as including electronic information or record-keeping. In case there are further technological advances that will remain the position. The provision will not spell out that electronically-provided information is appropriate.
142
To do so would throw doubt on whether the same terminology means the same in other government services.
Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Applications for registration]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to. Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Cancellation of registration by the Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 12, line 20, at end insert "and is unlikely to do so"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 41, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42. Yesterday the Committee discussed a fairly similar issue. In the Home Counties each motor factor will manufacture several number plates each day, but in the wilds of central Wales a month may go by without any number plates being manufactured.
The tenor of Clause 21 is to concentrate the number of manufacturers. Perhaps the Minister can say whether that is correct. Is the motor trade aware of the likely concentration of manufacturers in order to meet the technological requirements?
Amendment No. 41 seeks to insert the important qualification,
"and is unlikely to do so",
after the time limit for producing no number plates. Amendment No. 42 deals with the same issue, but in a different way. Clause 23 provides the appeal procedure. Presumably the appeal would be purely on the ground of disagreeing with the Secretary of State's view that no number plates have been produced within the previous 28 days.
Perhaps the magistrates' court can allow registration to continue, notwithstanding that no number plates have recently been produced. Perhaps the Minister can say what the power of the magistrates' courts will be under the Bill as drafted. However, the amendment is designed to allow the magistrates to consider whether cancellation is desirable in view of the lack of suppliers in the local area. It is not designed to cover a situation where there are plenty of alternative suppliers in the area. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Under the existing draft of the Bill the Secretary of State may—I emphasise, may—cancel the registration if he is satisfied that the operator concerned has not been carrying on business as a supplier for at least the 28 days. Therefore, the only

143
ground for appeal against the cancellation, which is what the amendment deals with, would be that the Secretary of State had been mistaken in that belief.
Amendment No. 41, as drafted, would require the Secretary of State to establish whether a supplier is still trading. In addition, it would require him to make a subjective judgment as to whether the supplier intended to resume trading at any future time.
Both in the original decision and in any appeal it is a matter of direct fact which has to be established, because even the supplier might not actually know whether he intends to supply again in the future. If he does then he should reapply for the register. Once a person has ceased to trade entirely, the question of his future intentions becomes immaterial.
The intention behind the provision is to ensure that the register of businesses is kept as reliable and as accurate as possible. If that is not managed, the register will not be of much value in the fight against vehicle crime. It is not sensible that the register should contain details of businesses which are not trading as registration plate suppliers. Already the Department of Trade strikes off companies which have ceased to trade. That system works well enough and this provision takes it a stage further.
Amendment No. 42 would mean that in the event of a business actively trading as a registration plate supplier being wrongly deregistered, the appeal would be dismissed if there was an assessment by the Secretary of State that there were already sufficient number plate suppliers in that area. This matter goes back to the original question asked by the noble Earl, as to whet her the provision is a means of controlling the structure of the industry in reducing the number of suppliers. That is not the intention of the provision. It may be that the industry structure changes in response to these regulations. But it is not our intention to use this measure to reduce the number of traders; nor is it to prohibit new traders entering or traders remaining within the market simply because there are other traders in the immediate vicinity. It provides the deletion of that trader from the register only if the supplier has deliberately ceased to trade in number plates.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may return to the question of 28 days. The Minister talked about suppliers ceasing to trade. There is a world of difference between a business which ceases to trade and a business which simply does not happen to sell some number plates that month. The point that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, makes, and the one which I made in Committee yesterday, is that it is entirely possible that the main business of a supplier will not be the supply of registration plates. It will be a garage or perhaps the seller of caravans. The supply of registration plates is simply something that it does. It is easy to see circumstances in which it will not sell a plate in 28 days. However, it would be caught by the provisions of the Bill.
144
I should like also to understand how the Secretary of State, the DVLA or anyone else will know whether someone has sold a plate in 28 days. I am not clear how that mechanism comes into play. I would appreciate some clarification on that matter.
Lord Whitty: The 28 days in the clause relates to 28 days in a later clause, on which I do not think there are any amendments. That clause requires the trader within 28 days to give notice to the Secretary of State of any changes affecting the accuracy of the information provided. That would include a requirement on the trader to notify that it had stopped trading. If it failed to do so, but the Secretary of State received information that it had stopped trading, then the Secretary of State has the discretionary ability to deregister the trader after the 28 days. Obviously, the Secretary of State, in reaching that decision, would need to take into account the nature of the business. Although this part of the Bill relates only to England and Wales, if it was a caravan seller in the Outer Hebrides, that would need to be taken into account and there would need to be further inquiries before that decision was made. This is a permissive power. The 28 days relates to the requirement on the trader himself or herself to notify changes.
Earl Attlee: I accept the Minister's point that we need a reliable register. However, the Committee is fairly sure that 28 days is rather on the aggressive side. The Minister talked about the subjective decision of the Secretary of State. Why not ask the supplier what his intentions are? If he says, "I intend to carry on producing number plates, but it is a fairly patchy business at the moment", then the Secretary of State should accept that. I am not convinced that the Minister fully recognises the needs in remote areas. I suspect that we shall return to this issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Appeals: Part 2]:
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Keeping of records.' Part 2]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall provide that records may be made electronically and the circumstances when a printed copy shall be made.
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 44. My estimation is that 10,000 to 15,000 number plates are manufactured every day. It would be helpful if the Minister could correct me if I am wrong. Record-keeping is onerous and a large number of transactions must be recorded. Record-keeping could be electronically linked to the manufacture of number plates when we move to more sophisticated number

145
plates. Having an electronic search facility rather than having to go through a card index could also help the police in an investigation.
I turn to Amendment No. 44. What will happen to the records when the business closes? Some of these businesses do not last for very long. For how long should the records be kept? How does the Minister envisage the procedure for keeping the records when a business closes? It needs to be recognised that the value of the records is relatively short-term. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As a quick piece of mental arithmetic, 6.5 million number plates a year works out at slightly over 15,000 a day, which was the figure referred to by the noble Earl. So, yes, we are in the same ball park.
The noble Earl referred to electronic record-keeping. In answer to questions raised on an earlier clause, I mentioned the general point about not prescribing such matters in the legislation. It would not be appropriate to prescribe it because it would throw doubt on other such provisions. In a practical sense, computerised records would be preferable for the purposes of this scheme. However, the legislation should not prescribe that, both for the reason of other legislation and because, while the Government encourage the use of electronic communication in record-keeping, it would not be acceptable to require small businesses to do so and thus put them outside the law simply because they had not introduced a computerised scheme and continued to use traditional methods. That is the implication of adopting it in this connection. Therefore, for a combination of reasons, I do not think that Amendment No. 43 is appropriate.
Amendment No. 44 is unduly prescriptive in the sense that it seeks to insert into primary legislation something that is more appropriate for regulation. It is true that the British Number Plate Manufacturers Association has suggested that records should be kept for the two-year period only. But we would want to consult more widely on the regulations before we reached a final decision. We need to strike a balance between the needs of criminal investigation, which is what the Bill facilitates, and the interests of small businesses. That means that not only small business interests have to be consulted, but also the police.
The same is true of the suggestion that records should be handed over to the police on cessation of business or on the death of the registered person. We need to be satisfied that the police are the most appropriate body for receipt of such records. That is an additional function for them. We need to address that issue as well in the course of consulting on the regulations. In any case, there are all kinds of complexities that make the drafting of the amendment a little suspect. For example, which chief constable should be handed the records in the case of a business covering more than one police authority? All of those issues would have to be addressed in the regulations even if we accepted that what the noble Earl proposes is the most sensible way of retaining the records.
146
I do not think that what is proposed is appropriate for primary legislation. We will be consulting all interests on this matter. I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue the amendment.
Earl Attlee: We are moving towards more sophisticated number plates. Therefore, anyone who wants to be able to manufacture number plates in the future will have to have more sophisticated facilities. There is a need for the police to be able rapidly to search. What would happen if false number plates were used in a crime but the number plates were produced a long distance away from where the crime was perpetrated? How would the police be able rapidly to search for where the number plates were manufactured? Can the Minister say whether there is any intention electronically to notify the DVLA each time a number plate is manufactured? Once one starts capturing that information electronically at the point of manufacture, it is not difficult to inform the DVLA with a code number where the number plates were made. Finally, the Minister has not satisfied me as to what in practice will happen to the records when a number plate supplier ceases trading.
Lord Whitty: I said that this would be a matter for consultation and subsequent regulation. I am not immediately jumping to the conclusion drawn by the noble Earl, that they should be lodged with the police. As to the question of police access to the records, clearly, the DVLA will be keeping its records electronically. Therefore, the arrangements that we have now provided, whereby the police would have access to the DVLA records, will apply. I agree that the records will have to become more sophisticated as manufacture becomes more sophisticated. At the moment, a number of small businesses keep records only in more traditional form and we would not want to put those small businesses under undue pressure to computerise. I suspect that the problem will be resolved over time, but legislation is not the appropriate place to do it.
The noble Earl referred to the tracing of manufacturers. The regulations will in future require the details of the manufacturer to be recorded on the number plate. Therefore, that is another dimension to the ability of the police to trace the origins of the number plate.
Earl Attlee: If I may deal with the Minister's final point first, sometimes one struggles to read the number on the number plate, let alone the small print. The principle of Part 2 of the Bill is clearly desirable. But what concerns me is the practicality. The Minister seems to be struggling with the practicality of what to do with the records of a business that no longer exists. He seems also to be reluctant to take full advantage of what we can do with the electronic interchange of information. I suspect that we shall return to this issue at some stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Provision of information on sale of registration plates]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 14, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) may not provide for the production of the vehicle registration document if the customer can show the registered person that it is inconvenient due to the distance away from where the registration document is kept."
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 46. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, referred earlier today to the ease with which number plates can be damaged in a minor accident. They can also be lost; and I suspect that, after the Bill becomes law, they may be stolen more often. Clearly, in that situation, it will be necessary rapidly to replace the number plate. What documents will be required by the number plate supplier before he is allowed to manufacture a number plate under the regulations? I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Whitty: No doubt the noble Earl will accuse me of struggling with the detail but, once again, I must point out that the detail here should be decided in secondary legislation. The point of putting into Clause 25 a regulation-making power is to enable us to do so. That is the appropriate way in which to proceed. To some extent, the drafting of the noble Earl's amendments to this clause indicates the difficulty of putting such matters onto the face of the Bill.
The information prescribed in regulations will take into account a variety of different circumstances in which a registration document might not immediately be available. The noble Earl's amendments address one such occasion, but do so rather subjectively. The information referred to in the clause is information that would provide proof that the prospective purchaser is entitled to receive the plates he has requested and would confirm that they bear the appropriate registration mark. This could be done if, for example, the vehicle registration document was not available, by asking for proof of identity in the form of a driving licence or passport, or an indirect proof of entitlement to the registration mark.
The form of words used by the noble Earl in his amendments—for example, when he refers to the vehicle being some "distance away" from where the registration document is kept—is difficult to establish objectively. Again, in Amendment No.36 the use of the word "obviously" errs on the side of the imprecise for primary legislation purposes. Such matters can be spelt out in more detail in secondary legislation.
While I do not object to the intention behind the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, these are matters for secondary legislation. So far as concerns the documentation, clearly we would prefer it if the vehicle registration document is produced, but the
148
regulations will have to deal with a wider range of circumstances than are dealt with here, where it is not practicable.
Lord Burnham: Vehicle registration documents notwithstanding, I think that it is timely to question the matter of false number plates, although one should not say anything that might be considered sub judice. Are the Government content that adequate checks are made on the provenance of the vehicle and of its owner before number plates are issued? We believe that we have seen false number plates issued over the past 48 hours. That would have contravened this regulation.
Lord Whitty: Any current circumstances cannot be in breach of this regulation because it has not yet come into force. It is being put in place to deal with circumstances such as those to which I believe the noble Lord refers. It will limit the ability of people to acquire illegal number plates in the first place because the buyer will have to prove to the seller his entitlement to those number plates. The best way to achieve that is through the registration document, but there are other ways of achieving the validation.
I can confirm to the noble Lord that it is our intention that this legislation and the regulations to be made under it will address, in part at least, the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has referred.
Earl Attlee: I accept that this is a matter for secondary legislation but, before passing the Bill, the Committee will want to be sure that the legislation will work, that it will be practical and that it will not impose an undue burden. While it is perfectly reasonable to expect a person requesting new number plates to produce a form of identification, in order that the registered vehicle keeper is made known, as soon as we move towards insisting on vehicle documents, we shall create severe difficulties. However, subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCES RELATING TO SALE OF REGISTRATION PLATES
(1) Any person who, on purchasing a vehicle registration plate from a registered plate supplier, deceives the supplier by presenting false information shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A registered supplier who supplies a registration plate to another person when he knows or reasonably suspects that it will be used for an unlawful purpose shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsections (1) and (2) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 of the standard scale."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47 standing in my name. I seek to introduce a new clause to follow Clause 25 which addresses offences relating to the sale of registration plates. During the

