Sitting of 14 March 2001

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

  Zambezi River System
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What environmental impact studies have been undertaken by her Department into the Zambezi river system. [152209]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): We are not currently funding any long-term environmental studies because there is no shortage of such studies. However, more needs to be done to build up water management systems in Mozambique and across southern Africa. We are helping organisations in the region to produce transnational water management agreements and have helped to develop a water resources management strategy in Zimbabwe to relieve the pressure on Mozambique. In addition, we are helping the Mozambique water authorities to obtain hydrological and meteorological data on the Zambezi and other major river systems so that flood predictions can be quickly produced and disseminated.
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome the fact that many environmental studies are being undertaken on the Zambezi river system. In relation to those studies and to any contribution made by the Department for International Development, will my hon. Friend consider the long-term effects of land use changes in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia? They have led to massive deforestation, which has resulted in the soil being unable to retain large quantities of water, which in turn means fast run-off during the rainy season. All that raises rivers to extraordinary levels. Will my hon. Friend also consider the possibility of reducing the levels of the lakes at Kariba and Cabora Bassa with a view to their being used as retention lakes during the rainy season? That might reduce flooding in Mozambique.
  Mr. Mullin: The unprecedented amount of rain in the Zambezi valley area makes it unlikely that any amount of planning would have avoided serious flooding. However, action can be taken to mitigate the effects, including better liaison between the water management authorities in Mozambique and Zimbabwe, better early-warning
  1004
  systems and better contingency planning. I am not aware that deforestation has been a major factor in the present crisis, but I shall make inquiries and get back to my hon. Friend about that.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Minister knows that the poorest people in the world suffer most from disasters such as that in Mozambique. Will he, therefore, congratulate Comic Relief on spending more than £110 million since 1985 on improving the lives of the poorest people in Africa? Would he, the Secretary of State and other hon. Members like to join us at a Comic Relief photo call on College green at 3.45 pm? You, too, would be welcome, Mr. Speaker, and red noses will be provided.
  Mr. Mullin: I join the hon. Lady in congratulating anyone who attempts to relieve the suffering of the world's poorest people. I shall check my diary carefully to see whether I am available to wear a red nose on College green, but the House will understand that I have my reputation to protect.

  Corruption
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: If she will make a statement on efforts to combat corruption in developing countries. [152210]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since 1997, I have greatly increased my Department's anti-corruption work. We are increasingly helping Governments to strengthen their financial management systems, anti-corruption authorities, customs and tax authorities, and civil service and legal systems. Denunciation will not halt corruption: we need to build systems that prevent and catch it, as we can learn from our own history.
  We are also working with the World Bank Institute and with Germany, Norway and the Netherlands to help to extend anti-corruption work across the developing world. The Proceeds of Crime Bill will strengthen the United Kingdom's capacity to seize and return assets plundered by corrupt Governments. We are helping the Governments of Pakistan and Nigeria to make use of existing legal systems to seek the return of such assets. We are committed to legislating to strengthen UK law against bribery and corruption abroad in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention against bribery of public officials abroad.
  Mr. Fraser: I thank the Secretary of State. On 10 April last year, the Government said that they would implement the OECD convention as soon as possible. The globalisation White Paper goes on to say that poor people suffer most from corruption. Why, then, does the International Development Bill contain no provision on that point? Has the Secretary of State abandoned the Government's ethical foreign policy?
  Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not researched his question thoroughly enough. We are committed to introducing such legislation, but it will be a large Bill and would not fit into the slim International Development Bill. If it had been combined with that Bill,

  1005
  we should not have been able to introduce that Bill in this Parliament. The legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred is important, and it will be introduced as soon as possible. I do not know whether the Conservative party has committed itself to legislation; in the past, it argued that that would be unnecessary since the existing law was enough. The Conservative party was wrong about that, as it was about much else.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that there is far too much corruption and far too much expenditure on defence in many of the poorest countries, which means that they are not able to tackle the problems of poverty, which I know are of such concern to her. How many countries does she feel also do not have truly independent judicial and legal systems to apply proper checks?
  Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. In Africa, for example, many countries were often supported with big arms supplies and had large armed forces. The end of the cold war has led to the creation of very large armed forces that are not properly democratically controlled or resourced in order to protect the countries' real security interests. That has been the cause of coups and instability, which Africa needs help to deal with.
  I agree that properly accountable security forces of the right size to cope with a real threat, transparent financing and independent judiciaries and magistracies are all very important. We are driving forward such systemic reform, rather than the pattern of tokenistic gestures of the past, but there is a lot to do. Effective modern state systems are needed to catch and prevent corruption.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Secretary of State tell the House who pays for corruption, and how they pay for it?
  Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman knows, overwhelmingly, the poor pay the price of corruption. According to the very moving "Voices of the Poor" study published by the World Bank, which covered 60,000 people in 60 countries, and which we helped to fund, the poorest everywhere are really angry about corruption. It prevents them getting their children to school, opening a little market stall, being able to transport their goods or getting any drugs when members of their family are sick. On top of that, grand-scale corruption distorts the use of economic resources, therefore preventing good economic development and the improvement in lives that the poor so badly need.
  It is astonishing that the issue was never dealt with in international development until Jim Wolfensohn took over at the World Bank. We, as a Government, have strongly followed that lead. I am afraid that it had not been a strong theme of previous British development efforts, but it most certainly is now.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: As the Secretary of State knows, I have a small interest in southern Africa. Does she think that we have a role in helping good governance through the anti-corruption model with respect to the import of computers in southern
  1006
  Africa, the cost of internet service providers and the way in which the internet is regulated? There is incipient corruption in that respect in southern African countries.
  Clare Short: My hon. Friend will know that Africa has fewer internet connections than New York—I speak from memory—so it is in danger of being left behind in the technological transformation of the world. Africa is also the most expensive place in the world to be connected to the internet because telecom companies have not been liberalised and no new investment has been made. That is an urgent issue for Africa, and we are trying to support the reform agenda that is needed to get telecoms investment and access to information technologies, so that Africa will not be further marginalised.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: To answer the Secretary of State's earlier question, yes we have already made a firm commitment to introduce an anti-bribery Act, which should have become law by now.
  Does the right hon. Lady accept that, according to a written answer on 31 July 1998, the Home Secretary acknowledged the need to introduce new laws on corruption under the OECD convention? Is she aware of the ministerial answer of 10 April 2000, in which a commitment was given to introduce legislation on corruption as soon as possible thereafter? Does she recall her globalisation White Paper published on 11 December, which acknowledged that corruption was a huge contributor to global poverty and that bribes to foreign officials were part of that? Yet, the Queen's Speech came and went and there was no room in it for such a Bill.
  Will the right hon. Lady now accept her share of collective Cabinet responsibility for that extraordinary failure to legislate? It is not good enough to say that the issue is complicated. The issue of hunting is complicated, but the Government found time for that. Will she explain why her Government continue to turn a blind eye to the fraudulent and the corrupt?
  Clare Short: I have been a Member of this House since 1983, but I have never come across such an extraordinary Front Bencher on either side of the House. The previous Conservative Government, of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member, took very little action against corruption in their international development programmes, and took the view that there was no need for a change in UK law in order to implement the OECD convention. We reviewed that advice, committed ourselves to legislation, and we will legislate. We have no lessons to learn from that very strange hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Streeter: The Secretary of State seems unaware that it was her Government who ratified the convention in 1998 and only since then has it become a live issue. Is not her shame compounded today by the sad fact that this very afternoon one of her Back Benchers is introducing a ten-minute Bill on he very subject of corruption, no doubt driven by his embarrassment and frustration at his Government's failure to act? We all know that that Bill has no chance of becoming law, so corruption will continue to abound while the Government sit on their hands.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.
  Mr. Streeter: Here comes the question. If the Government will not act to crack down on the corruption that blights the lives of the world's poorest, will they please make way for a Government who will?
  Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is ever stranger. I am not in the least ashamed that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) is introducing a ten-minute Bill: I am absolutely delighted. In fact, I suggested it.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Edward Leigh: If she will make a statement on aid to Zimbabwe. [152211]
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: When she will next travel to Zimbabwe to discuss aid provision; and if she will make a statement. [152212]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The economic and political situation in Zimbabwe is deeply worrying. The rule of law is increasingly being disregarded. The economy is set to shrink by a further 6 per cent. this year and the poor of Zimbabwe in particular are suffering badly—jobs are being lost, prices are increasing and there is now a potential for food shortages.
  I have kept the UK development programme under close review since 1997. We have made it clear since 1997 that we support land reform in Zimbabwe, that the United Kingdom has fulfilled its commitments under the Lancaster house agreement and that henceforth we will fund land reform only if it is transparent and provides land to poor farmers. No such proposals have come forward.
  I have recently authorised a £20 million HIV/AIDS programme because one in four adult Zimbabweans are HIV positive, and the country has lost 20 years in average life expectancy. I hope that the House will agree that we should do what we can to lessen the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe as a result of the terrible behaviour of their Government.
  Mr. Leigh: The Secretary of State said last month:
  "for us to be making a loud noise … inflames … President Mugabe."
  Is it her view that one should not make a loud noise when confronted with evil, when the Movement for Democratic Change is driven underground, when President Chirac entertains this dictator to tea, and when British farmers are terrorised? The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is a Secretary of State who does not make a loud noise.
  Clare Short: If making a loud noise would change the world, the hon. Gentleman would have achieved a lot more than he has achieved in his political life. The situation in Zimbabwe is so serious, causes so much desperate suffering to all the people of Zimbabwe and is so threatening to the economy of the whole of southern Africa that we should all be deadly serious and try to do everything that we can to prevent that suffering and bring the situation to an end.
  1008
  Making the kind of noises that President Mugabe wants to hear as he loses political support in his country means that he can go back to his heyday when the country became independent, it plays into his hands and does not help the situation in Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is the Secretary of State aware that a week ago Sunday a 72-year-old lady farmer—a sprightly lady—went for a walk with her three dogs? As she left the farm gates, she was shot down by 15 bullets from AK47s. She died instantly. The Secretary of State will know that the Government are giving £11 million to Zimbabwe in aid this year, in addition to the European Union contribution. She fought consistently against the South African regime after she entered Parliament in 1983 and consistently argued for sanctions against South Africa. Does she not think that now is the time for sanctions against—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for far too long. I must ask for briefer questions.
  Clare Short: I am well aware of the recent death of that old lady. I am aware also that during the election campaign many black Zimbabweans as well as white farmers were killed, often only because they dared to support the opposition. Teachers were raped because they were seen to be opinion formers in rural areas. The situation is outrageous and terrible.
  I agree that all decent people should do everything in their power to try to bring about a major change in the governance of Zimbabwe. However, people who are suffering from HIV/AIDS and receiving no support from their Government, in the absence of a prevention programmes, should not pay the price of President Mugabe's mis-government. Throughout the world, we should do what we can to support liberty and to support those who are suffering, and that is what we are doing in Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether she or any of her officials have met the delegation of members from the Movement for Democratic Change, who are here from Zimbabwe? They are led by David Coltart MP, who was a justice shadow Minister. If not, would my right hon. Friend like to come to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Room at 4 o'clock, or send a representative, where the delegation will be briefing Members on the situation in Zimbabwe?
  Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have met the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change; indeed, I sat next to him at a TUC dinner. He is an impressive man with a long record of commitment to democratic trade unionism and democracy generally. I was not aware that there was a delegation in the country. I do not think that I am free at 4 o'clock, but if I can manage to meet any members of that delegation, I shall be delighted to do so.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us, including herself, who supported all the way the liberation movement in Zimbabwe now view with contempt what is happening? Does she also agree that, unfortunately, it is not the rule

  1009
  of law that exists in Zimbabwe, but the law of thuggery? That should be condemned by all who believe that murder and the intimidation of judges, and the rest, should be condemned at every opportunity.
  Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a tragedy for Zimbabwe. President Mugabe, who had a proud record of leading his country to independence has now despoiled that record. That is a tragedy for him and for the country. We must hope that there will be a change of Government as rapidly as possible.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When I was in Zimbabwe just over a fortnight ago, the question on people's lips was, "What price the UK's ethical foreign policy now?" As the Secretary of State knows, four Select Committees, reporting on strategic export controls, have condemned the Government for a serious error of judgment in providing arms and military spares to Zimbabwe. The report published this morning concluded that the Government's response on licences was inaccurate.
  Can we now know whether any of the responses from the right hon. Lady's Department were inaccurate? What objections did her Department raise to the licences being granted at the time? If she made any objections, what reasons were given to her for her colleagues ignoring those objections? On how many other occasions has her advice been sidelined? She cannot even get her legislation through the House; she has to give it to a Back-Bench Member to introduce in a ten-minute Bill. How can we help her to make the other members of the Cabinet listen to her voice and to bring an ethical and moral foreign policy into a reality?
  Clare Short: There could be no better Opposition Member to second the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter); they are quite a team. The Government have massively strengthened controls on arms exports, way beyond the activities of the Conservative Government, of whom she was a member.
  I had no part in the report that was published this morning. I have not read it and I did not give evidence to the Select Committees. [Interruption.] It is no good laughing. The hon. Lady knows about the way in which government works, or perhaps that has passed her by, as most other things do.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What assistance her Department is giving to Vietnam. [152213]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): Our programme in Vietnam is currently worth just over £5 million a year and is scheduled to increase significantly over the next three years, in recognition of the Vietnamese Government's commitment to poverty reduction and social equity. Rural development is the Government's highest priority for donor support, and many of our
  1010
  programmes reflect that. In addition we make a substantial contribution to the main multilateral aid programmes, and we work closely with other donors.
  Mr. Wareing: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. During a recent visit that I made to Vietnam, people expressed appreciation of Britain's support for flood victims in the Mekong delta. The media in Vietnam highlighted the fact that Britain was top of the European Union league in giving assistance. The Department should be congratulated on that. However, much more needs to be done, especially to strengthen the infrastructure and to support policies that help to absorb a larger proportion of the rural population into the towns. Will the Minister assure us that that is uppermost in his mind?
  Mr. Mullin: I thank my hon. Friend for the reported comments about our aid in the Mekong delta; I am glad that it was appreciated. Reducing migration from the countryside to the cities is a problem in all developing countries. The best way in which to achieve it is to help the rural poor to develop sustainable life styles and to raise their standard of living so that they do not feel the pressure to migrate to the cities. The Department for International Development and several non-governmental organisations are currently funding programmes that are designed to do that in poor, rural areas of Vietnam.
  I have visited an Oxfam project in Ky An province in the centre of the country, which is regularly hit by typhoons. The project helps to strengthen dykes to protect rice paddies and enable people to derive a living from their land.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Department has rightly set its heart on operating with partners and other countries, especially in Vietnam. Its sector-wide approach is interesting and means conducting a close relationship with the Government of Vietnam. Does the Minister believe that those objectives are best served by having DFID's regional office in Bangkok?
  Mr. Mullin: That was reviewed some time ago. Several minor changes were made, but it was concluded that the advantages of having a regional office for our programme in south-east Asia, which covers about half a dozen countries, outweighed disadvantages in, for example, cost efficiency.
  The hon. Gentleman visited Vietnam recently, and he knows that three DFID officials are based in Hanoi. They have day-to-day responsibility for our aid programme in Vietnam.

  Environmental Education
  Helen Jackson: What levels of support her Department is giving to projects that support better environmental education. [152214]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): The links between environment and poverty are clear. Better environmental education in schools and civil society, in developed and developing countries are vital to the

  1011
  elimination of poverty. We are placing in inventory of our environmental education projects, worth approximately £11.8 million over the past 4 years, in the Library.
  We are currently reviewing ways in which to strengthen that work and make it more relevant to helping poor people to improve their livelihoods sustainably.
  Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful answer. I welcome his translation from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Department for International Development. I hope that he will bring his environmental interests with him. Does he agree that some of the big issues that face the world in this century are environmental? They include deforestation, soil and water pollution and the startling decrease in species of animal, bird and insect. Will the Department examine such considerations before determining funding on any projects?
  Mr. Mullin: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. We assess the environmental impact of every project, and sustainable development is at the heart of all the Department's actions. Environmental aid and development go hand in hand. We will not make progress on protecting the environment unless we tackle the development needs of the poor; we will not make further progress on poverty reduction unless we safeguard the natural resources on which poor people depend for their livelihoods. The environment and poverty are not separate issues; they go together.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 March.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I chaired a meeting of the Cabinet. I had intensive discussions on foot and mouth disease and I announced at a conference that the unemployment total had fallen below 1 million for the first time in 25 years and that record numbers of people were in work. I will have further meetings with colleagues later today.
  Miss Kirkbride: Why, when many hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working pensioners are forced to lock into a policy for their pension in their old age, did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week abolish the requirement to buy an annuity at the age of 75, as we on the Conservative Benches would do?
  The Prime Minister: That was not done because of the cost that would result for the Exchequer. What the Chancellor has announced is a greater amount of support for pensioners than any Conservative Government whom the hon. Lady supported ever announced. All pensioners
  1012
  know that if the Conservatives were returned to power, the £200 winter allowance and free television licences would be taken off them.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the Prime Minister agree that the work that is being carried out by both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the seconded vets in Cumbria to contain foot and mouth is excellent and that we should praise it? Today, I was talking to Nick Utting, group secretary of the National Farmers Union in Cumbria. He said that what would really help the situation is a relaxation of some of the rules. First, can we relax the rule regarding a suspected case of foot and mouth on the farm? Can the vets immediately start to cull those animals? Secondly, can we have a relaxation of the Environment Agency rules regarding the burial of beasts? The quickest, the traditional and the safest way of disposing of animals is to bury them immediately. Will the Prime Minister agree to look at the relaxation of the rules?
  The Prime Minister: We are deploying some of those options and we are certainly looking carefully at the points that my hon. Friend has just made. I pay tribute both to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the people, particularly in the veterinary service, who up and down this country have done a quite superb job in extremely difficult circumstances.
  Our difficulty—I have no doubt that I will have opportunities to explain this again to the House during Question Time—is balancing any relaxation of the rules and making sure that we are not over-reacting to the situation. At the present time, I believe that we have the balance right, but, at both ends of the spectrum, obviously, we keep the matter under constant review. We do not want to place unnecessary restrictions on people; on the other hand, we must do everything that we can to eradicate the disease.
  Mr. William Hague: May I join the Prime Minister in his tribute to everyone who is working so hard to try to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease?
  Since we last discussed the matter two weeks ago at Question Time, there is no doubt that we are in the grip of a national crisis. We have supported, and continue to support, the measures that the Government have taken, but, given that the spread of the disease is clearly not yet under control, will the Prime Minister consider several additional measures to control it more tightly and to use more of the available resources for dealing with it? Will he clarify this morning's announcement on slaughtering policy and consider more urgently whether the time has come to adopt not a relaxation, but an intensification, which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has proposed—to adopt a policy of slaughter immediately a vet believes, on the clinical evidence rather than on the basis of laboratory tests, that there is foot and mouth, as was the practice in 1967?
  The Prime Minister: In relation to the issues on slaughter policy, the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement to the House tomorrow. We are looking at how we step up the slaughter in the areas most directly affected. One of the issues is that there are areas of the

  1013
  country that are very seriously affected, while there are other areas in which, fortunately, at present at any rate, there has been no outbreak of foot and mouth disease at all. So it is entirely right that we look to see how we can take more urgent measures in the areas most directly affected.
  In respect of those animals that we designate for slaughter, we are looking again at how we increase the intensification of the slaughter policy of those animals that either have the disease—obviously—or may have come into contact in some way with animals that do have it. Even if they themselves do not have the disease, it may be a sensible precaution to carry out a slaughter policy in respect of those animals also.
  Mr. Hague: Further to that, any increased slaughter such as the Prime Minister has mentioned and we advocate will obviously add to the backlog of diseased carcases rotting on farms. Yesterday, the Government announced the limited deployment of the Army. While we welcome that, could the Army's role be extended to help clear that backlog? Similarly, there is clear evidence that we will not have enough vets to tackle the emergency, although the vets are working extremely hard, as the Prime Minister said. Will the Government consider using student vets and retired vets, as was the practice in 1967, in an effort to increase the available resources?
  The Prime Minister: That is entirely right; no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has been in contact with the British Veterinary Association, as we have been in constant discussion with the state veterinary service and others. We are using some final-year veterinary students already and retired vets are important as well. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will outline some extra measures concerning how we bring in vets from outside. We are already using vets whom the Army have provided. We are looking at how the armed forces can help, particularly in relation to the logistics of disposing of the animals. However, some of the more lurid stories about troops roaming the countryside, shooting animals and wildlife are not correct or helpful. Meetings are taking place today with the Ministry of Defence to see how the Army can assist in the process. It is self-evident that, if we intensify the process of slaughter, we have to increase the resources to carry that out.
  Mr. Hague: Finally on this matter, we are well aware that the threat to people's livelihoods has now extended far beyond the farmers themselves. Large parts of rural Britain have been forced virtually to shut down. Hotels face closure as bookings have been cancelled and some rural tourist attractions face bankruptcy. We must get help to farmers and continue that help. Will the Prime Minister agree to help other rural businesses by measures such as giving exemptions from rates to those businesses worst hit by the crisis?
  The Prime Minister: We will, of course, consider all the measures necessary to help. A series of measures is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the taskforce, which involves representatives of the tourism industry. The industry has been devastated over the past few days and weeks by what has happened. We have to see what financial and other help we can get to it as quickly as possible. Once the
  1014
  outbreak has been dealt with, we will have to see how we can move the industry forward so that it recovers as quickly as possible. That will be the other issue for the industry. It is not merely that bookings have fallen during the foot and mouth outbreak; we must look at the industry's future position. We are looking at all the issues and we will do whatever we reasonably can to help.
  We can more clearly see day by day those areas of the country that are most severely affected and, of course, there are still significant areas of the country that have not been affected at all Over the coming weeks, we must see what help and what lifting of restrictions we can allow in those areas that are not affected and that remain unaffected.
  Jean Corston: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be an urgent review of the way in which taxpayers' money is used to fund the parliamentary activities of Opposition parties? Is he aware that there has been an increase of 280 per cent. in funding to the Tory party and that, in defiance of previous procedures, it has been using the money to fund its party campaigning and even its election war room? This matter has never been debated in this House—
  Hon. Members: Order!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told hon. Members before: do not tell me my job. I will soon tell the hon. Lady if she is out of order. She is not.
  Jean Corston: It looks as though the Tory party has not only moved the goalposts, but carted them off the pitch. Is not this a fraud on the British taxpayer?
  The Prime Minister: No doubt that is one of the public expenditure cuts that the Tories can announce in the coming weeks. If they are spending that amount of money on their political campaigning, I can only say that it has been remarkably ineffective.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Returning to the foot and mouth restrictions, does the Prime Minister feel that he is in a position to be any more specific this afternoon about appropriate compensation levels for farmers who, as a result of the restrictions, feel that their animals will have to be destroyed on welfare and compassionate grounds?
  The Prime Minister: Obviously, this is an issue for the farmers who are affected, even though their animals do not have foot and mouth disease. It is also an issue that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will cover in his statement tomorrow. We have to keep this aspect of the problem under constant review. The animal welfare issues may fit into an entirely different set of categories. It may be that some animals can be moved for their welfare, but others may have to be destroyed. At present we are looking for the best option in respect of each group of animals.
  Mr. Kennedy: On the interests of the wider rural economy, to which the leader of the Conservative party quite properly referred, given that the difficulty is affecting bed-and-breakfast accommodation, local hotels and tourist attractions, will the Prime Minister give early

  1015
  consideration to providing relief from tax and national insurance? Will he ask the Treasury to liaise with the Inland Revenue with a view to waiving tax and national insurance, or at least providing a period of relief so that those who are affected by short-term financial crises can have a degree of relief which is not available at the moment?
  The Prime Minister: These issues will be discussed by the taskforce chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. It is also important for businesses in the tourist industry and others, such as the Youth Hostel Association, which have lost considerable sums of money, that, over the coming days, we get a clear picture of exactly where the disease is located and which areas of the country are free from the disease. People are cancelling bookings in parts of the country where foot and mouth disease is not present and where, hopefully, it will become clear over the coming days that it will not spread. In circumstances where the disease is operating quite differently in different parts of the country, we also have to consider how to give proper effect to a set of rules that makes sense of the restrictions that presently apply to the whole country.
  Liz Blackman: Chelsea Brown, a two-year-old who lived in my constituency, was abused and brutally murdered by her father, who was sent to prison for life by Nottingham Crown court last week. Professionals have admitted that mistakes were made in the very difficult area of child protection. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that everything possible is done to make sure that the procedures that govern this area are rigorously enforced and where necessary, strengthened so that the very fine judgments that have to be made are made promptly and appropriately and in the interests of child protection?
  The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We haye strengthened the protection available and it is important that we continue to look at ways of doing so. However, as she will know, very difficult judgments often have to be made by social services on the ground and, when a tragedy occurs, they can be attacked from both angles. We must certainly take every possible precaution to minimise the risk to which children are exposed and, of course, the welfare of the child should always come first.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Education history is being made today with the launch of the first privately managed federation of state schools in Britain, building on the success of the first privately run state school in Guildford. May I thank the Prime Minister for acknowledging the success of this Conservative policy in his recent Green Paper? Does he further agree with me what a shame it was that, with the written backing of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, his local Labour party opposed us all the way?
  The Prime Minister: I shall try to take that as congratulations for the policy that we are pursuing. It is important not only that we have a diverse range of providers in secondary schools, but that we put the investment into our school system that it needs. The only
  1016
  unfortunate thing about the Conservative policy is that, whereas we put into schools the investment that we need, he is committed to taking that investment out.
  Caroline Flint: The announcement today that unemployment has fallen below 1 million will be welcomed by my constituents in Don Valley, where unemployment has been halved and youth unemployment has gone down by 86 per cent. In South Yorkshire, 178,000 industrial jobs were lost between 1979 and 1997. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that Labour in government will continue to fight for jobs, but also to fight for the range of skills and jobs that will ensure that South Yorkshire has a prosperous future?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are over 1 million more jobs in the economy now, which takes us to a total of 28 million—more people in work today in Britain than ever before. But she is also right to point out the success of the Government's measures, in particular the new deal, which has taken 275,000 people off benefit and put them into work. The tragedy is that that policy, which has given us the lowest unemployment levels for 25 years, is opposed by the Opposition, who would scrap that policy were they returned to power. In committing themselves to that, they show their true colours. Such a policy will be bitterly opposed by many people in Britain who believe that everyone, not just a few, should have the chance to succeed.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: The Prime Minister will know that last week Russian forces in Azerbaijan captured two men widely believed to be responsible for murder and kidnapping in Chechnya. Given that one of those men, Mr. Ruslan Achmadov, is believed by the Foreign Office to be responsible for the murder and beheading of three Britons in 1998, including my constituent Peter Kennedy, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Russian authorities on that operation? Will he also say when he believes those men will be brought to trial and whether it will be possible for the relatives of the dead to attend the trial? Will he ensure that Britain assists in bringing to justice the other people responsible for those brutal crimes?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the relatives will be able to attend the trial, but I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman on that. I was extremely pleased to hear of the arrest, and I welcome that. We shall give every assistance to the Russian authorities in pursuing the case. That particularly barbarous set of murders shocked people deeply at the time, so we are delighted that at least some of those responsible have been brought to justice. Like the hon. Gentleman, I wish to see all those responsible brought to justice.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), there are over 1 million more jobs in the economy now than there were in 1997, a period of three years and 10 months. During the same period of three years and 10 months of Mrs. Thatcher's regime, 1.6 million jobs were lost to the British economy. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, although there are

  1017
  still areas of serious disadvantage and structural change in my constituency, partnerships between local and central Government and business and industry have created a situation where unemployment has fallen from 5.1 per cent. to 3.1 per cent. since May 1997. With that record—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman is asking.
  The Prime Minister: I do indeed know what point my hon. Friend was making, and so do the Opposition, which is why they are trying to shout it down. It is not just that unemployment is the lowest that it has been for 25 years or that record numbers of people are in employment, but with mortgage rates more than half what they were in Conservative years, with the national debt coming down, with the country's finances strong, with investment coming into our public services, it is no wonder at all that the Opposition do not want to discuss the economy.
  Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister recommend that other Ministers behave towards the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as the Minister for Europe has behaved?
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges cleared my hon. Friend of all the charges except one, on which it recommended no penalty.
  Mr. Hague: Well, the Minister has no need to hire an evasive lawyer when he has the Prime Minister to defend him. The Committee's report is a tale of obstruction and lack of candour in regard to allegations that included payments in exchange for help with planning permission and land acquisition. The Committee's inquiries could not be completed, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said that the Minister failed
  "to provide full and accurate answers."
  The Prime Minister can keep his Government's integrity or his Minister, but he cannot keep both.
  If the Prime Minister is happy with the behaviour of the Minister for Europe, does he recommend that other Cabinet Ministers should treat Parliament in the same way as the Foreign Secretary? The Foreign Secretary briefs journalists about Select Committee reports before they are published and then denies in this House that he has done so.
  The Prime Minister: The allegations against my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are complete nonsense, as my right hon. Friend said at the time. However, in respect of my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, as I said, the Standards and Privileges Committee is an all-party Committee and it cleared my hon. Friend of all the allegations. It is true that he was not cleared on one allegation, but the Committee recommended no penalty. In those circumstances, for the right hon. Gentleman to say what he has said is, frankly, fatuous.
  Mr. Hague: We all know that, when the Prime Minister mumbles, he is not sure of his case. The
  1018
  investigation into eight of the accusations were not completed by the Committee, for the reasons that I have given. The Foreign Secretary told the House that
  "there was no briefing —no leak to the press"—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 416.]
  However, we now know that he had done precisely that. Are not those facts just the latest indictment of a Government who promised to be purer than pure? Since then, we have had the Formula 1 scandal, the favours for lobbyists, the leaked Select Committee report, the home loan scandal, the Lord Chancellor's dinners, the two resignations of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the affairs of the former Paymaster General. Now we have the Foreign Secretary's contempt for this House and the behaviour of the Minister for Europe.
  The Prime Minister said that he would introduce a new kind of politics. With that record, is not it the one promise on which he has actually delivered?
  The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago, my right hon. Friend answered all the allegations. They were complete nonsense when they were made, and they are complete nonsense now. As for my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, he was cleared of the allegations that were made, as I said.
  I think that there is a point that should be made. The Leader of the Opposition gets up to ask questions the week after the Budget, but he does not ask about that, because he dare not. He gets up on the day of the best unemployment figures for 25 years, but he does not ask a question about that, because he dare not. He gets up on the day when we announced the best employment figures ever, but he does not ask about that, because he dare not. He asks no questions on schools, crime, transport or hospitals. In fact, he asks no questions about matters that affect the real lives of real people, because he has nothing to say. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it would be entirely wrong for any candidate in the forthcoming election to stir up racial prejudice? Will he give an assurance to the House that he will take action against any activist who is found doing so?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly give that assurance. I strongly welcome the initiative from the Commission for Racial Equality. I hope that all political parties sign up to it and have their candidates do the same. Any Labour party activist or candidate who breaches those rules will be subject to discipline. I hope that we all not merely sign up to the initiative, but observe its spirit as well as its letter.
  Mr. Tim Collins: The Prime Minister said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asks no questions relating to the real lives of real people, but will he confirm that he was asked three times today about foot and mouth, a disease that is destroying the lives of real people in my constituency? Is he aware that £10 million a week is being lost by tourism businesses in the Like district at the moment, and that 350 jobs a week are going? If this crisis continues until

  1019
  Easter, those figures will triple. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is coming to Windermere in the Lake district tomorrow to listen to real people with real concerns. Will the Prime Minister come and listen to those concerns, and will he act on them?
  The Prime Minister: It is—[Interruption.] I think that Opposition Members should calm down a little. I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather over-sensitive in his defence of the Leader of the Opposition, but of course I accept that people are losing their jobs in tourism. It is precisely for that reason that the taskforce under my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment was established yesterday. It is precisely for that reason that we have given agrimonetary compensation to farmers—something that the previous Conservative Government never did. It is precisely for that reason that we shall look at what more help can be given to the tourist industry. I should have thought that this is an issue on which both sides of the House should work together to see what we need to do to relieve the suffering of people in those areas. Certainly, for our part, that is precisely what we shall do.
  Mr. Jim Dobbin: Will the Prime Minister comment on the article in The Mirror today on the, possibility of the appointment of a Minister to look after and champion the cause of ex-service men and women? As the president of the United Services club in Heywood and Middleton, I know that my members would be delighted if that were to become a reality. It would be a recognition of their tremendous sacrifices in both world wars and other conflicts.
  The Prime Minister: I am pleased to announce that today I have appointed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence to be the Minister for veterans' affairs. Our armed forces veterans have made a major contribution to the peace and securtly of our nation, and it is only right that they should be recognised in that way. The Minister will be supported in the work that he does across Government Departments, but it is no longer right that particular issues that afftect veterans are the responsibility simply of one Minister in one Department. There has to be co-ordination by a Minister across Departments, and that is what we are announcing today.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: May I tell the Prime Minister that 21 rural post offices in my constituency of Argyll and Bute, which is a vast area with many islands, have closed or reduced their hours of working in the past two years, and that many more are under threat? Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government's promise of financial assistance by 2003, which is very welcome, will in fact be too late? Heaven knows, rural areas have had enough to contend with as it is without losing the post office network.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady's point about rural post offices is a fair one. We understand the difficulties that they face, which is precisely why we published the proposals that we did Not all the help, of course, has to wait until 2003: there is help available before then. We are looking, particularly with the major
  1020
  banks, at how we can put in place some of the services that rural post offices will have to provide if they are to have a viable and sustainable way of living.
  I was looking recently at the pattern of closure over the past 20 years. As the hon. Lady knows, there has been a pattern of closure of rural post offices for a variety of reasons, not the least of which has been their financial viability. As well as making a public commitment to them, which we are prepared to do, we must look at the ways in which they can provide a service that people in rural areas will want to use in the future.
  I understand the concerns that the hon. Lady raises. We are working on this as hard as we can. We will get the money to the post offices as quickly as we can, but serious issues about their long-term viability must also be addressed.
  Mr. Phil Sawford: In my Kettering constituency, a group of travellers has moved on to privately owned land where they are illegally camped. I am sure that these circumstances prevail in other parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend urge local authorities, which are unable to move on any travellers in these circumstances, to provide adequate provision for toilets, waste disposal and disinfectant to protect everyone's interest?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that local authorities should do that. I know that many local authorities are faced with similar problems to those in my hon. Friend's constituency. If he will allow me, I shall look into the issue that he raises and write to him.
  Mr. Simon Burns: As the Hammond inquiry cleared the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), can the Prime Minister explain why he had to leave the Government?
  The Prime Minister: For the reasons I gave at the time. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Mackay, be quiet.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What message does the Prime Minister have for my constituents in Blyth Valley? After a number of years of a reduction in unemployment there, this month there has been a rise of 1 per cent. in unemployment. What message does the Prime Minister have for my people back home?
  The Prime Minister: It is for precisely that reason that we are putting money into coalfield areas and their regeneration. In constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend—including those that have been severely hit by structural change in the past few years—the Government have been prepared to make investment that the Opposition would never make in the future of such communities. Up and down this country, whether in areas such as my hon. Friend's or mine, or, indeed, in some of the more traditionally wealthy areas in the south, unemployment is falling, and employment and living standards are rising. That shows the need for a solid, stable economic base such as that which the Labour party has provided and the Conservatives never did provide.

Rural Tourism (Foot and Mouth)
3.30 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the consequences of foot and mouth disease for the rural tourism industry.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The tourism industry has been badly affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. The industry is a huge and successful part of the economy. It employs about 1.8 million people and contributes as much as £64 billion to the economy. We have been in close touch with industry representatives, the English Tourism Council, the British Tourist Authority and other parts of government during the past two weeks and have been carefully assessing the impact. We have also been in close contact with the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The impact is mainly on rural areas throughout the UK, but the problem also affects our towns and cities, as visitors from Europe and elsewhere are deterred from coming here at all. That loss of business should be debated with sensitivity and care.
Early on, we agreed with the ETC and the BTA that we were determined not to fuel the damaging media coverage that is already so badly affecting our overseas markets and day visitors. Stories of cancellations and loss of business have to be reported, but they will not help the industry to achieve bookings, especially overseas, where the context is less well understood.
Within the Government, I have been making the position absolutely clear, reporting the difficulties faced by the industry as they have grown and ensuring that the needs of this vital part of the economy are known. I reported to the Cabinet this morning.
As we approach the Easter break—usually a time when a large number of bookings are made—all those involved are very worried about the loss of trade. People in many hotels and attractions have been laid off, businesses are closed and some parts of the countryside are very quiet indeed. The holiday season is gradually starting again and the usual growth in bookings is not materialising. The ETC has advised us that the loss of business is probably of the order of £100 million a week and has suggested that the impact might even reach £250 million a week if the outbreaks continue well into the main season. Those are serious losses.
In everyone's interest, the first priority must be to tackle the disease itself. Our discussions with the industry suggest that it understands fully the need to control the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, not only to secure agriculture in rural areas
but because the image and success of the countryside as a tourist destination is so closely tied up with it. The farming community does so much to look after the countryside that visitors and tourists enjoy visiting. It has the fullest support of the tourism industry, walkers groups and all those who enjoy recreation in the countryside. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a full statement about that tomorrow.
It is also very important, however, to convey the message that visitors can still find a great deal of hugely enjoyable recreation outside our cities. Rural Britain is not
1022
closed, as some would have us believe. The opportunities offered in market towns and villages, and in touring by public transport and by car are all still there to enjoy.
It would also be appropriate for me to say something about sport. The Government are not recommending the cancellation of any sports event. Any decisions will be for the governing bodies of sport, which should take a common-sense approach that is, above all, proportionate to a realistic appraisal of the risk involved. Therefore, sporting activity, just like any other activity, should not take place within infected areas. However, events elsewhere need not be affected, provided that reasonable precautions are taken.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting is in Devon now. I will be in Cumbria on Friday and Saturday meeting representatives of the tourism industry. My hon. Friend has been told that more accurate and detailed information will help people organising activities to decide how to stage them, and help visitors to decide where and when to travel. That applies equally to sport. We shall put that matter to the rural economy taskforce to be addressed urgently, as one of its first tasks.
I assure the House that the impact on the tourism industry in rural Britain will be properly addressed and that, when the time comes and the outbreak is over, we will do everything that we can to restore the image of Britain and the British countryside as a tourist destination.
Mr. Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Many people in the tourism industry and across rural Britain will find it highly unsatisfactory that, rather than offering a statement to the House on the present crisis in rural tourism, Ministers have had to be persuaded to come here by the Opposition. However, I assure the Secretary of State that Conservative Members will give every support to sensible measures aimed at limiting the scale of the crisis and offering help where it is needed.
It is certainly true, as the Secretary of State said, that plenty of tourist and visitor attractions that are not in rural areas are still very much open for business. However, no part of the rural economy is immune to the consequences of foot and mouth disease. Its effect on farmers has obviously been devastating. As the Secretary of State rightly said, the Government's first task has been, and remains, the containment and eradication of the disease. However, it in no way belittles the problems of farmers to recognise that tourism represents as much as 20 per cent. of economic activity in large areas of the countryside and that it is responsible for up to 400,000 jobs overall. Many of those jobs are now at risk. Employees are already being laid off or asked if they will take unpaid leave.
In areas such as Devon, Cornwall, mid-Wales, the Lake district and the borders, business in hotels, guest houses, restaurants and pubs is reported to have declined by up to 80 per cent. in the Past two weeks. There is clearly an immediate and pressing problem with cash flow, which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
The Secretary of State did not comment on the idea of establishing action zones or safe zones. That idea seems to have been floated by a Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We have to express some reservations about such a scheme.
Mr. Eric Martlew: He did not mention it.
Mr. Ainsworth: I would welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the issue, because the Minister for

1023
the Environment was broadcasting to the nation on the "Today" programme this morning that safe zones were the answer to the problem. How will a safe zone be defined? Is not the corollary of creating safe zones the creation of unsafe zones? The disease is still spreading. What if today's safe zones become the unsafe zones of tomorrow? The Secretary of State has also said that the Government intend to set up a taskforce. A taskforce will not achieve anything at all.
To deal with the pressing problems of cash flow, have the Government considered the British Hospitality Association recommendation that VAT should be deferred for three months for the worst-affected businesses in rural areas, such as hotels? If so, what action will be taken? Clearly, the business rate is a major fixed item of expenditure. The bills come in regardless of the collapse in trade, so is not it time that the Government considered offering business rate relief for a limited period to small rural businesses affected by the crisis' Has the Secretary of State considered that? If so, what action will be taken?
Has the Secretary of State considered the Federation of Small Businesses' suggestion that the Government might follow its example and make loans available to businesses affected by the crisis? I appreciate that it is not easy to define which tourism businesses, or businesses of any sort, should be eligible to benefit from such relief measures, but there is no reason to exclude everybody from help just because that is difficult.
As for the medium term, what proposals do the Government have for putting in place a recovery plan for the rural economy and rural tourism businesses? For example, what extra funds will be at made available to the BTA to restore confidence in our main overseas tourism markets? A major marketing effort will be required to attract overseas tourists back to Britain, but, above all, people in rural Britain and in tourism businesses affected by this appalling crisis want action from the Government to deal with the situation.
I note that the Chancellor has revealed that the Government have underspent their budget this year by £1 billion. If this desperate crisis is not a reason to spend some of that money, I would like to know what is.
Mr. Smith: This is of course a time for addressing serious problems seriously and the majority of the hon. Gentleman's remarks were certainly in that spirit. May I tackle the main points? The first is the notion of establishing safe zones, which I did not speak about and which is not specifically on the agenda at present. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is in charge of Government policy on the management of the disease and he will address the House tomorrow on precisely how the disease can be combated, particularly in those areas where no outbreaks have yet occurred.
On compensation through a variety of possible means that the hon. Gentleman suggested, those are matters that we shall wish to address in due course. Ultimately, it will be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make decisions about them, but we shall consider seriously the impact that has been felt across the rural economy and how best to address that impact. The recovery plan for rural tourism matters for our overseas markets and, in particular, our domestic markets. We shall be in close discussion with the ETC and the BTA about how the best possible promotion of rural tourism can be put in place as soon as the outbreak is over.
1024
Perhaps the most important message of all—I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees—is that the countryside is indeed open for business. For example, South Hams district council in south Devon has just issued an extremely good notice to visitors, setting out clearly what they can and cannot do. Among the things that visitors can do are exploring towns, taking river boat trips, walking on beaches, visiting castles, abbeys, gardens and garden centres, looking around pottery centres, visiting the aquarium in Plymouth, playing golf, visiting local antique shops and art galleries and enjoying locally produced food and drink.
A variety of good-quality tourism activities are available to people right across rural Britain. The more consistently we put that message across, the better for our hard-pressed tourism industry.
Mr. Derek Foster: I commend my right hon. Friend on the frank and sensitive way in which he has dealt with the private notice question. May I remind him, however, of the seriousness of the situation? No mention has yet been made of tourism in the northeast of England, where we are trying to solve our unemployment problems in what is a rapidly growing and very job-intensive industry.
Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the fact that there are now 160 Labour Members with a significant rural hinterland? This is an important issue for all Members; it is not cared about exclusively by the Opposition.
Mr. Smith: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Tourism is an increasingly important issue for the north-east.
Over the past five to 10 years, the rural economy has become much more bound up with tourism. The growth of farm tourism, for example, has been a major element in the expansion of tourism activity in rural areas, and it has been almost completely wiped out during the foot and mouth epidemic. These issues are gravely affecting many parts of the country, and they need to be taken seriously.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: First, does the Secretary of State accept the BTA's estimate that if this goes on for another three weeks, the industry as a whole will have lost upwards of £2 billion? Whereas in many industries that loss would be concentrated, in the tourism industry 120,000 small businesses risk not just loss of profit but bankruptcy. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no case for seeking to divide the interests of the farming community from those of the tourism industry, and that it is imperative to recognise that speedy eradication of the disease is in the interests of both?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have an immediate task to carry out—indeed, he has begun to carry it out this afternoon—in conveying the reassuring message that Britain is still open? That message, however, must be delivered abroad as well as domestically. At present, 45 per cent. of inquiries about foot and mouth disease are being made to our offices abroad.
Finally, while I endorse what the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said about funds for promotion and marketing abroad, does the Secretary of State accept,

1025
in regard to the recovery plan for the industry, that it is also vital for individuals whose continuance in business is imperative if our industry is to be sustained to be given early indications of financial reliefs? Tax reliefs may be the easiest way of relieving the pressure, and enabling such people to sustain their fragile businesses.
Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to identify the potential financial losses overall. According to our best estimates at the moment, around £100 million a week of business is being lost; but that figure will start to rise substantially during the Easter weekend, and subsequently during the main holiday season. If the present situation continues, there will be considerable financial losses.
The right hon. Gentleman is also correct to say that there is no case for dividing the interests of the farming community from those of the wider rural economy. The best answer for all in the rural economy, be they farmers or non-farmers, is for us to get the outbreak under control as rapidly as we can, and to see the back of foot and mouth disease so that we can restart both normal agricultural and normal tourism operations.
The right hon. Gentleman is right, however, to identify two tasks that are especially important. The first of them is immediate—getting the reassurance message across to people that there is no reason at all why they should cancel holidays in the countryside or not regard the countryside as a place to visit, enjoy and find recreation. We will be very strongly putting across that message in the coming days.
Secondly, we have to examine the need for a recovery plan once the outbreak is brought under control. As I said, we are working very closely with the BTA and ETC on doing that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House for brief questions.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I thank the Secretary of State for sending the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to Devon today. However, may I stress to him that it is not only a rural problem? The city of Exeter depends on the tourism industry for 2,800 jobs and for £85 million a year. The south-west tourism industry is telling me that, first and foremost, it desperately wants accurate information to be disseminated from a central point. Although many parts of the south-west are not no-go areas, the impression is being given that people should not go there. We have wonderful beaches, wonderful coastal paths, and, as my right hon. Friend said, wonderful towns and cities. Will he therefore ensure that accurate information is disseminated so that people start coming back to areas that are not affected?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to say that this is not just a rural problem, as people who may have booked rural holidays would usually in the course of such a holiday seek to encompass visits to towns and cities. Additionally, much overseas business is being affected by the general impression that is being given, despite the BTA's best efforts to try to correct those impressions, and much overseas business comes to the towns and cities.
1026
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to identify the giving of accurate information as an essential thing that we have to do. The rural economy taskforce is urgently examining that matter.
Mr. Laurence R thertson: The Secretary of State mentioned sporting events. He will be aware that, this week, my constituency has lost the biggest horse-racing programme in the entire racing year, which is costing the race course about £8 million. He will also be aware of the knock-on effect in my constituency, and in surrounding constituencies, on guest houses, hotels, restaurants and shops that have lost an entire week's business. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition came to speak to some of those people in my constituency. What message can the Secretary of State give me to take back to people whose businesses, which rely on this week above all other weeks in the year, have been devastated?
Mr. Smith: I of course understand entirely the difficulties that are facing those businesses and to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Decisions on whether to proceed with sporting events, including racing events, are entirely a matter for the sporting authorities themselves. The Government have not insisted or recommended that any particular sporting event should not be held. That is a matter that the sporting authorities will have to consider carefully against the obvious common-sense rules about the proximity to livestock, the way in which people get there and so on. Those are the common-sense rules that should apply. I am afraid that they apply to everything, of whatever size and scale.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the fact that, despite all the bad publicity, the Lake district towns are still open for business and that those who have visited our towns historically should keep coming? There is no problem in the towns. However, may I also welcome his visit this weekend to the Lake district, particularly to my own constituency, and express support for the proposition that he fully consider the possibility of safe zones being introduced in the county of Cumbria?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the continuing roles that towns in areas such as the Lake district can play as tourism destinations. I look forward to meeting later this week some of his constituents who have been affected by the foot and mouth outbreak in Keswick.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his colleague the Minister for the Environment as he appears to know nothing about the safe zones that were being announced on the "Today" programme as I was getting up this morning? Would the Government please co-ordinate on that matter?
I received a fairly helpful reply during the Budget debate from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that the Government would consider using funds to begin returning the countryside to a proper structure at the end of this terrible epidemic. Will the Secretary of State consider how people can substantiate their losses? It is terribly difficult to do so, but those who produce accounts and who have had severe losses could present last year's accounts in comparison with the figures achieved this

1027
month. In that way, they could begin to justify why the Government must try to assist them with their cash flow, simply to keep them going. That is not a political point, but a plea for something that the country needs. The Government must help.
Mr. Smith: As regards the right hon. Gentleman's comment on safe zones, I must tell him that there was no such announcement. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is considering what policy should be developed for the important areas of the country in which there have been no outbreaks. He will have something more to say to the House about that tomorrow.
The right hon. Gentleman made a second point about substantiating losses. Issues regarding direct or indirect compensation are ultimately matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall, of course, give those matters careful consideration, but our immediate tasks remain the dissemination of right and unbiased information to the public and ensuring that we do all that we can to stamp out the outbreak.
Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of BSE is that top priority must be given to ensuring that those parts of the rural environment, such as Norfolk, where there have been scares but, as yet, no outbreak the disease must remain disease free? Despite the commercial pressures, we must take care to balance the just demand for publicity for positive movements by people with our long-term interests. We know from the BSE crisis that getting that balance wrong can result in a very great cost.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the primary duty of the Government lies, as it has since the first day of the outbreak, in making sure that the outbreak is brought under control. We must not let it expand beyond the cases that may have already incubated before it was identified.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the contradiction in what he has said about containing the epidemic, while encouraging people to go to the countryside? Farmers in my constituency—those who fear foot and mouth and those whose animals are suffering from it—do not want to see people tramping about. On the other hand, tourism and farming are intertwined because of bed and breakfast, farm shops and the diversification of farm industries. All those things are hit by the crisis, and it will take a long time to sort matters out. If the Government do not set up a compensation package to raise the pressure from incomes and cash flows, there will be no infrastructure for tourism in rural areas.
Mr. Smith: There is no contradistinction between containing the epidemic and encouraging people to visit the countryside. We will very clearly continue to insist that people do not walk across fields, come into close proximity to livestock or walk along country paths, but there is a whole host of activities that can be enjoyed in the countryside. The best possible thing that we can do for the rural economy at this precise moment is to encourage people still to visit the countryside, to engage
1028
in activities that do not put livestock at risk or spread the disease, and to say that rural Britain is not closed to visitors.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend knows only too well how important tourism is to my constituency. Indeed, both he and my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting have recognised the great work of the Scarborough tourism forum. With that in mind, will he comment on the possibility that small businesses, which, obviously, make up the bulk of tourism across the country, may be the best vehicle for marketing the better quality message about what is open?
In the terms of the Yorkshire Post, the start of the season is Easter. We really need to ensure a good start to the season—this year in particular. Will he have urgent discussions with people such as representatives of the Yorkshire tourism authority, to ensure that it works with small businesses?
Mr. Smith: Representatives of the Yorkshire tourist board, along with those of all other regional tourist boards, will be meeting my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting tomorrow to talk through some of the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) is right to stress that the message on what can and cannot be done must be clear. That is why having a central and accessible point of advice is so important. We are urgently working on that.
Mr. David Maclean: The Minister will know that a quarter of all the foot and mouth outbreaks are in my constituency in the Lake district. Agriculture, tourism, and the haulage, retail and all other sectors have been ravaged. I understand that, across the border, Dumfries and Galloway unitary authority is issuing forms to all businesses that are affected, so that they can state their monetary losses in order that the Scottish Parliament may one day reimburse them. Will the Minister look carefully at that and ensure that we, just south of the border in the Lake district, who are suffering even more, are not at the end of the day at a financial disadvantage to our colleagues and friends just north of the border? Will he in the longer term consider a massive advertising campaign once again to attract people to Britain and to get people back into the countryside, when it is safe to do so?
Mr. Smith: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said just a moment or two ago to the House, we will of course be looking with great care and very great sympathy at what more can be done to help the rural economy over the next few weeks.
On an advertising campaign, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must ensure that, as soon as the outbreak is over, the message "Come back to the countryside" is loud and clear, for both the overseas market and, even more important, because the vast majority of visitors to our countryside comprise domestic tourism, for British people who may be considering taking a holiday there.
Ms Rosie Winterton: Last weekend, I met members of Doncaster's Strawberry Island boat club and members of other boat clubs around

1029
south and west Yorkshire. Although, obviously, they were very understanding about the fact that it is difficult in the present circumstances to allow movement of boats, they were concerned about the long-term effects on the hire boat industry. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is in touch with British Waterways and representatives of the hire boat industry and that he is aware of their concerns? Perhaps he can make the issue an item on the agenda of the meeting to which he referred with the Yorkshire tourist board.
Mr. Smith>: We are indeed very much aware of the impact on recreation on waterways. We are taking close account of it. We will discuss it with the regional tourist boards when we meet them tomorrow.
Mr. William Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that the ramifications for the tourist industry are not restricted to this island but also apply to Northern Ireland? It is now clear that the consequences in misery and financial loss far beyond the farming community are incalculable. At one time, the country enjoyed a high health status because restrictions were placed on movement of animals into and out of it. Those firm controls were swept away by Europe on the ground that they were a restriction of trade rather than a health issue. Is it not clear that such restrictions always have been and always will be a health issue? Will the Government go back to their colleagues in Europe and tell them that they wish to have the former strict conditions on movement of animals and plants restored?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the ramifications for tourism spread right the way across the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, tourism had been picking itself up dramatically in the wake of the Good Friday agreement and the maintenance of a more settled peace in Northern Ireland. To see that progress now put at risk is obviously extremely disappointing.
The hon. Gentleman's question about the movement of animals is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am sure that he will have noted carefully what the hon. Gentleman had to say.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I declare an interest as president of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, especially as my constituency is at the moment completely free of foot and mouth, the Worth valley railway specifically and the Brontë area more generally remain an excellent destination for Easter tourism?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. As I have said, there are many activities that can still safely be undertaken in the countryside, and we need to encourage as many people as possible to take up those opportunities.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: My question is linked to the one asked by my namesake, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). Leisure tourism linked to the inland waterways is important to my constituency and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but it has been halted by the closure of the towpaths. Was the
1030
Secretary of State as surprised as I was to learn that no representatives of British Waterways or, for example, the British Marine Industries Federation have been asked to sit on the much-heralded rural economy taskforce? Will he speak to his colleagues about that as a matter of priority, and ensure that steps are taken to assist that part of the leisure sector to survive this dreadful period by helping with business rates, talking to banks about cash flow or other such steps?
Mr. Smith: I shall of course draw the hon. Lady's point to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, the fact that those organisations have not attended a meeting does not mean that their concerns are going unnoticed. We are very concerned about the impact on inland waterway recreation. We will continue in close discussion with representatives of the inland waterway organisations.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Five years ago, my constituency suffered the devastation of the Sea Empress oil spill, which had a massive detrimental effect on our tourist economy. One of the ways in which the effects were ameliorated in the short term was significant increases in the tourism marketing budgets, funded both by the Wales tourist board and the insurers. That certainly had an impact and improved the situation quickly. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that IN wales as well as England will benefit from any additional marketing? Will he reassure me that the rural economy taskforce will include representatives from not only the Wales Office but the National Assembly for Wales?
Mr. Smith: On the benefit that Wales could get from a marketing campaign, the marketing of Wales specifically as a destination is a devolved matter and would be one for the WTB. However, the British Tourist Authority, which has oversight of the marketing of Britain as a whole, including the wonders of Wales, will ensure that Britain is marketed as soon as the outbreak is over. There is Welsh representation on the rural economy working party, and Welsh representatives attended the meeting that took place earlier today.
Mr. David Curry: The Secretary of State will be aware of the coruscating impact and deep sense of foreboding in the Yorkshire dales among thousands of businesses that are wholly dependent upon tourism. There are two things that he can do in short order. First, he can give local authorities the means to relieve business rates. Secondly, he can instruct the regional development agencies, which the Government created, to help small businesses that fear that they may not meet their obligations. He will reassure people in the Yorkshire dales if he makes it clear that he does not want large numbers of people meandering around the area in their cars as if it were an open area where one could choose between the parts that were infected and those that were not.
Mr. Smith: We shall carefully consider issues such as business rates. As I said earlier, it will ultimately be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Regional development agencies may well have a good role to play, and we shall seek to discuss that with them.