149
passage of the Bill in Committee in the other place, an amendment was accepted and inserted as a new clause. I refer to new Clause 10 in Part 1 entitled,
"Offence of making false statements".
The clause "mirrors" Clause 19 in Part 2 of the Bill by making it an offence to make false statements when applying for registration as a salvage operator, as is the case covered in Clause 19 when applying for registration as a plate supplier.
This proposed new clause aims to rectify a possible omission in that in Part 2, there is no corresponding "mirror" of Clause 12 in Part 1 of the Bill. Clause 12 recognises that it is an offence for a citizen to provide false details when selling a vehicle to a registered salvage dealer. However, there is no provision which recognises and makes it an offence for a citizen to provide false details when applying to purchase a registration plate.
The general emphasis of Part 2 of the Bill is on the relationship between the DVLA as the keeper of registrations and registered plate suppliers. Information flows and possible offences are detailed in Clauses 24, 28 and 29. Only Clause 25 refers to the relationship between registered plate suppliers and the citizen seeking to purchase a plate. The clause aims to ensure only that the supplier records prescribed information, such as vehicle registration and driving licence details, from the purchaser.
While Clause 25 aims to establish that there is a required information flow, it makes no reference to any possible deception which could be deployed in order to achieve the sale of a vehicle of doubtful provenance, as, for example, has been specified in Clause 12. By that I refer to a vehicle which has been rung or cloned by an organised vehicle thief. It is the key intention of the Bill to restrict significantly the known operating methods of such criminals.
The proposed new clause aims to establish clearly that it is an offence for a purchaser to acquire a registration plate by supplying false information, while also recognising that it would be an offence for the plate supplier knowingly to collude in such a transaction. It is also suggested that the scale—in terms of potential financial gain and the impact on possibly unwitting and innocent purchasers of such vehicles, who run the risk of losing all moneys spent on the vehicle as well as having the vehicle confiscated and returned to its rightful owner—warrants a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. Furthermore, in the case of a complicit plate supplier, Clause 20,
"Removal or suspension of registration by a court",
offers the court the further option of suspending his registration for any period of up to five years. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this new clause. I beg to move.
Viscount Tenby: I rise briefly to support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. This appears nicely to round up the parts of the Bill covering sanctions. It would be untidy and rather a pity if, at a later date, it
150
was found necessary to include such a provision in one of the annual criminal justice Bills which have become such a feature of our political life.
As I have said, it would be a pity to have to wait until such a sanction was included in a separate Bill simply because we had not taken advantage of the opportunity now presented to us to block off this loophole, while it is in what might be described as its natural environment. That is why I support the amendment.
Viscount Simon: I, too, support this amendment. The only element that I, personally, would have preferred to see in the amendment is—similar to an amendment I moved yesterday evening—the imposition of a maximum fine rather than a fine set at a certain level. A magistrate can doctor such a fine according to individual circumstances, albeit that yesterday the Minister declared such an approach to be somewhat heavy-handed.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The offences which the proposed new clause seeks to create are both necessary for the policing of the Bill. As to the first offence, there is a provision in Clause 25 to ensure that when a plate is bought, the person buying it has to supply certain information required by the Secretary of State. However, before my noble friend and the noble Viscount brought forward the amendment, I could see nothing in the Bill to say what would happen if a person did so through deception and deceit.
Similarly, there will be occasions when a number plate supplier realises that a particular number plate will be used for an unlawful purpose. He then becomes, as it were, an accessory before the fact of the unlawful use of the registration plate. I believe that such a person should be found guilty of an offence in such a case.
I support my noble friend and the noble Viscount in the amendment. I disagreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, only when he said that we look forward to criminal justice Bills. It is true in the literal sense that we see them coming, but it is not true that we look forward to them with gleeful anticipation.
Viscount Tenby: I was of course using the expression in that sense.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Then I am in agreement with the noble Viscount.
Lord Whitty: In default of an immediate criminal justice Bill which might create new offences, the amendment seeks to create yet a further offence in this area. My argument is that it is not necessary. We need to create an offence of illegally supplying documents without checking the validity of the application for them, as is provided here, but if the police wish to bring prosecutions against a purchaser—which might be difficult in certain circumstances—and believe that they have sufficient proof to do so, legislation already exists to meet that point. Sanctions exist under Section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 which

151
make it an offence to create a false instrument. This would cover any attempt to pass off a false document as genuine in order to deceive a supplier.
There are also specific offences of forging a driving licence with intent to deceive under Section 173 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and of forging a registration document under Section 44 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. The use of an otherwise legal document, not a forged document, by someone who was not entitled to use that document is also covered in that photocard driving licences and passports are themselves secure documents which require identity checks before issue. The new driving licences require a photograph of the holder; paper driving licences and vehicle registration documents carry security features, including a watermark, to combat illegal copying. Therefore, so far as concerns deception and forgery, there are already checks to ensure that a purchaser can be prosecuted if caught.
There is no absolute guarantee that number plate suppliers will never unwittingly accept false documents, but the proposals in the Bill will in future present the purported owner of validation documents to purchase with a significant challenge where no such challenge exists at present. Suppliers will be protected from criminal sanctions where they can show that they have exercised due diligence in checking the documents.
Although we require a new offence in relation to the supplier, it is not necessary to create a new offence in relation to the purchaser. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, I do not accept that it is necessary.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount opposite and of my noble friend on the Front Bench. There seems to be a good case for some consolidation of the road traffic Acts in order that we may all understand the position. From the way in which the Minister described the situation, that would be a job for a lawyer.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall read what he said and reserve my option perhaps to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Rights to enter and inspect premises: Part 2]:
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 14, line 38, at end insert ", or

(b) premises that a constable or authorised person, with reasonable cause, suspects of being used by a person for carrying on a business as a registration plate supplier wholly or partly for the purpose of his business so far as it consists of selling or supplying registration plates"

The noble Viscount said: Last night my noble friend did not like my earlier amendment concerning a police constable's right to enter registered premises but not those which are not registered. I suspect that he will not like this amendment either for exactly the same reasons that he gave last night.
However, there will doubtlessly be premises which are not registered for selling or supplying registration plates and which police officers will have reason to suspect are being used for this purpose. A police officer should have the right of entry, and the amendment seeks to establish that right. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I have added my name to this amendment in the light of the amendments I tabled to earlier sections of the Bill. in much the same way as the noble Viscount. I am concerned, and growing increasingly concerned, that what is called the Vehicles (Crime) Bill is turning into a massive bureaucratic exercise with weak links to the police and the work that they have to do. This amendment and others which have been tabled and, sadly, rejected, would strengthen the links between the kind of information collected under the provisions of the Bill and the uses to which it could be put by the police. I suspect that the amendment will go the way of all the others but, nevertheless, it has my support.
Viscount Tenby: I, too, support the amendment. I am in one of my rather more magisterial and draconian moods at the moment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, that we should tie this in to the forces of law and order. We should try to do something about it rather than fiddle around with its bureaucratic nature. That is why I support the noble Viscount's amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In the debate on the Private Security Industry Bill we discussed powers of entry and an amendment similar to this was moved. During that debate, the Minister from the Home Office said that those who submit themselves for registration open themselves up, as it were, to being visited by the enforcement authorities, whereas those who have not registered should be entitled to their privacy. I think that is more or less a summary of what the Minister said. I expect that we shall get a fairly similar answer from a joined-up government when the Minister replies today.
However, there remains the difficulty that a police constable or an authorised person may suspect that premises are being used for an illegal and unlicensed purpose, in which case the only way an officer can find out whether or not they are being so used is to enter the premises and make inquiries. He will, of course, be able to go to a magistrate and say that he believes that an offence has been committed, and get permission to enter through a warrant in the usual way.
As the Bill stands, an "authorised person" can be an official of the local authority. I take it that this would be the trading standards officer. Amendment No. 49 suggests that only the chief constable should be able to authorise someone.
I have some sympathy with the amendment, not because I am against trading standards officers doing their duty, but because I believe that Parliament should be cautious about giving rights of entry. We do so very frequently in different Bills. We have done so twice this week already. Powers of entry were dealt

153
with in the legislation we considered yesterday. We are constantly adding to the numbers of people who can enter business premises and homes for different reasons. It is part of the increasing regulation of society of which this Bill is a small part.
Not long ago my noble friend Lord Marlesford asked how many powers of entry were in existence and the Government said that it was too expensive to find out, which gives one pause for thought as to how many officials can enter premises for all kinds of different reasons. That is why I have some sympathy for the amendment being limited to a constable or someone authorised by the police rather than constantly extending such provisions.
I agree that it is a difficult matter. We all want this legislation to be enforced because there is no point in passing it if it is not. I am not sure that there is any point in us passing it since it has been discovered that one can now make one's own number plates and that there is a possibility of large numbers of people being exempt from the licensing procedure. But that is another matter.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am in an awkward position because noble Lords have left me with very little to say, having anticipated my argument. I am almost minded to say that this particular clause, as drafted, demonstrates the Government's liberal credentials, but that would be fallacious under the circumstances. Noble Lords were right in anticipating the argument.
Amendment No. 48 would make it possible for a constable or authorised person, with reason, to enter business premises which are suspected of selling or supplying registration plates. That is primarily because they signed up to a system of registration. It will be possible to enter and inspect registered businesses without a warrant, but one would certainly be needed to enter and inspect an unregistered business. We take the view that to give constables or authorised persons the right to enter without a warrant the unregistered premises of number plate suppliers in order to carry out inspections would be excessive, not to say heavy handed.
I turn to Amendment No. 49. The Bill already specifies that a constable may enter and inspect premises. Therefore, we take the view that there is no need to state that the chief constable may authorise people on his behalf to act as required by the amendment. Is it likely that the police will delegate the function to some other body? Discussions have been undertaken with the Local Government Association. It requested that the Bill should contain powers of entry and inspection by persons appointed by local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has suggested, it may well be the case that trading standards officers are the persons to whom part of that work may be delegated. That is a question of practical implementation. For those reasons I hope that noble lords will be able to withdraw their amendments.
Viscount Simon: I thank noble Lords who have spoken, and the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord
154
Cope, mentioned trading standards officers being allowed to enter premises. That may well happen. The only reservation I have about them is that a police officer can enter straight away, but a trading standards officer will be affected by his order of priorities and may not be able to enter immediately. This matter is certainly worth thinking about.
I am not quite certain what my noble friend the Minister has replied to. He has merely addressed the police constable's right of entry at registered premises. He has not addressed the problem of unregistered premises, which is what the amendment deals with. Perhaps my noble friend would like to address that problem.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I did. I said that noble Lords were right in anticipating my defence of the Government's position. It is right that the owner of premises not normally expected to be controlled by this legislation needs to be protected by the requirement for law enforcement officers to seek a warrant before entering such premises. That is entirely consistent with other enforcement powers. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, made that point. We looked at that argument when considering powers of entry for the private security industry legislation. There is a parallel.
Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for that clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to. Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Offences relating to counterfeit registration plates]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 16, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 51 and 52. In my opinion Clause 28(1) is fairly unintelligible. My Amendment No. 52 attempts to help very slightly by inserting the word "resemble". However I suspect that I shall have to return at a later stage with a better definition of a counterfeit number plate.
Amendment No. 51 deletes the words "sells" and inserts the words "or transfers". I do not understand why any person should be allowed to deal in counterfeit number plates. Why should we restrict the ambit of the Bill to selling number plates rather than widening the matter to transferring them? I suspect that the Minister will have more sympathy for my Amendment No. 51 than Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Earl said that the clause is unintelligible. If all his amendments were accepted, the result would also be fairly unintelligible as well. To

155
delete subsection (1) would mean that the clause began with subsection (2) which includes a reference to the previous subsection. There is incompatibility there.
Earl Attlee: The effect of Amendment No. 52 is to replace subsection (1).
Lord Whiitty: It may be its effect, but not as regards the numerology. However, I take the noble Earl's point.
The point of substance is that Amendment No. 50 would remove the offence that has been conceived to prevent the sale of plates that do not meet legal requirements. It seems to me that that would knock the heart out of this part of the Bill. Taken alone, Amendment No. 51 would widen the clause to include the transfer of number plates as well as their sale. As has been rightly said, the clause is at present limited to the sale of plates because people who carry on a business as registration number plate suppliers are required to be registered. It is only the businesses that are required to register, as we discussed earlier, and not anyone else. Transfers between people who do not run businesses would not be covered by the requirements for registration. Therefore, it is consistent with the scheme as a whole and the registration of businesses for Clause 28 to apply to the sale of plates, but not as regards some other form of transfer.
The objective of the clause is to prevent businesses supplying plates which it would be illegal to display on vehicles. As the supply of such plates is carried out on a commercial basis, inserting the term "transfer" would cloud the issue.
The intention of Amendment No. 52 appears to be to shift the liability from the point of sale to the manufacturing process itself. It is, of course, desirable to make manufacturers accountable for their products but the Government wish liability to be incurred at the point of sale because it is the supply of number plates rather than their manufacture which provides the potential for criminal activity in the sense of displaying illegal number plates. The Committee will also note that the whole of Part 2 of the Bill concentrates on regulation of the supply industry. However, the manufacturing end of the process is not neglected in the Bill. Clause 28(2) ensures that manufacturers will not supply plates or materials that will facilitate the sale of illegal plates.
Unfortunately the amendment may well have unforeseen and unintended consequences, for example, if a manufacturer were to make or assemble something resembling a registration plate for some use other than display on a vehicle, there is no particular reason why he should not do so. For example, motor vehicle enthusiasts may wish to collect plates showing an obsolete format to put on their walls. They cannot put them on their vehicles because that would of itself be an illegal act. Manufacturers would, of course, be well advised to make clear that any non-regulation plates that they produce are not for display on a vehicle and should perhaps include a visual disclaimer to that effect.
156
The illegal activity we are trying to make more difficult is the illegal display of number plates and the point at which we are attempting to impose this registration system is at the point of sale. Under the terms of the amendment even the manufacture of a plate carrying an explicit disclaimer could be illegal because it could be construed as resembling a registration plate. I give a more extreme example. A plate made for a child's pedal car could theoretically be construed as resembling a registration plate. That is not intended to be a facetious example; it illustrates the point.
There is no harm in manufacturing a false plate that is for display indoors or in some other place, for example, a garage wall. The public mischief and the criminal dimension arise from selling plates for display on vehicles. The amendments, if coupled with the removal of subsection (1) under Amendment No. 50, would mean that someone could obtain a finished plate and sell it even if he knew or suspected it was not a true plate. I think that is not the intention of the amendments we are discussing, but they have all those pitfalls. The extension to non-commercial transfer is unnecessary and goes well beyond what the rest of this section of the Bill provides; namely, registration of commercial suppliers.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I accept his comments with regard to my Amendments Nos. 50 and 52. All opposition amendments have unintended consequences. My point was that the wording of subsection (1) of Clause 28 seemed to me to be rather peculiar. It states:
"A person who sells a plate or other device which is not a registration plate".
That wording seems rather complicated. I accept the points the Minister has made in that regard, but I am unhappy about his comments on Amendment No. 51 which seeks to widen the effect of the Bill to include transfer. We shall need to return to that point as there is a big gap in the Bill. However, my amendments are not the right way to tackle that. As I say, we shall return to that point at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Offence of supplying plates etc. to unregistered persons]:
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Proceedings for offences under Part 2]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 16, line 31, leave out "a local authority or".
The noble Lord said: This clause concerns how proceedings for offences under Part 2—that is, all the offences concerned with number plates—are to be