1031
The message must be crystal clear on the way in which visitors conduct themselves. We do not wish visitors to go on to farmland or into proximity with livestock. However, there are many other activities in which visitors can engage in the countryside, and we want to encourage them to do so.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Secretary of State knows that, unfortunately, my constituency has a huge infected area. He will be aware also that it is one of the most popular destinations for spring holidays. In those circumstances, I am confident that my constituents will share his view that it is important not to overreact.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the lending institutions, banks and building societies that are overreacting? I have evidence of a lending institution that has forthwith withdrawn funding facilities. Will he make urgent representations to banks, building societies and other lending institutions to take a more balanced view, as he has done?
Mr. Smith: Yes and yes. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important not to overreact. The message that can usefully go out from all parties in the House is that we should not do so. That would fundamentally undermine the very rural economy that we are trying to protect. I would want to make representations to lending institutions about the need to consider sympathetically the needs of rural businesses.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the scale of the problem? Nowhere is that more relevant than in Plymouth, and the surrounding Devon and Cornwall area, where tourism is a vital activity. I thank him for sending the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to Devon, including Plymouth, today. I believe that, as we speak, she is concluding her visit to one of the jewels among our tourist facilities: the national marine aquarium.
In promoting the important message that the public should consider what they can do in rural areas and cities such as Plymouth, I urge my right hon. Friend to take a leaf out of the book of local ramblers in the area that 1 represent, who instead of rambling across Dartmoor are donning their boots and walking along some of the roads in Plymouth, which have some of the most beautiful vistas in the United Kingdom, as he well knows.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. I remember my visit to the national marine aquarium a year or so ago. The message must be clear: there are plenty of activities for people to do; please come to rural Britain.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) mentioned the Yorkshire dales; the same problems exist in the Derbyshire dales. More than 20 million people usually visit the Peak district. At the weekend, a representative of the Peak park said on radio that people should not go into the towns. Why has not the Department issued clearer guidance so that everyone knows the exact criteria that the Secretary of State mentioned? This afternoon, he has conveyed mixed messages.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening because I could not have been clearer about our
1032
message. If someone from the Peak district said that no one should come to Derbyshire, I cannot agree. Last night, a representative of Buckinghamshire county council was asked on "Newsnight" whether Buckinghamshire could be "reopened". He replied:
"I wouldn't welcome it at the moment."
I cannot endorse such an attitude. We want to ensure that people visit the countryside and engage in safe activities, of which there are plenty.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the busiest weekend for hotels in my constituency has been ruined by foot and mouth disease, which led to the cancellation of the Wales-Ireland rugby match? Hotels in urban Newport are a centre for visitors to the area's hinterland, which includes the Wye valley and the Brecon beacons, and the other marvellous attractions of rural and urban south Wales. Is it not wrong to suggest that there is a division between rural and urban tourism, which are inextricably intertwined? If assistance is provided, is not it right to give it to those in rural and urban areas? We could get into the grotesque position whereby a large, prosperous rural hotel, which could be part of a multi-million pound international chain, receives assistance while small, struggling hotels in my constituency and other urban areas get nothing.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. There should not necessarily be a distinction between our approaches in urban and rural areas because some urban settings are also experiencing the impact of foot and mouth disease.
As I said earlier, it is up to the governing bodies of sport to decide whether events should go ahead. I am pleased to note that, so far, the France-Wales match, which is due to take place at the weekend, is still on.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: As of 11 am today, Cheshire has become unsafe. Our first confirmed case has occurred in Baddiley in the south of my constituency. The Secretary of State should carefully consider consulting the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about banning much more movement in rural areas. First and foremost, we must stop the spread of the disease. Travelling around the country, whether it is tourists or lorries carrying dead carcases from Devon to the Widnes rendering plant, should be restricted. We have a national emergency, and we should introduce measures accordingly.
Mr. Smith: It is important to follow strictly the veterinary advice that we receive. That advice is clear: in some circumstances, movement of people or animals is dangerous and poses a risk and should not therefore be permitted. However, other activities are perfectly safe and can be permitted. We must distinguish clearly between them.
Mr. Mark Todd: It is already possible for councils to provide relief on business rates in cases of hardship. Will my right hon. Friend remind his colleagues of those powers and encourage them to provide the resources to enable councils to do that?
We encourage diversification from pure farming activities in rural areas. Regrettably, some people, including some of my constituents, must consider that possibility earlier than they might have done. Will the

1033
Government consider targeting some of the money for diversification on aiding business reconstruction and change in some of the areas where it is most needed?
Mr. Smith: In relation to my hon. Friend's second point, much of the rural development money to which he refers will come on stream from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food quite rapidly—it will come on stream very soon. Many people may want to consider taking advantage of it.
In relation to local authorities, any advice that is given to them will be a matter for the Deputy Prime Minister and the funding of any such initiatives will be a matter for the Chancellor.
Mr. John Maples: I do not think that the Secretary of State is fully aware of the nature and extent of the crisis that is developing in the countryside. If it continues into the Easter holiday period, thousands of rural businesses will go bankrupt. I was pleased to hear him say that he was looking into inland waterway holidays and narrow boat holidays, but is he aware that British Waterways has closed the whole of the inland waterway network and all towpaths? Although none of us wants to take undue risks with the spread of the disease, will he look, or have his Department look, into whether absolute closure is entirely necessary? Can there be some selective and progressive lifting of the restrictions, subject always, of course, to the fact that people must not walk on farm land and must stick to roads? If they do that, perhaps the risk of the spread of the disease in that way will be minimal and there could be some relaxation of the regime.
Mr. Smith: I am very much aware of the extent of the problems that are being experienced. I made sure that I made that clear in my initial response to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). There are many waterways where parts of the waterway can be accessed via roads and tarmac, so we need to look sensitively at where access can be achieved, without any risk to animals or to the rural environment. Those are precisely the sort of things that we will talk with the waterways authorities about.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said, Cheshire has had its first outbreak today. Fortunately, my constituency is still free of foot and mouth, but does the Secretary of State accept that what the farmers and the people of our rural areas want is the eradication of the disease as quickly as possible? Fanning in my constituency is predominantly livestock farming. To make an income, many farmers have had to open bedand-breakfast facilities. The inland waterways are an important part of tourism, and part of my constituency lies in the Peak park, but we do not want people to come to such rural areas at the moment because they are likely to bring foot and mouth with them. Does he accept that the great problem in the rural areas is cash flow? If the Government could help those affected through the business rate or in any other way, such as through intervening with lending institutions, I should be grateful.
Mr. Smith: We have made it crystal clear—indeed, I have made it crystal clear today—that the first and most
1034
important priority is to eradicate the disease. That has to remain the bottom line; it governs everything that we do in respect of our response to the epidemic However, the message that we are getting very clearly from people, including farmers and people running small businesses throughout rural Brtitain, is that they do not want people to get the idea that rural Britain is a no-go area. It is not. Many things can be usefully and productively done in rural Britain. We w ant to encourage people to do those things. We do not want to encourage people to engage in risky activity.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Seaside resort hoteliers who observe these proceedings will be disappointed that there has been no specific mention of seaside resorts, which, de facto, not being rural areas, are all open for business; the season is beginning very early. I endorse everything that others have asked the Secretary of State to do, but I have one further idea. A number of language schools in seaside resorts are suffering because of misinformation from foreign Governments. What are our embassies doing about that? Will he speak to the Foreign Secretary to ensure that they do all that they can to put right the bad messages that are going out?
Mr. Smith: The embassies and high commissions abroad, as well as the British Tourist Authority, are actively seeking to counter misinformation and to put out information about what is happening and the vast number of things that can still he enjoyed. Language schools are part of that fabric of activities that are still very much on the agenda. On seaside resorts generally, I would hope that some might seek to benefit from the present difficulties, as recreation on the beach and in the town at seaside resorts is still very much possible. I hope that that message will be sent clearly as well.
Mr. Peter Luff: Nothing the Secretary of State has said today convinces me that he really understands the urgency of the situation that he faces, particularly in relation to the inland waterways sector. My constituent, Mr. Edward Helps of Alvechurch Boat Centres Ltd., faces the complete loss of all his business—not 80 or 75 per cent., but 100 per cent.—for many weeks and months ahead. What would the Secretary of State say to Mr. Helps?
Mr. Smith: I understand the difficulties that face many in the rural economy particularly those running small businesses, be they on inland waterways, be they small hotels, guesthouses or farms that have become heavily reliant on bed-and-breakfast income. Those enterprises are being severely affected by what is happening. That is why we need to ensure that the best quality of accurate information is available and why we need to look carefully and sympathetically at what measures can be taken over time to try to assist those affected.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The Secretary of State has completely missed the point. North Shropshire, touch wood, is currently a foot and mouth-free zone. Two miles away, there is foot and mouth in Cheshire. Bed-and-breakfast bookings are down by 100 per cent. and holiday park bookings by 80 per cent. The one area where the Government can help is with liquidity. How many telephone conversations has he had

1035
with the Chancellor to discuss VAT? How many conversations has he had with the Deputy Prime Minister about business rates? How many banks has he rung to talk about liquidity? He can help, but he does not appear to have done anything.
Mr. Smith: This is not the time for partisanship.
Mr. Paterson: But what has he done?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a question. He is now getting the answer.
Mr. Smith: It is a time for seriously addressing serious issues. I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor, the Secret ary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is precisely why we have brought together all the relevant Ministers with outside organisations in the rural economy working party. We are urgently addressing precisely those issues. If, rather than ranting, the hon. Gentleman took time to look at what is happening, he would see that we are addressing the serious issues.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In recent hours, I have been talking to a hotelier in my constituency whose bookings are down by 70 per cent. I have talked also to a rural publican whose bar receipts are down by 90 per cent. When they hear the Secretary of State saying that rural Devon is not a no-go area, there will be stark staring disbelief. Does he realise that the Government are not powerless in the matter? There are fiscal levers that they could use. They could consider income tax or VAT, or the remission or delayed payment of business rates. He has said nothing about that today. I am sorry to have to say this but, in all my years in the House, I have never heard a Secretary of State speak on a subject with so little grip on it. His idea of a response to this crisis is to find a piece of countryside where the disease has not yet struck and walk around it with impunity. That is incredibly wrong. To blame the crisis in the tourism industry on the press is not realistic. We want to hear from him even now. He cannot say that he has done anything, because if he had done something he would have told us about it. He should go away and discuss with his ministerial colleagues what can be done.
Mr. Smith: What the hon. Gentleman has just said is a complete and utter distortion of what I have said and what the Government have done. None of us are advocating—
Mr. John Bercow: Is.
Mr. Smith: None of us are suggesting that anyone should get out of their car and walk across fields or agricultural land or in proximity to livestock. We are very clear—and have been from the word go—that those
1036
aspects of countryside recreation are not acceptable. However, we are seeking to encourage legitimate and safe recreation in rural Britain. I am very sad that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to share that ambition. He raised some other points about different ways of assisting rural businesses in the face of this crisis. Of course, we are looking sympathetically at all possible options. That is why we have the rural economy working party. It is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others are looking at these issues to see what can best be done over the next few days and weeks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to call the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and then we must move on. However, I can give those who have not been called today an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food assures me that he will make a statement tomorrow and I shall call them then.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Small businesses in my constituency are almost entirely in agriculture and tourism and they are suffering dreadfully. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming a private initiative in my constituency by Sir Ray Tindle, the owner of Cambrian News, to provide £250,000 to help those small businesses? Will the Government consider match funding and similar private initiatives and the deferring of VAT payments and business rates? Finally, although I agree with his comments on coastal towns such as Aberystwyth, the Secretary of State is in danger of sending out a mixed message today about other rural areas. In most of my constituency one can hardly move without falling over a sheep. I do not understand the Government's current guidelines on rural tourism. Will he release clear guidelines for rural areas and make sure that the media also know about them?
Mr. Smith: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's point about the assistance fund, we are looking at these issues very carefully. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we shall do whatever we can to help. Of course, we understand that the rural economy is suffering very badly indeed.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's point about mixed messages, there is no mixed message. The message is very clear indeed. Some activities in rural areas are dangerous and cannot be permitted—activities that bring anyone into proximity with livestock, cross open land, enter fields, traverse agricultural land or go into farms. Those activities are rightly prohibited to halt the spread of the disease, but many other activities are perfectly legitimate and can be undertaken. The message that those activities are allowed is extremely important because if we do not give out that message, not only will we deprive large numbers of people of being able to enjoy themselves and take their recreation in the countryside, but we will also do yet further damage to the rural economy.

Points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice. At 9.30 this morning the Department for Education and Employment launched its proposal to replace the costly, ineffective and bureaucratic new deal with an even more costly, ineffective and bureaucratic new deal mark 2. At that point, the document in question was available to the press, but it was not available in the Vote Office. When I asked the Vote Office when it expected to have it, I was told that it was making strenuous efforts to obtain copies of the Green Paper, but had been told that it would not be available until 4 pm. In the event, I gather that after heroic efforts it secured copies by lunch time.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that it is a gross discourtesy to the House if Ministers publish documents and give them to the press before they are made available to hon. Members, particularly if they are prepared to go ahead with a press conference when hon. Members cannot have sight of the document?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, which has enabled me to investigate the circumstances.
I understand that the Command Paper in question was laid in the proper way this morning and that a written answer was given at the appropriate time. To that extent, parliamentary requirements were met. Copies of the Command Paper, however, were not available in the Vote Office until lunch time, although copies could be consulted in the Library of the House. In that regard, the expectations, and, indeed, the requirements, of Parliament, were not met.
I have received a letter of apology for this from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which I shall cause to be printed in the Official Report. The essence of this is that the copies of the Command Paper intended for the Vote Office were inadvertently sent to the wrong destination. It is manifestly the responsibility of Ministers to make sure that such mistakes do not happen.
Following is the letter:
"I am writing to offer my sincere apologies to you for the difficulties caused by the fact that copies of the Green Paper 'Towards Full Employment in a Modern Society' (CM5084) laid before Parliament and placed in the Libraries of both Houses at 9:30am this morning were not more widely available at that time to Members in the Vote Office.
The Stationery Office advised us yesterday evening that due to printing difficulties they were unable to satisfy our full order for copies to be delivered this morning. My officials therefore made arrangements for sufficient copies to enable us to deliver 100 copies to the Vote and Printed Paper Offices by 9:30am. I regret that these copies were misdirected. As soon as they were located, my officials made arrangements for them to be delivered to the Vote Office and I believe they arrived there shortly after 12.30pm.
We did make copies available this morning to the main Opposition spokesmen and I can only apologise that due to the delivery of the copies intended for Parliament to the wrong address, Members of Parliament did not have access to the Green Paper as early as they should have."
Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise me what is appropriate conduct for a Department in replying to
1038
written parliamentary questions? I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he had received from other Ministers on a planning matter concerning a business school in my constituency about the timing of his decision or its announcement.
I received a holding answer last Friday. On Monday, the local new Labour Millbank operative, who is also the prospective candidate for the constituency, received a copy of the substantive reply, which she lodged with local journalists that day, well before the answer appeared in Hansard on Tuesday morning and before I received the reply on Tuesday. The answer that I received yesterday was dated Monday and addressed to "Dr. Evan Harris, MP, House of Lords". I am not sure whether that was flattery or wishful thinking, but it was either incompetence or a deliberate attempt by the Department to deny the House and the questioning Member of Parliament rapid access to the Department's response, and stands in stark contrast to its rapid release and availability to a Labour party activist.
What advice, Mr. Speaker, can you give the Minister to ensure that departmental officials know that Members of Parliament are to be found in the House of Commons, not the House of Lords? Furthermore, what advice can you give me to ensure that Back Benchers are able, through parliamentary questions, to hold the Government to account, and that parliamentary answers are not released to Government party politicians by the Government before the House and the questioning Member are notified?
Mr. Speaker: I have already responded to the hon. Gentleman in writing on the matter. I have no grounds for intervening further.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the BSE crisis, there was justifiable criticism that food safety and agriculture were the responsibility of the same Ministry, and, at times, Ministers from the Department of Health came to the House to deal with public safety issues. Those responsibilities have now been separated, but we have yet to hear about the food safety aspects of foot and mouth disease. You kindly told the House that you expect the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to answer questions in the House tomorrow. Will you inquire about whether a Minister from the Department of Health will deal with the food safety issues? Everyone says that there are no human health risks with food and mouth disease, but we were told that about BSE, and it is important that we should have an opportunity to question a Health Minister on issues concerning the Food Standards Agency.
Mr. Speaker: That is up to the judgment of the Minister involved. The hon. Gentleman can, of course, table written or oral parliamentary questions.
Mr. Norman Baker: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would not expect any further points on that matter. I have given an answer and I do not wish to intervene further. The hon. Gentleman should ask the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) whether he can look at the letter that I sent.

Bribery of Foreign Public Officials
4.40 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions by implementing the OECD Convention of 1997; to amend the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916; to make further provision for the investigation of, and about the jurisdiction of courts in England and Wals in relation to, certain bribery offences; to amend the Criminal Justice Acts 1987 and 1993; to make provision about the powers of the Attorney General in relation to such offences; and for connected purposes.
This is a modest Bill. It addresses an urgent need for this country to comply with, and be seen to be in compliance with, the OECD anti-bribery convention of 1997. I hope that the measure will command all-party support. Its effect substantially accords with the declared policies of Her Majesty's Government to criminalise the bribery of foreign public officials and to make detection and prosecution of such bribery effective. Bribery of public officials to obtain or retain business is a two-way process. It may be driven from the demand or extortion side, or from the supply or bribing side. The convention addresses only the supply side, as does the Bill.
I am privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on International Development. We are just concluding an inquiry into corruption, during which the immensely damaging effects of bribery on economies and investment have become clear. Those who suffer most are usually the poorest in society. There is mounting anger among those who, through corruption, are denied the fundamental services that we take for granted.
The Government, and the previous Conservative Government, are to be commended for co-operating with the OECD states to bring forward the convention in record time. The OECD's original recommendations on corruption and on ending the deductibility of bribes for tax purposes were made in 1994 and 1996. The recommendation to proceed to a convention came in May 1997. The convention was signed in December 1997, was ratified by the UK in December 1998, and came into force in February 1999. The preamble states:
"Bribery is a widespread phenomenon in international business transactions, including trade and investment, which raises serious moral and political concerns, undermines good governance and economic development, and distorts inter national competitive conditions."
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in a foreword to the Home Office paper of June last year, said:
"Corruption is like a deadly virus. Left unchecked it weakens economies, creates huge inequalities and undermines the very foundations of democratic government. The international business community is increasingly coming to re alise that a culture of corruption is a disincentive to investment and trade.
We are committed to the fight against corruption wherever it is found. Corruption knows no boundaries. And the development of e-commerce makes it increasingly difficult to pin down the physical location at which a corrupt transaction has taken place. The law has to catch up with these realities."
As chairman of the all-party group on socially responsible investment, and a in member of the anticorruption non-governmental organisation Transparency International (UK), which has numerous leading companies as corporate supporters, I can confirm that responsible and progressive companies in this country, operating internationally, have already appreciated the
1040
need to safeguard their corporate reputations in the area of corruption, as they do already in connection with the environment, health and safety and child labour. Through ethical business codes, compliance procedures and training, and in other practical ways, such companies are sending out a clear message that corruption is to be outlawed as a means of obtaining or retaining business. Again, legislation in this country must now catch up.
This matter is urgent. The OECD working group on corruption, in an evaluation issued in June 2000, concluded that UK laws were not in compliance with the convention and urged the enactment of appropriate legislation by the end of 2000. The Government accept the need for this legislation, but apparently they would prefer it to be part of a comprehensive measure reforming the general law of corruption, including the bribery of parliamentarians and other potentially controversial reforms. That measure will come before the House when parliamentary time allows.
Meanwhile, other leading G7 nations and most of the signatory states have taken steps to bring their laws into line with the convention. Some of them now view the UK's inaction with increasing frustration and irritation. While there is no clear offence of bribing foreign officials, offshore bribes, incredibly, remain tax deductible, as is confirmed by the Treasury's guidance to inspectors of taxes.
There is no compelling reason for this limited but vital reform of our criminal law to await a much wider Bill at some indeterminate future date. The offence stands alone. It needs to be dealt with urgently for the UK to maintain credibility in its determination to deal with international economic crime.
My Bill reads the offence into existing legislation. It therefore in no way prejudices a future comprehensive Bill which I am sure will come forward in due course. Also, at a single stroke, it cures the scandal of UK tax deductibility of foreign bribes. Mercifully, domestic corruption in this country is not too serious; when it is discovered, our existing legislation, although unchanged since 1916, has proved to be an adequate basis for prosecution.
The publication by the World Bank of its list of companies found to have behaved corruptly in regard to Bank-funded procurement reveals a significant number of British businesses. In no case has it been possible to prosecute in this country. The UK and the City of London must not be allowed to be corruption and money-laundering havens. The report last week of the Financial Services Authority showed that $1.3 billion, the proceeds of corruption and looted funds of the late President Abacha of Nigeria, had been laundered through London banks. Easy laundering of funds leads to greater extortion in corrupt regimes. The reputation of the City demands that we show the world that we are not soft on economic crime.
In addition to creating the offence of bribing foreign public officials, the Bill would enact the Government's proposals for expanding the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. It would include nationality based jurisdiction, so that even if all the components of an offence—offer, acceptance and payment—took place offshore, it could still be prosecuted here.
It will never be easy to detect and prosecute international bribery, but to give the authorities the greatest chance of success, the Bill proposes expressly to

1041
widen the powers of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate and conduct criminal proceedings for serious and complex corruption in the same way as it does for fraud. The SFO has the advantage of exceptional compulsory powers of investigation and over the years has gained unique experience in dealing with such offences. However, the SFO investigates a case of corruption only if it includes fraud, which it frequently, but not always, does. The distinction is artificial and, I believe, unnecessary.
The Bill also proposes to remove the requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General to institute a prosecution for the new offence of bribing foreign public officials. The Law Commission, in its recent review of the law of corruption, recommended that. The OECD convention requires that to protect the independence of prosecution, the discretion whether or not to investigate and prosecute foreign bribery should be based solely on professional motives and is not to be subject to improper influence by concerns of a political nature. No one suggests that a Law Officer would exercise his or her powers improperly, but the Attorney-General is a member of the Government. For this reason, the OECD working group recommended that the UK should reconsider that requirement.
I should like to pay tribute to the Departments and organisations that are working hard to curb the damage wrought by corruption worldwide, but particularly in poor and emerging economies. The Department for International Development is at the forefront of UK initiatives in this area. Following the recent review of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, new business principles and practices have been introduced to ensure that publicly funded support does not go to business induced by bribery. The ECGD's policies now expressly include promotion of the full implementation of the OECD convention.
The World Bank has in recent years initiated an anti-corruption strategy. Transparency International never ceases to keep the issue at the forefront of world concern. There is much more to be done, but these and comparable initiatives are changing the way in which business is done. The enactment of the Bill is essential as a priority in any future commitment to legislation. I commend it to the House.
4.49 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I oppose the Bill presented today by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), but wish to make it clear at the outset that it is nothing personal. Indeed, without wishing to overstate the case, it pains me somewhat to oppose the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most courteous Members of the House. He is a likeable cove, and a man for whom I have considerable respect. However, he has not done himself justice today, because the Bill will not achieve its stated objective. It is important to emphasise to people listening to this debate that it is not even intended to do so. In short, it is a classic example of a triumph of style over substance—something that we have seen consistently from this Government for nigh on four years.
I want to explain why that is so. The hon. Gentleman, who serves on the Select Committee on International Development, is well informed about the issues and reads
1042
closely from a carefully prepared script. As he knows, the Government set out their thinking as recently as November 1997, when they stated in their White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century" their support for measures to counteract bribery and corruption in the specific context of international business transactions. Thereafter, however, no legislation was introduced to give effect to the OECD convention.
In a written answer published in column 33W of the Official Report on 10 April 2000, a Minister—I think that he spoke for the Department for International Development, but he certainly represented the Government—said that the Government intended to introduce legislation is soon as possible to give effect to the provisions of the OECD convention. That answer was given 11 months ago, but nothing has happened since. No action has been taken and the Government have made no progress. I assume that the answer was provided at least partly in response to the justified criticism made in January last year by George Moody-Stewart, head of the UK chapter of the anti-corruption non-governmental organisation Transparency International. He pointed out that although the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were said to have an ethical foreign policy, it was difficult to make that claim without support for the OECD convention.
A most remarkable and instructive development occurred when my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) challenged the Secretary of State for International Development on that subject. Hon. Members will have observed that the right hon. Lady was in an especially tetchy mood. She demurred when my hon. Friend teased her by saying that the Government had done absolutely nothing to give effect to their high-falutin' declarations of good intent and had become embarrassed by the fact that the hon. Member for Putney had introduced a Bill to deal with those good intentions. She dissented and said that she was not embarrassed for the simple reason that it was her idea that he should introduce the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head—that is not a career-enhancing move. It is a dangerous initiative and I would expect better of him. The Secretary of State said that it was her idea, but now he is claiming parentage . Let there be an argument between Birmingham, Ladywood and Putney, but those involved should bear in mind that the issue is of the greatest importance.
As someone who believes passionately in the integrity and efficacy of the House of Commons and who wants to see those two qualities restored, I am concerned that if we support the Bill we will be engaged in humbug and nonsense—it will be nonsense on stilts at that. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill will not be enacted before the election; indeed, it is not intended to become law. The Government could have addressed the issue in their recently published International Development Bill, which contains no fewer than 20 clauses and six schedules. He now tells us that that issue is both "essential" and "urgent", but the Secretary of State declined to use a Government Bill to achieve the objectives that we are considering.

1043
Ministers are now seeking to spin to the public the impression that they are serious about those objectives and that a prominent Back Bencher, who is a very worthy, assiduous and trusted member of the International Development Committee, is going to deliver the goods. The public should know that that will not happen. The Bill will not become law and is not intended to be enacted. Of course, it might be intended to assist the hon. Gentleman, who has a majority of 2,976 in Putney, where he faces a formidable threat in the form of Mr. Michael Simpson, the constituency's energetic, talented and determined prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate. Mr. Simpson needs to secure a shift of only 1,489 votes to ensure that he becomes the representative of that constituency in this House. I therefore understand the hon. Gentleman's domestic diffic ulties, but I hope that he will understand that that cannot be my prime motivation.
The Government are doing themselves a disservice and the hon. Gentleman is compounding the sin. These people have the time to introduce a Bill to criminalise the country pursuits of tens of thousands of hitherto law-abiding people but, apparently, they do not have the time to introduce a Bill to give effect to the intention stated by Ministers as long ago as November 1997. That is shabby and unworthy.
I do not wish to divide the House on the matter, because we have other important matters to address today. However, I am genuinely disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. We all had high hopes for him. He should not reduce himself to being a craven lickspittle of the Secretary of State for International Development.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Bowen Wells, Dr. Vincent Cable, Ann Clwyd, Barbara Follett, Mr. Nigel Jones, Ms Oona King, Ms Tess Kingham, Mr. Andrew Rowe and MI. Tony Worthington.

BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Mr. Tony Colman accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions by implementing the OECD Convention of 1997; to amend the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916; to make further provision for the investigation of, and about the jurisdiction of courts in England and Wales in relation to, certain bribery offences; to amend the Criminal Justice Acts 1987 and 1993; to make provision about the powers of the Attorney General in relation to such offences; 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 64].
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you tell the House what remedy is available to us if we want to ensure that, whatever view we may have about a guillotine timetable, if there is a guillotine and a significant part of that guillotine time is taken up by other matters—for understandable reasons about which colleagues have no complaint—the lost time could be made up so that the maximum guillotine time is permitted?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but the Order of the House does not allow for that flexibility.

ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(2) (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [8th March] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice and Police Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee and pursuant to Order [12 March], considered.
  Criminal Justice and Police Bill
    New Clause 13

      COLLECTIVE HARASSMENT
      —(1) In section 7 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (interpretation of sections 1 to 5), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(3A) A person's conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another—

      (a) to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and

      (b) to be conduct in relation to which the other's knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.".

      (2) This section has effect in relation to any aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring that takes place after the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.58 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in clause 43, page 34, line 31, after "the", insert "immediate".
      No. 61, in page 35, line 1, after "cause", insert "serious".
      No. 62, in page 35, line 1, after "or", insert "serious".
      No. 63, in page 35, line 6, after "any", insert "serious".
      No. 64, in page 35, line 6, after "or", insert "serious".
      Mr. Clarke: New clause 13 follows the debate in Committee, when, during the debate on new clauses to tackle the problems caused by animal rights extremists, I undertook to consider further whether the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 gave adequate protection against acts of collective harassment. My hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) made powerful and effective speeches in favour of that re-examination, and Opposition Members also spoke in favour of it. I undertook that, if the Act needed improvement in this respect, I would come back on Report with an amendment. This is what I now do.
      It is already an offence for a group of people to arrange for one person to engage in a course of conduct that harasses another. What is less clear is whether it is an offence for a group to arrange for, say, each member to do just one act of harassment. For instance, one person might order an unwanted taxi to call for the victim, and another might arrange for an unwanted consignment of gravel to be dumped in the victim's driveway, as in the
      1046
      example given in Committee by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). In such a case, the victim is at the receiving end of a series of harassing experiences, but no offence may have been committed by any one person.
      We believe that, in practice, it is indeed possible that such a group would have to engage in some sort of course of conduct to make and check the necessary arrangements and that, in doing so, its members could well be liable to prosecution directly under the 1997 Act. However, we have concluded that it is prudent to make it explicitly clear that collective harassment of such a nature is no less an offence than a campaign of harassment by one person—a point made by my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet and for Peterborough.
      Subsection (1) amends section 7 of the 1997 Act, which defines "conduct" and "course of conduct" in sections 1 to 5. It will insert new subsection (3A), which adds to the definition of "conduct". Paragraph (a) provides that conduct by one person shall be taken, at the time it occurs, also to be conduct by another if it is aided, abetted, counselled or procured by that other person.
      Ms Julia Drown: I understand that the new clause has been introduced because of the problems relating to animal experimentation, but it does not refer to animal experimentation. Could it have a wider remit? Many of my constituents suffer from antisocial behaviour associated with prostitution, which sometimes involves harassment from a number of people. Could the new clause help them? They welcome, too, the measures to deal with the problems associated with kerb crawling, which they have called for for a long time.
      Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the new clause is not limited to animal rights and could apply in relation to other issues. I pay public tribute to her for her exceptionally energetic campaigning on dealing with prostitution and kerb crawling in her constituency and more generally.
      As my hon. Friend knows, other measures which we considered in Committee will introduce new offences to address those matters, and the Government have allocated resources to fight the effects of prostitution through other programmes. I can confirm that the new clause will have general application, though I shall be surprised if it is applied directly to prostitution in the way she suggests. However, I hope that other measures will give at least some reward for her energetic campaign on behalf of her constituents.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister fairly pays tribute to the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) for their contributions in Committee.
      On animal rights extremists, the Minister knows that we greatly welcome the fact that the Government have responded to what we said in Committee about the need further to amend the law and we are grateful to him for introducing the new clause, but has he addressed the issue in relation to conspiracy, which we raised in Committee? Organisations such as the Research Defence Society and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry are concerned about it.
      Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that point, but we have not addressed it in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, for reasons that I shall give in a moment.