157
instituted. It provides that proceedings for an offence can be instituted only by a local authority or a constable or,
"in any other case, with the consent of the Attorney General".
Therefore, private prosecutions cannot be brought without the approval of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. The amendment examines the local authority's role in all of this. It seems to me that most of this part is to be policed by the Secretary of State, normally through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), with the police prosecuting various offences, but on occasion a local authority is responsible for this matter. We have already mentioned trading standards officers or other authorised individuals being able to enter premises.
It would be helpful if the Minister could make clear when local authorities will be responsible for this matter. Are they to be responsible for running the system locally even though it is the Secretary of State's responsibility, or is the DVLA to run the system and local authorities will just give a hand, as it were, now and then and bring the occasional prosecution? The fact that the words "a local authority" appear before the words "a constable" in the clause suggests that the local authority will play the major role. However, I may be reading too much into the Bill. I should like to be clear whose responsibility it will be to manage the system. Will it be the responsibility of the DVLA with the assistance of the police or will the system be run by local authorities who will pursue those who may contravene the provisions of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I support my noble friend. Clauses 17, 18 and 19, which concern registration, appear to involve the Secretary of State. Local authorities do not appear to be involved. My noble friend has made a valid point.
Lord Whitty: The DVLA will be responsible for the administration of the register. However, enforcement, as with other DVLA offences, will often, in the first instance, rest with the police. The case for allowing local authorities to bring prosecutions is that they may well enter the relevant premises to investigate other trading offences—trading standards officers will be involved—and if the register is to be of any value in combating crime it must be as accurate as possible. Any sources of information as regards enforcement would be helpful. We believe that if we give both the police and local authorities the right to take proceedings that will increase the enforcement opportunities and hence compliance with the registration requirements.
The Local Government Association has been fully consulted on this matter. It has requested that local authorities' trading standards officers should be authorised persons in this respect who may be in the relevant premises on other business. It has requested that local authorities should be given powers to bring prosecutions. Therefore, we have included the
158
provision we are discussing which will help to enhance enforcement on the ground. I hope that I have given the noble Lord sufficient explanation.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Therefore the DVLA and the police will be responsible for the system and local authorities will be responsible only in so far as they may come across an offence. That makes the position clear although it does not explain why the words "a local authority" appear before the words "a constable" in the clause. However, I shall not press the Minister on that fine point of drafting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Interpretation of Part 2]:
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
"DISPLAY OF REGISTRATION MARKS
For section 23(4)(b) of the 1994 Act there shall be substituted—

"(b) the manner in which registration marks are to be displayed and rendered easily distinguishable (whether by day or night) and different provisions may be made for trailers from those provisions made for motor vehicles.""

The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 59. The amendments provide for commercial vehicle trailers to be registered in the same way as motor vehicles. We are talking about heavier vehicles than the caravans and small trailers to which my noble friend Lord Astor referred yesterday.
Amendment No. 58 would allow different regulations regarding the display of number plates for trailers. At present the number plate of a goods vehicle trailer is displayed at the rear. I suggest that the registered number of the trailer allocated by the DVLA should be attached on the side of the trailer next to the goods vehicle plate.
Amendment No. 59 brings heavy goods vehicle trailers into the scope of the regulations. I accept that the drafting is not ideal. However, I wish to keep trailers which are heavy goods vehicles within that scope. The key point is whether heavy goods vehicle trailers will be registered with their own number with the DVLA. There is an additional advantage. For the convenience of large operators of goods vehicles, the DVLA could issue consecutive numbers for the fleet. That would assist the operators in their fleet management. The principle of the amendment links up with Part 1 of the Bill which provides for the regulation of salvage.
It is important to remember that those trailers can be valuable even as scrap. They often have special cranes. The material of the trailer can be expensive—stainless steel and aluminium—and very attractive to

159
criminals. The trailers can be exported complete or cut up into smaller segments and placed in a container for export. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As my noble friend Lord Bassam indicated yesterday, the department is considering extending registration to trailers. An initial informal consultation exercise has brought forward a favourable response. We need further detailed consultation before introducing such regulations.
However, we do not need the power to do so in primary legislation. The power to extend regulations by the registration provisions of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 already exists in Section 22(2) of that Act. Therefore, the separate provision in primary legislation here is not necessary.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for that encouraging reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Issue of new registration documents: vehicle identity checks etc.]:
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 34 [Imposition of requirements concerning registration plates]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 20, line 7, leave out from "marks" to end of line 9 and insert "as may be necessary to link the registration plate to the vehicle for which it is intended"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, it is suggested that we also discuss Amendment No. 62.
New Section 27A of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the nature of number plates. We discussed this previously to some extent. We acquired some information from the Minister about the Government's thinking. The intention is to probe a little further.
On Amendment No. 61, the Bill provides that any special registration marks can be specified or described in the regulations so that the number plate can become extremely complicated. In this context, there is nothing to define what a special registration mark may be. The amendment seeks to limit special registration marks to those necessary to link the registration plate to the vehicle for which it is intended. For example, the chassis number, engine number and the vehicle's own identity number should be added to the plate. Anyone who makes inquiry can look at the small print on the plate and ensure that it is the correct plate for that vehicle. One could not do so from a distance. Such detail may be in a bar code and able to be read only by a device for that purpose rather than the naked eye. That is the intention underlying the amendment.
Without the amendment, the Bill seems to provide for special registration marks other than those which link the registration plate to the vehicle. I do not know
160
what they are. I do not expect the Minister to give a final view as to exactly what the Government will do. It would be helpful to know their thinking. I do not want the noble Lord necessarily to commit himself. He seemed to think earlier today that I wanted him to commit the Government to a definite position. We seek to tease out the Government's thinking on these matters.
The noble Lord referred to the future possibility of a chip inserted into the plate which will enable it to be read electronically, presumably from the pavement or from inside a police car, to ensure that it is the correct registration plate.
Amendment No. 62 relates to flags and symbols on plates. Members of the Committee will have noted that more and more cars have the European flag with a small "GB" in the middle incorporated into the number plate. At Second Reading, I deplored flags on number plates—not only the euroflag, but also the Union Jack or the flag of St George. A number plate is not the right place for a symbol of that kind. The number plate should be simply the identification of the vehicle; otherwise it becomes cluttered.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that it is the intention to provide that the EU sign with stars—I think that he referred to the flag with the "GB" in the middle—should be able to be incorporated in a number plate voluntarily. It is already on some number plates, presumably voluntarily. Amendment No. 62 seeks to end that practice. We wish to keep number plates clean and tidy without the inclusion of a symbol which is a political statement. There has been a tendency in other countries, notably the United States, to have bumper stickers of all kinds. We all have window stickers from time to time. That is appropriate if people choose to put them on, but the number plate is not the right place. It should be kept clean and tidy. Amendment No. 62 would deal with a practice that is already spreading. I have nothing against the EU flag in comparison with other flags, but I do not think that it should be on number plates. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 61 would limit the information that could be included along with the registration mark to information linking the registration plate with the vehicle for which it was intended. That is largely the purpose of the clause, but the amendment would prevent the future inclusion of information to make the plate more secure—for example, a manufacturer's serial number that would make the plate more difficult to copy, or the eventual incorporation of the chip to which the noble Lord referred. That would be unduly restrictive for the future improvement of the security of number plates.
The provision for a special registration mark was included primarily to enable what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, sought just now—the display on the trailer of a registration mark that is unique to that trailer. If we go forward with the registration of trailers, following the consultation to which I have referred, we shall need provision for such a special registration mark. I am not saying that that is exclusive, but the noble Earl has let

161
me off having to be exclusive in spelling out every potential use. That is one immediate use that should be covered by the legislation.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and congratulate him on moving his opposition to the EU symbol on number plates in such a restrained manner, unlike some members of his party in another place. Under the new regulations, which will come into effect in September, we will allow the optional use of the European symbol. Strictly speaking, the present regulations do not allow that if it affects the spacing between the letters. The new regulations will allow it within the new spacing and font provisions. I agree with the noble Lord that we do not want unnecessarily to clutter up number plates because of the potential effect on witnesses and on cameras.
The inclusion of the European symbol is uniquely provided for because it follows a European Council decision of November 1998 that required member states to recognise the European symbol on number plates in place of the traditional oval national identification sticker. Under European regulations, we have to allow for that to be on the number plate. It is voluntary and optional. There is no heavy hand of Brussels requiring us to do so, in case any Conservatives were concerned about that. We have to make that provision, but in general we do not wish to clutter up the number plates. The new regulations will make them clearer in the way that the noble Lord seeks. The Government have no plans to impose a requirement to include the symbol. I hope that that clarifies the situation and that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendments.
Lord Swinfen: Will the department make it clear to the manufacturers of number plates that the inclusion of the European symbol is only optional and that the purchaser, not the manufacturer, should make the decision? I suspect that manufacturers will put it on as a matter of course. Some of us do not want that. Will it also be perfectly in order for people to display the Union Jack on their number plate?
Lord Whitty: Not on the number plate, although it is perfectly permissible to use the GB sign or the Union Jack elsewhere on the back of the car. This is a specific requirement for number plates. European regulations require us to recognise that symbol as the national symbol.
Under the present provisions it is up to the purchaser to decide whether to have the symbol. Manufacturers have not provided it as standard. Our advice to the manufacturers will continue on that basis. We do not expect them to include it as standard and they will be advised not to do so. Even if they were to do so, the purchaser could require from the seller a number plate that did not include the EU symbol.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was surprised by the Minister's reply to Amendment No. 61. He said that it may be a requirement that the manufacturer' serial number of the plate should be included, and maybe a
162
chip. I thought that the purpose of including the serial number of the plate was to allow it to be tied to the identity of the vehicle. The amendment would cover that. Evidently the serial number of the plate is to be separate and present for some other purpose than making sure that the plate is on the right vehicle. I am a little mystified by that.
What information other than that linking the number plate to the vehicle will be on the chip? Is it intended that it should have information about, for example, whether the vehicle has a valid MoT certificate and when it will expire? Is it intended that the chip will enable a police constable to discover whether the vehicle is insured with at least third party insurance, in accordance with the law? Will there be any other information on the chip beyond that to ensure that the number plate is the correct one?
On Amendment No. 62, about flags, I am interested to hear that it is currently illegal to have the EU symbol on a number plate, although one frequently sees it. The Minister said that it will be permissible to carry the EU symbol on a number plate from later this year because of an EU agreement. Does that agreement go wider than Europe? I have not been able to look this up in detail, but I presume that there is a long-standing international agreement about the identification letters, such as GB in our case, which have been on vehicles for many years. I thought that there was a wide international agreement on what letters should be used for which country, so that the police in each country could know where a vehicle was registered and hence connect the number plate to the appropriate authority, which would otherwise be difficult to do.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I should be most grateful if the Government would let us have particulars, including the reference number if necessary, of the European law to which the Minister refers that makes it permissible in certain circumstances for the European symbol to be incorporated on our number plates. I ask only for information on how it came about, the necessary reference number, the date on which Her Majesty's Government gave assent and whether the decision was taken in conference or at a meeting. I would like to know the circumstances.
5 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sure that that information will be forthcoming from the Minister in a moment or two.
I was in the process of asking whether the longstanding international agreement between many nations has been renegotiated to allow a tiny "GB" on a number plate to replace the large letters which conventionally over many years we have become used to on cars from different countries. If so, I am not sure that that is desirable.
After all, as I said, the purpose of the letters is to enable a policeman of any nationality to trace the country from which a vehicle comes. Looking at the number plate enables him to approach the necessary authority to discover who owns the vehicle. If the