      1047
      Paragraph (b) provides that the knowledge and purpose of those who aid, abet, counsel or procure such conduct relate to the moment at which the conduct was aided, abetted, counselled or procured, not to when it took place. That will enable knowledge and purpose to be considered in relation to what was planned or should have been expected at the time of planning. Thus the new clause still allows for a defence of reasonableness.
      We believe that the new clause will add a valuable measure of protection for individuals such as members of the scientific community against a concerted campaign of harassment. If the 1997 Act were not amended, the perpetrators could escape prosecution; I agree with all members of the Committee who mo ved amendments and spoke in the debates on those matters that that is unacceptable. That is why we have introduced the measure. We believe profoundly and strongly that we must take all the action we can to protect legal research in this country and ensure that those who engage in that research are properly protected and free from intimidation.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Clarke: In a moment. First, I shall respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). We indeed considered confirming collective harassment as an offence by amending the conspiracy provisions in the Criminal Law Act 1977. We have weighed in the balance the points put in Committee, which were made with integrity by all sides. We have concluded, however, that we shall be able to provide more comprehensive protection for scientists and others involved in such work by using the concept of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an act of harassment. We feel that that is a more efficacious way of achieving the end desired by Committee members. In fact, I think that the alternatives were proposed as probing amendments.
      Mr. Hughes: I do not dissent from the purpose of the new clause, but can the Minister tell us why, as well as rejecting the idea of governing this particular mischief by means of a conspiracy approach, the ordinary law of aiding and abetting does not cover what the Minister seeks to do? The new clause does not create a new offence; it merely adds an interpretation provision to the 1997 Act. Surely it would always have been possible for anyone to be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the substantive offence, and to be liable to the same penalty as would have been incurred following prosecution under the original Act.
      Mr. Clarke: We considered that point, and I think there is some merit in it. That is why I said earlier that we believe that, in practice, it is likely that such a group would have to engage in some course of conduct to make and check the necessary arrangements, and that in so doing its members could well be liable to prosecution directly under the 1997 Act. We concluded, however—I tried to respond to representations by Members on both sides, although those of my hon. Friends were particularly powerful—that it would be prudent to specify that collective harassment of that nature is no less an offence than a campaign of harassment by One person.
      1048
      I suppose that the hon. Gentleman's point endorses the point that he continually makes—with which I have a great deal of sympathy—that the codification processes could clarify some of the issues over time.
      We believe that amendments Nos. 60 to 64 are inspired by an attempt to produce what those who tabled them consider a better balance between people's rights to engage in peaceful process and the need to protect people in their homes, but that they fail to achieve their aim. As we said in Committee, we feel that the insertion of the word "immediate" adds nothing to the term "vicinity"; its only effect would be the creation of a greater opportunity for arguments in court. The insertion of the word "serious" would present similar opportunities for argument in court about how serious the distress or alarm would be. We think that the effect, although not the intent, of the amendments would be a loss of clarity.
      I hope the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will consider withdrawing his proposals.
      Mr. Hawkins: Let me again stress the unhappiness of Conservative Members about the limited amount of time we have in which to consider no fewer than 11 groups of new clauses and amendments. We have just a fraction over three and a half hours to debate them all, which means that if we did so—although I greatly fear that we shall not be able to—we should have less than 20 minutes to discuss each group. That is wholly inadequate. There is a long history of disputes between the two sides about time; now there is a problem again. In our view, proper scrutiny by Parliament is once more being bypassed.
      As I made clear in my intervention on the Minister, we greatly welcome the Government's positive response to the points that I and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made in Committee and which were supported by the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). Speaking not only for ourselves but on behalf of those in the scientific research community, we felt that there was a need to toughen up the law more than the Government were proposing to do in the Bill—specifically, in what started out, in Committee, as new clauses 6 and 7. Those new clauses were the Government's response to the very powerful speech made on Second Reading by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
      There is no doubt that the type of intimidation and harassment that has been inflicted on so many law-abiding employees of research companies such as Huntingdon Life Sciences is wholly unacceptable. The issue's importance is highlighted by the nature of the attacks, some of which have occurred in my own county and even in my own constituency, where the research facilities of two companies have been targeted by extremists and terrorists. The attacks have included the fire-bombing of people's cars when those cars were parked next to their houses, the fire-bombing of sheds, sledgehammer attacks on people's cars while they were still inside them, bomb attacks on cars, the smashing of windows in people's houses, the spraying of cleaning fluid into people's eyes, other physical assaults, and, as the Minister mentioned, the ordering of gravel deliveries and hearses to people's houses.

      1049
      The attacks were committed by people who are campaigning supposedly for the welfare of animals. Such behaviour is entirely unacceptable and can never be justified. I am sure that all hon. Members support proper animal welfare standards. However, the supposed defence of animal rights can never justify attacking or threatening the life of a human being.
      In Committee, Opposition Members felt that the Government's proposals did not address two specific issues—conspiracy, and rotating harassment. As I said, we are very grateful that the Government have taken on board our concerns. I also echo the Minister's comment that, on both sides of the Committee, there was an extremely serious and proper debate on these very serious matters.
      We are, however, concerned that the Government have come down only on the aiding and abetting side of the equation. If the provisions are enacted and experience subsequently shows that they are not effective or sufficient, and particularly if organisations such as the Research Defence Society, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and others that have written to me—including the British Pharmacological Society and the Biotechnology Industry Association—feel that it is necessary to re-examine the offence of conspiracy, we would be grateful if the Government took account of those facts. Of course I expect, however, that it will be an incoming Conservative Government who will have to respond to that matter.
      The provisions undoubtedly address a very important issue. I reiterate that we are very pleased that the Minister responded to the points that we made in Committee. He described the discussions that he had had with officials on how to balance the issues, saying that they had only narrowly decided not to seek to amend the Criminal Law Act 1977 and conspiracy law as we had suggested. I am slightly surprised that they chose to pursue the aiding and abetting approach rather than the conspiracy approach. Nevertheless, we welcome that approach, and we feel sure that the organisations whose specific representations we expressed in Committee will welcome it.
      I should like to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 60 to 64, which were tabled by Liberal Democrat Members. We fear that the amendments would weaken the ability to determine the "vicinity" of a place where harassment was occurring.
      5.15 pm
      The Minister will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire referred in Committee to the serious concerns of the National Farmers Union, of which the House should be aware. The NFU's excellent head of parliamentary affairs, Barney Holbeche, has been in touch with my hon. Friend and me to express concerns arising from the fact that the dwelling of a farmer or someone employed by him invariably forms part of the premises of the farm. That happens for obvious reasons to do with the maintenance of high animal welfare standards.
      The original new clause 6 gave constables wide powers to direct anyone seeking to harass a victim to bring that treatment to a halt. That power would be available where
      1050
      a person was present outside any premises used by the victim, at his dwelling or in its vicinity. The Liberal Democrats seek to weaken that provision by restricting it to the "immediate" vicinity. That would water down the Government's proposals and increase the concerns of the NFU at a time when, in the light of the foot and mouth crisis, we should not want to give our farmers any less protection.
      I share the NFU's concerns about how "vicinity" might be interpreted, even under the amended Bill. Farmers want an assurance that the direction of a constable cannot be flouted by animal rights terrorists being able simply to walk to another side of the premises and continue their intimidatory activity In subsection (5) of the original new clause 6, which the Government introduced in Committee, it was anticipated that constable could make exceptions to his direction, including conditions regarding the distance from the premises or the location at which people who did not leave the vicinity must remain. Does that mean that a constable would have the power to direct persons to leave the premises and to stay at a significant distance—at least a mile, say—where they would be out of range when it cane to intimidatory behaviour?
      The NFU has drawn a comparison between that provision and a provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; both my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I sat on the Standing Committee that conesidered it. That Act includes a power to direct a person who is within five miles of the boundary of the site of a rave not to proceed in the direction of the rave. There is, therefore, a precedent for setting a clear distance, to be found in a piece of legislation introduced by the Conservatives.
      The NFU is also concerned that the Bill does not make clear for how long a direction would be valid. Clearly, the value of a direction would be limited if it would be lawful for a person to return to the scene only an hour later, once the police had left. The NFU again draws a parallel, this time with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, under which a person transgressing the law while exercising the Government's so-called right to roam could be banished from the access land in question for 72 hours. The NFU is concern ed that there may be a lacuna in the Bill before us.
      We would not support the Liberal Democrat proposals to water down what the Government have done by specifying the "immediate" vicinity. The Liberal Democrats are clearly wrong on that, and we shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the NFU's genuine concerns on behalf of all farmers. I conclude by repeating that we welcome new clause 13.
      Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I, too, welcome new clause 13. I thank the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), for his complimentary remarks about the contributions made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and by me. I also thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for offering the same compliments. Although it might suggest that we are having a bit of a love-in, I should add that the Minister has moved considerably towards meeting the requirements put to us by the scientific community.
      People accuse the Government of being inflexible, not listening or being arrogant, but the Minister's actions during our proceedings gave the lie to that: none of the

      1051
      amendments was in the original Bill. By strength of argument, not only from those in the scientific community and Government Members, but from Opposition Members, a case has been made to protect a group of people who are under threat. The Minister has listened to that case and has acted.
      Mrs. Helen Brinton: Has my hon. Friend, like me, received several letters from just some of those scientific organisations that he has described, making such points and thanking the Government for moving so swiftly?
      Dr. Ladyman: I have indeed. All my contacts in the scientific community are absolutely delighted by the progress that has been made, and feel that there is now light at the end of the tunnel not just for those who experiment on animals but for scientists in general, who have come under threat in recent months.
      In the light of that openness, may I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that there are opportunities even beyond Report to table further amendments in order to improve the work that has been done? I ask him to keep an open mind, to keep reviewing the changes that have been made and not entirely to close his mind to the line of action suggested by Conservative Front Benchers on conspiracy legislation. There may be some work in that area that could improve the Bill further.
      I certainly very much welcome new clause 13. As I am not a lawyer, I found it almost impenetrable. It is only because I know what it is meant to achieve that I could work out what it is trying to achieve. I shudder to think how some poor judge will try to wade his way through it.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend has already made some nice remarks, but if he lists the poor judges whom he knows, he will benefit the whole House.
      Dr. Ladyman: I withdraw the comment. I would not want ever in my political career to mislead the House. I clearly have done so if I have given the impression that there are any poor judges. Let us say that unfortunate judges will have to interpret the semantics of the provision.
      I can more or less work out proposed subsection (3A)(a) to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, but I find proposed paragraph (b) fairly complex, to say the least. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the paragraph again in order to ensure that it will achieve what he wants. If my interpretation is right, the offence is committed if an individual procures somebody to carry out an act of harassment, but he will be judged according to what he knew at the time that he carried out that procurement.
      I worry a little that if the person subsequently realises that an act of harassment has been procured—perhaps he has asked somebody to demonstrate at a particular address—and becomes aware that the address is very close to a scientist's home, or if he subsequently becomes aware that others have also procured people to carry out acts of harassment, he will be able to defend himself on the basis that he did not know when procuring the act that others had procured similar acts. If he does not make any attempt to stop the act of harassment that he procured, he may be able to defend himself under the paragraph.
      1052
      I might have got that around my neck, and parliamentary draftsmen and lawyers might assure my hon. Friend that people will not be able to defend themselves in that way, but, just in case, I ask him to continue to monitor the provision as the Bill proceeds.
      I conclude by once again thanking my hon. Friend the Minister on behalf of scientists for the steps that he has taken so far, but ask him to continue to keep an open mind as the Bill proceeds to any other ways in which we can work together to protect scientists further.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall comment first on new clause 13. I am grateful for the Minister's letter honouring the undertaking that he gladly gave in Committee to review the legislation on harassment and intimidation. It is dated 12 March and it covers various Acts, including the Public Order Act 1986, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and section 241 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Various provisions on obstruction appear in the Highways Act 1990, the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. In addition, there is common law provision on breach of the peace, which does not need a statute. The Minister also helpfully dealt with the fact that it is open to people to take civil proceedings.
      The Minister was kind enough to acknowledge that one of the things that I try to ensure is that we do not pass unnecessary laws. Every time anything happens out there in the big wide world, there is a tendency to think that there is a need for a new law to deal with it. In such circumstances, people often do not check whether a law exists or what the existing law means in practice. It is one of the jobs of the Government, questioned by the legislature, to ensure that we do not already have sufficient provision, however old it might be.
      The new legislation proposed in new clause 13 in effect interprets the Protection from Harassment Act. The most reasonable argument for it is that under existing legislation someone must have pursued a course of conduct. Under the new clause, individual activities can constitute harassment, intimidation and threat. That seems to be a proper extension of the law, which was why my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I supported in Committee the principle of the new clause that has now become clause 43.
      New clause 13(2) sensibly provides that the amendment to the law is prospective, not retrospective. It is important to include that in the Bill—some legislation is not clear on the point. There should be no case for retrospective legislation, unless there is a particular and extremely important reason that commands great consensus—for example, the War Crimes Act 1991, although its retrospective nature raised questions.
      I do not intend to vote against new clause 13, but I am not entirely persuaded that the existing law is insufficient. I understand the argument that new clause 13 inserts into existing legislation an explanation of who might be covered by it. That is helpful, but those of us who have been here for a little while know that Ministers often resist writing things into legislation: decisions about what is inserted in Bills are a little subjective. I do not object to the new clause because we want the law to be clear, for reasons that Members such as the hon. Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon

      1053
      (Mr. Major), as well as colleagues of mine such as my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and others have made plain. It is helpful that people understand what they are not allowed to do and that being part of a group that is doing something is sufficient to be in breach of the law, even if they try to put themselves at one or two removes from the group of people who intimidate. Liberal Democrats believe that civil protest is right and proper and that expressing a view in opposition to whatever the subject might be, including experimentation, is valid as a political and personal position. There is, however, a limit—when someone starts to intimidate and harass a person who is participating in lawful activity. On the general issue, we are happy to find ourselves in the same position as the majority of Members, if not all of them.
      5.30 pm
      Amendments Nos. 60 to 64 turn on whether clause 43 is sufficiently tightly drawn so as not to be dangerous in achieving the balance between civil liberties and the protection of potential victims. I do not propose to press amendment No. 60. I hope that that shows the relatively flexible and, I hope, intelligent way in which we have all tried to conduct the debate, when we have been allowed to have it, but that is a separate issue.
      Our decision to table an amendment to insert "immediate" stemmed from the argument about whether vicinity needs to be more tightly defined. There is an argument that vicinity should be defined, but it is met in part by the rest of the clause, which requires that it is for the police to decide whether the place where someone perpetrated the offence is near enough to cause harassment or intimidation. I am as persuaded as I can be that, for the time being at least, it is proper not to define the law on vicinity more tightly, and to allow the police to have discretion.
      I do not take the same view about the threshold, whereby, however low it may be, someone could be convicted even if all that he did was to cause the victim alarm or distress. The Minister will recall from our debate in Committee that there are alternatives. A conviction could be secured either if someone did something that complied with all other conditions, but was likely to result in the harassment of the victim, or, in the absence of harassment, something likely to result in harassment or cause alarm or distress.
      We believe that we must all expect and be expected to put up with some alarm or distress in certain circumstances, but that there must be a threshold.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but his argument is subjective. Alarm or distress is experienced by the victim, who will interpret whether that alarm or distress is serious. That is not likely to be affected by particular actions. Two of my constituents have had protesters outside their home. The woman is often alone in the house at night, and she has felt very alarmed and very distressed by protesters simply standing outside the home. That might not be
      1054
      interpreted by a court as something likely to cause serious alarm or distress, but it certainly has that effect on that individual.
      Mr. Hughes: I understand that valid point. I believe that the hon. Lady used the words "very alarmed and very distressed". If someone is very alarmed and very distressed, and the view is taken that the action caused, or might have caused, the individual to be very alarmed or very distressed, I would accept that it would fall within the higher category of serious alarm or serious distress.
      An recent example was given in Committee, albeit in a different context—the protest against the President of China when he came to this country by people arguing for a free Tibet.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: That is irrelevant.
      Mr. Hughes: It is a relevant political example. The President of China might have been caused alarm or distress because he did not like people protesting against his actions. Our debate is about the extent to which people are affected.
      The Bill asks the court and the relevant police officer to judge whether an action is likely to cause alarm or distress. There is a danger of our becoming over-authoritarian if we argue that any action that is likely to cause any alarm or distress, no matter how slight or for how short a period, is sufficient to constitute an offence. That runs the risk of criminalising a person who is charged with the offence.
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman recognises that, under the Bill, the alarm or distress must be occasioned by harassment. There is a danger that his proposal, which would water down the measure, would allow extremist protesters to get away with their actions in court, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) suggested. We do not want to pass a law that extremist campaigners can get round, and thus achieve a triumph of publicity to add to the distress and alarm that they have caused.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong. Clause 43 states that, first, the person must be
      "present outside or in the vicinity of any premises".
      Secondly, the constable must believe,
      "on reasonable grounds, that the person is present there for the purpose … of representing to the victim or another individual … or of persuading the victim or such another individual … that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do; or … that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do".
      That is followed by what I described as the third hurdle, which is that the person's presence
      "amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the victim; or … is likely to cause alarm or distress".
      The interpretation of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is usually correct. However, in the case that we considering, harassment is not required; the other grounds are sufficient. The courts could deem actions that were likely to cause alarm or distress, however slight, sufficient. Like many colleagues, I have argued such matters in court, and I know that the words will be debated, whether they are "alarm", "distress", "serious

      1055
      alarm" or "serious distress". If the defendant pleads not guilty, such a debate will be held, and the verdict will depend on the interpretation of the threshold.
      Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: I shall give way shortly, but I do not want to take much time.
      I am simply anxious to get the balance right. We must proceed carefully with the new measure to ensure that we protect victims—we all support that—but that in doing so we do not prevent people from protesting. We might have a society that prohibits protest if we legislate on the basis that someone might be caused alarm or distress by it. If we do that, we will make great inroads into the right to protest. We must strike the right balance. Without the higher qualification that we propose, the balance swings against the civil rights of the protester and overly and unnecessarily towards the protection of a victim, who does not need matters to go that far.
      Mrs. Brinton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: No, I have promised to give way to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman).
      Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not want to restrict people's rights to protest properly. However, the letter that the Minister provided at the hon. Gentleman's request mentions the Public Order Act 1986. The Minister's interpretation of section 5 is that an action that is committed in someone's hearing, and is likely to cause alarm or distress, or be interpreted as insulting, could be an offence, unless it is demonstrated to be reasonable. Political protest would be deemed reasonable. All that the Bill does is to prevent people from staging a demonstration, which might be reasonable under some circumstances, outside people's homes, where it is clearly not reasonable.
      Mr. Hughes: This is as good and sensible a debate as we had upstairs. I understand that point, but it is equally possible to argue the alternative view—the Minister's letter was helpful in going over the matter—which is that, whereas current law allows people to put in the defence of reasonableness, the proposed new law does not. The Government would get rid of the defence of reasonableness, but keep the threshold of alarm or distress, as in, among other things, the Public Order Act. If there were still a reasonableness defence, it would be much more acceptable to have the unqualified alarm or distress threshold.
      I understand the point, but if the Government get rid of the defence of reasonableness altogether and someone turns up in court and says, "I was distressed" or "I was alarmed"—how could the court say that he was not?—that could be sufficient to render someone else guilty of a crime. That is where we must be careful. The balance is therefore tilting in the wrong direction.
      I accept that the logical conclusion of trying to get the law right—the Minister reminded us that the Government intend eventually to codify the law; it was mentioned in the 10-year plan announced the other day, which we support—is that we go through similar legislation and ensure that there is a consistent threshold. It might be
      1056
      either the lower threshold, if that is what the Parliament of the day thought appropriate, or the higher threshold, if it supports my view. At least we would have a common threshold. We could then weigh up which, if any, needed a reasonableness defence.
      I understand the debate. There is no reasonableness defence in the Bill and people do not need to prove harassment. If we are going to convict someone, we should ensure that they are doing something that is more than just a little bit distressing, and is causing or is likely to cause more than a little bit of alarm or distress. Therefore, if the opportunity were to arise—I realise that the amendment will be voted on after the new clauses—we would like to test the mood of the House on the matter later in the proceedings.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not intend to detain the House long. I want to express my strong support for new clause 13 and to thank the Minister for the measures that have been taken. In my constituency, the issue is considered important as I have a number of constituents who work on experiments with animals.
      I reiterate the point that I made in an intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I cannot support, and hope that the House will not support, the weakening of the measure by including the word "serious" to describe alarm and distress. As I said, the word "serious" should be interpreted by the victim, rather than by the perpetrator.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: May I say how much I agree with the hon. Lady? Does she agree that, whenever the word "serious" is used in the law, there is quite a battle in court over what it means? Serious bodily harm is a classic example, of which there have been numerous cases. I strongly support the hon. Lady on that point.
      Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is a barrister, which I am not, and I would not like to generalise beyond this particular point, although I am pleased to have his support and I thank him for the point that he has made. I hope that the House will not support the amendments that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I strongly support new clause 13.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Charles Clarke: Some interesting points have been raised in the debate. On the question of timing, I had not intended to return to private grief. However, in the light of the remarks of the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I should place on record the fact that in the 55 or so minutes that we have been debating this new clause—described by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) as covering one of the most important, if not the most important, aspects of the Bill—there has not been a single Member of the Opposition in the Chamber, other than those who served on the Committee. [Interruption.] I apologise; one Member was here for a few minutes at the beginning. However, that fact weakens the general argument about timing. I appreciate the comments from some of my hon. Friends about the approach of the Government. We are determined to resolve this matter positively.

      1057
      We had an entertaining exchange on the meaning of the word "poor". My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to poor judges, using the word to mean "unfortunate". I intervened, using the word poor to mean "impoverished". He responded by taking it that I had meant "incompetent" judges; of course that is an oxymoron, or, as one of my officials advised me, a two-word paradox.
      Dr. Ladyman: I would not like it to go in the Official Report that I had not understood my hon. Friend's joke. I realised that he meant "impoverished".
      Mr. Clarke: Perhaps it could go on the record simply as a very poor joke and part of the general attack on lawyers for which the Government are now becoming famous.
      Mr. Heald rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I give way to a lawyer.
      Mr. Heald: I hope not to annoy the Minister too much, but does he agree that five Labour Back Benchers—apart from his Parliamentary Private Secretary—two Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber is not very different from the balance in the House?
      Mr. Clarke: I was referring to the argument—made with a lot of sound and fury—that the Government have been tyrannical in not allowing time for debate.
      On the question of the word "vicinity", I was grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who indicated that he was listening to what we said about the use of the words "immediate vicinity". There is nothing further I want to say, except that it is open to the police officer concerned to give whatever directions he considers necessary to prevent harassment, alarm or distress in the circumstances. It is an offence to refuse to follow those directions, including those about distance from premises.
      On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet on conspiracy, the new clause deliberately puts knowledge and purpose on the part of the person
      "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring"
      an act of harassment back to the time that the act was planned. We do not want to catch those who, at the time, had a valid reason for their actions, which is why the wording is as it is. If there were a genuine coincidence between one person's aiding and abetting an act and other acts which resulted in harassment, it is right that no offence should arise if the coincidence were genuine.
      Dr. Ladyman: If, having planned the act and initiated it by getting somebody to commit the act for me, I subsequently became aware that circumstances had changed and did not try to stop the act, would I have a defence or—as I would prefer—could I be prosecuted?
      Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend did not have a defence, he could be prosecuted. However, I will take note of that point and write to him, as I would not want to mislead him.
      Conspiracy—a matter raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath—will already be an offence if two or more people agree on a course of conduct which would in itself be an offence. The drawback of the Opposition amendment in Committee was that it would have caught the conspirators only if one person carried out at least two acts of harassment. Where that was the case, there would already be an offence under either section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, under common law or in relation to the
      "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring"
      of an offence.
      The Government amendment is preferable because it relates to each bit of conduct that we are discussing which makes up a course of conduct. Someone who encourages or agrees with others to carry out acts of harassment will be responsible in law for each of those acts. That is why I give the answer I do to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, with the qualification that I will write to him.
      Finally, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised the issue of harassment. First, let me emphasise that it is not an offence under clause 43 to cause alarm and distress in itself. The offence is in failing to comply with the direction. The direction will not be not to cause distress, but for example, to go half a mile away, to stop shouting or to leave the area. I strongly support the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made extremely powerfully. It is the Government's view that individuals should have the opportunity to live in their homes with their families without having to suffer any alarm or distress, serious or otherwise, from protesters. There is a galaxy of ways in our democracy for people to hold a peaceful protest which does not involve loitering around somebody's house in circumstances which can cause alarm and distress.
      To deal with a point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet raised in an intervention, the qualification of alarm and distress with the word "serious" would create a higher test than currently applies in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which covers a person causing harassment, alarm or distress by using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. It would also require a higher test than under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which also requires only harassment, alarm or distress.
      With the assurance that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath sought—that we will keep the matter under review and look at the situation as we move forward—I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support new clause 13. I urge the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to think again before he decides to divide the House on the introduction of the word "serious". I think that it would give encouragement to those who want to protest in that way and I urge him to think about it most carefully.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Sec and time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      EXCLUSION OF PRISONERS CONVICTED OF ASSAULTING POLICE OFFICERS, OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICE WORKERS AND NHS STAFF FROM POWER TO RELEASE SHORT-TERM PRISONERS ON LICENCE
      'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(b) there is inserted—
      "(ba) the sentence is for any of the following offences—

      (i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable);

      (ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault with intent to resist arrest);

      (iii) an offence of common assault or an offence under section 18, section 20, or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) which was committed against a constable in the execution of his duty, any member of staff of the emergency services in the course of his duty or any member of staff of the National Health Service in the course of his duty.".'.—[Mr. Heald.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 2—Exclusion of prisoners convicted of offences against children from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
      'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(c) there is inserted—
      "(ca)(i) the sentence is for an offence listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000; or
      (ii) the sentence is for an offence listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which is committed against a person under the age of 18; or
      (iii) the sentence is for an offence which causes the prisoner to fall within paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.".'.
      New clause 3—Court to state the existence and effect of section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 when passing sentence—
      'When passing a custodial sentence under which a prisoner would qualify to be released under the provisions of section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), the court shall state in ordinary language—

      (a) the existence and nature of the power of the Secretary of State to release the prisoner under that section;

      (b) the minimum term the prisoner would serve were the Secretary of State to release him immediately after having served the requisite period as defined in subsection (4) of that section.'.