163
"GB" is to diminish in size to tiny letters on the end of the number plate in the middle of the flag, the policeman will have to get much closer in order to spot which country the vehicle comes from.
Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene briefly. When he spoke to this amendment originally, he made great play of the fact that it was important that the number plate should be clean and tidy. Does he agree that having a small "GB" on a number plate rather than large letters elsewhere means that the policeman has to look only at one place on the car? The car would appear cleaner and tidier than it would if it had two symbols in different places.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has made a shrewd point and I believe that, as usual, we can certainly discuss the matter. However, the symbol will clutter the number plate and will not make it easier for a policemen to read because the letters will be only half an inch or an inch high, as opposed to two or three inches high. One is supposed to be able to read a number plate, and hence the "GB" plate, or whatever the nationality might be, from a distance of 25 yards. I do not believe that it is possible to read small letters from that distance. Unlike the current plain white plate with black letters to indicate the nationality, the use of colours will also clutter the symbol.
However, my main question is whether the wide international agreement to which I referred has been superseded by another agreement to allow very small letters to pass muster so far as concerns the nationality of the car.
Lord Whiny: The reason that I believe the amendment might limit the application is that it seeks to insert the words,
"as may be necessary to link the registration plate to the vehicle".
It could be argued that the number alone would be sufficient to link the registration plate to the vehicle. However, it may be easier and more effective to have other means of identification, including, for example, a bar-coded chip or other information.
Therefore, not only would the amendment limit the purpose of this clause, as is its primary intention, but it could also limit future decisions to include more security information in relation to the car. Under this Bill, we plan to include only information which links the vehicle or its secondary features to the registered number. In future, we would have to go through a registered process—that is, at least secondary legislation—to include other information of the kind to which the noble Lord refers.
With regard to the EU symbols, I did not say that such a symbol would be absolutely illegal. Under present regulations, it would be illegal only if the inclusion of the EU shield altered the spacing between the font letters. That would be the case in relation to certain combinations of letters and numbers but not in relation to others. Therefore, currently a few may be illegal. That matter is not covered by existing
164
regulations, and this provision regularises the position in accordance with our obligations under the European agreement. Although I cannot give my noble friend Lord Bruce the precise reference number, as I indicated, following a long process, the agreement was reached in November 1998.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is correct to say that the basic recognition of symbols is covered by the Geneva Convention. The identification symbol for the UK is "GB". However, the EU has agreed that the use of the symbol by any member state as described in the November 1998 decision will, for international organisation purposes, be regarded as a form of designation of the individual member state under the Geneva Convention. Therefore, blanket clearance for its use in that context also exists provided, of course, that the "GB" is present and visible. That is the main point of tidying up number plates and introducing a clear regulation to cover the optional use of the symbol.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Geneva is clearly not what it was. With regard to the number of the directive, or whatever, from the European Union, perhaps I may take it that the Minister will write to his noble friend. The Minister indicates assent and, no doubt, he will send me a copy of his letter. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 63:
Before Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
"COMPONENT SERIAL NUMBERS
(1) Any person who offers for sale, purchases, receives or transfers a specified component which has a defective serial number without lawful reason or excuse shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale.
(2) In this section a "specified component" means a vehicle component that normally carries a serial number allocated by the manufacturer or other person and is—

(a) an engine,

(b) electronic engine management system,

(c) gearbox,

(d) drive axle,

(e) chassis, or

(f) a principle component of a vehicle's entertainment system.

(3) In this section a defective serial number is one which is—

(a) missing,

(b) defaced, or

(c) obviously not the correct one for the specified component.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order add classes of components to subsection (2).
(5) This section does not apply to covert serial numbers or other covert identifying marks applied by the manufacturer or any other person.

165
(6) The courts when considering whether a person has a "lawful reason or excuse" may take into consideration that person's experience of the repair, recovery, manufacture, design and trade of motor vehicles."
The noble Earl said: This amendment is designed to make the Bill more effective in combating vehicle crime, particularly the trade of parts stolen from vehicles. The Committee will be aware that it is already an offence to receive stolen goods. However, sometimes it can be difficult to prove that such goods are stolen.
When a vehicle is broken up, legally or otherwise, most of the value lies in the major assemblies listed in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. An engine for a heavy commercial vehicle or a luxury car can be worth several thousand pounds. The assemblies normally bear a serial number of some kind. If they do not, they are outside the scope of the amendment.
The serial numbers on stolen assemblies are frequently removed by criminals in order to make it much more difficult for the authorities to trace their source or legality. The serial number may have been damaged accidentally or inadvertently. In the case of, say, a fire-damaged large engine, considerable value will still remain. The term "lawful reason or excuse" in subsection (1) covers that eventuality. In those circumstances, a wise person would want further, alternative details, such as the serial and chassis numbers of the vehicle.
The Committee should be aware that subsection (2)(f) of the amendment is designed to cover car radios and similar equipment. A stolen car radio usually has its serial number removed. Any person with enough skill and experience to fit a car radio would be aware of this new provision—should the Committee agree to it—from reading the motoring press. If a person attempted to market a stolen car radio with a defective serial number, he would be caught by the clause, as would someone who claimed that he was given the radio by a friend.
Subsection (6) is designed to have the same effect as the words "knew or should have known", but is more specific. It is designed to protect people, such as Ministers, who are inexperienced in the matters listed.
The amendment would make it much more difficult to market major assemblies from stolen vehicles but would affect only those who knew or should have known what they were doing. It would not affect the existing laws regarding the handling of stolen goods. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I support my noble friend Lord Attlee. It is a well known fact that, when heavy goods vehicles are stolen, the tractor part of an articulated vehicle is stolen only in order to sell the spare parts—the engine, the electronic management system and the gear box. Lorries are not sold complete; they are sold purely for their spare parts. I believe that the amendment would go a long way in combating this crime.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Anyone who has had his or her vehicle broken into or attacked in some way will
166
have some sympathy with the amendment, which is designed to tackle the trade in stolen vehicle parts. That is undoubtedly a worthy aim but we do not believe that the amendment will achieve what it sets out to achieve. It requires that those who have a lawful reason or excuse for having a specified vehicle component with a defaced serial number shall not be guilty of an offence. I understand the reasoning behind that, but such a provision would make the new offence difficult to enforce. The police would find it difficult to distinguish between legitimate and unlawful removal of serial numbers and to obtain evidence of sufficient quality to present to a court.
The trade in stolen vehicle parts is undoubtedly a problem—that is one reason why the Bill is necessary. However, we think that the problem is addressed by other provisions in the Bill, which are designed to drive out the criminal element from the motor salvage industry. It is interesting that the police estimate that about 40 per cent of vehicles that are stolen but which are not recovered are broken up for their parts. We believe that regulating the motor salvage industry will help successfully to tackle that problem.
Finally, I want to make a wider point. Serial numbers on vehicle component parts are most useful to the police when they can access a database that provides an audit trail and links a particular component to a particular vehicle. Motor manufacturing is, as we all know, a world-wide industry. The vehicle crime reduction action team is setting up a working group to examine the use of international standards for the marking of vehicle component parts and of databases that are accessible by the police. It will also give further consideration to the need for legislative changes to protect marks.
Although we in government have some sympathy with the amendment—I am sure that all Members of the Committee have much sympathy with its approach—we do not think, for the reasons that I have given, that it is the right way to tackle the problem. However, I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the amendment in a public-spirited manner.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his response but I am not entirely satisfied. My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux referred to the breaking up of commercial vehicles. It is important to understand that experts can break up a heavy commercial vehicle in a matter of hours, put all the components in a container and export it or send it to another part of the country. There is much concern in the commercial vehicle world about the lack of progress on the Government's part in dealing with the theft and breaking up of commercial vehicles. Clearly, the Bill will go some way towards solving the problem. It is important to realise that a commercial vehicle can be broken up extremely quickly and that one does not require large premises to do it; it can be done in the middle of a wood or in a farm.

167
The Minister referred to the amendment's "lawful reason or excuse" provision. With regard to the offence of receiving stolen goods, there must be a "lawful reason or excuse" for having accidentally received stolen goods.
I shall read the Minister's comments very carefully but I expect that I shall come back with a stronger amendment at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 38 [Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.]:
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 22, line 45, at end insert "; or

(c) other purposes directly connected with improving road safely under subsection (2A)"

The noble Baroness said: I begin by reiterating my support for the general principle that income from fixed penalty speeding fines detected by cameras should be kept by the local police and used for local speed-limit enforcement. I speak to the amendment as someone who has been involved in local speed-management strategies for the past eight years. While the enforcement of a speed limit is without doubt of crucial importance, it must also be seen as a kind of backstop, which comes into play when education and engineering have failed to make a particular speed limit self-enforcing.
Self-enforcement should be our objective. That can be achieved by an ongoing educative campaign that aims to achieve the cultural shift that we saw in relation to drink-driving a decade or so ago. So far as engineering is concerned, there are roads that are designed in such a way as to almost encourage drivers to drive faster than would otherwise be appropriate. I refer to long straight roads but on which there are many side entrances, or perhaps a school or an elderly people's home. In such cases, I do not believe that education alone will do the job. In the short term, the deterrent effect of speed cameras can be dramatic, as we have seen from the pilot schemes. Eventually, however, something should be done about the road itself. It could perhaps be realigned or treated in a way that makes speeding less likely.
Without that approach, an over-reliance on enforcement could have two undesirable consequences. First, we might begin to lose the battle for greater public awareness about and acceptance of the need to keep speed down. An inappropriate attitude will, unfortunately, be encouraged by those who seek to generate a climate in which motorists are seen as some sort of victim. Secondly, there is a danger that the financial incentive to enforce fixed-penalty speeding offences will result in a reduced emphasis on other driving offences, such as careless or dangerous driving or, perhaps, drink-driving.
Those issues are far from straightforward and their effects cannot be certain. For that reason, I support Amendment No. 66, which appears on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and which seeks a review of the Bill's proposals.
I appreciate that hypothecation in the way that is proposed in Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 would involve a major step for the Treasury. I congratulate the Minister on achieving as much as he has done in that regard. However, in the interests of developing a road safety strategy in its widest context, I hope that my proposed changes will at least be considered in due course. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The amendment would extend the purposes for which the money can be paid. The noble Baroness said that that approach involved hypothecation. She is probably correct, but only probably so. The provision does not appear to insist that the money to be applied to the relevant purposes, which may be those referred to by the noble Baroness or those that are already in the Bill, should necessarily come from fines involving speed cameras; the requirement is merely that the Secretary of State may make payments. Under the Bill's provisions, those payments may or may not relate to money that is obtained through fines. We know from what has already been said that that is the broad intention. However, that does not involve, as it were, direct hypothecation.
I make that point as a former Treasury Minister. I want to be sure about what exactly will happen from the technical point of view. I share the Treasury's hesitation about hypothecation. It is not clear where hypothecation might lead and it might ultimately involve difficulties. I should add that I was primarily on the money-raising side of the Treasury rather than on the spending side—although perhaps we should refer to the "stopping-of-spending side". Most of my activities were concerned with getting money out of taxpayers rather than deciding how money should be spent. Those of us who have been responsible for raising money from taxpayers know how difficult that is—and how important it is to ensure that that money is properly spent. Such an experience only reinforces one's feelings in this respect.
On the noble Baroness's amendment, I am sure that traffic engineering and educational work can make a contribution to road safety, although sometimes I begin to feel that it is overdone. I have a flat in Lambeth. Recently, a number of sleeping policemen were put in all the roads nearby. Now it is intended to introduce a 20 mile-an-hour limit. That is rather ridiculous because with all the parked cars and the sleeping policemen it is impossible to reach 20 miles an hour anyway without knocking your car to bits. Even if you did, nobody could possibly catch you and