      New Clause 4—Exclusion of prisoners convicted of offences punishable by maximum sentence of ten years more from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
      'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
      "(ab) the sentence is for an offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more;".'.
      Mr. Heald: The Government refer to it as the home detention curfew scheme, but we call it their special early release scheme for prisoners. As the House is aware, we have covered this territory on other occasions, so I shall not put our case in tremendous detail. We are discussing the policy that allows those who have been sentenced to up to four years in prison to be let out up to two months earlier than the normal halfway point of their sentence, so someone sentenced to three years can be let out after 16 months. The Government are quite shameless about it. They say that it is not a secret, but the basis of the scheme.
      The latest figures show that from 28 January 1999 when the scheme began to the end of January this year, 31,540 criminals were released early under the scheme. The figure has since risen to 32,000, as the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), told us this week. Among those released are 64 criminals convicted of manslaughter, seven convicted of attempted murder, 4,152 convicted of wounding and assault occasioning actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, 2,919 burglars, 1,348 robbers, 4,310 drug dealers or traffickers, 80 blackmailers, 50 kidnappers and almost 1,300 guilty of affray and violent disorder. We consider that those are serious offences and that it is ludicrous for the Government on the one hand to say that they are trying to be tough on crime, and on the other to let out these sorts of people when they have not served even half their sentences.
      Since the scheme was introduced we have tried to get it changed and we have succeeded. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who has run a substantial campaign on the matter, was finally able to persuade the Government that registered sex offenders should be excluded from the scheme altogether. That became law last year.
      New clause 4 takes our campaign a stage further because it would stop the release under the scheme of the most serious criminals—those who are convicted of offences where the maximum penalty is 10 years or more. It would mean that somebody guilty of manslaughter, attempted murder or causing death by dangerous driving or of drug dealing or trafficking would be excluded from the scheme. The scheme should concentrate on those who have not committed the most serious offences. If the scheme is to continue, which seems to be the Government's fixed intention—I have to be honest with the House and say that we would scrap it—it should concentrate on the less serious offenders.
      The Government have consistently rejected our new clause 1, which would stop the release of those who have been found guilty of assaulting a police officer. So far, 15 criminals convicted of obstructing an officer, 13 of assaulting with intent to resist arrest and 246 who assaulted a police officer in the execution of his duty have been let out early under the scheme. Indeed, 25 further assaults on police officers have been committed by those

      1061
      who were released early under the scheme when they should have been in prison. The 246 guilty of assaulting police officers were sentenced to an average of 4.8 months in jail, but served only six weeks. In my view it makes a mockery of the comments of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who said:
      "Assault is a serious offence and assaults on police are deplorable … We recognise our responsibility in supporting the police to protect the community. We expect the courts to use their full powers when considering sentences in cases where the police are assaulted."—[Official Report, 15 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 255W.]
      As I said in Committee, it is ludicrous to say to the courts, "Come on, pass tough sentences on these people who assault police. Let us back up the police" and when they do, let prisoners out when they have served far less than half their sentence. Almost five months is the average sentence, but only six weeks is served. It is ludicrous and it is letting our police down. It is quite wrong to blame the courts in this way. If we ask the courts to hand out tough sentences and then let the criminals out early, it really beggars belief.
      In Committee, the Minister of State described our arguments as a gimmick. That was wrong because not only are these serious points, but they are supported by the official Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats. To some extent the new clause is a combined operation.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) put forward the idea that the exemption should apply not just to those who assault police but to those who assault emergency service and health service workers. There is no doubt that it is a major problem. Doctors and nurses in accident and emergency departments are most concerned about the fact that people assault them. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have combined on this matter. I have to say that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is a bit of a late convert, having previously said something different about police assaults, but I pay tribute to the fact that he has thought the matter through and has reached this conclusion. In Committee we were united in pressing the Government on this point. If the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats agree on an issue and ask the Government to think again, in my view it is incumbent on them to do so. I have found the Government's arguments on this point very feeble and I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will put forward a stronger argument. He might even agree. That would be good, but we will have to wait and see.
      6 pm
      New clause 2 would exclude from the scheme any person convicted of an offence against a child. In Committee, the Minister of State's response to the new clause was unsatisfactory.
      New clause 3 deals with what we would call honesty in sentencing, and what the Government occasionally call honest sentencing. The new clause is right at the centre of the debate about honest sentencing. Before the election, the present Home Secretary called for sentencing courts
      1062
      to explain exactly what a sentence means. That was included in the Labour party's manifesto for the 1997 general election. On page 23, it said:
      "The courts will have to spell out what each sentence really means in practice."
      In January 1998, the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, sent out a practice direction to judges on the matter, requiring them o explain the effect of the sentence passed in practice—that is, how long an offender would serve in custody before release. At the time, the Home Secretary said:
      "Judges will now explain what a sentence means in terms of time spent in prison, the period of supervision after release and the period during which the offender might be recalled to prison. This … fulfils our own policy commitment to make sentences easier to understand."
      The practice direction therefore makes it clear that judges should sentence a prisoner and then explain the early release arrangements that apply. Therefore, a judge sentencing someone to three years should say, "The sentence is three years. You will be released on licence after 18 months and may be returned to prison if you commit any further offences while on licence." That was the position at the time that the practice direction was issued.
      After that, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was passed, which included the special early release scheme for prisoners. The effect of that is that a prisoner is released not after serving half a sentence but up to two months earlier. The discretionary power of the home detention curfew scheme was introduced on 28 January 1999.
      I have considered how the matter has been dealt with in the courts and I am not satisfied. Other lawyers take a similar view, or at least their view is somewhat different from that of the Government. Last year, in the other place, my noble Friends moved an amendment to prevent the release under the scheme of a prisoner who had not been given the proper explanation when he was sentenced. That was prompted by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) who sits as a recorder, a stipendiary magistrate, and who, speaking on Report, said:
      "As I understand it, when we pass a sentence, we do not mention the home detention curfew scheme at all. It is purely an administrative rather that a judicial matter."—[Official Report, 12 June 2000; Vol. 351. c. 669.]
      He went on to explain exactly what he did do. I have asked other lawyers who sit in court and they tell me that they agree with my hon. Friend.
      In the other place on 31 October 2000, the Attorney-General opposed our amendment which stated that one could not be released without being told in advance. He said clearly that it would be entirely wrong for judges to mention the home detention curfew scheme at all when passing sentence. He went on to explain his reasons for that at column 915.
      On 31 October last year, despite the manifesto promise about the court spelling out what a sentence means in practice, it was clearly the Government's view that the existence of the scheme should not be mentioned by judges, and it is our experience that judges were not doing that. Therefore, we were somewhat surprised when, in answer to a question from me, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South, who is no longer present—I wonder why—said:
      "The Government are committed to ensuring that the implications of sentencing are explained in open court, but believe that this is best achieved through the issue of practice directions from the Lord

      1063
      Chief Justice. The then Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction in January 1998 requiring a court imposing a custodial sentence to explain the practical effect of that sentence for the benefit of the defendant, any victim and members of the public. Although the practice direction was issued before home detention curfew became available, it specifically states that if the statutory provisions governing early release are materially amended, then the model statements annexed to the direction will require modification. Courts are therefore already expected to explain the possible effect of home detention curfew on the offender."—[Official Report, 22 January 2001: Vol. 361, c. 485W.]
      We want to know what the position is. On the one hand, the Attorney-General says that judges must not, at any cost, explain the home detention curfew scheme to defendants as they are sentenced. On the other, the Minister of State says that they are expected to explain the possible effect of the home detention curfew scheme on the defendant. Who is right—the Attorney-General or the Minister of State? If the Minster of State is right, can the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), give the House a cast-iron assurance that, when the 32,000 criminals released from prison early under the scheme were sentenced, the possible effect of the home detention curfew scheme on release dates was mentioned in court? It is our belief that, for the past two years, the effect of the home detention curfew scheme has not been mentioned by the court, but that the Home Office thought it was.
      I commend the new clauses to the House and I hope that we will have a firm and positive response from the Minister, particularly on new clause 3.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, new clause 1, in the name of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, is a composite of two clauses moved by each party in Committee—the one to which the hon. Gentleman alludes in relation to assaults on police officers, which we supported, and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats dealing with assaults on ambulance, fire service and NHS personnel. We are happy that those matters have been rolled together, resulting in a portmanteau proposal.
      In Committee, the Minister put forward certain arguments for not accepting the new clause or one like it. I am aware that two relevant matters are in the background—the review by Lord Justice Auld of the criminal justice system and the review on sentencing, both of which are due to report shortly. Whoever takes office after the next general election will be obliged to consider both of those, take advice and consult on them, and may well be minded to introduce legislation as a result.
      I understand that in relation to all the new clauses, it is perfectly reasonable to say that they might properly be left until those two reviews are complete; I accept and understand that. I think that the Minister of State accepted that, although the criteria for home detention curfew were arrived at in a different way, there was nothing to preclude an exemption from that criteria by category of offence, and that it would be perfectly proper to review the system to achieve the results that we wanted.
      I urge the Minister to be more positive and, ideally, to accept the new clause, even though there is a review coming. I am not naive enough to pretend that the argument that we should wait for the review is not reasonable, but the proposal has already achieved a great deal of agreement.
      1064
      In addition, the concern about the issues addressed by the proposal is very great. Therefore, if we want to ensure that our legislation is credible and that we appear to respond to reasonable public demand by means of joined-up government, it would be logical to give a signal to the police that officers will be better looked after by the criminal justice system. The same signal must also be sent to personnel in the public services and emergency services.
      I do not doubt for a moment that Ministers and hon. Members of all parties representing constituencies across the United Kingdom want us to support and work with those who carry out those key, front-line jobs. Sometimes, those people are attacked, assaulted, injured or even, in some tragic cases, killed while on duty. We must reduce the chances of that happening.
      Dr. Ladyman: As I understand it, the new clause would exempt certain prisoners from the early release scheme not because of what they did, but because of who they did it to. That strikes me as a very illiberal concept. I believe that the hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of the early release scheme, but does he not agree that it should apply across the board, irrespective of whom a crime is committed against? That should not be the criterion that should inform a judgment.
      Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly proper consideration, and I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. In fact, two different types of criterion exist. The first has to do with the type of offence committed; the second with the risk associated with releasing people early, as the Minister set out very clearly. Liberal Democrat Members have been careful to refer to the scheme as the home detention curfew scheme. Under it, people are still detained, technically; they are not at liberty and they must meet certain requirements. The scheme means that a risk assessment has found it to be safe for the person involved to serve the final part of a sentence at home.
      In fact, the scheme has proved to be safe in more than nine out of 10 cases. All we argue is that a third consideration should be that, for some people, the person against whom an offence was committed is relevant. That is why I and my colleagues have been careful to limit the new clause to people whose work requires them to be in uniform in places that are obvious, unarguable and logical to the public. It would be difficult to widen the scope of the proposal to include all public sector workers. Some public sector workers might not wear a uniform, for example, and there would be difficult debates about private sector employees who are contracted out to public bodies.
      I understand the argument, but a severe problem exists, as Ministers from the Department of Health and others have made clear. There are assaults on NHS staff, on emergency workers in the fire service and, especially—as I have heard myself—on workers in the ambulance service and on police officers.
      The present law contains offences against a police officer and defines an assault on a constable as a separate offence. There is no offence of assault on a Member of Parliament, and I am not arguing that there should be. However, I merely want to show that the law already contains a provision similar to the one contained in the new clause. It is not new in law, and the public policy requirement makes it proper to introduce the proposed measure now.

      1065
      As I indicated in Committee, Liberal Democrat Members are not minded to support the other new clauses in the group at the moment. I hope that I said straightforwardly then that we were reserving our position on the proposal that is now new clause 2 and the other proposals. We believe that it is better to wait for the review and a general debate about sentencing policy in the context of a debate about criminal justice policy. That debate can be reasonably held later in the year, whether or not a general election is held in the meantime.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I wish to make a few remarks in relation to new clause 3. There is some confusion about what the Government think goes on in the courts, and what in fact goes on there. The same confusion is evident also within the Government.
      I discussed this matter with the Minister of State when we met at a criminal counsel consultative committee reception in Lancaster house before Christmas. He candidly admitted that the Government had failed to implement many of the intentions expressed in the 1997 general election manifesto and in other public pronouncements since the election.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I am a Crown court recorder. I sit in court and sentence defendants who have been found guilty by juries of criminal offences. From time to time, I sentence them to prison, but I also deploy sentences involving a community penalty. However, at no time in the several years that I have been a recorder have I ever mentioned in my sentencing remarks the home detention curfew scheme.
      I made some inquiries of the Judicial Studies Board, which is located just above Labour party headquarters in Millbank, to see whether I was in error in that regard. I telephoned and asked whether, since January 1999—when the Government's amendment to the criminal law came into force—I should have made mention of the scheme in my sentencing remarks. However, the JSB staff to whom I spoke were unable to tell me anything at all about the need for sentencers to mention the HDC scheme in their sentencing remarks.
      I wrote to the JSB, either just before or just after Christmas—I cannot remember exactly when—but have yet to receive a substantive reply. However, I am reasonably sure that, were I required as a recorder to mention in my sentencing remarks the effect of the HDC scheme, the JSB would have issued amended sentencing guidance. That has not happened, and the board is usually very good at keeping us up to date with procedure and the law.
      I comply with the practice direction of January 1998, as do full-time judges and other recorders. That direction was issued by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham. Last autumn, I attempted to give some young offenders a non-custodial sentence that involved being tagged and kept at home. That sentence was within the law, but those people in the Home Office or the Prison Service who administer the home detention curfew system were unable to carry out the sentence. They did not have the required bits of equipment, nor any ability to monitor the young offenders whom I had sentenced. In the case that I was
      1066
      dealing with, it seemed sensible not to send the teenage offenders into custody. That would not have done the public much good, and I came to the conclusion that custody would have done the offenders a great deal of harm.
      A month or so later, in my capacity as the recorder with the carriage of that particular case, I received a letter telling me that, unfortunately, I could not hand out the sentence that I proposed as the relevant department lacked the necessary equipment. I therefore had to reconstitute the court and call back to it, at some public expense, the lawyers involved—both solicitors and counsel—and the defendants. In essence, I had to set them free, because there was nothing that could be done that lay within the competence of the prison service, the Home Office or the police, or for which those bodies had the appropriate equipment.
      I was told—either in the letter that I received, or in some other way that I cannot now recall—by the relevant administrator or civil servant that, given the absence of any monitoring equipment, the home detention curfew system would have worked only if the police had, by chance, picked up the defendants for some other offence. If that had happened, I was told, it was possible that the police would have discovered that the defendants should have been in doors at the times specified by the sentence—say between 7 pm and 7 am.
      I was not very happy with that, and neither, I think, was the Minister when I told him about it at Lancaster house last year. He made an excellent speech at Lancaster house, on the occasion of the funeral of Donald Dewar—the hon. Gentleman can check the date. He spoke about his work and the Government's intentions in this sector of public policy. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to implement the promises that they made in their manifesto and in their other public pronouncements.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his generous remarks. I draw his attention to document CJ2010, which we published a few weeks ago. It attempted to put flesh on the bones of my remarks to the criminal justice organisation group about trying to get the whole of the criminal justice system working together, an aim that I know the hon. and learned Gentleman supports.
      Mr. Garnier: I am glad to hear of this document. I hope that, after four years, the Government manage to achieve that objective. However, my example of the sentencing exercise that I went through in the Crown court last autumn demonstrates that a little before the hon. Gentleman made his speech, that was not the case.
      I appeared on a television programme in the midlands with my constituency neighbour, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), whose name has recently come to wider public attention. I drew to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that the Government had failed to implement the policy in any practical form. I think that he undertook to telephone the Home Office to see what was happening.
      The television programme was shown on the last Sunday of November last year. Shortly afterwards, Carlton Television wag rung up by the Home Office for a transcript or a video of the programme, so that it could

      1067
      find out precisely what I had alleged. I said on the programme more or less what I have told the House this evening with regard to the sentencing dilemma that I faced and the Government's failure to implement their promise. The matter can and should be dealt with.
      Another matter that needs to be sorted out is referred to in new clause 3. We have the practice direction of January 1998. We have the remarks of the Attorney-General in the other place on 31 October last year when he said that it would be wrong for sentencers to mention the home detention curfew. I am not quite sure why he said that it was wrong—were I to study all that he said on that occasion, I might understand. However, I gather that that is the import of what he said. In addition, in his written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 22 January, the Minister said that the implication of any sentence was explained in open court to the defendant and the public. If that means that the home detention curfew early release scheme is mentioned in sentencing, that is not the case.
      Mr. Heald: We have seen the Minister of State's written answer of 22 January. The view of the Home Office is that the courts are expected to explain the possible effects of the home detention curfew scheme on the offender. That fits in with Labour's manifesto commitment to honest sentencing. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that the Lord Chancellor's Department is obstructing what the Home Office and the Home Secretary want to achieve in terms of honest sentencing? What does he think is happening?
      Mr. Garnier: I do not think that anyone is doing anything on purpose. That is the problem. I think that one Department is not talking to another. We have two Ministers from two different Departments sitting on the Front Bench, and they may well have discussed how best to approach the new clauses. However, it would be more helpful to me as a sentencer—let alone as a member of the Conservative parliamentary party—if the Government could provide certainty for sentencers.
      Judges come under a lot of criticism from all politicians, largely because there are so few practising lawyers in the House of Commons now. The Minister laughs—all Ministers laugh at lawyers and it is a pity. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor is outright rude to them, as is the Home Secretary, for no great purpose other than to poison the public climate against legal aid lawyers. It is a matter of huge regret.
      The problem is that judges and the courts will do what Parliament requires of them when Parliament passes criminal justice legislation. They may have private views about the good sense of some of the implications of the criminal justice legislation that seems to get passed year in, year out. This is not a party political point; I think that the previous Government was responsible for far too much criminal justice legislation, and this Government are in danger of doing the same.
      Just as the courts are getting used to the new sentencing framework, along comes a smart new Home Secretary who says, "We must jig it all up again. I must make a name for myself—I have a party conference coming up." We then have to go through the whole process of research and learning all over again. It does not, by and large, improve the state of our criminal justice system,
      1068
      but simply causes confusion. The politicians themselves may be becoming confused by their own over-activity in this area of public policy.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am conscious that we are in danger of having a seminar as much as a debate, but I have two brief points. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share my view that it would be a good thing to have a much clearer statement of the sentence implications by the judge at the end of the trial if that were possible? Secondly, if I have understood it correctly, the Conservatives call for that to happen, which they will be arguing for at the coming election, is not backed up by a call by them for a longer sentence regime. The Conservatives want "honesty in sentencing", but they are not calling for something that would make sentences longer. They have rejected that for all sorts of reasons that we could argue about elsewhere.
      Mr. Garnier: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I accept what he says as a matter of natural justice and probably also in compliance with the European convention on human rights, now introduced under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, as a matter of general good sense, when a defendant is sentenced, he and the public should know precisely what that sentence means. At the moment, when a judge sentences a defendant to a given period in custody, he then says, in compliance with the January 1998 practice direction, "This will mean that you will serve 50 per cent. of your sentence in custody and the balance will be served on licence." Judges do not say, "And by the way, you will get a bit more off because you may be released early under a home detention curfew scheme."
      The philosophy behind new clause 3 is that to make sure that honesty in sentencing means what it says, if the Government want there to be earlier release under a home detention curfew scheme the sentencer should make that clear at the outset. It should be a matter of sentencing, not of administrative order by the Prison Service or whomever at a later stage.
      On the hon. Gentleman's second point about sentencing, we want honesty in sentencing, so that when a judge says that a defendant will be sentenced to five years, the sentenced, the public and the victim in particular know that that individual will serve five years, unless other factors which were not contemplated at the time come into play. It does not mean that when a judge sentences a man to five years and he is released after two and a half, we want the five-year sentence doubled to 10 so that he serves five. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire agrees that the arrangement ensures that although some of the tariff sentences will be cut in half, they will mean what they say. I hope also that I have explained that point to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
      6.30 pm
      I have made a simple point and I hope that the Government will sort it out. Judges are annoyed only by being told to do one thing on Monday, another thing on Tuesday and then a third thing on Wednesday—let alone being told on Thursday to return to Monday's orders. That is a recipe for order, counter-order and then disorder, and it does nobody any good. I do not want to ruin the

      1069
      Minister of State's career by flattering him too much, but I urge him to apply his considerable intelligence and political acumen to this matter, which is easily soluble. It merely requires those in the Departments that are responsible for the criminal justice system to speak to one another, to read one briefing paper rather than half a dozen of them, and occasionally to tell the House what they have decided.
      I suspect that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has not had the experience of sentencing people. Although he is a civil practitioner, he may have appeared in the courts from time to time, perhaps in the early part of his career at the Bar, and I suspect that the story that I have told today might resonate with him.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): This has been a good and interesting debate. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, new clauses 1, 2 and 4 would add prisoners who have committed specific offences, or those who could have attracted long sentences but did not do so, to the class that renders them ineligible for a home detention curfew.
      In the Government's view, home detention curfews do not work like that and Parliament did not intend them to do so. The groups of currently disbarred prisoners fall into five categories, whose common thread is risk to the public or the danger of breaching the curfew. The first category are those who have previously breached trust, perhaps because they failed to return from temporary release, were recalled to prison while on licence, or breached previous home detention curfew. Secondly, those subject to immigration enforcement action are excluded. I do not think that I need say any more about that category, on which the House agrees. Thirdly, the provisions exclude those who are required to register with the police as sex offenders on their release. Fourthly, they exclude those whom the court considers pose a serious risk of reoffending with regard to violent offences, and whom it has therefore sentenced to imprisonment with extended supervision. The final category covers offenders whose offending was brought about by mental illness that has prompted the court to make a hospital order or similar provision on the basis of risk to the public.
      No class of prisoner is excluded from home detention curfew simply to demonstrate society's disapproval of an offence. To be fair to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I point out that he accepted that that is what he was seeking to do by supporting the new clause. The length of a sentence is a matter for the court to decide. Parliament's involvement rightly consists of setting the maximum duration for any offence, but individual sentences are for the court.
      The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to manslaughter, which can vary in degree enormously. It can be an attack that is just short of murder, a mercy killing, or an assault by a victim of domestic violence who has exceeded self-defence in an attempt to protect herself. The risk to the public would be low in such cases. In some tragic cases—especially mercy killings—such offences are committed by somebody who was previously of entirely blameless character.
      1070
      The court would mark such cases with a breach of the law or perhaps a custodial sentence, but would recognise that it would be inappropriate to mark them with an extended sentence. As a matter of principle, it would not be right to remove the possibility of home detention curfews merely because offences that fall into the category of manslaughter, but which were committed in far more serious circumstances, ensure that other people receive far longer sentences. That is why listing exclusions from home detention curfew in accordance with offence is not right in principle. Such exclusions must be made in terms of risk.
      Mr. Heald: That point used to be made about the proposed exclusions but we pressed the case hard in respect of sex offenders and the Government gave way because of the nature of the offence, not because of risk. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that assaulting a police officer is a serious offence that demonstrates a wanton contempt for law and order? Is not that another example of grounds for an offence-based exception?
      Mr. Lock: The home detention curfew legislation excludes people who are required to register as sex offenders because a judge has decided that they pose a serious risk of reoffending, perhaps during the curfew period. That is why it is right to exclude them from the scheme. With regard to assaults on police officers and ambulance workers, the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, so he will know that assault can vary from slight interference with the person to a serious attack. The range is very wide. He referred to serious assault on a police officer, but such an offence might be deemed a substantive assault under sections 18 or 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In respect of serious offences, I do not disagree with his analysis, but it does not apply to every case of assaulting a police officer. The only criteria should be the risk to the public and the risk of breaching trust. It must be borne in mind that those who receive sentences of four years or more are not eligible for the home detention curfew in any event.
      Mr. Heald: The point is that police officers are among the guardians of law and order—there are, of course, other such guardians—and that those who work in the emergency services are trying to help others. I find it unacceptable that yobbos are pushing such people around and that others should be interfering with the way they do their job. I object to such interference, whether it constitutes a small infringement—I am speaking in the Parliamentary Secretary's terms—or a serious incident. That is why we would like the change to be made. Does the Minister accept that logic?
      Mr. Lock: I entirely accept that it is appropriate for courts to mark seriously those who assault employees or officers who are carrying out public service duties. However, they are not the only ones who provide public services. For example, other such people include those who work on the railways late at night, and cab drivers, who are isolated in their cabs and need protection. We could carry on saying that there are a number of people who serve the public and that their assault deserves to be marked by the court when it determines the sentence that should be given. That is different from the question whether there is a risk of reoffending, and from arguing

      1071
      that the best way of reintegrating offenders back in society so that they pose a lesser risk to the public in future is to keep them in prison.
      Mr. Heald: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
      Mr. Lock: I should like to make some progress.
      The proposed exclusion of all who have committed certain offences against children again misses the point. The home detention curfew legislation excludes those who are required to register because they have been judged to pose a serious risk of reoffending. The offences listed in schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 disqualify the offender from working with children. The list was never intended to be applied to anything else, and it is not an appropriate guide to who may or may not be at risk of reoffending while subject to a home detention curfew.
      Many of the offences dealt with in schedule 4 appear also in the list in schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. People who are guilty of those offences—those whom Parliament deemed to carry the greatest general risk of reoffending—are already ineligible for home detention curfews.
      Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister accept that we are concerned not only about what he has just said about other groups that might need protection, such as cab drivers working late? Not only is that a reason to repeal the whole scheme, as the incoming Conservative Government will do, but the risk assessment process clearly is not working—so many people who have been on home detention curfews have reoffended during the period when they have been on the curfew. The risk assessment that the Minister is talking about just is not working.
      Mr. Lock: I shall deal with risk assessment in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am sure that I shall be able to answer those points.
      The proposal to exclude prisoners whose offence attracts a maximum term of 10 years, even though the prisoner received a much lower sentence, is illogical. It is a matter for the judge or magistrate to decide the gravity of the offence, and to pass sentence. The right approach to the concerns of Opposition Members is to ensure that every eligible prisoner who is considered for release on a home detention curfew is subjected to a most rigorous risk assessment, which will take into account the prisoner's dangerousness, propensity to reoffend and propensity to breach the curfew. That is precisely what the present arrangements are due to achieve.
      Only about 30 per cent. of eligible prisoners have been released on home detention curfew, which shows that the risk assessment is a serious business. Of those, around 95 per cent. of those subject to curlew have successfully completed the curfew, and of those who have not, a very small number have been found to have reoffended while on curfew. As at 31 December last year, 533 of the 30,409 prisoners released on home detention curfew were in that last category, or less than 2 per cent.
      New clause 3 would require judges to state the potential effect of home detention curfew on a sentence when passing judgment. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for raising that issue. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the
      1072
      Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), will respond to him about the individual circumstances of the case, but I appreciate the wider point that he made. It is very important that there should be clarity for judges.
      A similar amendment was tabled to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 in another place. In rejecting it, the Attorney-General said:
      "That means that the court would have to be asked to determine whether a given offender should be eligible for consideration for release on such a scheme … The sentencing court has no basis at all for determining whether a given offender will be eligible because it does not know what will happen in prison. Behaviour in prison, response to therapeutic regimes, response to probation guidance, and how the sentence plan is fulfilled in prison are critical criteria for the determination of eligibility."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 915.]
      The practice direction to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred does not require the judges to explain the possibility of a home detention curfew, and the Government's view is that no judge is at present required to do so.
      Mr. Garnier rose—
      Mr. Heald rose—
      Mr. Lock: Can I just finish this point?
      The majority of prisoners eligible for home detention curfew do not get it: only about 30 per cent. do. So it would be misleading of the court to suggest to the prisoner at the time of sentence—and misleading for the public, who have come to hear how long the offender will spend in prison—that he was likely to be released early.
      Mr. Garnier: In order to keep the transparency of the sentencing system alive, and to allow sentences to be altered by the courts rather than by prison governors, would it not be an idea, if a prison governor wished to release someone on early release-for good behaviour, perhaps-that some public announcement could be made in a court so that the public could be informed? Failing that, the defendants would be released early, without anyone's knowing about it except the hapless victim of their next offence.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Lock: I hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. However, it contrasts with what he said previously about his experience on the case to which he referred. He spoke of all the cost, time and trouble of bringing everyone concerned in a case back to court on a subsequent occasion, unless it was really necessary, and, clearly, there would be no point in making such an announcement to a court if no one in court had personal knowledge of the case.
      Another point that is important for the hon. and learned Gentleman is that new clause 3 refers to the release, but as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said, this is not a release in the traditional sense of the word. It is not a release on licence, but a home detention curfew with very strict conditions that will be appropriate to the individual circumstances. Thus to suggest to the public that an individual might be released would represent only a small part of the picture, because this really concerns a

      1073
      transition—for someone who is going to be released in any event—back into society in a way that will minimise the risk of reoffending.
      Mr. Heald: The whole purpose of this honest sentencing, as the Home Secretary described it and as set out in the Labour party manifesto, is that the victims will know exactly what is to happen to the person who committed the crime. How can the Minister give the answer that he has just given, when the Minister of State, Home Office told me on 22 January:
      "Courts ares…already expected to explain the possible effect of home detention curfew on the offender."—[Official Report, 22 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 485W.]?
      How can those two views be reconciled?
      Mr. Lock: I am going to do something that the hon. Gentleman will find extraordinary: I am going to recognise that there is a contradiction here. I accept that the view expressed by the Attorney-General and the expectation—although not, in the practice direction, a possibility—referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office are not entirely on all fours. However, I think that the experience of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough as a sentencer is correct. My experience of the courts is that home detention curfews are not explained by judges, and that is also the view of the Attorney-General.
      I hope that I have made it clear that the Government support the Attorney-General's position, which is that it would not be right for anyone to explain, at the time of sentencing, the possibility of a transition to final release that would include a home detention curfew over a period of a few months, because that will not become a reality for 70 per cent. of defendants, according to the present risk assessment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that all the arguments about explaining home detention curfews and the nature of how they should be arrived at do not necessarily or logically preclude a certain view? It is that one could say to a defendant on sentencing, "You have committed this kind of offence, and you have this kind of victim. One of the implications of this is that you will not be eligible for certain advantages available to other good prisoners. That is part of the punishment for this kind of offence." That would be a perfectly logical position to take.
      Mr. Lock: I understand the hon. Gentleman's view, but that is implicit in an offence for which the sentence is more than four years. Also a home detention curfew is not about punishment, but about risk assessment and transfer back into society, so that would not be an appropriate issue for the judge to determine at the time of sentencing.
      I understand hon. Members' concerns. These matters are being considered by the Auld review and by the Halliday review of sentencing. The present position is that a judge is not expected to explain home detention curfews. I hope that that is now clear and that any confusion has been cleared up by this helpful series of exchanges.
      The amendments demonstrate an attitude to home detention curfews fundamentally different from the one the Government take. I understand why the Opposition
      1074
      are pushing the ides that they should be part of the punishment, but the Government's view is that they form part of the rehabilitation, to reduce the risk of reoffending. Of the 30,000 individuals who have been through this system, less than 2 per cent. have reoffended. The evidence therefore exists that the public are being protected in the long run. Such offenders have to be released, as they have been sentenced to less than four years.
      There are two different views on the purpose of the measure and we cannot reconcile them. None the less, given how the system is working, I encourage the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Heald: We shall not do so. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, Conservative Members often say to the Government, "All talk and no delivery." Here is an example of that. The Labour party manifesto says:
      "The courts will have to spell out what each sentence really means in practice."
      The Minister of State says:
      "Courts are therefore already expected to explain the possible effect of home detention curfew on the offender."—[Official Report, 22 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 485W.]
      Then tonight, the Parliamentary Secretary tells us, "Well, no judge does that and—my goodness!—judges should not." He also says, "We have these marvellous risk assessments in place so we are all safe." Then we find out that 1,000 offences have been committed by people released on home detention curfew.
      Mr. Lock: I was careful when giving the hon. Gentleman the figures. I am not sure how he has turned 533 into 1,000. The figure is 2 per cent.
      Mr. Heald: I understand that the figure is 1,000. The Parliamentary Secretary probably gave his for the end of last year, but a number of parliamentary answers have been made since, including one last week from the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The Parliamentary Secretary may be a bit behind the times.
      Released offenders have committed 246 offences of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. That is unacceptable to Conservative Members, and it is also unacceptable that the Parliamentary Secretary should say, "Oh well, an assault on the police could just be a nudge or a push. It doesn't necessarily have to be serious." To us, police officers going about their duties are the guardians of law and order. For some yobbo to push them or interfere with the execution of their duty is always serious.
      I feel sorry for nurses and doctors in accident and emergency departments who have to put up with people's unacceptable behaviour towards them, which is why I support what the hon Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said in Committee. We have addressed the matter in the new clause, which we shall press to a Division and over the next few weeks, while the matter proceeds in the other place, I hope that Ministers will think again, as they did over our amendments on sex offenders. I also hope that we get the measure we need. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey having changed his mind, I say, "Come on Ministers, it's your turn."
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Brian White: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we tried to come here from our offices to vote, we found that the door between Norman Shaw South and Portcullis House was still locked. We managed to arrange for it to be opened, but can steps be taken to ensure that it is open in future when votes are taking place, and at other times?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I thank the hon. Gentleman for informing the House of that. I will certainly ensure that the matter is inquired into, so that the incident is not repeated.
      The House having divided: Ayes 183, Noes 286.