169
certainly no policeman is going to enforce it. So I suspect that we are merely getting a lot more street furniture.
Viscount Simon: It is not really a matter of the police catching you in the 20 mile-an-hour limit zone. It is the possibility of hitting a young child who runs out from behind a parked car.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I appreciate that but the sleeping policemen and the amount of parking allowed and so on ensures that it is very difficult to reach 20 miles an hour anyway unless one is extremely reckless. If someone is extremely reckless, then he is likely to go on being reckless regardless of the fact that there is more street furniture about.
Lord Whitty: These amendments seek to extend the Secretary of State's ability to fund road safety measures other than those relating to safety cameras. The noble Baroness makes clear in the amendment that that could include road humps and other engineering measures and, indeed, publicity and education on road safety.
On this side of the Committee, we have some considerable sympathy with what is intended by these amendments. We should not rule out that possibility for the future. But my message is that we should take these matters one step at a time. A former Treasury Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has reminded us that my ministerial colleagues in the Treasury took the unusually and historically enlightened decision to allow fine revenue to be netted-off, which is the term that the Treasury prefers to use. It does not sound to me as nice as hypothecation but the Treasury has a horror of hypothecation. There is a possible expansion of that implied in the noble Baroness's amendment.
The existing funding system does not allow the recycling of any fine revenue. That means that any body or organisation involved in enforcement of safety through cameras must meet the costs of that through its own resources. Therefore, it is particularly important that we have provided that the netting-off proceeds should go back into funding not only the establishment of speed cameras but also the enforcement, administration and court procedures which result.
This clause gives legal effect to the roll-out of what we have achieved in the pilot studies which have been running very successfully in eight areas in Great Britain. It would allow us to roll out the provisions of those pilot schemes more generally across the nation. But those pilot schemes are based on a decision in December 1998 which made clear that any future funding under the rules would apply only to netted-off fine revenue. Under the Treasury Rules, receipts from fixed penalties must be offset against related departmental expenditure on enforcement activities; in other words, fixed penalty revenue from offences being used to fund camera-enforcement activity.
170
I do not want to mislead the Committee in expressing general sympathy for the objectives of this amendment. Although the reference to prevention in Clause 38(1)(a) could notionally be interpreted as meaning the use of revenue from camera detection to fund measures such as road humps and traffic calming, although not for other non-speed offences or offences such as those relating to bus lane or box junction enforcement, at the moment, and under the provisions which we intend to roll forward, such expenditure would not be included within the Treasury Rules for those pilot studies and therefore for what we intend immediately under this Bill.
Having put on that limitation, we should not underestimate the huge step that has already been taken by the Treasury in allowing that netting-off. For the reasons referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, generally speaking hypothecation is regarded as part of the pernicious path to financial disorder. If we use it judiciously and take one step at a time, it need not be that. It is important that local authorities, the police and the courts should be able to cover their costs in that way.
There is also the indirect effect to consider. Currently, local authorities use their local transport plans and some of their internal money to fund cameras and enforcement. That money will thereby be released and could be spent on other aspects of road safety.
Therefore, the message that I am giving to the Committee is that the Bill may allow some further extension at a later date. We do not intend to use the extension as broadly as these amendments would allow. We intend to limit it to the cameras themselves, the enforcement and court processes relating to those cameras. As I said, I do not rule out a later broadening of the system. But for now, for the national roll-out, let us take one step at a time. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness not to pursue her amendments which I should otherwise have to oppose.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether "netted-off" is a cognate expression to "hypothecation".
Lord Whitty: I think that it is a cognate expression stemming from the word "net", which means that you have to be caught first.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I thank the Minister for that reply. His commitment to road safety is well known and appreciated by all of us who work in the field.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for emphasising two points which I have been trying to make. The first is that there appears to be something of a gap between the intentions of the Bill and an understanding of how it will work in practice. That is something which we have seen over and over again and it is giving rise to concern around the Committee.
Secondly, the noble Lord referred to Lambeth where I also have the pleasure of living during the week. He made the point that it is not the imposition

171
of the speed limit which makes the difference; it is the physical conditions of the road, either through conventional traffic calming such as road humps or, indeed, less conventional means such as parked cars. That is really the point I am trying to make. An over-reliance on enforcement through speed cameras or anything else will, in the end, undermine a road safety strategy. We need to look at that in the round.
However, I feel encouraged by what I have heard and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 23, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall review the operation of speed cameras funded under this section.
( ) The Secretary of State shall publish a report of the review within 2 years of the day on which this Act comes into force.
( ) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: The terms of this amendment are self-explanatory. The purpose is to ensure parliamentary and, therefore, public monitoring of this important initiative.
On Second Reading, I made no secret of my wholehearted support for this development and I congratulate the Government on securing it. Excessive speed is a killer. But, despite all the available evidence, that fact has not been grasped by the majority of otherwise law-abiding motorists.
It has been said by some in another place and in the sillier types of newspaper that hypothecation or, as I shall call it, allocation—I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on his knowledge of these arcane Treasury matters—of speeding fines is in danger of becoming a form of stealth tax. I am trying desperately to think of a parliamentary phrase that I can get away with. What total balderdash; what a load of rubbish. In fact, it is a fine for a criminal offence, nothing more and nothing less. For example, is it seriously suggested that a fine for stealing soap powder from a supermarket is taxation by the back door?
I strongly believe that the hearts and minds of the motoring public must be addressed on this important point. People have to be won over and that will take time. That is why I want maximum publicity about how the initiative is working in reducing accidents and how it is working in increasing the number of loaded cameras in use.
Having read the proceedings of the Select Committee In another place, I am sure that the Government are not unsympathetic to the concern in principle. I am also aware that there is an undertaking to report back at the end of the pilot scheme, which will be in one year's time. I hope I am not giving the Minister the answer to the amendment I have tabled. Nevertheless, it seems that a more permanent reporting regime needs to be established, which is what the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Simon: In the eight police areas where a pilot scheme for hypothecation is on trial, during the first nine months the cameras have proved to work in terms of saving lives and avoiding serious injury. Consequently, they have saved the NHS certain costs, too.
It is important that the results of the hypothecated speed cameras are publicly known, and therefore I support the amendment completely and utterly.
Lord Whitty: I fully understand the concerns behind the amendment and the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and my noble friend Lord Simon. The move is not without some controversy and we must take the public with us.
Let us be clear about the pilot schemes. We shall soon have the results of the first nine months of their operation. As I indicated at Second Reading, they all look promising. By June we should have the full year's monitoring results and shall turn those into a report somewhat earlier than a year from now. That report will be made generally available and if the pilot schemes fulfil our expectations that will help when we advocate the rolling out of the system.
That is dependent on the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Once it does, the funding system will be put in place. That will require locally formed partnerships to work up acceptable operational cases and it may well take up to two years for all those who want to take up such funding to do so. It will therefore take longer than that for us to make a further meaningful report on the operation of the full national scheme.
Therefore, while I understand the psychology and politics of ensuring that we review the system and continue to make our case for it, tying ourselves to two-year intervals, especially starting immediately the Bill comes into effect, would not be appropriate. I can give an undertaking that we shall continue to make available information on camera funding and progress on the results of that funding on a regular basis, but I resist the commitment to a rigid timetable. I hope that noble Lords who have tabled the amendment will accept the Government's good will in that respect and recognition of the requirement to provide such information.
Viscount Tenby: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is very difficult to push at an open door. I understand what he said and of course one can always table a Written Question. The trouble is that I am basically lazy and as I get older I am more and more forgetful. I shall have to rely on other noble Lords to do it for me.
I understand the point the Minister made and shall have to go away and think about it. I shall take on board the fact that we shall have a full survey of the pilot schemes, which for the time being will assuage my fears. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Orders and regulations under this Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I apologise to the Government Front Bench for not having given notice of the Motion. During today's discussions we heard mention of regulations in respect of almost all the amendments. Everything will be done by regulation. Can the Minister tell the Committee when the regulations will be printed and laid so that we can view them? Will they be affirmative or negative regulations?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I fear that I need notice of that question. It will be some time before regulations will be available under the various parts of the Bill. Some of the measures will take a significant number of months. We are about to discuss Amendment No. 67 which proposes imposing a deadline within 12 months of Royal Assent. It is our understanding that some measures will require longer than that. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord a more accurate answer because it depends on going through each of the regulatory powers provided for in the Bill. Some of the regulations will take some time, as will become apparent in our discussions on the next amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Perhaps it would help my noble friend if I said that all the regulations which are introduced under the Bill will be subject to the negative procedure? The exceptions are those relating to commencement, which have no procedure. All the regulations about which we have spoken will be subject to the negative procedure.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Commencement]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 25, line 26, leave out "on such" and insert "twelve months after the passing of this Act or on such earlier".
The noble Lord said: As the Minister indicated, the intention of the amendment is to probe when various parts of the Bill will come into force. In order to get the discussion off the ground, we suggest in the amendment 12 months. We do not propose to insist on that but wanted to be given an idea of when, say, Parts 1 and 2 will come into force. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that there should be no undue delay in bringing parts of the Bill into force. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to stipulate it in law. We have agreed to consult further on most of the provisions before introducing the regulations. For that reason, regulations will be introduced over a period of
174
time. We hope that that will take no more than 12 months but we want to have flexibility so that we can discuss the regulations fully with the industry and the other key stakeholders.
In addition, we will not be able to introduce some of the measures in the Act within that 12-month period. For example, we will not have available the technology to give the police bulk access to the motor insurance industry data base until after 12 months have elapsed. Therefore, for those technical reasons there will be a further slight delay. We shall approach the matter pragmatically and in the spirit of co-operation and consultation. With those two caveats, which we are sure the noble Lord, Lord Cope, understands, we intend to proceed as speedily as possible.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That response is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Business
Lord Burlison: My Lords, as consideration of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill is now complete, this evening's Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to the one hour available for business in the dinner break. Instead, a limit of one-and-a-half hours now applies. This change does not affect the time allocated to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, or to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, but for each of the other speakers the time available is increased from five to nine minutes.

Demographic Change
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in the light of the Department of Trade and Industry's Foresight report, The Age Shift, on the implications of demographic change in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must first declare a personal interest. I was a member of The Age Shift panel, which was one of the Foresight panels. I believe that this issue is very important. I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that the issues covered by that panel are of the utmost importance. The panel considered the economic and social impact of the UK's changing population and the demographic pattern that it faced. It also considered the implications of that change for the economy, business, employment and leisure.
I strongly believe that the implications of the longevity revolution are profound, not only because of the rising number of older people but because of the decreasing number of young people and, less

175
obviously, the whole life course that we currently take for granted. All this needs to be rethought. This is about planning for the future in a new and totally unprecedented situation—in circumstances that have not been known before in the whole history of mankind.
The age shift impacts not only on government but, as the Foresight panel's recommendations make clear, on business, education, health and care services, the media, the built environment in which we live and its infrastructure, mobility, transport, and on families—in which four and five generations will become the norm; in short, on all aspects of society.
I pay tribute to the hard work of all the members of the panel, which included a cross-section of leading practitioners in academia, business, the voluntary sector and many other areas of life, under the chairmanship of Jim Stretton, chief executive of Standard Life. We were also admirably served by DTI officials, whom I also thank. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, who took ministerial responsibility for the whole Foresight programme. I am very grateful for his support and keen interest in responding to this Unstarred Question.
I believe that the aim of the Foresight initiatives—"about being ready for the future"—which have run since 1993, is absolutely crucial to good government, none more so than in relation to the implications of demographic change. In that respect it is clear that the good work done by the Minister's department across the Foresight panels is only the beginning. I do not believe that it has had the attention that it merits. The real hard work starts now and, in most cases, probably lies outside the DTI. We must ensure that in this respect the issues raised by Foresight are acted upon, including across government. That is why I was keen to promote this debate.
What did The Age Shift find? It is now commonly understood that we have an ageing population. There has been, and will continue to be, a rapid advance in life expectancy, especially of those aged 85 and over, but that will be coupled with a declining birth rate. Until now, an increase in life expectancy has meant that more of us are likely to reach our 80s and beyond. Very few people achieved that until recently. The new situation is different; for the first time our life span has grown longer.
In recognition of that matter, when I was chief executive of Age Concern England I set up the Debate of the Age in the hope of raising awareness in the United Kingdom of the implications of our ageing society as we approached the end of the previous century. I am grateful to many noble Lords and Members of another place, together with hundreds of thousands of people of all ages and walks of life, who participated in the largest citizen jury programme ever held in the world and the 1,500 events and debates across the nation which took place over two years. I was gratified that some of the expert papers used in the debate informed the Foresight initiative.
I should like to pick out one or two themes touched on by The Age Shift. Life spans of 100 years and above will become commonplace rather than exceptional as now. That will have some predictable consequences; for example, for healthcare services, where higher priority needs to be given to prevention particularly of those diseases which plague people later in life. The consequences of not doing so are obvious and can be disastrous. But it may also begin to change a typical life course. If we take a typical life span of 75 to 80 years, approximately the first 20 years are spent growing up and in education and early work. The middle 30 years—sometimes more—are spent working and bringing up a family. The final 20 years or more are spent in retirement, unless people like us enter this House. Will that be the typical life course, however, of today's and tomorrow's children? If it is, increasing numbers of people will spend half their longer lives in retirement—perhaps up to 50 years if exit from the labour market remains as it is now. Although that may well allow for increasing work time or voluntary activity, which is an aim that I fully support having just chaired an expert group to advise Ministers on the setting up of a national experience corps to attract more volunteers of 50 years and over, we must ask whether that situation is economically sustainable both for individuals and the wider society.
The Foresight panel made some very wise recommendations on that and related issues. I was heartened to see that the Government responded only last month with the announcement that a fixed arbitrary retirement age would disappear by 2006. It became clear to the panel, however, that the impact of demographic change on business was not as yet very well understood. That was why the panel recommended that business be made aware of its changing customer and employee profile. Age discrimination as we know it must become a thing of the past. The key market will be in older people. Stereotypes will have to be broken; for example, when the media describe anyone over a certain age, probably 60, as "a pensioner", because he or she is not likely to be a pensioner.
Research will become ever more important. The DTI's EQUAL initiative, which came out of the first round of Foresight in the mid-1990s, was a noble attempt to get the academic and research communities to place greater priority on research into extending the quality of life. Unfortunately, it was not as successful as it was hoped it would be, but a new expanded version of EQUAL is very much needed now.
The Age Shift concluded in December 2000 with a range of recommendations to almost all government departments. Many of these issues are already being taken on board within government; for example, through the excellent Cabinet Office report Winning the Generation Game and through the establishment of the Interministerial Group on Older People But we need to ensure that action follows. Action means taking a longer perspective than is often the case. An inevitable consequence will be that age begins to become irrelevant, or at least a neutral concept, and

177
that we begin to judge people, particularly in work, on their competence and ability and not on the number of birthdays they have celebrated.
There is a crucial role here for Parliament. Various Members in this House and in the other place take a very close interest in these issues. So perhaps we should come together. For my own part, I have recently been privileged to establish a small new organisation, the International Longevity Centre UK, working with other organisations in different parts of the world, to take forward the agenda of The Age Shift, and to look in depth at some of these issues and how we might influence future policy and practice on the basis of the work we do.
This is a bold agenda for action. I hope that we can all respond to it, especially business. I hope that the Government will respond to it too. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how his ministerial colleagues intend to do that.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the state pension at retirement is a relatively new idea. It was a progressive idea introduced in 1948 at a time when life expectancy was low, largely because of people's poor health.
Thanks to healthier ageing, the time has come to rethink the concept of a fixed age for retirement. The Foresight document makes a very powerful case for this. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for giving us the opportunity to debate the report and for bringing it to our attention.
The noble Baroness said that the report is important. I agree. I happen to think that every Foresight report is important. Each one provides a framework and a vision for people to better understand and anticipate change in their particular sector of work or of interest.
Adapting for change and innovating for the future is a risky business. There are more failures than successes. Foresight points the way to successful innovation and provides a framework in which to get these risky decisions right.
Unlike many Foresight reports, the Ageing Population Panel's report does not deal with a particular sector of industry but with a particular sector of society. But it has a message for all. So it is particularly important for all of us to become aware of it. Indeed, my main concern about the way that the Government are handling the Foresight exercise is that they do not promote it enough. Every company and organisation, small, medium and large, should be aware of the Foresight reports and the implications for their particular business or organisation. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point.
The main point of the report is that the age at which we become less productive and less valuable fluctuates wildly. There was an article in Computer Weekly recently saying that it was difficult, almost impossible, to get an interview for an IT job if you are over 40. Does that mean that you are no longer productive and valuable after your 40th birthday? Of course not. The
178
age at which judges retire, presumably because they are thought to become less productive and less valuable, is 72. Part-time judges retire at 65. In your Lordships' House there is a progressive view about retirement, because there is no retirement age.
Introducing an arbitrary retirement age only adds to the unfair discrimination already within employment. Of course older people have as much right as anyone else to express themselves in a socially useful way. Enabling people to live an active and expressive life certainly serves the best interests of the larger society. But I do not really think that it is a matter of legislation. It is a matter of breaking down ageist habits. This is a cultural change. Legislation is not very good at enforcing a cultural change. It has to happen on its own.
One area where this cultural change is starting to happen is in the area of mentoring. The requirement for mentoring by older people must be limitless. The DTI supplies mentors through its Small Business Service. Mentoring goes on at school. A mentor's age does not matter. What matters is their knowledge, their skills and experience and their ability to impart them. Mentoring in careers is well advanced. My party has even introduced mentoring into your Lordships' House. But we have only just started to scratch the surface of mentoring.
Many mentors are volunteers. Older people often go into the voluntary sector when they leave work. Social Trends tells us that one in five people undertook unpaid charitable work during 1998. Sadly, there is no analysis by age, but I am willing to bet that most volunteers were older people—contributors, not receivers.
Serving the community in this way is a long-established tradition in this country and the Government are right to encourage it by the tax system. But more can be done than by tax management. Voluntary work and mentoring would be much more effective with proper training, especially as more social services are being delivered by voluntary organisations. Modern labour markets thrive on skills and continuous learning. So this training could be a factor in creating a labour market flexible enough to employ older people.
Continuous learning and professional development is of value both inside and outside the paid work market. It helps to build a labour market that is flexible enough to provide work geared towards the needs of older people; work which uses their skills and experience but is less physically demanding and has flexible hours.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has said, The Age Shift is here. The Foresight paper has pointed the way. It is up to us to bring about the cultural change that will put it into practice.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for initiating the debate on such an important issue. I have read the Ageing Population Panel's report with great interest.

179
There is a good deal of useful material in it. The chart on page 6, comparing the projected population by age and sex between 2001 and 2031, is, in itself, very thought-provoking as it shows a big increase particularly in people over the age of 60 by 2031.
Looking at the balance of the report as a whole, I find I am much happier with those recommendations involving health, education and social security than those covering industry, which I find too interventionist in many cases. In the summary on pages 7 to 9, I endorse some of the paragraphs but not others.
The report states that suitable information and education to promote healthy ageing across the course of people's lives should be developed and disseminated as widely as possible. That seems an eminently sensible recommendation because it will save the Government money if the elderly population is more healthy. In addition, the suggestion that policies ensure that all older people are provided with appropriate technological support systems that are linked into electronic networks is a good one, although the report makes no suggestion of how much that will cost.
Another sensible recommendation comes on page seven. The report states that businesses should investigate the potential of new markets for services or products that will provide a better quality of life for frail or disabled older people. The report then goes on to say that the Government can help by supporting research relating to their needs and in facilitating the transfer of these technologies from the universities to the business sector. Again I feel that this is a role suitable for the Government.
However, when we come to other recommendations, I start to have more difficulty. One states that:
"Most businesses are largely unaware about how the Age Shift will impact on their markets or activities. As a matter of urgency, business organisations, trade associations and trade unions should raise the profile of ageing as a business issue and fill the information gap with industry-specific guidance".
I find that recommendation an interference in the way companies run their affairs, except maybe for the provision of an ageing population information resource, which could be useful.
I have some problems, too, with another industrial recommendation. The report states that work patterns will have to become more flexible and attractive in order to retain older staff. It also states that action should be a top priority to reduce the incidence of musculo-skeletal strains. These two points have some validity, but companies have to be run to maximum efficiency, which may preclude part-time working and may necessitate the use of heavy machinery.
Another recommendation that causes me concern is that new financial products will be required to support the move towards flexible work patterns. I have to admit to being rather baffled by that recommendation. Apparently, the report goes on, providers of the next generation of financial products will need to work with government departments and the Financial Services Authority to develop these products. What products
180
might these be? In my view, existing financial products cover adequately the situation except for the imposition of compulsory annuities at the age of 75. Can the Minister inform us whether the Government plan to raise or abolish the limit?
Another recommendation that causes me concern due to its vagueness is that:
"All government departments should set an example by ensuring that their policies are fully inclusive".
How will that be implemented in practice?
Another difficult recommendation is that the media and advertising industry need to change their attitude towards dependency and infirmity. That is a laudable objective, but I ask the Minister how in practice it can be implemented.
I have that problem with many of the conclusions in the report, especially as I see that the panel has stepped down after issuing it. May I ask the Minister this question about the report as a whole? Will he implement all the conclusions? What is not needed is a quango set up to monitor the situation.
Finally, in contrast to the rather broad recommendations in the report, perhaps I may set out where we on these Benches offer concrete proposals to help pensioners financially. Under the next Conservative government, no one will pay income tax on their savings or dividend income, except at the upper rate. The 10 per cent and 20 per cent rates of savings tax and the 10 per cent ordinary rate on dividends will be abolished, with higher rate taxpayers paying 40 per cent only on any savings income taxable at the higher rate. The right to claim dividend credits will be restored to people who have dividend income but are too poor to pay any tax.
The next Conservative government will by 2003–04 take approximately 1 million pensioners out of tax altogether by increasing the age-related personal allowance for the over-65s by £2,000. Pensioners aged between 65 and 74 with incomes between £9,310 and £17,000 and those over 75 with incomes between £9,570 and £17,000 will be the biggest gainers. They will pay £440 a year less tax or about £8.50 a week.
We are promising above-inflation increases in the basic state pension for all pensioners in April 2002. Single pensioners under 75 will receive an extra. £3 a week and married couples under 75 will receive an extra £4 a week. Older pensioners will receive an extra £4 a week if they are single and an extra £6.80 a week if they are married.
Pensioners will also be given the opportunity to consolidate the special payments to which they are currently entitled, receiving them rolled up into their basic state pension. Consolidation is, however, purely optional. Those pensioners who are currently unable to claim Labour's special payments will be able to do so as a weekly addition to their basic state pension. For example, those in residential care, the over-75s without a television, and retired people living abroad will benefit from the Conservative plans.
Proposed reforms to the rules governing the purchase of pension annuities, based on the recommendations of the Retirement Income Working

181
Party, were recently outlined. The next Conservative government will end the compulsory requirement to purchase an annuity with the whole of an individual's pension fund. Those with money purchase pension schemes will need only to ensure that they have a sufficient minimum income to keep them off state benefits.
Conservatives believe that the right thing to do is to allow pensioners to keep more of their own money, rather than devising complicated ways of taxing them and then handing out government money. Conservative proposals will allow pensioners to keep more of their hard-earned money and maintain their independence from the state.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for initiating this debate on age shift and the implications of demographic change in the United Kingdom. The report is very interesting and is well worth reading. I shall avoid the temptation of spelling out Liberal Democrat policy on care and pensions, because this does not seem to be the right occasion to do so.
Ageing affects us all—young or old. It is said that the old have been young once but the young have yet to be old. That indeed is the certainty in life if we live to an old age. I welcome the Foresight report, The Age Shift, since it is about planning in old age for old age. The issues in the report concern all aspects of economic, social, cultural and political activity as part of everyday living. Noble Lords have so far covered issues relating to the majority of people in our society who are growing old well and the many who are not. To create circumstances in our society which allow everyone to make the most of their old age requires concerted action by all. Business and government should play a key role, as the Foresight report identified.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is to reply to the debate. I have always valued his judgment. I hope that he will be able to reflect on the many questions that will be posed to him and give considered replies.
The Foresight report recognises the importance of immigration into our country as the population ages. However, it overlooks the presence of black and minority ethnic people who are yesterday's migrants and for whom the population is relatively young, but of course there are differences between the various ethnic minority groups. This generation will be an important provider of tomorrow's labour force, but at the same time there is a rising number of elderly today among the minority groups who, incidentally, were an important source of labour in post-war Britain, contributing to the rising prosperity of this country. We need to consider also the ageing population among established refugees and asylum seekers. We must do everything we can to ensure that all elders in this country enjoy their old age with dignity and respect.
182
Sadly, for minority elders, this goal is made difficult to achieve since their needs—relating to culture, language, faith and beliefs—have not been recognised or met in the past. They are not special needs, only different needs. Changes take place in our families and communities. That is not different in minority groups. The frequently cited statement that, "they look after their own and therefore don't need support" is unfounded in reality. For that reason, I wish to focus on this group.
Using the 1991 census information, the current share of black and minority ethnic elderly at 65-plus years stands at 1.2 per cent compared with over 4 per cent for the 45–64 year-old age group. We will therefore see a much higher proportion of minority elderly both in this and the next decade. How are the Government, statutory authorities and businesses planning for this increase in ageing among minority groups? Are health, social security, social care, housing and education adequately meeting the current needs of the relatively small group of ethnic elders? The present state of affairs suggests that,
"some authorities are doing well, some are doing a little and others arc doing nothing at all".
That is the verdict of the Policy Research Institute on Ageing and Ethnicity (PRIAE), whose personnel have studied this area over the past two decades and have been urging policymakers and planners to respond appropriately and adequately. Has anyone been listening? Again, the answer is, "gently and slowly", which was the reason why PRIAE was established. At this point I should declare that I am a trustee of this national and internationally independent organisation. I am proud that it is one of the foremost agencies in this area of work.
The Government have been a little shy about adopting in full the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly compared with our neighbours in Scotland. However, the key issues and recommendations of the minority elders which PRIAE produced on behalf of the Royal Commission are still valid and require a full response. The recommendations covered were: access to services; appropriateness of care; planning and paying for care; and reducing dependency. I am aware that the Government have been busy with the reforms, but can the noble Lord tell the House which specific recommendations the Government have adopted from the PRIAE report? If not, would it help if we were to seek a meeting with him and his officials in order to take this matter forward?
The National Service Framework for Older People will set standards of care. PRIAE was a member of the task group and stressed the need to invest, invest and invest. Why was that? It was so that developments in care services which currently do not exist can do so. And where services are developed, these need to be made more comprehensive and effective at reaching all sections, in particular those who are frail and disabled—via home care, day care and related services. It is obvious: how can national service framework standards be implemented if the developments do not exist for minority elders in the first instance?