      Division No. 154]

      [6.53 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Evans, Nigel

      Allan, Richard

      Faber, David

      Amess, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Feam, Ronnie

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Baker, Norman

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Baldry, Tony

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ballard, Jackie

      Garnier, Edward

      Beggs, Roy

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Gibb, Nick

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bercow, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gray, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Green, Damian

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Greenway, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Grieve, Dominic

      Brady, Graham

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Brake, Tom

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Breed, Colin

      Hammond, Philip

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hancock, Mike

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hawkins Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hayes, John

      Burnett, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Burstow, Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Butterfill, John

      Horam, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Howarth Gerald (Aldershot)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Chidgey, David

      Jackson Robert (Wantage)

      Chope, Christopher

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Keetch, Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Key, Robert

      Cran, James

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Day, Stephen

      Lansley, Andrew

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Leigh, Edward

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Letwin, Oliver

      Duncan, Alan

      Lidington, David

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Livsey, Richard

      1076

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sanders, Adrian

      Loughton, Tim

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Shepherd, Richard

      McCrea, Dr William

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

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

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Spring, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Madel, Sir David

      Steen, Anthony

      Maginnis, Ken

      Swayne, Desmond

      Malins, Humfrey

      Syms, Robert

      Mates, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Moore, Michael

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thompson, William

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Norman, Archie

      Townend, John

      Oaten, Mark

      Tredinnick, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Trend, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tyler, Paul

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Walter, Robert

      Page, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Webb, Steve

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Wells, Bowen

      Paterson, Owen

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Pickles, Eric

      Whittingdale, John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Prior, David

      Willetts, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Willis, Phil

      Rendel, David

      Wilshire, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Yeo, Tim

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ruffley, David

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Ainger, Nick

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Burden, Richard

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell-Savours Dale

      Austin, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Bailey, Adrian

      Banks, Tony

      Casale, Roger

      Barnes, Harry

      Caton, Martin

      Barron, Kevin

      Clapham, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clelland, David

      Benton, Joe

      Clwyd Ann

      Best, Harold

      Coaker, Vernon

      Betts, Clive

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blackman, Liz

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coleman, Iain

      Blizzard, Bob

      Connarty, Michael

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Corston, Jean

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Cox, Tom

      Cranston, Ross

      1077

      Crausby, David

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Joyce, Eric

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Khabra, Piara S

      Doran, Frank

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dowd, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      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

      Levitt, Tom

      Etherington, Bill

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lock, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Love, Andrew

      Flint, Caroline

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Flynn, Paul

      McCabe, Steve

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Fyfe, Maria

      McDonnell, John

      Galloway, George

      McFall, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      McNulty, Tony

      Goggins, Paul

      MacShane, Denis

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hain, Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hanson, David

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hendrick, Mark

      Maxton, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meale, Alan

      Heppell, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hill, Keith

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hope, Phil

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

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

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mudie, George

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Norris, Dan

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hutton, John

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Illsley, Eric

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      1078

      Pond, Chris

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pound, Stephen

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rammell, Bill

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rapson Syd

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rogers, Allan

      Todd, Mark

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Trickett, Jon

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Roy, Frank

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Watts, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      White, Brian

      Singh, Marsha

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Wills Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Woolas, Phil

      Soley, Clive

      Wray, James

      Spellar, John

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mr. Don Touhig.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      ENTICING A CHILD TO ENGAGE IN INDECENT CONDUCT: AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1 OF THE INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN ACT 1960
      'In section 1(1) of the! Indecency with Children Act 1960, after "incites" there is inserted "or entices".'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 10—Encrypted information—
      '.—At the end of section 53(5) Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 there is added—

      "(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment of a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine, or to both, where the encrypted material has been seized under section IV of the Protection of Children Act 1978.

      (d) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both where the encrypted material has been seized under section IV of the Protection of Children Act 1978".'.

      New clause 11—Unduly lenient sentences—
      '.—For section 35(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Scope of Part IV), there is substituted—
      "(3) This Part of the Act applies to any case in which sentence is passed on a person—

      (a) for an offence triable only on indictment; or

      (b) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section; or

      (c) for an offence under the Prctection of Children Act 1978; or

      (d) for an offence under section 1(0 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".'.

      Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition first raised this issue in an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, which was considered by the House nine months ago. On four occasions the Government rejected our amendments to that Bill, and they were also rejected at the Committee stage of this Bill.
      The new clause is designed to close a loophole in the current law, in order to tackle paedophiles who lure or entice young children using internet chat rooms into meeting them offline for sex. I pay tribute to the work of the charity Childnet International, which has campaigned on the issue for some time and which first suggested the wording of the new clause to us.
      Internet chat rooms can be a positive way to bring children together, but there are obvious dangers to children who use them unsupervised. Paedophiles across the world have recognised the opportunity that the internet has given them to contact children anonymously and at a safe distance, and then to build up an online, and subsequently an offline, relationship with the sole purpose of persuading the children to meet them in order to engage in sexual activity. The techniques that paedophiles use to entice children into sexual activity are known as "grooming".
      It is, at the very least, unclear whether the current law affords children the protection they need from online grooming. I believe that the addition of the words "or entices" to the 1960 Act could offer them a degree of certain protection that at present is not available.
      Internet chat rooms allow the predatory paedophile invisible access to impressionable younger teenagers from a safe distance, allowing contact to be made while the child is using the internet in the secure surroundings of its own home, or even possibly its own bedroom. Once contact has been made, the process of grooming proceeds with e-mail messages, and also, perhaps, use of the child's mobile phone.
      The paedophile might easily represent himself as an older teenager or as someone in his very early 20s. Particularly for young teenage girls, the attentions of someone whom they believe to be an older boy or a young man is especially flattering. They are immediately lulled into a false sense of security, although the process of grooming can go on for weeks and indeed months, as it may take that long to make the child feel comfortable and at ease. At the end of that process, the paedophile proposes an offline meeting.
      The results of that meeting can be devastating to the young person concerned. Innumerable cases of sexual abuse as a result of such meetings have been reported in the press. This month, for example, we heard of the case of Mark Stephens, a 45-year-old van driver who seduced
      1080
      a 14-year-old girl whom he met in a chat room. In that chat room, he had told her that he was 26. Eventually, they met and had sexual intercourse in the van that he used for work. He pleaded guilty to indecent assault and unlawful sex. The girl's story was published in a newspaper this weekend. She said:
      "I knew something was wrong when I got in his van but after chatting to him so much on the Internet he seemed like a friend.
      Speaking about the grooming process, she said:
      "He was nice and always asked me how my day was and what I did at school. He said he liked skiing and would take me skiing. He asked me for my mobile number so I gave it to him."
      Eventually, the girl agreed to a meeting. She said:
      "He told me how pretty I was, then opened the passenger door of his van and I got in. I would never have got into a van with a stranger normally but I felt I knew Mark well."
      The second time that they met, he forced her to have sex with him in his van. That is what can happen. When there is a sexual assault, the paedophile can be charged and convicted—but by way of example, to illustrate why our new clauses are necessary, 1 shall describe two well known cases in this country in which the paedophile was not charged.
      The first is that of the girl known as "Georgie". At the age of 13, she began to use internet chat rooms, and she became infatuated with an online "friend" who told her that he was an older teenager. They began talking on the phone, and gradually the relationship took on a sexual aspect. They arranged to meet, without her knowing what this supposed teenage boy even looked like. Luckily, however, her mother went along as well. It was clear at the meeting that the man was not a teenager but was middle-aged. The mother's presence stopped anything from happening, but—this is the crucial point—police could take no action against the man because no physical assault had occurred. Charges of conspiracy to commit an act of gross indecency were dropped.
      The second case is that of the convicted paedophile Patrick Green. Last year, he was sentenced at Aylesbury Crown court to five years' imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl whom he had lured into meeting him using an internet chat room. However, before his conviction, he was released on bail and began to communicate with another teenage girl using a chat room. He arranged to meet that girl, but he was caught by police while travelling to meet her for sex. Again, however, as no assault had occurred, and regardless of his record, no action could be taken against him in relation to the second girl.
      It would seem from those cases and others like them that the law offers too little protection for children, as a sexual assault has actually to be committed before charges can be brought. However, an offence of enticement such as we are proposing would enable charges to be brought in those cases, which at the very least would have removed for a while the threat of the men involved contacting, grooming and approaching children online.
      When police are able to intervene after a paedophile has turned up for a meeting, but before a sexual assault has occurred, the offence of enticement could be proved relatively quickly and easily with e-mail or other documentary evidence. We believe that that would be a strong preventive measure and send a clear signal to those who try to entice children online.

      1081
      7.15 pm
      The Minister will undoubtedly say that the amendment is unnecessary and that current law is adequate. Indeed, I believe that to be the Government's position. In a letter to me of 8 November 2000, the Home Secretary said that the law did not need amending at all. He wrote:
      "We believe that, with respect to the particular concerns…raised, the law already makes this particular misuse of the internet illegal."
      That was what the Government reiterated last year on many occasions. However, if that is so, why could police take no action in the cases that I have just described?
      Our previous amendments, including the new clause moved in Committee, were criticised because they applied only to online activity. The Minister and his colleagues argued that the law should cover both online and offline activity. We accepted that, and new clause 5 meets that test.
      It has been argued that such provision would create "thought crime", but I do not think that it would. The amendment would focus on the actions of the predatory paedophile enticing a child for the purposes of sex. There would have to be real and available documentary evidence. I am told that the experience of other countries has shown that the creation of such an offence has allowed adults who are a danger to children to be convicted, rather than their getting away scot-free, as happened in the cases that I have just described.
      In Committee, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said:
      "I acknowledge that we have not yet squared the circle in this area…A great deal remains to be done…
      I conclude my comments by acknowledging the seriousness of the matter. We are giving it serious consideration".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 March 2001; c. 533.]
      I welcome that statement because it is certainly much less dismissive than the Home Secretary's comments last year. However, the Opposition have been pressing the matter for more than nine months. It is important that the law gives the maximum possible protection to our children. I cannot believe that there is any dispute about that on either side of the House. Paedophiles such as Patrick Green have to be stopped in their tracks.
      I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give a constructive response to our proposals. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I am speaking to support not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on new clause 5, but new clauses 10 and 11 as well.
      It is nice to see the Minister of State in the Chamber, as we have already gone two rounds on the proposals now contained in new clause 10. On both those occasions, my view on those proposals received support from both sides of the Chamber. The proposals deal generally with encrypted information and the failure to disclose encryption keys. In the form of new clause 10, however, they specifically target paedophiles.
      As the Minister—and, I suspect, all hon. Members—knows, later this year, when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 comes into force, the maximum penalty for failure to provide an encryption key will be two years' imprisonment and/or a fine on
      1082
      conviction on indictment, and six months' imprisonment or a fine on summary conviction. However, I believe that we have to re-examine some of the Act's provisions even before it comes into force, especially in the light of some of our debates during the passage of that legislation. In those debates, hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that we needed stronger provision, especially to deal with paedophiles.
      I am sure that the Minister will recall that in those debates, to illustrate my point, I asked him to put himself in the rather elevated shoes of a paedophile whom we called "Gary". If Gary and his colleagues made available to police encrypted information on paedophile activity, they could face a life sentence. The sentence that they would receive for such activity would certainly be considerably more than the two years that they might face by refusing to provide a key. Gary and his colleagues would therefore certainly opt for the lower sentence, or perhaps the fine. Therefore, during passage of the 2000 Act, strongly backed by child protection agencies, Opposition Front Benchers and Back Benchers, and at least one Government Back Bencher, expressed concern about the situation.
      The Minister may know that in two recent police investigations, suspected paedophiles who were schoolmasters refused to give the key to encrypted information that they had, or were suspected to have, on their computers. The implication is that those individuals had something to hide, and that, given that the law provides a two-year maximum, it would be worth their while to plead guilty to failing to release the key rather than incriminating themselves as regards the alleged paedophiliac activity by them and their friends.
      My new clause would move us forward. We should target not just computers, but CD-ROMs and DVDs, which can be circulated with encrypted information on them, unlike the pornographic videos that I understand—not from personal experience—are available at present.
      Earlier, the Minister was plainly concerned that in attempting to target paedophiles, we were throwing our net too wide. The point of the new clause would be to use existing legislation to target paedophiles with encrypted information seized under section 4 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. That would close a further loophole in that a conviction for failing to give up a key, which attracts the two-year penalty, does not require the offender to be placed on the sex offenders register, although that would be appropriate. That is an area of great concern to the public and to Members, as well as to the media, as exemplified by the 'Wonderland" cases—the like of which, one sometimes feels, turn up every day.
      Let me turn to new clause 11. The Criminal Justice Act 1988, part IV, introduced a right to appeal against over-lenient sentences. It allows the Attorney-General to refer certain cases to the Court of Appeal, with the leave of that court, where it considers that the sentence imposed by a Crown court has been unduly lenient. That applied only to cases triable only on indictment. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Reviews of Sentencing) Order 1994 extended the range of offences to include certain others, such as indecent assault on a man, threats to kill and actions of cruelty to persons under 16. A 1995 order extended the provision further, to include fraud cases tried in the Crown courts, and others.

      1083
      The Minister may be aware of a recent case involving a highly unpleasant paedophile who was convicted of virtually everything possible under the Protection of Children Act 1978. For various reasons, I will not name the individual, but he was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months. It was a first offence, which means that he is likely to have his sentence reduced to nine months. With good behaviour and a lenient governor, it is likely that he will be out in four. I think that that is horrific. So did the prosecution and the police, who examined legislation to see whether it would be possible to appeal against that diminutive sentence. They concluded that they could not.
      My new clause is intended to probe, and to nudge the Minister. I appreciate that such a change should be made through secondary legislation, but it would be helpful to me, to the prosecuting authorities, to the police and to those who look after and protect children, if the Minister would take the hint and say that he will return with secondary legislation.

      DEFERRED DIVISIONS
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
      On the motion on Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, the Ayes were 396, the Noes were 17, so the motion was agreed to.
      On the motion on Business of the House, the Ayes were 341, the Noes were 122, so the motion was agreed to.
      On the motion on Animal By-Products, the Ayes were 348, the Noes were 10, so the motion was agreed to.
      [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

      Criminal Justice and Police Bill
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      7.24 pm
      Jackie Ballard: I apologise for being less audible than usual, but that has the advantage that I shall be briefer than usual.
      New clause 5, tabled by the Liberal Democrats as well as the Conservatives, would criminalise the activities of paedophiles who seek to entice children to a meeting in order to engage in sexual activities. The common term for such behaviour is "grooming". I do not approve of that term since it seems too friendly and nice, but it is the term that has come into common usage.
      A survey last year in the United States said that approximately one in five young people aged between 10 and 17 had received an unwanted sexual solicitation or approach on the internet. I understand that a report to be published later this year by the internet crime forum will show similar figures for the United Kingdom. It is a growing problem that affects many young people. The internet is giving paedophiles an opportunity, away from prying eyes, to indulge in persuading children to trust them and to meet them offline.
      As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, there is evidence to suggest that the current law does not protect children
      1084
      adequately against online grooming. Adding "or entices" to the Bill would give greater protection than is available at present. The right hon. Lady mentioned a couple of recent cases. In the Milton Keynes case, the mother went to the meeting, and there was a similar case in Crewe last year, in which the parents were alerted. In both cases, the children had been groomed online and the police intercepted and arrested the adults who had attempted to meet the children. However, no charges were pressed, and we can only assume that a sexual offence must take place before a charge can be proved. If the new clause is accepted, a new offence of enticement would allow charges in such cases by covering the process of grooming rather than the final offence.
      It is not always easy to prove that a sexual assault has occurred if there are no witnesses other than the child and the perpetrator. If the new clause is accepted, however, documentation such as e-mails could be used to show the intent of the perpetrator if a charge of enticement were brought. Adding an offence of enticement would also bring our law closer to that of some states in the USA, and to federal law there. The USA has had more success in accusing people of online grooming than we have had.
      As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, the new clause would also provide a strong preventive measure that would send a clear signal to paedophiles who are trying to use the internet for sexual purposes, which is not acceptable and is a criminal offence. It would be better to prevent crimes taking place than to prosecute after the event, when even greater damage has been done.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: I support new clause 5 from a constituency perspective. There is a strong case for examining the existing law critically and for erring on the side of caution. Acceptance of the new clause, or a commitment that an equivalent provision will be introduced at a later stage of proceedings on the Bill, would close a loophole in the law on child protection. In particular, it would protect children against predatory paedophiles who use the internet, particularly chat rooms, to gain access to vulnerable children.
      7.30 pm
      The Minister will know of my interest in the subject because of his meetings with me and with constituents of mine. Last year, as hon. Members have said, a 12-year-old girl in my constituency was approached in an internet chat room by Patrick Green. Online contact was established, which eventually led to an offline meeting, where sexual abuse took place.
      Patrick Green used online contact to develop a relationship with the girl. He flattered her and made her feel special; he made her a confidante. The aim of all that was to form a bond between him and the girl, while at the same time breaking the bond between the girl and her family, so that he could ensnare and lure her into activities away from the home. Such grooming—it is an ugly term but it encapsulates the activity—went on for many weeks and months. There were exchanges of private e-mails; 55 messages, if not more, were exchanged. The ultimate purpose was to arrange offline meetings, with sexual relations as the intended outcome.
      We must recognise that new clause 5 is technologically neutral. It is about an offence that can be committed online and offline. However, the internet gives paedophiles the

      1085
      opportunity to groom much more easily. They can hide behind pseudonyms and cultivate more than one child at a time. Indeed, it is clear that Patrick Green was doing exactly that, because no sooner had he been let out on bail than he was arranging a meeting with a girl in Cumbria. That did not happen in a matter of days. There was a process of entrapment, which he had been using in much the same way as he entrapped the daughter of my constituent.
      Chat rooms offer predators invisible access to children from a safe distance, and allow contact to be made even while children are using the internet in a secure surrounding in their home—often in their bedroom. It has been suggested that the law already covers grooming. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) outlined some of the issues that have been put to Ministers by many hon. Members in correspondence and in other ways. I have certainly exchanged such correspondence with both the Prime Minister and the Minister, but I am still not satisfied—and nor is Childline, to which I pay tribute for its work in highlighting the issue and in drawing it to the attention of hon. Members of all parties.
      Childline has amassed detailed evidence, which I was pleased to pass to the Home Office. It is concerned that the definition of incitement to commit a sexual offence under the Indecency with Children Act 1960 is too narrowly drawn. To secure evidence of that incitement requires the police to put the child at risk. The act must have happened for the police to acquire the evidence to prosecute. Another possible charge is that of attempting to commit a sexual offence against a child. Again, however, in pursuit of evidence to prove a case, a child must be put at risk.
      The case of Kenneth Lockley illustrates why present legislation is not satisfactory. Following a tip-off by the Californian police that Lockley was searching for a six-year-old girl with whom to have sex, Scotland Yard set up a sting by arranging to meet Lockley in a London hotel. Lockley thought that he would be meeting a nine-year-old girl, but he actually met a fairly burly under-cover inspector, who arrested him.
      Unfortunately, the charge of attempted unlawful sex with a girl under the age of 16 had to be dropped, as the defence argued that there was no actual attempt to have sex because no child was involved. The intent was clear: Lockley, not the police, had been the instigator of the meeting. The judge presiding over the case concluded:
      "The law clearly does not deal with this type of conduct perpetrated by this defendant. It is time, in the light of the pernicious influence of a large number of web sites, that Parliament should consider dealing with this lacuna in the law."
      The Green case demonstrates that the police do not believe that they have a legal basis to act in such matters. I ask the Minister to tell us why in the Green case the police were wrong to think that they did not have the powers to act prior to an assault. Clarity on that issue would go some way to reassuring my constituents that the issue was being dealt with, and that evidence of e-mails and electronic communication could have been used to arrest the gentleman in advance of his actions. That would have protected the child, and other children. I hope that the Minister can say something about that tonight.
      I really hope that the new clause is accepted, because enticement is not covered by our law. There is a loophole that paedophiles are using, and abusing children as
      1086
      a result. One in five children is contacted in chat rooms by paedophiles. We should do something that will give the police the means of stopping that before abuse takes place.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I was pleased to see the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) speaking on this matter. She made a sincere and effective speech. I look forward to seeing her on Monday evening, although, unfortunately, she cannot speak then. I gather that, when it comes to debating her position, the Opposition Chief Whip will speak for her. However, I am delighted that she has participated in this evening's debate. She put her points well and correctly. I want to emphasise that there is no difference across the Floor of the House on motivation. The right hon. Lady was right to say that we need to focus on action. She certainly will not hear from me any remarks about thought crime. As she correctly said, action is the issue.
      The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) mentioned the meeting that I had with him and his constituents, the parents of the young woman who was assaulted by Patrick Green. As I said to the hon. Gentleman subsequently, the meeting was exceptionally interesting, moving and powerful. A substantial number of my officials were present, and they found the hon. Gentleman's account, which he gave in more detail than, rightly, he has been able to in the Chamber, exceptionally illuminating and motivating. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to him for bringing the delegation to see me and for discussing the matter in the way that he did.
      The case to which the hon. Gentleman referred and all the issues that have been discussed raise a very wide number of points. They raise issues about the law. Members have referred to the changes that have been made already, and there is a question about whether the law should be changed further. The issues raise points about the conduct of internet service providers, whose operations we are addressing by another route. Questions are raised about the quality and strength of guidance given to parents of young children who use the internet. When I was an Education Minister, I was involved in establishing a working party and guidance on that matter, which can give a certain degree of reassurance. Important issues of police practice are raised. The hon. Gentleman will recall mentioning some of the cross-boundary, police training, guidance and other issues.
      The central point is that, across the Floor of the House, there is no difference in motivation or in the need for a proper programme to address these issues. We must ensure that it is right. That is the spirit in which I shall deal with each of the new clauses.
      The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) spoke powerfully to new clause 11. We very much share his concerns and we are determined to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to sentence those convicted of producing, distributing and possessing child pornography. Every pornographic picture of a child is by definition a picture of child abuse. The House must try to find a means of dealing with that. The sex offences review, consultation on which ended a few days ago, focused on child protection in order to find a better legal framework for addressing the issues.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, we raised the maximum sentence from three years to 10 years' imprisonment for

      1087
      offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978. We also raised from six months to five years' imprisonment the maximum penalty for an offence of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
      We consider that we acted quickly to implement those changes on 11 January so that the higher maximum penalties came into effect for offences committed after that date. We believe that it is important to change the sentencing practices of the courts. That is what this is all about. Having only recently increased the maximum penalty, it is important to establish properly the effect that that change has had on sentencing practice in the court—that brings us back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald about action—before we decide whether we should increase the penalties yet again.
      As the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, in addition to setting out the maximum sentences available to the courts, in specified offences the Attorney-General has powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for review if he considers that an unduly lenient sentence has been imposed. The powers are limited to offences triable on indictment only and certain triable either way offences specified in an order, which is subject to the negative resolution procedure.
      The Attorney-General does not have power to refer offences of distributing or possessing child pornography. Although last August we extended the Attorney-General's powers to include trafficking in child pornography, at that time we undertook to keep his powers under review, with a view to considering whether additional offences should be added.
      The new clause seeks to extend those powers to include offences of distributing and possessing child pornography by amending section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. As I have already said, and as the hon. Member for Mole Valley made clear, there is already power to extend the offences by means of an order. We have used that power on various occasions. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, as we have already undertaken to keep the powers under review, in the light of the concerns expressed we are actively considering whether we should use secondary legislation to ex tend the Attorney-General's powers to include offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
      We believe that extension of the powers by means of secondary legislation is the appropriate legal way to proceed. The hon. Member for Mole Valley said that new clause 10 was a probing measure and I hope that he will be prepared to consider withdrawing the motion. I give him the assurance that we are actively considering the proposal and are doing so positively with a view to achieving the extension to which he seeks to draw attention. The case that he makes is convincing and I assure him that we will consider it sympathetically.
      As the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, we debated the subject matter of new clause 10 at great length both in the Committee that considered the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and on the Floor of the House. It was also debated in the other place. The hon. Gentleman participated in the debates in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) participated
      1088
      actively in the debates in the Chamber. I recall Baroness Thornton playing an active role in promoting the arguments in the other place.
      7.45 pm
      A range of children's charitable organisations argue that those who have committed appalling crimes should not be able to avoid the sentencing consequences of those crimes by refusing to give the encryption information that is necessary to convict them. I have great sympathy with that powerful and true point. We had to make a balanced judgment. As I said during proceedings on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, the need to tackle the activities of people who utilise new technologies was a strong driver behind part III of the Bill. We resisted calls to increase the sentences for a section 53 offence along the lines suggested in the new clause because we could honestly say that the non-compliance offence was difficult to formulate. As with the rest of the Act, it was all about striking a balance.
      The overriding concern in setting offences must be the seriousness of the offending. In our view, there is no parity between the crimes that we are talking about and the offence of not providing the encryption that would enable those crimes to be identified. We took the view that the penalty for that offence did not and should not depend on or vary according to the nature of the material that may be protected by that key.
      Opposition Members criticised us last year on the grounds that part III amounted to a return to key escrow by intimidation. They expressed that genuine and legitimate point on behalf of the industry. We did not accept that argument. I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will concede that we had a balanced debate throughout the Committee stage on the need not to attack the industry too much in the regulation that we were establishing. We had to balance that with the key public law enforcement issues. That was a constant theme of our debates. We took the view that we should keep a hierarchy of offences and not confuse the offence with the decryption offences. That was why we came to the view that we did.
      Of the three new clauses in the group, new clause 10 gives me most difficulty. There is a real case for what the hon. Member for Mole Valley is advocating. I said that directly to the children's organisations and to my colleagues in this place and the other place who argued the case that the hon. Gentleman articulately put this evening. We came to the judgment that I have set out, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the motion on those grounds.
      The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald spoke to the substantive new clause, new clause 5. I was considering making a number of points about the cases that she mentioned, but I shall deal with the arguments of substance first. New clause 5 is well intentioned, and I accept the sincerity with which it was tabled, but our assessment is that the introduction of the word "entice" would not achieve the changes that the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam argued it would.
      The 1960 Act provides that it is an offence to commit an act of gross indecency with a child. It also makes it an offence to incite an act of gross indecency. We amended