183
Many of PRIAE's programmes are the first of their kind. That reflects the level of historic underdevelopment in this area. One example will suffice. Until 1998, not a single book published in the United Kingdom looked at dementia among minority elders. A few articles had been published. Since 1999, both the UK and Europe have a book and a film to raise awareness and provide hopeful signs of what could be done to support people with dementia and their carers among minority elders.
Noble Lords will know that this disease can strike anyone. It does not discriminate. One person in five at the age of 80-plus will have dementia. I welcome the support given by the Government to PRIAE to help develop its satellite model—working with a small number of minority organisations to develop specialist resources in dementia. This has already begun in London, which has the highest number of minority elders of any city in the country. But such investment is also needed in Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Glasgow, Cardiff and many other areas where ethnic minorities have settled. Will those resources be made available and, if so, when?
My next point relates to the critical providers of care who have made minority elders visible. Many of these voluntary organisations exist on temporary, shoestring budgets, yet they work in many innovative areas, not only in care and benefits but also in leisure pursuits to improve quality of life. PRIAE's central recommendation was that such organisations should be better resourced and supported through mainstream funding, not as an alternative but as a vital mainstream element of services. This is beginning to happen through some government programmes, but it interprets "mainstreaming" a little differently.
Perhaps I may add a note of caution. In the interest of mainstreaming, white voluntary organisations are encouraged and financed to support black minority ethnic organisations. We welcome learning and transfer opportunities, but we must ask if this is what is happening. Is the flow of benefit in both directions? Minority organisations are rightly concerned that this opportunity may gear white voluntary organisations towards being more competent in multicultural care, but then leave black minority ethnic organisations as second best. Such possible unintended outcomes require the Government to implement their mainstreaming programmes with care and concern. How do they intend to use the expertise generated by minority organisations in this area?
In 2001 we cannot deny progress, albeit that it is uneven, which I have explained and much of which I have omitted. For example, Wales has the oldest established black and ethnic minority presence. At the dawn of a new era, we organised the first ever all-Wales conference for black and ethnic minority elders, from which emerged practical recommendations. Recently, the Minister in Wales did not support PRIAE's application on the basis that it is not a Wales-based organisation. Work on minority elders would therefore be passed on to Age Concern in Wales. While
184
I recognise the work of such national bodies, this example illustrates what "narrow interpretation" effectively means.
Should we conclude from this that it is all right for a national minority or specialist organisation to raise the agenda, but that it is not good enough to undertake the development work? We have a long way to go to seize the growth in minority elders as an opportunity in welfare, in business, in leisure and in the simple transmission of values that supports progress for all of us. A question we must ask is: will the Government, in their growth and reform stage, seize the issues and practical responses made by organisations such as PRIAE and be hungry to make the progress we all so desire and have waited for over so long?
6.17 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Greengross is widely known for her work on the problems but, even more, on the positive opportunities for the older population. I am glad that she has given us an opportunity to contribute to this short debate tonight.
We spend a great deal of time on forecasting the future of the economy, the possible results of elections and even when they might be held, as well as, from time to time, football and racing results. However, the age shift in our population should not be considered to be a forecast. On the contrary, it is more correctly described as a "foresight" because the great majority of the people to whom it refers have, of course, already been born. The average length of their lifespan is relatively easy to foresee.
We can very reasonably plan on the projected pattern of our population broadly as it is shown in the report of the Ageing Population Panel, to which the Question this evening refers. But is our long-term planning decided on this basis? Are we looking to take advantage of the opportunities, to improve quality of life and to increase the potential for wealth creation? Not enough, I am sure.
But I say to the Minister that this is not a complaint to the Government. The age shift in our population is not something which calls for a knee-jerk reaction or a one-off solution, although the £15 million fund announced in the science and innovation White Paper of July 2000, to get the best ideas from Foresight put into action, was welcome, and continuous monitoring of the take-up of ideas is also very necessary.
The age shift is simply the future pattern of our nation that needs to be borne in mind across a whole range of issues in which the Government do not necessarily need to intervene, but do need to avoid actions which might impede the changes in priorities; for example, in health, research, work patterns and the length of working life.
I should like to deal with three points only. I refer first to working practices. Looking forward to the population pattern in 2030 by 10-year age groups—that is, nought to 10, 10 to 20, 20 to 30 year-olds and so on—the biggest single group will be people in their sixties. Some of these will, no doubt, wish to continue

185
working in the jobs of which they have most experience; many others will look for new opportunities for part-time jobs, for home working, for activities in non-governmental organisations and so on. It seems to me quite evident that we shall need greater flexibility in working practices and probably in the point at which pensions become available.
In particular, if an employee at age 60 to 65 is not needed in his present job, there is a strong tendency now for employers to assume that he or she must go. However, in some countries, such as Sweden, there is already a greater willingness to consider a sideways shift or a job at a lower level. There is nothing wrong with demotion provided that both employer and employee are content and that the employee is making a good contribution to the work of the company or organisation. We all know that work-induced stress is one of the commonest reasons why older people leave work, so the formula of reduce the stress, reduce the level of responsibility at work, may be a good formula for the older person in the future.
My noble friend Lady Greengross has already stressed the principle that, as the number of those willing to work beyond 60 or 65 increases, we should make our decisions on competence and not on age. That is the heart of the matter.
With a change in attitudes to retirement, there must also be a look at the pension rules. I am very much aware that we should be careful not to make changes which disturb the fine balance between the costs of pension schemes and their benefits, but this report on the age shift suggests two possible approaches to pensions: to raise the pension age in line with life expectancy or, more radically, to do away with the setting of formal retirement ages and to have some form of phased retirement.
There may be some scope to raise the pension age, but it runs against the principle of flexibility. For example, a mother who has devoted many years to bringing up her family and has very few savings would suffer if the pension age was shifted further away. However, I believe that before long we shall move very widely to a system where there are no formal retirement ages, although the way in which such a system will work needs a lot of careful study.
I retired at the age of 63; I was abroad at the time. All my friends in England asked me why I had gone on working beyond the retirement age; all my friends abroad asked me why I had retired before the retirement age. So there is obviously a need for more flexibility to avoid such rather curious questions in the future.
On the pensions side, I support the idea which has been put to us in briefing by the Continuing Care Conference, to allow long-term care to be provided by pension schemes. There are some difficulties at the moment but, in the medium term, it is rather a good idea.
Secondly, I should like to say a word about work and activity opportunities for older people. A very large percentage of private wealth is in the hands of the
186
older population—as we all know, "Where there's grey hair, there's brass"—and the potential for older people to use their wealth and for others to provide improved services is obviously increasing. I am somewhat surprised that there has not been a stronger development of projects by the old for the old.
Similarly, the development of business and commercial services for older customers does not seem to have been very rapid, although there are obvious examples such as holiday cruises and many varied educational courses. I wonder whether there are not greater opportunities in personal transport, which might improve the quality of life and, in some cases, reduce loneliness, which is an affliction of the very old.
The panel considers that:
"Most businesses are largely unaware about how the Age Shift will impact on their markets or activities".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I think that is a bit harsh and a bit interventionist; nevertheless, it is a message which needs signalling.
Thirdly, there is the extent to which we should be devoting more research effort to the changed society which we shall have within the next two or three decades. I share the view of the panel that a more ambitious programme of research into some of the problems of ageing would be well spent. In particular, the better the health of the older population, the lower the direct expenditure of the state and the less the pressure for higher expenditure—which will otherwise be inevitable—to meet the problems of the ageing population. We need more preventive medicine, regular health checks and so on. On the basis of my own very limited experience in three different countries, we do seem to lag somewhat behind some of our neighbours in that area.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister for his view on the two possible ways of taking forward the panel's recommendations suggested on page 26 of the report. For me, this is a good report; the vital point, as always, is the follow-up.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for bringing to your Lordships' House a topic of such direct and immediate interest and for opening the debate in such an enlightening way.
I should like to discuss the implications of the rising proportion of older people for health and healthcare. I realise that these are somewhat outside the direct brief of my noble friend the Minister but I hope that your Lordships will agree that the subject of age transcends government departments, and that this issue more than most calls for joined-up government.
I shall speak to two distinct issues. First, how we begin to assess the costs of healthcare as more of us reach old age. We are clearly living longer and longer. Some evidence suggests that this rising trend in average life span is getting steeper. All this seems to be happening because of a combination of improvements in social circumstances, in housing and so on, in general affluence, in a continuing fall in environmental

187
risks and hazards—yes, despite what one hears, risks everywhere are decreasing rather than increasing—and, finally, to improvements in medical care. John Bunker, an authoritative American observer, calculated that about half of the last 10 years' rise in life spans has been due to advances in medical care.
It may seem reasonable to assume that the costs of healthcare will continue to rise in direct proportion to the numbers of older people. That is not quite the case. It is certainly true that long-term treatments for such common disorders as high blood pressure, raised cholesterol and diabetes, which prolong life, require such treatments to be taken for life. While they are not in themselves expensive treatments, the fact that they have to be taken by such a large proportion of the population and for so long means that they add a considerable burden to drug costs. However, these costs have to be balanced by the fact that the drugs keep patients feeling fit and well for much longer. We are not simply prolonging life by increasing the period of dependency but delaying the onset of dependency and the need for expensive hospital care, for example. In postponing death we are also postponing the age when we become sick.
This does not mean, of course, that we will not need more and better care for the elderly; we will certainly need all the improvements that one hopes for from the closer co-ordination between health and social services envisaged in the Health and Social Care Bill. We need that now and will do so even more in the future. Much is expected from the National Service Framework for Older People. It would be helpful to know when that framework will be published. I do not think it has been. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
I should like to turn now to a more parochial matter; that is, the loss of healthcare professionals at retirement. Everyone is agreed that we need more nurses and more doctors. There is no doubt that we have too few by any international comparisons and that they are all heavily overworked. The Government's response, quite reasonably, is to try to improve nurse recruitment and increase the number of medical students training to be doctors; opening new medical schools, boosting student intake in others and meanwhile by trying to attract staff from overseas.
But surprisingly little emphasis is given to the retention of existing trained staff. Many doctors feel so tired and burnt out by the age of 55 or 60 that they retire early. But they, and those who survive until 65 years of age, are among the most experienced and effective doctors and represent an invaluable resource. So we have the perverse situation of trying to increase the number of doctors coming into the system while we are doing little to stem the outward flow. I fear that the same is true of nursing. There is enormous room here to make good use of high quality staff if we trawl the pool of doctors and nurses nearing retirement age.
That is a paradigm for the rest of society. In the NHS we have a desperate need which could be met by giving nurses and doctors a sense that they are valued and, perhaps more importantly, by providing the
188
opportunities and incentives to continue in employment gainful both to the NHS and to the individual: flexible work, part-time work and work tailored to take the greatest advantage of the particular skills, knowledge and experience of the individual. These measures could solve some at least of the staff shortage problems. Of course, it takes imaginative management and resources to achieve that, but how wasteful if we do not.
I hope that the Government will use every opportunity to use the NHS as an example for the rest of society for ways in which the third age can be incorporated into a more creative future and that my noble friend the Minister will pass the message to his colleagues in the Department of Health.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is right about the importance of this subject. Indeed, if present demographic trends were to continue, there would be some quite astonishing results. For example, let us consider the present birth rate in Italy and Spain. It is about 1.2 per female, which is just about half the replacement rate. If one were to project that into the future, it would mean that: in two centuries, taking three generations per century, for every 64 Italian babies born today, one would be born in 200 years' time. Simultaneously, a Dutch population expert has forecast that the average expectation of life for Dutch babies born about a decade from now will be about 115 years. So while there will be very few young Italians and Spaniards, there will be very many old ones.
That will be the case if present trends continue but, they will not. Trends change and I do no know what kind of scenario we shall face. But in any event there is no particular reason to forecast disaster because as the report and a number of speakers have pointed out, although people will live much longer, they will be very much fitter. That will be especially true if they can be kept at work and mentally active.
There are plenty of examples from the past. I particularly like the story about the famous American judge, Mr Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who dominated the American Supreme Court for 20 years. He was not appointed until he was 72. He was very vigorous physically, as well as mentally active. The story is that in his early 90s he was sitting with another judge of a very considerable age. They saw a very pretty young girl pass. Mr Justice Holmes said to his companion, "God, I wish I was 10 years younger!" There is also the perhaps apocryphal story about Stravinsky's grandfather who died at the age of 105 by falling off a stile in the course of a midnight assignation.
I can relate some not so amusing experiences of my own. Rather unwisely, I took up marathon running in my middle 50s. Now, rather reluctantly, I have ceased running marathons. However, there are plenty of people still running marathons in their 70s and some of them achieve a perfectly respectable time of under four hours. So there is no particular reason to suppose that

189
people will not be fitter if they have the chance to work. That is one of the key questions raised by the report and mentioned by several speakers in today's debate.
What can be done to encourage people to postpone their retirement? If they can, the effect could be quite dramatic. For example, many people predict problems in Europe as regards various pension schemes and the hidden liabilities that they incur. But as a OECD report has pointed out, if the average retirement age in Europe became 64 to 65 years of age, that would halve the dependency ratio. Indeed, the age of retirement is now rising. After falling for many years, it is beginning to rise.
No doubt the Government have considered it, but I draw their attention in particular to the Swedish scheme. I believe that we can learn a great deal from it not only as regards the various measures taken, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred, but also their pension scheme which was introduced in 1998. It is extremely ingenious. The payment towards a pension which everyone has to contribute is 18.5 per cent, of which 2.5 per cent is a compulsory contribution to a privately funded scheme. The contributions are divided between employer and employee. The state pension of 16 per cent has some very interesting features. There is a minimum retiring age of 61 with no upper limit. But the pension paid on retirement depends on two factors: the first is the number of contributions made, and the second is the average life expectancy at the date of retirement. That is a very ingenious scheme. It provides a very considerable incentive for later retirement. It is also virtually demography-proof because as the average life expectancy rises, so the pension that one receives at any particular retirement date is somewhat decreased. Therefore, one is provided with a very powerful incentive to continue at work.
It is a scheme that we could consider. It could easily be fitted into our state scheme or into schemes as they develop. It would mean that we too could have a retirement age which is determined by the individual. The compulsory raising of the retirement age is rather unattractive, but if it is left to the individual, it is less so. If this Swedish model of "actuarial fairness", as it is called, can be copied—it was first championed by the Italians—many of the problems which have been referred to in this debate could be helped towards an attractive solution.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with other speakers, I would like to offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, upon initiating this debate. We have heard some very useful and valuable speeches.
We face some fairly absurd stereotypes in this country given voice, dare I say it, in the rather foolish remarks of the Prime Minister when he said some years ago "We are a young country". It is quite obvious that we are no such thing. We are an ageing country and, as
190
the report shows, we have a society which is becoming older with a declining birth rate, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made clear, and longer life expectancy.
Like the noble Lord, I include some statistics which I remember from my time as a social security Minister about 10 years ago. At that time we spoke about there being about three people of working age for every pensioner. I remember it being made clear to me by officials at the time that when I reached the retirement age of 65, the figure would have changed to about two people of working age for every pensioner. However pensions are funded, that suggests enormous problems that society will have to face in future.
I say unequivocally that we see these changes as positive steps, difficult though they may be for society to manage. We believe that our society is enriched by the experience of the old. Anyone who has listened to most of the debates in this House would not doubt that for a moment. I stress "most of the debates". I believe that the Government Chief Whip will agree with me as regards some other debates.
Perhaps I may say something which will be heard and heeded in the world of television, which influences us so much. It was only recently that the Director-General of the BBC famously said that the BBC was "horribly white". Too often it—and for that matter other branches of broadcast media—seem to me to be horribly ageist.
I wonder if many other noble Lords share my indignation that any report on pensions on television is inevitably accompanied by pictures of the frailest of old people, laced with voiceover clichés about pensioners "cracking open the sherry" or whatever to celebrate another handout from the state. I do believe that television does need to look very carefully and very self-critically about how television itself portrays the phenomenon of age.
More and more older people are retaining physical and mental agility far longer. That is why I believe the report is right to highlight the issue of extending the retirement age—a step begun by the last Conservative government. Employees should have the choice to remain at work after 60 or 65, although they must not lose their right to retire earlier. Other noble Lords were right to point to the fact that we have seen people retiring earlier and earlier, with many retiring in their 50s, well before pension age, although I do believe that that tendency is beginning to be reversed.
But I do believe that these issues are best addressed not by regulation—I think that this point was made by my noble friend Lord Northbrook —but by education. We accept the report's recommendation that attitudes will have to change and work patterns become more flexible to retain older staff. But we hope this will be achieved with the genuine support of employers, not through over-prescriptive red tape. We also hope that employers themselves will see the advantage of employing older employees. Seeing the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, responding to this debate I wonder if I may put it to him that I have some memory of certainly one supermarket group finding that the turnover of staff among older employees was much

191
less than the turnover of staff among younger employees and realising therefore that there was a distinct advantage in taking positive steps towards actively recruiting older people rather than younger. I would be very grateful for the noble Lord's comment on that particular point.
I do believe, though, that too often the Government have looked to the regulation route rather than the education route, saddling industry with red tape that can cost billions of pounds more than it cost in the past. To do so in this case I think would simply add to the massive raft of regulations that are currently smothering enterprise and would almost certainly result in a reduction in job opportunities not only for the elderly but also for the population as a whole.
It is not, though, as if the state itself is without criticism. Too often elderly people suffer unfairness in the delivery of other key public services, particularly healthcare. Research shows, for example, that cancer in elderly people is less likely to be diagnosed and treated than in young people.
Older people have a right to enjoy freedom from fear, and to live their lives in the sure knowledge they will be treated on a purely clinical basis. They need to be sure that the quality of their care, and the access they enjoy to it, are the same as those for the rest of the population. These basic expectations will form the basis of our party's agecare policies.
A belief in independence for individuals is one of the strongest grains in our thought on these Benches. We want to extend opportunity to the older generation by tackling dependency. But, at the same time, policies must enable the younger generation to save more for their retirement.
Again the report is right to say that financial services must respond to the age shift. The Conservative Party has recently announced a range of policies to address these concerns. For example, we believe that the age shift has particular importance for annuities. Why then do this Government take the patronising view—this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Northbrook—that a person who has spent a lifetime saving will simply splurge those savings if allowed to do so? This House has more than once in social security Bills voted for those in retirement to be free of the need to buy an annuity. We on this side believe people should have that choice. Sadly, the Chancellor has repeatedly used another place to overturn this House's views. I live very much in hope—although, I have to say, not in expectation—that he may at last feel shamed into abandoning his indefensible position in the Budget tomorrow. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, will not be in a position to comment on this tonight but he is welcome to try to defend the indefensible if he wishes to do so.
As we on these Benches have made clear, we want to help those saving for retirement and people who are retired. Again, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook made clear, such people would be among the biggest beneficiaries of our plans to abolish the 10 per cent and 20 per cent rates of savings tax and the 10 per cent
192
ordinary rate on dividends. And the right to claim dividend credits will be restored to people who have dividend income but are too poor to pay tax.
A key part of the age shift is the declining ratio of the working population to those in retirement, which I referred to earlier—a fact which makes it essential that the current working population can save as much as possible for their retirement. Here, too, I have to say that the stealth taxes introduced by the current Chancellor, which have plundered some £5 billion a year from future pension savings, were utterly indefensible. Again, no doubt the noble Lord might wish to attempt such a defence.
We want to maximise future pensioner incomes and encourage people to do all they can to build up their own retirement savings. We have therefore been consulting on ways to enable individuals to opt out of the basic state pension to build up their own funded alternative.
The older people of today and the older people of the future are partners. Both must be accorded the respect and the self-respect that personal financial independence conveys.
6.46 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, initiated this debate. This is an enormously important subject which needs to be widely discussed. As the Minister responsible for the Foresight Programme, I very much welcome the interest shown in The Age Shift report. It has attracted much interest both within government and elsewhere. I thank all those involved in the Ageing Population Panel for the time, energy and commitment which they gave so willingly and to such good effect.
The Foresight Programme provides an opportunity for stimulating government, business and others to think creatively about the future. It is inherent in the whole process that all these groups think about the implications of what is set out in the report. The Foresight reports are totally independent of government. Some of their conclusions we agree with and, of course, some not. The important thing is that we have an open and wide debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, pointed out, the shift in the age balance of the population is not just happening here in the UK. Some of our major trading partners are experiencing this at an even faster rate. It is affecting the whole of the developed world and will in due course start affecting the developing nations. The effects are already being felt but will become more accentuated by 2020. It is the one near certainty for the future that business, government and society can plan for. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that this is about foresight not forecasts because on this issue we can project ahead.
It is also important that the business community needs to be aware of the impact of the changing nature of the population. The Government also accept that they have a role to play in helping to raise that

193
awareness, as well as in creating an environment in which changes can take place, for example, an employment culture that welcomes older workers and encourages reskilling through life. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as regards what he sees as government intervention in industry. I believe that government have a role to see that the work of the Foresight panels is widely known and that people are encouraged to act upon it. That is, after all, the whole basis of the Foresight Programme. It is not a case of the Government sitting on the information and taking no action. That programme provided information for the whole of society and should be used to influence its actions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that if there is an issue we ought to focus on it is making certain that that work is more widely known.
I do not wish to comment on the description of the Conservative Party's pensions proposals given by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. I do not think that it is totally relevant to this debate. I simply point out that he mentioned proposals; he did not say how they were to be funded. That point also applies to the final comments of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I could spend all my 12 minutes talking about what we have done and what we shall do on pensions. That is an important issue but it is not particularly relevant to what was in the Foresight report.
Flexibility on working practices should not be seen as a burden on industry. In the world we are entering, it may be essential in terms of recruiting people to work in businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, spoke about the work done by supermarkets, in particular B&Q, in employing older workers. While I am sure that the issue was driven by the highest motives, it was not unrelated to ensuring that it had a supply of good, hard-working people to man the stores.
Government can also help to combat existing negative and unhelpful images of older people and promote the reality of active older people with energy and time and a willingness to contribute to society.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that the report has implications across the whole of Government. That is why in 1998 the Government established the Interministerial Group on Older People, ensuring that older people's needs are at the centre of government thinking and policy development.
The interministerial group recognises that the age shift within the UK's population has important implications for Government and that we need to plan accordingly. It has welcomed the Foresight panel's important contribution on what needs to be done. We are now putting in place policies to reflect the needs of our ageing population and will be taking into account the issues identified by Foresight in this work.
I focus on a number of key issues which have arisen in the debate, in particular employment, the programme EQUAL, the research council activities, and the integration of health and social services. Those are some of the toughest issues we have to tackle. My
194
noble friend Lord Haskel made a clear appeal for getting rid of age discrimination in the workplace. As someone who started on a new career at the age of 58, it is a view that I totally support. It is an important point. The issue was raised in the Winning the Generation Game report. The DfEE has taken the lead in tackling the issue. More generally, the Government are committed to tackling age discrimination in employment. In 1999 they published a non-statutory Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment which they had developed with key social partners including Age Concern, the TUC, CBI, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the Employers Forum on Age, among others.
To support the code, they have launched an advertising and publicity campaign from February 2000 aimed primarily at employers and those who can influence employers. They have also initiated a wide-ranging research programme on age and employment issues which will form a basis of future activity in this area. In October 2000 the Government made a commitment to legislate against age discrimination in employment within six years by signing up to the EU Directive on Equal Treatment.
The code of practice evaluation, together with a comprehensive range of research and extensive consultations over the coming years, will inform plans towards implementing age legislation within six years.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, as part of our work on the Winning the Generation Game we are considering options for allowing employees to have access to their occupational pensions while continuing to work with the same employer. That is an important point.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, about the Swedish pension plan. I shall pass on his comments to my colleagues. The noble Lord is right. Maintaining people in active employment is the key to the issue. The only way in which we can deal with this huge change is to make certain that people continue to work longer. In many cases, that will also add to their quality of life.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to EQUAL and the work of the research councils. I am not certain that an overall programme is required. One problem was that the EQUAL initiative dealt with areas of research which are fundamentally different: medical research into ageing is fundamentally different from research into the design of houses, or equipment in houses, to deal with old age. That again is different from the issue of the impact on financial products. The issue is not so much co-ordination but ensuring that in all the major areas where research needs to be undertaken it is vigorously pursued. We are working on that. There are substantial programmes in all the four relevant research councils.
The BBSRC's initiative, Experimental Research into Ageing, is aimed at the biology of normal ageing with particular encouragement of projects involving functional genomics. The EPSRC plans to issue a further, fourth call for proposals incorporating the area of inclusive design with an anticipated

195
commitment of nearly £2 million. The ESRC's Growing Older research programme was formally launched in December 2000 following a call for proposals in autumn 1998. It addresses the question of how the quality of people's lives can be extended. The MRC's enormous programme of medical research covers the diseases of old age, the problems of old age such as incontinence and many other issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, posed the question of the integration of health and social services. Improved health and medical care for older people are already high priorities for the Government. In autumn 2000, the Secretary of State for Health appointed Professor Ian Philp, head of the Institute for Studies on Ageing at the University of Sheffield as the first National Director for Older People charged with driving up standards in services. The Department of Health will shortly publish the national framework on services for older people, setting out for the first time in this area national standards and monitoring arrangements for service delivery. I take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. That must take account of the needs of ethnic minorities. Extremely good work has been done in some areas. Clearly we must have consistent standards across the country—that is the point of the framework—which also take account of local needs. I shall draw his comments to the attention of the inter-ministerial group which was set up to deal with exactly such an issue.
196
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, the National Health Service has already taken account of his point about retaining more elderly workers in the service. I believe that 20,000 letters were sent recently to retired workers although in the short-term context of work over the winter. We need to envisage that as a more long-term programme.
Work is continuing in order to combat stereotypes. Officials have had discussions with older people and the BBC to consider how best to improve the way in which older people are portrayed.
As noble Lords will understand, many government departments have initiatives under way which are in line with the messages from the Foresight Ageing Population Panel. The framework is now in place to ensure that progress is made across a broad front at ministerial level through the Interministerial Group on Older People and within the research councils. It was always envisaged that this panel—it is a thematic panel across all other panels—should have limited life and that the other panels would take the issue on board. I am reluctant to make the position more complicated. The way to drive it forward is through the existing mechanisms of Government.
Through the Foresight programme we will continue to work with business and others on increasing the awareness of the social and economic issues attached to the age shift and of the commercial opportunities offered so that we can plan for a prosperous future. By doing that, as the Foresight report makes clear, we can secure not only improved quality of life for our citizens, but also competitive advantage for the UK.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

  Southern Africa: Peacekeeping
  Southern Africa: Peacekeeping
  Foreign Secretary's Discussions USA
  Foreign Secretary's Discussions USA
  British Council, Quito, Ecuador
  British Council, Quito, Ecuador
  QCs and Judges: Appointments
  QCs and Judges: Appointments
  Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry Appointments
  Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry Appointments
  Perpetuities and Excessive Accumulations: Law Commission Report
  Perpetuities and Excessive Accumulations: Law Commission Report
  Civil Court Judgment Enforcement: Review
  Civil Court Judgment Enforcement: Review
  Civil and Family Legal Aid
  Civil and Family Legal Aid
  Court Service Annual Report
  Court Service Annual Report
  Contaminated German Meat: Returned Consignment
  Contaminated German Meat: Returned Consignment
  EU Economic and Monetary Policy Controls
  EU Economic and Monetary Policy Controls
  Weapons Collection and Combatant Reintegration Programmes
  Weapons Collection and Combatant Reintegration Programmes
  Medicine Prices in Developing Countries
  Medicine Prices in Developing Countries
  China: Population Control
  China: Population Control
  Donations to Political Parties: Disclosure
  Donations to Political Parties: Disclosure
  Immigration Advisers and Service Providers: Regulation
  Immigration Advisers and Service Providers: Regulation
  Prisoners: Facilitation of Family Contact
  Prisoners: Facilitation of Family Contact
  Turkish Refugees and Interpol
  Turkish Refugees and Interpol