      1089
      the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 so that now "child" refers to a child under 16 and the maximum penalty is 10 years.
      It would appear that to add "entice" to "incite" would widen the scope of the offence, but my advice is that it would not. The courts have held that "incite" involves some form of persuasion or encouragement. It does not matter that the incitement is unsuccessful. As there is no definition in the amendment of "entice", the courts would be bound to give it its ordinary natural meaning.
      According to the "Concise Oxford English Dictionary", "entice" means to
      "persuade by the offer of pleasure or reward".
      This is expanded in the full version of the dictionary to
      "stir up, incite, instigate (to a course of action) or provoke".
      It also means
      "allure, attract by the offer of pleasure or advantage".
      On my reading, it does not appear—I have been advised on this, and this is my view—that the word significantly or obviously extends the ambit of the offence. Our concern is that it does not extend the ambit, but would add confusion about the meaning of "incite" in the 1960 Act.
      Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) made an interesting comment that the United States has had more success in dealing with such crimes than we have. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to that, and will he comment on the wording of the law in the United States?
      Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. The most famous example was the intervention by the FBI in the chat room in California. That was a positive use of its powers to have precisely the positive effect that hon. Members have mentioned. We have not compared the exact wording of the legislation because the legislative arrangements are not comparable, but I put it on record that the legislation that we have in place allows the police in the United Kingdom to play the role in relation to chat rooms that the FBI in California played. The development of police procedures and approaches, to which I referred in commenting on the meeting with the constituents of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, is a serious issue for us.
      Jackie Ballard: The Minister quoted the definition of "entice". I cannot quote that definition precisely but I believe that he used the term to allure with the offer of pleasure or reward. I think that that extends the definition beyond "incite". The purpose of online grooming is that the offer of pleasure or reward is trust in someone who will be understanding. It is an offer of friendship, not of sex.
      Mr. Clarke: That is an interesting insight. The full definition in the "Oxford English Dictionary" is to
      "stir up, incite, instigate (to a course of action) or provoke."
      It also means
      "allure, attract by the offer of pleasure or advantage."
      We may have to agree to disagree. I do not think that the meaning or ambit of the offence is extended. I am ready to reflect on the point that the hon. Lady makes because
      1090
      I understand how the argument could be advanced. However, it is not obvious to me that what she says is the case.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I can conclude only that the Minister has never sat, as some of us have, with a Metropolitan police officer who spends his time watching and tracking paedophile activities on a computer. Perhaps he has not seen the way in which officers work on computers and in chat rooms, doing exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) have described. If he has not had that experience, and while he reflects, will he go to Charing Cross police station to see what takes place? Will he sit behind the computer with a police officer?
      Mr. Clarke: I have not performed the precise act that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I give the commitment that I shall do so while I am reflecting on the situation that we are discussing. However, I do not think that even that would change my overall view a great deal.
      Miss Widdecombe: In America, there is an offence of enticement, and that is the word that is used. Is the American dictionary different?
      Mr. Clarke: American spelling is different in many instances. The dictionary and the meaning of words are different too, both the common meaning of words and words in a legal context. The argument that the right hon. Lady is advancing is precisely why "entices" appears in the new clause. It is crucial to understand that the enticement that we are talking about must be in the context of an act of gross indecency, and not just to a meeting, even in the terms of the new clause. When we use "entice" in this context, that is not enticement to a meeting and the exchange of a friendly approach. It is enticement to an act of gross indecency. It is important to take that into account.
      That is why it is not obvious to me that the proposed word extends the ambit of the offence in the way that the right hon. Lady suggests. I am trying to emphasise throughout that I do not dismiss what she is saying. It is a serious point and it is being made seriously. I am prepared to reflect on it, but it is not obvious that the new clause does what she reasonably wants to achieve.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: The burden of the Minister's argument seems to be that he does not believe, given the benefit of the advice that he has received, that "entice" extends the offence. It is the belief of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Opposition Members that it does.
      Miss Widdecombe: Including lawyers.
      Mr. Blunt: Yes including the legal advice that is available to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
      "Entice" will not do any harm if it appears in the Bill but does not extend the offence. Why does the Minister not accept the new clause?
      Mr. Clarke: I do not accept it because I am not in favour of inserting words in a Bill—this is the danger—

      1091
      that could add confusion rather than clarity to court judgments. At the risk of slightly tweaking the hon. Gentleman's tail, the fact that lawyers are present to comment on the new clause does not necessarily convince me absolutely of the merit of the argument. I am advised, as is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
      The key point is that the new clause would not catch a person who was arranging to meet a child. It would have to be shown that the purpose of the enticement was to commit an act of gross indecency with that person or another. Enticing a child to a meeting would not be enough to commit the offence. It would still be necessary to prove that the immediate purpose of the enticement was for the child
      "to commit an act of gross indecency"
      with the defendant or with someone else. There would have to be evidence of that to persuade a jury beyond reasonable doubt.
      I have reflected on the merits of going into the detail of the Green case and of the other cases that have been mentioned, but that would not help the debate this evening.
      Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Clarke: Yes, and then I shall set out my conclusions for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to consider.
      Mr. Burstow: I am still concerned—I believe that many others will similarly be concerned—that if the new clause is not accepted, the police will feel that they must wait for offline evidence of an assault having taken place before they can act to protect the child. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about what will be done to ensure that the police are confident that they can use online evidence to take action to protect the child. That would be a move forward.
      Mr. Clarke: I am prepared to give a strong assurance to the hon. Gentleman on that precise point. I am also prepared on behalf of the Government to accept criticism—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald may similarly accept criticism on behalf of the previous Government—that we have not moved as energetically as we should to improve police practices in the areas that we are discussing. We have moved relatively energetically to change the law. The right hon. Lady said earlier from a sedentary position that the new clause reflects an amendment that was moved in relation to other legislation. I acknowledge that and there is no disagreement between us, as I have said throughout.
      I think that there is a cross-party approach, and it is a matter of finding the right approach. I acknowledge that we have not been as effective as we need to be; that much was clearly apparent to me clearly during my meeting with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and his constituents. We must ensure that police forces throughout the country, including cross-border forces, have the same clear understanding of what they can and cannot do. In the current climate, there must be doubts for police officers, and for others, about what they can and cannot do. That is why I emphasised the need to develop police training and practices in these areas. I am happy to
      1092
      give the hon. Gentleman assurances that we are working energetically and that we will address his points about the ability of the police to intervene online.
      There are many issues that we must take on board in changing the present situation, and a change in the law is only one of them. I have already asked the hon. Member for Mole Valley to consider not pressing new clauses 10 and 11. I saw him indicate that he probably would do so in respect of one but not the other. I think that I heard him say that.
      I say to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that it is important to have a cross-party approach on these matters. She is obviously entitled to make the case that we have not been energetic enough in dealing with the situation, if that is what she feels. I put it to her and the House that getting the precise wording right and offering clarity rather than confusion to courts when they come to resolve these issues is extremely important. That is why we had the sex offences review. That is why we are redrawing the law and why we are taking the various approaches of which the House will be aware. With that, I hope that the right hon. Lady will give full consideration to withdrawing new clause 5. I think that we all want to work together on these matters.
      Miss Widdecombe: I listened carefully to the Minister in exactly the same spirit that he listened to me. I agree that in an ideal world there should be a cross-party approach. However, having listened to him, I genuinely do not understand why he will not accept new clause 5. He talked about reflecting on the points raised by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and other hon. Members. However, this is not the first time that we have brought the issue before the House, and it was raised in Committee. On four previous occasions, he has refused to accept the arguments that we have advanced. His reflections have not produced any substitute action.
      If the Minister had suggested a different way of tackling the matter this evening, we would have been very interested. He says that the current state of the law is adequate. If so, why was it not used in the three cases that I have mentioned? I think that he will accept that those cases are the three best-known examples. They do not form an exhaustive list.
      What do the Government intend to do? Effectively, they seem to be saying that they want to do nothing. They have not proposed an alternative. They want to reflect on a matter on which they have reflected for a long time. As the Minister acknowledged, the sentence to which he referred was increased to 10 years because of an amendment that we tabled.
      8 pm
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I did not accept that the increase in the sentence was entirely due to the Opposition. The right hon. Lady wants to score a party political point, but I believed that she would agree that there was a consensus between political parties and in the media that we had to act. As the Government, we acted.
      Miss Widdecombe: The Government acted by accepting our amendment. I ask the Minister either to accept our new clause or to propose an alternative course of action. He will do neither. If doubt exists about

      1093
      "entice", at least it can be interpreted in the way in which the hon. Member for Taunton suggested. There is therefore no harm in including it in the Bill.
      There are no alternative proposals; I am not convinced that the existing law is adequate, neither is Childnet nor are the police. I fear that I must therefore press the new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 282.

      Division No.155]

      [8.1 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Allan, Richard

      Green, Damian

      Amess, David

      Greenway, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hammond, Philip

      Baker, Norman

      Hancock, Mike

      Ballard, Jackie

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Beggs, Roy

      Harvey, Nick

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Hayes, John

      Bercow, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Horam, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Brake, Tom

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Brazier, Julian

      Breed, Colin

      Keetch, Paul

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burnett, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Burns, Simon

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burstow, Paul

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Butterfill, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Chidgey, David

      Lidington, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Livsey, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Loughton, Tim

      Cotter, Brian

      Luff, Peter

      Cran, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      McCrea, Dr William

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Duncan, Alan

      Madel, Sir David

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Fallen, Michael

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fraser, Christopher

      Norman, Archie

      Garnier, Edward

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gibb, Nick

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gidley, Sandra

      Page, Richard

      Gill, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      1094

      Peterson, Owen

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prior, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Rendel, David

      Thompson, William

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tredinnick, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Trend, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Tyler, Paul

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Walter, Robert

      Ruffley, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Webb, Steve

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Sanders, Adrian

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Shepherd, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Willis, Phil

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wilshire, David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spring, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Steen, Anthony

      Streeter, Gary

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mr. James Gray and

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Clelland, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Coaker, Vernon

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Cohen, Harry

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Coleman, Iain

      Ashton, Joe

      Colman, Tony

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Connarty, Michael

      Austin, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Corbett, Robin

      Banks, Tony

      Corston, Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cousins, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Cox, Tom

      Beard, Nigel

      Cranston, Ross

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cummings, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Benton, Joe

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Best, Harold

      Darvill, Keith

      Betts, Clive

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

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

      Blizzard, Bob

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Browne, Desmond

      Doran, Frank

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dowd, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'brige)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Efford, Clive

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Cann, Jamie

      Ennis, Jeff

      Casale, Roger

      Etherington, Bill

      Caton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Clapham, Michael

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Flint, Caroline

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Flynn, Paul

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Galloway, George

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Gapes, Mike

      1095

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacShane, Denis

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWalter, Tony

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McWilliam, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mallaber, Judy

      Goggins, Paul

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Martlew, Eric

      Grocott, Bruce

      Maxton, John

      Hain, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Merron, Gillian

      Healey, John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hill, Keith

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mudie, George

      Hope, Phil

      Mullin, Chris

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Norris, Dan

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Illsley, Eric

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Pike, Peter L

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pond, Chris

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pound, Stephen

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prentice Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rammel, Bill

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Joyce, Eric

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Rogers, Allan

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Rooney, Terry

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Khabra, Piara S

      Roy, Frank

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lammy, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lepper, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Leslie, Christopher

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Levitt, Tom

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Singh, Marsha

      Lock, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Love, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McCabe, Steve

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, .John (Glamorgan)

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McFall, John

      Soley, Clive

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Spellar, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      1096

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Watts, David

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      White, Brian

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wills, Michael

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Winnick, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Woolas, Phil

      Todd, Mark

      Wray, James

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mr. Ian Pearson and

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 6

      INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO BE PRESENT DURING SEARCHES TO ASSESS WHETHER SEIZED MATERIAL IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
      'Where a constable or other person is exercising or proposing to exercise any lawful power of search, and he has reasonable grounds to believe that material which is legally privileged may be seized as a result, he shall ensure that independent counsel is present throughout the search to assist in the determination of whether such material is legally privileged or not.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 19, in clause 52, page 46, line 17, at end insert—
      'and
      (f) in the case of material held in electronic form, whether it would be reasonably practicable for the material to be copied on those premises.'.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 46, leave out lines 18 to 22.
      Amendment No. 21, in clause 53, page 47, leave out lines 34 to 38.
      Amendment No. 22, in clause 54, page 48, line 22, leave out "to" and insert "within".
      Amendment No. 23, in page 48, line 22, leave out "to" and insert—
      'within, or on the exterior of,'.
      Amendment No. 24, in clause 55, page 49, line 28, leave out—
      'due regard shall be had to the desirability of allowing'
      and insert—
      'all reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that'.
      Amendment No. 25, in page 49, line 30, after "property,", insert "has".

      1097
      Amendment No. 26, in page 49, line 31, at end insert—
      (b) where the initial examination of the seized property has been conducted without the presence of—

      (i) the person from whom it was seized (or his representative), or

      (ii) a person with an interest in that property (or his representative),

      the person for the time being in possession of the property shall give written notice of the reasons why the examination was conducted without the presence of that person or his representative, unless that person has declined the opportunity to be present at the examination.'.
      Amendment No. 27, in clause 61, page 54, line 3, at end insert—
      '(2A) An application made under subsection (2) shall be heard by the appropriate judicial authority within 48 hours of it being made.'.
      Amendment No. 28, in page 54, line 24, after "return", insert—
      'within such reasonable period of time as the authority shall specify'.
      Amendment No. 29, in clause 63, page 57, line 37, at end insert—
      '(1A) The duty to secure that arises under this section is also a duty of the person for the time being having possession, in consequence of the seizure, of the seized property to secure that arrangements are in force that ensure that any material (including any documents, photographs and material in electronic form) in the possession of any person that has been created as a consequence of the seizure of the seized property prior to the giving of the notice of the application under section 59(1) is not at any time—

      (a) further examined or copied, or

      (b) put to any other use,

      except with the consent of the applicant or in accordance with the direction of the appropriate judicial authority.'.
      Amendment No. 30, in page 57, line 38, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "subsections (1) and (1A)".
      Government amendment No. 44.
      Mr. Hawkins: New clause 6 and the various amendments that are grouped with it deal with matters that were not discussed at all in Standing Committee. It is again an example of where the Government have been quite ridiculous in respect of the limited amount of time that they have provided for debate. I said that the time allowed would prove inadequate, and it has proved inadequate. We are still not anywhere near halfway down the list of new clauses and amendments. Again, there is a negation of the proper scrutiny of the legislation—a negation of parliamentary democracy.
      New clause 6 is important. The Government are seeking through measures on the search of premises to close a loophole in the law that emerged in a case last year, which was dealt with by the Court of Appeal: the case of the Queen v. Chesterfield Justices and the chief constable of Derbyshire ex parte Bramley, reported in 2000 in the first volume of the all-England law reports at page 412. Although there is no doubt that there was a need for some fresh legislation—indeed, the Court of Appeal made it clear that, if Parliament wished to regulate the matter further, it needed to have fresh, clear legislation—the Government have, in our view, slipped up because their proposals create some further problems. We seek to solve those problems in new clause 6 and in the amendments.
      1098
      New clause 6 would require that, where a search is being conducted and it is likely that legally privileged material may be seized during the search, independent counsel should be present at the time of the search to help in the identification of that legally privileged material.
      I declare an interest as a member of the Bar and as someone who sat for a number of years on the Bar Council. The Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales has made a detailed submission, but the matter is of concern not just to members of the association but to the whole legal profession, including the Law Society: everyone who deals with that area of law.
      I was the subject of some criticism from the Minister of State in Committee for referring with approval to the views of the Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales in relation to another matter. I made no apology for doing so, and I make no apology now. Again, we think that the work of the representatives of the association has been important. There is a clear precedent for what the association is proposing. Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue already regularly apply the procedure of having independent counsel present. It will be for the Minister to explain why, in the area of the law where the Government are putting forward new proposals, we should not have exactly the same arrangement for independent counsel to be present to identify material that is legally privileged.
      It already happens in cases involving Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. The proposal is on all fours with that. The procedure has the advantage of providing a check on the exercise of powers on site. In addition, independent counsel will be able to assist the relevant authorities in justifying whether it was reasonably practicable to undertake the sifting exercise on site.
      Amendment No. 19 would require the person seizing material to look at whether, in the case of material held on computers and in other electronic form, it was practicable to copy the material on the premises, rather than necessitating the removal of whole computers or hard discs. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would stop these new sifting powers applying to the material that is legally privileged. We raise this matter because of the great concern in the legal profession about the seizure of such material. The amendments are probing and seek an explanation from the Government of why the exception in respect of such material in other areas of the law is not maintained here.
      Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are drafting amendments, which relate to the requirement to put a notice on the premises being searched if no one is present at the time. The Bill refers to
      "in a prominent place to the premises",
      which is unusual English. We seek to replace that so the Bill reads
      "in a prominent place within the premises"
      or
      "in a prominent place within, or on the exterior of, the premises".
      What happens if the notice is fixed on the outside and is taken down? Does a prominent place "to the premises" mean other than within or on the exterior of the premises? Could it mean a lamp post outside the premises?
      Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 seek to raise the test for conducting an examination of seized property from "due regard" to the desirability of having the owner present to

      1099
      "all reasonable steps". What does the due regard test mean? How high a test is it? We think that that is a serious point and that "all reasonable steps" is a far greater safeguard and is more usual in relation to law concerning infringements on civil liberties.
      Amendment No. 26 would require that where the examination of the seized property was conducted without the presence of the person from whom the property was seized or his representatives, written reasons should be given. Again, that is reasonable.
      Amendment No. 27 would require a hearing on whether to return a seized property to be held within 48 hours of an application. It is a modification of the habeas corpus principle in relation to the detention of a person. We think—as do lawyers in the field—that the 48-hour proposal is reasonable.
      Amendment No. 28 would require the return within a reasonable period of seized property that a judge had ruled should be returned. We feel strongly that it should not be left open to the prosecuting authority to return the property whenever it likes.
      Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 would require that when an application to return the property was made, the duty to secure the property under clause 63 should include not only a duty not further to use the property until the judicial hearing had taken place, but a duty not further to use any material that had been created as a result of examining or copying the property. In other words, the amendments draw a line on a matter that is not covered by clause 63. At the moment, if the prosecuting authorities had taken a photocopy of a documcnt, they would have to secure the document itself. As the Bill stands, the copy could still be used by the prosecution, even though an application to return it had been male.
      What does Government amendment No. 44 do? We recognise that the Government are seeking to make a small amendment to the Terrorism Act 2000, but we are not clear what the significance is of the change from 28 to 22. I would be grateful for an explanation of that.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats are co-signatories to and supporters of the new clause. We are sympathetic to the proposal, and we argued for a similar case in relation to the part of the Bill that is covered by the other amendments. I hope that in the short time available the Minister can respond to our concerns and either accommodate the new clause in total or indicate that the Government will respond to the proposed requirement that there should be an independent verification of the seizure by somebody who is not acting on behalf of the authority, but can be there on behalf of the person whose properties are seized.
      Mr. Lock: If I do not manage to cover the sensible and valid points made by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I will write to them.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath is right to say that the measure arises from the Bramley judgment. To take new clause 6 first, I recognise that it might be sensible to strengthen the procedures covering expert input to searches where decisions need to be made about whether particular material is legally privileged or not. However, suitable guidance is more appropriate to the relevant code of practice than putting words—which are, of themselves, restrictive—in the Bill.
      1100
      Requiring the presence of independent counsel on every occasion—rather than using best endeavours, or requiring counsel where the finding of such material had not been anticipated—would be excessive. Investigators must have scope to judge the circumstances of individual cases. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath makes a good point about the desirability of having independent counsel available to determine the validity of legally privileged material. However, the right way to deal with this is by guidance—which can be adapted in the light of experience to test the balance between the two competing interests—rather than by fixing it for all time in the Bill.
      As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, legally privileged material can lawfully be seized under the new powers in clauses 52 and 53 only if it is not reasonably practicable to separate it—
      Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just two minutes left and seven groups of amendments have not been reached. At least two of those groups cover ground that we did not cover in Committee. In your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this adequate parliamentary scrutiny?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the right hon. Lady knows that the Chair does not have a view on these matters and simply presides over the business on the Order Paper.
      Mr. Lock: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it astonishing that Opposition Members raise serious points, ask for responses that I am quite happy to give and then use the time raising points of order.
      In all other circumstances, material that is accepted by an investigator as being legally privileged cannot be seized. However, consideration can be given to using the code of practice to extend the circumstances in which seized material which the occupier considers to be privileged should be secured pending judicial arbitration, and that could provide a strong backstop where contentious issues arose in the absence of expert advisers such as independent counsel.
      I turn next to amendment No. 19. I cannot see how the issue of whether or not electronically held material can be copied on premises is relevant to deciding whether that material should be removed from the premises for sifting or analysis. I suppose that the argument might be based on the suggestion that if a copy can be taken, it is not necessary to remove the originals. In some investigations that may be true and the code of practice that will support these provisions will emphasise that investigators should always give careful consideration to whether removing copies or images of relevant material would be a satisfactory alternative to taking the originals, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can put himself in the position of investigating police officers who realise that in order to make sense of the material—
      It being half-past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 29 January], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question accordingly negatived.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Order for Third reading read.
      8.31 pm
      Mr. Charles Clarke: This has been an extraordinary process. I am a relatively new Minister with less experience than many of those present. I have had responsibility for a number of Bills, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the Terrorism Bill in the last Session, working with many Opposition Front Benchers from both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sat on Standing Committee F and have been in the Chamber throughout the proceedings on Report. We are now considering the Bill on Third Reading with a view to sending to the other place a substantial number of provisions that have received no consideration by the House. It is surely a matter of the gravest concern to the Chair that this can happen. Can you advise me on what can be done to ensure that we as legislators can do our job properly and not destroy the reputation of the House?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Essentially the same point of order has been put to the Chair by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my answer cannot be any different. This is a matter not for the Chair, but for debate, however contentious hon. Members may feel it is. It is a matter for debate and not a matter of order.
      Mr. Clarke: I was just saying that I thought that it had been an extraordinary process of debate. It has been characterised by extraordinary anti-parliamentary activity by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Before she leaves the Chamber, I hope that she will take the opportunity to apologise publicly to the House and to the people of this country for her behaviour, which was a total outrage.
      Miss Widdecombe rose—
      Mr. Blunt rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can I establish whether the Minister intends to give way?
      Mr. Clarke: I was giving way to the right hon. Lady.
      Mr. Blunt: We never know what the Minister is doing.
      Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The Minister has criticised my conduct. I have tried to uphold the rights of the House to debate and scrutinise legislation. The Government should apologise—not us—for one of the biggest ever affronts to democracy. We have not even opposed the Bill and now a whole section of it—part II—which was not scrutinised in Committee or today will not be scrutinised at all, yet the people of this country will be governed by it.
      Mr. Clarke: I only wish that the right hon. Lady had had the courage to say that in the debate on Monday evening when she had the chance to wind up the debate and address the issues in very great detail.
      Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you hear what the Minister just said, namely, that on
      1102
      Monday, when the business of the House was discussed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) had an opportunity to wind up the debate? I do not know whether you have had the opportunity to look at Hansard, but you will be aware that on that occasion the Government closed debate on the motion, therefore it was quite impossible for my right hon. Friend to put her case, much as she wanted to do so. Is it in order, and is it parliamentary, for an allegation to be made which is obviously factually incorrect?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot permit a rerun of Monday's debate. Any hon. Member who sought to catch the eye of the Chair would have had an opportunity to be called.
      Mr. Patrick MecLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned by what has just been said. There was a closure motion, so some Members who were rising may not have been able to speak.
      Mr. Blunt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was one of those Members who were rising constantly throughout the debate seeking to catch the eye of the Chair, but I was not able to speak because of the closure motion.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing that I said in my previous ruling excludes the fact that in any debate it is possible that the Chair may accept a closure motion. Up to that point, it is open to any hon. Member to catch the eye of the Chair. There is nothing inconsistent in the two positions.
      Mr. Clarke: I shall respect your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that debate should not be rerun, but the point is simple. Before the closure motion was moved, an offer was made through the usual channels for wind-up speeches to be made by both Front-Bench spokesmen, which was rejected. That is the fact, and it is a great shame that it did not happen.
      Let us come to the substance of the debate. Some clauses have been exceptionally well debated. As with some of the other Bills that I have mentioned, we have had some extremely positive and constructive debates, including the debates that we have just had on the new clauses on paedophile crime moved by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the debates on DNA. But we also had a large number of other debates where that was not the case.
      Miss Widdecombe: The Minister has just said that we had constructive debates, and we did. The reason for that was that we were allowed to reach them. Has he any reason to suppose that, had we reached part II, the debates would not have been equally constructive, and might they not have contributed substantially? Why on earth could that not happen?
      Mr. Clarke: Quite simply, for the reasons that I set out on Monday evening, which Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked me not to go through again now. There was a series of issues about the amount of time that was wasted when other matters were discussed. [Interruption.] I know that my assertions are contested, and that was the debate that we had last Monday evening.

      1103
      I am trying to say, in a constructive spirit, that during our consideration we had a range of positive debates, including those on the many important issues of principle which the Bill addresses.
      The Bill has a simple aim, and that is to aid the police and the courts in further reducing crime and the fear of crime. It contains a wide range of measures which will provide the police and others in the criminal justice system with improved powers to enforce the law and protect the public.
      Mr. McLoughlin: Does the Minister believe that the Bill has been properly scrutinised?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is time to get on with the Third Reading debate, which is about the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Clarke: That is what I am trying to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the short answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes, I do think that.
      Mr. Blunt: Would the Minister say that his statement that the Bill has been properly scrutinised is as accurate as the statement that he made to the House during points of order on Friday? He said that he would be
      "tabling a motion on Monday to the effect that has been indicated for the House to consider at that time."—[Official Report, 9 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 527]
      Mr. Clarke: That is another return to the Monday debate, but, yes, I do believe that the Bill has been fully and thoroughly scrutinised.
      In Committee and on Report we introduced a number of additional clauses which the Government believe significantly improve the protection of the public, and because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary by definition was not in a position to refer to those on Second Reading, I should like to go through them quickly.
      The first group of measures will provide additional protection for those who conduct important and essential research using animals or those who have a financial interest in the companies undertaking such research. We are all aware of the appalling intimidation of people working in the medical and pharmaceutical industries by so-called animal rights protesters.
      The Bill aims to tackle that in three ways. Clause 43 gives powers to the police to direct protesters who harass people by waiting around outside their homes. Clause 44 tightens up the law on malicious communications, and clause 45 amends company law requirements in respect of directors' home addresses. Clause 45 will not provide an instant solution, because existing records cannot be expunged. Over time, however, it will provide additional protection to those directors who, unhappily, have found themselves targeted by protesters and who, as a result, have been subject to intimidation and, in some cases, violence.
      Finally, at today's Report stage we have just added a further safeguard against harassment and intimidation. We have amended the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to ensure that it will apply to those who plan a co-ordinated campaign of harassment against another person. Quite rightly, these matters have been the subject of very full debate and close scrutiny, both in Committee
      1104
      and on Report. The protection that they provide extends further than everybody's right to go about their lawful business without having to fear intimidation and violence.
      I want to emphasise that this is not about stopping people protesting publicly and peacefully about things in which they believe. Rather, the clauses are designed to deal with those malevolent and sinister protests that create a feeling of fear through an implicit threat of violence. These clauses will enable the police to protect people who are doing legitimate and very valuable work in medical and pharmaceutical research, and those who support them through finance and other services.
      Important political and philosophical debates were held when we considered these matters. What I believe to be an important assertion was made—with which I believe the whole House agreed—about the importance of science. It was determined that decisions about the future of our society, even where they concern difficult and complicated matters such as genetic modification and so on, should be taken on the basis of scientific research and knowledge, rather than on the basis of bullying by people with particular prejudices. Another assertion concerned the importance of the right that everyone enjoys to lead a quiet life in their homes, and not to be harassed and abused in unacceptable ways. I think that that was important.
      Important, too, was the establishment of the primacy in a democracy of politics and the parliamentary process in deciding how matters are dealt with. That principle stands in opposition to the contention that an individual protester—or even an individual journalist, as was discussed in Committee—has the right to overcome and overrule the rights of Parliament and of society in general in that respect. Those important principles were fully debated, and I hope that that will set the tone for the debate of these questions in future Parliaments, and thereafter.
      The next group of measures seeks to safeguard children and other vulnerable groups by giving the Criminal Records Bureau extra powers to exclude unsuitable people from becoming registered. We went through those proposals in detail.
      Other important new provisions relate to juveniles. They will enable courts to deal more effectively with medium-level persistent juvenile offenders by providing a number of options for dealing with young people who defy the courts and commit repeated offences while on bail or in non-secure accommodation. In addition to these new clauses, we have made a number of technical and drafting amendments; for example, to ensure that the provisions on search and seizure will work properly in Scotland.
      I cannot say that it was universally the case we had extremely good debates in Committee, for the reasons that I have given. However, I believe that there were important and positive debates. We debated at length the proposals to extend the fixed penalty system to offences of disorder. There was a great deal of interest in the offences to be covered by the new scheme, which is set out in clause 1, and in the power to add new offences to the list in the future.
      We engaged in all the debates with a constructive spirit and accepted a number of Opposition suggestions. For example, we accepted their suggestion that the power that I have just described should be subject to the affirmative,

      1105
      rather than the negative, resolution procedure. That will mean that Parliament has the opportunity to debate all proposals to amend the list of penalty offences, and it will thus help to ensure the continuing integrity of the scheme. We also agreed to the Opposition's proposal that the Secretary of State's power to set the level of penalty for each penalty offence should be subject to tighter restrictions than were contained in the Bill as published.
      Another idea within the fixed penalty system which received very close scrutiny was our proposal to provide the police with a special fast-track procedure for dealing with penalty offences committed at large public gatherings, such as festivals or demonstrations. We have also introduced an amendment to the transitional period specified in clause 17, relating to the replacement of existing public drinking byelaws with the national framework to address the problem of antisocial public drinking, which is set out in the preceding clauses.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is retailing the very good and useful work that the Committee achieved in the time available. On the matters to which he is now coming, does he accept that no hon. Member who was not a member of the Committee has had no chance to debate in detail the fixed penalty notice provisions? They were very controversial in Committee: there was considerable argument about which provisions should be included and which should not.
      Does the Minister accept also that no hon. Member who was not in the Committee has had a chance to debate the merit of imposing curfews, let alone of retaining DNA samples from innocent people without their consent? The Minister accepted in Committee that the latter was a question of major national interest that should be the subject of a major national debate. There will be no debate about that in detail tonight. The Minister cannot possibly argue that there has been adequate debate on any of those matters because all but a handful of Members of the House of Commons have been excluded from debating them.
      Mr. Clarke: I can argue that there has been a very full debate about these matters. I promised the House that in accordance with the guidance from the Deputy Speaker I would not seek to revisit Monday evening's debate on these matters. I do not accept, as I have said before, the premise of what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and other colleagues have said. For large parts of this evening's debate there were almost no Members in the Chamber other than members of the Committee. That goes against some of the hon. Gentleman's points.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does the Minister recognise that the truncation of the procedures in the handling of this matter is a switch-off to democracy? It is extremely difficult, even for those of us who have been members of the Committee, to keep up to speed with the detail of the Bill when it is taken in this way. Will the Minister kindly report back to those to whom he is responsible so that it never happens again?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am glad to allow the Minister to respond briefly to that intervention, but after that I must insist that we return to the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we be clear about what your indications imply? The debate on Monday was about whether the Bill should go back into Committee or whether there should be a foreshortened Committee stage. There was no debate on Monday about Report, tonight's guillotine or the Bill's remaining stages. I ask you to permit, and to make it clear that you are permitting, debate about today's procedure, which was not the subject of Monday night's debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already permitted hon. Members to comment on matters that are nothing to do with Third Reading. We are now on Third Reading. I understand the feelings on both sides of the House, but I think that we have dealt in sufficient detail with the matters surrounding the Bill and that we should return to the Third Reading and stick to it.
      Mr. Clarke: Following your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not respond to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), save to say that I think that we have had a very full consideration of the issues.
      During the course of our considerations, I did not accept a number of amendments which, in the Government's view, would have significantly diluted the powers we intend to give the police to close down disorderly or excessively noisy pubs for up to 24 hours. I understand the anxieties expressed in the licensed trade, and I have had widespread discussions with its members on a range of issues. However, I have given the Committee the assurance that we shall issue guidance to the police to ensure that the powers are deployed fairly and responsibly in the interests of public safety and nuisance and that every licensee is given an opportunity to put his house in order before action is taken to close any pub.
      The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that we did not debate part II, but we debated many parts of it—an ironic contradiction. Part II deals with information disclosure. In Committee, at the request of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I agreed to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss its concerns about the disclosure of confidential business information for overseas criminal anti-trust investigations.
      I met a delegation from the CBI to discuss the situation in some detail. The hon. Gentleman was right that this is a matter of concern. Although, as I said in Committee, there had been meetings with officials and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, there had been no meetings with me as the Minister dealing with those matters in the Bill. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's point was fair and that I should meet it, as I always try to do.
      We see the information disclosure provisions as a key way to improve international co-operation in the fight against anti-competitive behaviour. I am glad to tell the House that through my meeting with the CBI and subsequent meetings with officials, we have managed to

      1107
      agree common ground. For example the CBI recognises the importance of the disclosure provisions in the fight against crime and is generally supportive of these measures. When I put that to members of the delegation, they were more than supportive—they were enthusiastic. They thought that it was important for the CBI to associate itself with such measures.
      The CBI also agreed with the Government on the need to tackle international cartels, but it opposes allowing the disclosure of confidential business information for overseas criminal anti-trust investigations. Those worries relate to a small number of competition cases that involve activities such as price fixing and bid rigging. We have listened to its concerns and have sought to ensure that it understands the way in which the new powers will be used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
      All overseas requests for information will be considered on a case-by-case basis. We will protect UK companies when we believe that the United States or any other country is seeking to assert its jurisdiction extra-territorially. For example, we would prohibit disclosure if the alleged offences were carried out by a UK company operating solely in the UK. Furthermore, nothing in the disclosure provisions would permit a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 or European Community obligations.
      The Director General of Fair Trading is also aware of the CBI's concerns. He said that he would not generally disclose information collected in relation to a merger other than with the consent of the companies involved. We will continue to reflect on the CBI's concerns, but we cannot accept the overall approach of not acting at all, because it would mean that no information could be disclosed to a foreign competition authority in respect of the most serious breaches of competition law, and because we believe that it is important to fight international cartels.
      There has been widespread discussion about DNA and fingerprint issues. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey implied, they will be a significant aspect of debate when the Bill is considered in the public arena. We had to take into account the need for a balance between individual rights and society's right to be crime free. I do not think that murderers and rapists should walk free when the evidence to convict is available to us. Development of DNA techniques now often allows us to solve crimes 10, 15 or 20 years after they have been committed. That sends a powerful message that those who commit awful crimes will be penalised and punished. I accept that there were genuine debates on these matters in Committee and elsewhere, and I am sure that such discussion will continue.
      I believe that I can claim that the Bill is a measure of the Government's commitment to reducing crime and the fear of crime. I hope that opposition parties will consider carefully where they stand on the various issues that are involved. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has pointed out at various stages, the official Opposition did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. He told us that he would consider the situation in detail after that stage of its passage, and no doubt he will tell us in a moment how the official Opposition intend to deal with the Bill tonight.
      1108
      I know that the hon. Gentleman also has many procedural anxieties, although they have been expressed rather extraordinarily through the actions that have been taken. It is important to understand that the people of this country will consider the Bill and make their judgments. Many of the measures are straightforward and cover common ground, but some are controversial. Everybody in politics has to make choices, which is why I was surprised by the no-votes on a range of measures. The House and the country will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about those abstentions and to find out how his party will vote on Third Reading.
      The Liberal Democrats raised similar issues, but their tone was different. The Government and the Opposition disagreed on some points of detail, but I found extraordinary some of their abstentions and votes against measures such as clause 1. In general, those decisions were a question of the need for the official Opposition to explain themselves. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and the Liberal Democrats, however, voted clearly against a whole string of measures for reasons that they articulated and which were consistent with the judgments that they have made.
      Being the sort of man that he is, the hon. Gentleman will take the following challenge in the spirit in which it is meant. When he and other Liberal Democrat candidates for Parliament stand in front of their electorates, they must be confident that they are prepared to deal with serious crime and disorder issues. Whether it is in respect of alcohol crime, fixed penalty notices, DNA, murders, rapes or a range of other issues, he must be prepared to put his hand on his heart and say that he is confident that, without introducing the measures in the Bill, the Liberal Democrats are doing their best to ensure that the people of this country get a secure and safe community. That is what the Government are committed to, and that is the choice that he will have to make. He will advance his arguments in his characteristic way, but he should not be under any illusion. We will be putting forward our arguments about the substance of the issues publicly and clearly from now until polling day, because they are right for the people of this country.
      8.54 pm
      Mr. Heald: The Minister is right to say that, in shadowing him, I have worked on Committees and in other proceedings with him. We have rubbed along pretty well and been able to debate matters in a serious way. On many occasions, he has listened and been prepared to change his position on the basis of debate.
      You will not want me to go into any detail about the Standing Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I feel that democracy was betrayed and that huge parts of the Bill were not discussed. I feel sorry for organisations such as the Police Federation, which went to the trouble of preparing long briefs for the Opposition, and of raising issues of concern—for example, about disciplinary matters.
      The 11th group of amendments on Report concern
      "Police regulation, organisation and conduct".
      Those matters form a substantial part of the Bill, and the Police Federation and others wanted to raise important issues on them, such as whether there should be an inference drawn from silence in police conduct proceedings. They were unable to hear those matters

      1109
      debated. They also wanted to raise issues about the Secretary of State and his designation of functions, and qualifications for the police service. They have not had the opportunity to have those matters aired either. We also tabled an amendment in Committee and on Report to delete what is now clause 127, but that will not be debated. I do not just feel sorry for those organisations; the Minister should be aware that they feel dismayed that it has not been possible for their concerns to be aired in the way they should have been.
      My concern is not only about police matters, although they form an important part of the Bill. It also relates to issues such as the disclosure of information. As the Minister said, we debated the CBI concerns on clause 45, as it then was. However, the CBI is still not satisfied. I spoke to its representatives this morning, and they said that they were pleased to have had a meeting with the Minister, but they were dissatisfied with its outcome. No doubt that matter will have to be discussed further in the other place. I am also concerned that the disclosure of tax records, which is a civil liberties issue, was not discussed.
      The reason these matters were not discussed is not because there was any unnecessary time wasting by the Opposition. There was not. The Minister said that we wasted time on the first, important clauses of the Bill. He has made that accusation time and again. In fact, after we had dealt with those clauses, the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), with the authority of his co-Chairman, said:
      "My view, and that of my co-Chairman, is that, to date, there has been no untoward or over-lengthy debate … we are dealing with intricate issues."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 February 2001; c. 199.]
      The Minister feels able, in his position, to challenge that, and to say that the Chairman may have said that, but he got it wrong. However, I do not think that it is right for a Minister to behave like that. If we have a ruling of that sort, we should accept it.
      Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
      Mr. Heald: I should be happy to give way to the Minister.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am most anxious that we should not revisit arguments that have been gone over many times before. Before anyone responds to those comments, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman now moved on to the subject of the Third Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. Heald: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was offered the opportunity to take an intervention, but I shall not do so in the light of your ruling.
      We had the opportunity tonight to debate various issues on Report. We were not able to reach more than half of them. That is a pity for parliamentary democracy, but I shall not go on about that any further. The Opposition do not oppose the Bill in principle; we never have. However, we have made it clear from the outset that we feel that elements of it are over-bureaucratic, and that safeguards are required in a number of areas. We also made it clear that fixed penalty notices should be issued only for a range of minor offences, and in a way that does not
      1110
      involve major paperwork for the police. That point was put to us by the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association, and we still do not think that the measure is right.
      Although we voted against the provision on fixed penalty notices in Committee, I made it clear that we were happy to table a new clause setting out what we wanted and, had we won the vote, we would have done so on Report. Criminal damage is our main concern over fixed penalty notices, because compensation is payable to a victim only on conviction. If a fixed penalty notice is issued, there is a risk that people who want compensation will not be able to get it.
      The Minister gave us assurances on that in Committee, but they were not adequate. There are corporate businesses and others that should not be subject to a measure that means that they cannot claim compensation, and there should be a definite commitment in law on that. The Association of Chief Police Officers suggested that criminal damage is not suitable for the process. That is our view and we continue to hold it, here and in the other place.
      The Minister referred to no-votes as if they are shocking, but if an attempt to amend a measure is voted down by the Government, it is hard to give wholehearted support to that measure. My view is that, after being voted down by the Government, our proper approach in Committee is to abstain. That is what we did when we were not satisfied with the detail.
      Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heald: Well, no. The Minister can intervene in a moment if he wants to.
      It is important to acknowledge that we had serious debates on the Huntingdon Life Sciences issues—I agree with the Minister about that. We made significant changes as a result of those debates, for which I give him full credit, but he should further consider issues relating to conspiracy. He also needs to go further on the child protection measures which we debated on Report. I welcome the commitment that he gave in correspondence to the effect that the full council will make the decision on a non-drinking zone. The Opposition have made that point throughout.
      We must ensure that a stop order is served and a rowdy pub closed only when a clear connection can be made between it and the incident about which the senior police officer is concerned. The Minister made concessions, or points of amplification, in correspondence about our concerns on noise. If a pub is noisy and a senior officer wants to close it for that reason, it is now accepted that a closure order will be issued only when warnings and opportunities have been given to reduce that noise. That is a welcome assurance.
      Although I could go on at great length about which points we want to be considered by the other place, I tell the Minister that we do not oppose the principle of the Bill. The debates that we had were good and amendments were made that we are pleased about, some of which he mentioned. Although we shall not oppose the Bill, I am sad, as he should be that it is going from the elected

      1111
      House to the other place, which is unelected, when half of it has not been considered by hon. Members. To me, that is deeply shaming for the elected House.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has explained that there will be another no-vote tonight and gave an interesting constitutional explanation, which I found novel, of previous no-votes. Nevertheless, that explanation can be used by Conservative Members if it is appropriate. However, it is not unreasonable of me to say to him, given that he took a certain view in Committee and no-voted on certain clauses, that he should tell us whether he is for or against those clauses as they now stand. It would help the House and the country to know exactly where the Conservatives stand on the DNA issues, fixed penalties and so on. Will he provide some illumination?
      Mr. Heald: There is a clear answer to the Minister's question. Report stage is there for that purpose, and we were given a third of a Report stage because of the cruel guillotine that was imposed. I do not mean that it was cruel to me; the victims of this guillotine are organisations that wanted certain issues to be raised, and individuals who would also have liked to hear he explanations for which the Minister now calls. It is not appropriate to give such explanations on Third Reading, which must deal with the Bill as amended—I see you nodding, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not prepared to be told by the Minister how to do my job, or to be told by him what is or is not in order. I am of course prepared to listen to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but surely the victims are not just organisations and others whose representations they believed might be debated. Are not the main victims the citizens on whom legislation is being forced by the Government—legislation that the Government know has not been, and cannot be, properly considered? Does that not constitute a criticism in the case of every clause that we have been unable to reach?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to keep interrupting, but I am sure the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) appreciates that he is being led back down a certain road, and I would be grateful if he did not go down it.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify the rule on Third Reading debates, in the context of the Government's conduct in forcing a Bill on the House when they know that the House has not considered one third of it?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament. He knows very well that the purpose of Third Reading is to debate the content of a Bill as it then stands.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to return to the matter.
      Mr. Heald: As the Minister will appreciate, I travel around the country, and I meet police officers. I have to
      1112
      ask myself what I am to tell them when they say, "Why did you not do something about that provision on disciplinary proceedings?" The answer is that there was no time, because the Government had introduced this arrangement. When chartered accountants who have written a long paper on disclosure of records for tax purposes say, "We told you that the Bill contained some daft points with which we disagreed; why were they not debated?", I shall have to reply, "Well, there was this guillotine, and the Government would not let us debate them"—and so it goes on.
      The same applies to all the individuals involved. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) pointed out, our citizens sometimes find that the law is daft, or does not work properly. But whole clauses—42 last Thursday, and more than 20 on Tuesday—were never debated in Committee, and we then find that we cannot debate them on Report. Of course, one should never exaggerate—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs; he should not.
      The problem with the Bill has been that it was not up to this Minister to determine how much time we had, or when the Bill left Committee: he had his orders. I know that the Minister likes to debate, to examine points that are made and to listen; but he himself was not allowed to do those things. He knows that. He knows that whenever we asked for extra time, he was allowed to provide only a certain amount.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been very clear about the fact that we should not revisit last Monday's debate. I would respond to the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to stay in order. Will you clarify whether what is being said is in order, in the light of your earlier remarks?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am trying hard not to intervene continually. I think the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is aware that the points he is making have been made many times. I understand how he feels and how others on both sides of the House feel, but I earnestly ask him again to return to the debate on Third Reading.
      Mr. Heald: I remember hearing the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) say that when one no longer feels the anger, one should get out of politics. On this occasion, I feel the anger, as do other Conservative Members.
      9.10 pm
      Dr. Ladyman: This is an important Bill, and I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall address my comments to its content. It will provide greater powers to control drunkenness in public places, protect a quality of life that has been threatened for many of our constituents, and address issues of crime and disorder on the streets that our constituents have raised with us.
      My main interest in the Bill has been the provision of powers to protect scientists, and I make no apology for returning to that theme. Earlier, I thanked the Minister for keeping an open mind on the subject, for being prepared to listen to advice that he was being given by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and for introducing new clauses that have now been incorporated into the Bill. As a consequence of his openness and willingness to

      1113
      accept advice, the Bill is immeasurably better. For the first time, scientists can look forward to being protected by the law and to being able to continue their work. I congratulate not only the Minister but Opposition Members who made a constructive contribution to our debates on the subject.
      Mr. Blunt: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, because of the timetable, we would never have had a debate on the subject if the Opposition had not agreed to consider the relevant new clauses after we had considered only one third of the clauses?
      Dr. Ladyman: I have no doubt that there were discussions via the usual channels that allowed us to raise issues that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee believed were important. However, as the hon. Gentleman wants to get into party political banter, and if Conservative Members have opened their minds to the needs of scientists, perhaps they will say whether they will address the issue of scientists with the same openness as the Minister has demonstrated in the Bill. Perhaps they will also re-examine the policy which they have just proposed, of extending the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to animal experiments. Such an extension would close down the United Kingdom's pharmaceutical companies and put terrorism back on to the doorsteps of scientists.
      Mr. Hawkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have been very badly misled by an article that appeared on the front page of The Times today. He should be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who is the shadow Cabinet member responsible for agriculture, has written a letter for publication in The Times, we hope tomorrow, in which he comprehensively demolishes that article. He makes it clear that both the author of the article and the professor who is quoted in it had been told the true position before the article's publication in today's edition of The Times. Both gentlemen, however, decided to ignore that information. I would not want the hon. Gentleman—with whose views on these issues I agree—to be misled by a wholly inaccurate and perhaps even malicious article in today's press.
      Dr. Ladyman: I was not misled by that article, which I read only briefly before entering the Chamber. I was informed on the subject by a much longer article written by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that appeared, several weeks ago, in The Daily Telegraph. I responded to that article with press releases of my own. The response that I received from The Daily Telegraph was that the article was so unimportant that they would not follow it up with my reply, and other media were not interested in the article at all. The article was, however, very detailed. The hon. Gentleman made it very clear that he intended the Conservative party's policy to be to force all animal experiments into the public domain so that they, and the scientists who do them, can be subjected to a critique before proceeding. I can see that you are becoming a little uneasy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about my taking a route that I should not pursue on Third Reading. I shall therefore return to the protection of scientists.
      In my first job, I worked with an eminent scientist who was reaching the end of his professional career. In the latter part of that career, he had conducted a series of
      1114
      experiments in which he had exposed mice to radiation to see what effects it had. One effect was that it killed their bone marrow. After repeating the experiments to see that that effect was consistent, he took some bone marrow out of the animals before they were irradiated. After the remaining bone marrow had been killed, he returned the removed marrow to the mouse, and discovered that it flourished and grew.
      The scientist next went a step further. He took bone marrow from certain mice, and then put it into different, irradiated mice. That bone marrow also flourished. The first point of that story is that he would not be allowed licences to do that work under today's legislation. His targets were too nebulous to allow for licences under the current regime. Secondly, if he were alive today, that scientist would be the target of terrorists, who would not accept that he should do such work.
      Thirdly, the principles that that scientist discovered were later transposed into human beings. They now provide the primary treatment for some forms of childhood leukaemia. The hundreds of parents who must have cried themselves to sleep over the years after discovering that their new-born child or toddler had leukaemia have been given relief because of that man's work on mice. Their children are well and whole and happy and growing.
      If we do not protect scientists and allow them the freedom to do such work, there will be no new cures for the diseases that we suffer from today. There will be no advances on Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's. We must protect our scientists, not just for our health but for the economic well-being of our nation. If we do not do that, they will go elsewhere to do their work, to a standard lower than that on which we insist.
      We have done good work in Committee and on Report in improving the Bill by including provisions that protect scientists. I hope that the Minister will continue to consider ideas as people feed them to him at the later stages of the Bill. I hope that it may be further improved as it passes through the other place, perhaps even on the basis of ideas on conspiracy advanced by the Opposition and professional organisations. Perhaps we can improve it further, but we have, at least, produced a Bill that offers scientists real protection for the first time. The House and the Government should be congratulated on that.
      9.18 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On Third Reading, we are going round a course that those of us who deal with Home Office matters have followed frequently in recent months. In the previous Session, there were 12 Home Office Bills, and in this Session there have been six so far. In both Sessions, the Home Office has produced far more legislation than any other Department. In addition, it is a matter of record that there have been Criminal Justice Bills almost every year under every Government in recent years. As I reflect on all that, it seems that there is something about our process that we are not getting right.
      Governments are given authority by the electorate to produce proposals for Parliament. They are entitled to do that, and are given the advantage of our procedures to enable them to do so. The initiative lies with them. Yet we often end up with legislation that has not been tested against the views and experience of people both in and out of Parliament in such a way as to produce good law.

      1115
      One of my persistent themes—the Minister and other colleagues on the Committee will hive heard it often—is that we need to improve our procedures so that when we get something on the statute book, we know that it ought to be there, and that wherever possible, it is done deliberatively. Only very exceptionally should we rush into something as a result of the requirement for an immediate response to an immediate set of events. It is a bit like the Budget. Wednesday's Budget looks very different the following Tuesday. Legislation conceived to deal with a problem in 2000 might not be thought to be such a good idea by 2002.
      I enjoyed serving on the Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I both contributed to and benefited from its proceedings. We had an intelligent exchange on all the issues that we had the opportunity to debate. I pay tribute to colleagues in the other two parties in that respect. We none the less ought to have a process that allows, first, consultation on proposals; secondly, as a matter of normal practice, a draft Bill; and thirdly, the sending of that draft Bill to a Special Standing Committee, Select Committee or other forum, in which things can be checked and evidence taken.
      If we did that, by the time we dealt with controversial matters—I shall come to the substance of my speech in a second—we would know properly not only what people thought, but how we could benefit from experience not just in this country but abroad. In this country we are very bad at looking at comparable examples of measures that have been tried and tested in other countries. We are insular in that respect, and it is often to our detriment that we do not draw on the considered experience of people in other legislatures and democracies around the world.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I am attracted to the idea of Special Standing Committees and so on; I always have been. However, I ask in all seriousness—I do not know what his answer is—how the hon. Gentleman would deal with repetitiveness in some of the debates. I have sat opposite him on many Standing Committees, and we have no doubt found each other repetitive on various occasions. How do we achieve the scrutiny that he wants without simply providing a succession of forums in which we re-run identical and increasingly sterile discussions?
      Mr. Hughes: That is a proper question. I think that the Minister knows that I am as open as he is to trying to deal with that issue. I shall not go down that road in detail now; suffice it to say that we should agree a series of steps leading to legislation. I have said what I think they ought to be, in general terms. Indeed, with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have built in another step. It produced its first report—on this Bill—as a holding operation the other day. If we agreed such steps, we could negotiate and—depending on the length of the Bill, and as long as there was representation across the parties from Front and Back Benchers—there could be agreement, other than for exceptional measures, for timetables throughout the year.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: There is a far more effective way of achieving the hon. Gentleman's aim. It is to expose all Bills to the Special Standing Committee procedure, whereby, whatever their
      1116
      nature, they are subject to scrutiny and the taking of evidence prior to consideration in Standing Committee. That is the answer; it would deal with all his problems.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) responds, I should point out that I have allowed him a certain latitude because other hon. Members have dwelt on the same point. However, this debate is not about our legislative processes in this House—however interesting those may be. This is Third Reading, and I should be grateful if the hon Gentleman would turn his attention to that.
      Mr. Hughes: I made those introductory remarks because of the nature of the substance of the issues before us. I shall move on, but in order not to be discourteous, I shall first say to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I have always taken the view that he has just expressed. In my experience, legislatures that do their job well follow a process very similar to the one that he proposes.
      My final conclusion about our proceedings on the Bill is that when we legislate in haste, we often repent at leisure. We suffer far too much from trying to legislate when alternatives would be better. We should legislate only when we really must, rather than just when we think that it would be a good idea. The fundamental point about the Bill is that we should give more power to the authorities only when we are absolutely persuaded that that is necessary to deal with the problem.
      One of the evils of the parts of the Bill of which I and my hon. Friend disapprove is that whenever Governments are not sure how to react to a problem, they come up with a proposal to give the authorities more power. That is the wrong conclusion in periods of uncertainty when the case is not made. It tilts the balance between the liberty of the citizen and the power of the state. It is another ratchet in the direction of the state, and I regret it because in this country the state still has considerable power, and the citizen is losing power relative to the state all the time because of technology, globalisation and other things.
      Mr. Steve McCabe: It may be true in general that there is always an argument for spending more time on legislation. The hon. Gentleman made a point about legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. How does he reconcile that with the comments made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) about the urgent need for action to deal with internetrelated offences against children? The argument has been advanced that the technology is moving so rapidly that we must think carefully about what legislation is appropriate to deal with the concerns.
      Mr. Hughes: The ideas expressed by my hon. Friend and others have been around in that specific form for almost a year. I have said on other occasions that in the context of changing technology, it is necessary to review the law regularly—but, as the hon. Member for Workington said, we must first check out the facts and the evidence.
      Ministers know that the Government have the support of the Liberal Democrats on some parts of the Bill, where we have no argument with them. Measures concerning drink and drugs are important, because unless we can

      1117
      significantly reduce alcohol and drug abuse, we will not significantly reduce crime. We will certainly not reduce violent crime, which is often fuelled by one or the other, or both. It is a good thing that we shall have alcohol-free zones by law as opposed to byelaw. That is a sensible streamlining of the procedure. It is appropriate in certain circumstances that the police be given additional powers to close disorderly licensed premises. The old procedure was often too cumbersome. It is certainly proper to give the authorities power to act where owners of unlicensed premises are acting illegally and exploiting the licensing laws.
      If we say that it is against the law to sell alcohol to the under-18s, we must have a law that works and is not so widely abused as the current one is, whether by off-licences, supermarkets or public houses. It is certainly appropriate to be able to give people working in the licensed trade additional power to deal with people who are clearly drunk either when they come in or when they remain on the premises. On all those matters, Ministers know that we are going in the same direction as they are.
      Ministers also know that we share their view that people who have trafficked in drugs—international traffic in drugs is the most common serious form of trafficking—can reasonably be penalised by being prevented from travelling. That will have a great effect on their trafficking—although I know that it is naive to assume that much of the large-scale import and export of drugs is done by the people who carry them, and that if we clip their wings we will have a great effect on some of the problems.
      The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) made an important addition to the debate this evening. He spoke about protecting people who have suffered excess harassment and intimidation, especially from so-called animal rights activists. As colleagues will know, we broadly support moving down that road. There was a debate about the definition, and a difference between us, but in general terms we accept that it is right to take further action.
      A measure that is good, but does not go far enough, is the provision to protect witnesses and victims from intimidation. The matter is addressed in the Bill, but not in a way that will work in practice. I am sick to death—or rather, I am sick of it and other people are sometimes sick to injury or death—of the fact that people who have been intimidated or harassed cannot be moved quickly enough for their protection. We do not yet have a system that delivers that, and people often pay the price in unacceptable ways. As a last postscript, may I add that some of the new arrestable offences were perfectly reasonable?
      We have said throughout that there are some provisions that we do not support. For example, we have not supported the excessively wide powers of transferring information or of being able to access information that is held by the private citizen.
      Some extremely controversial, and in my view unacceptable, powers will allow people to be detained for longer periods by the authorities, who will be able to judge the appropriateness of that detention by doing no more than speaking to the individual on the phone, or
      1118
      using a remote video link. That seems far too broad a power, which is potentially dangerous and capable of abuse.
      Of the three most controversial areas of the Bill, we have debated two to a significant degree, but certainly not the third. The proposed fixed-penalty notice system is no less nonsensical now than it was when it started. Consideration in Committee showed that it was more nonsensical than previously thought, and exposed the folly of the system.
      We either have one type of justice system that applies across the range of offences, or we go to a two-type justice system. There would be an on-the-spot system to deal with what the Government of the day think should be dealt with in that way, with other matters going through the courts. We resist that. Someone might want a licence to drive, to fly or to do something else. Those things come within the definition of ordinary activities of the citizen. However, if individuals abuse their freedoms and break the law, they should be dealt with by due process.
      Consideration in Committee provided evidence that if the Government had thought matters through, they would have at least come to the conclusion that on arrest, someone should be taken to the police and charged. He or she could then be offered the opportunity of a fixed-penalty reduction and immediate disposal. That would have been a far better approach.
      I promise the House that with the fixed-penalty notice we are increasingly seeing the rich and the advantaged getting a better deal out of the criminal justice system. The people at the bottom end of the scale are becoming more vulnerable and more at risk from instant justice, which is not what we have traditionally guaranteed for our citizens.
      I was not persuaded by anything that the Minister of State said about extending curfews—which have not even been used for under-10s—to those under 16. I am not persuaded that that is the right way to proceed. We should deal with individuals, not areas. We should identify individual culprits, and not seek to identify and define areas that are more liable to have within them criminal communities.
      I shall give a practical example: the continuing investigation into the tragic death of Damilola Taylor, in the borough that I represent. In reality, the area where most of the criminals come from is not the area where most of the crimes are committed. Where should the curfew be imposed? Should it be where the offenders live or where the crimes are committed? It cannot be argued logically that curfews should be imposed in both areas unless we are prepared to take in a huge area in which a huge number of the liberties of a huge number of young people will be affected.
      Mr. Adrian Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge and recognise that there are certain defined areas that for special reasons accommodate the antisocial behaviour of young people far more readily than others? For example, a couple of derelict buildings in an estate may attract that sort of behaviour. Another example is a shop that is open late at night. A range of locations, given their design and structure, lend themselves far more readily to antisocial behaviour and cause a nuisance to local residents. Does

      1119
      the hon. Gentleman agree that in such circumstances it should be possible to have a limited child curfew within the area?
      Mr. Hughes: The experience and advice of the police suggest that that would not be especially helpful. I have talked to the most senior police officers as well as those on the beat. Crime can be displaced quickly. A trouble area one week is not a trouble area the next; trouble moves around. That happens in our part of the world, which is no different from anywhere else. The problems can be tackled in other ways.
      If we want to tackle youth crime, we should start not by imposing more curfews, but by dealing with bullying in schools, and ensuring that there are enough detached youth workers, out-of-school activities, police on the beat and community police. Many measures are far more effective than the proposed tokenistic, shop-window, pre-election gimmick, which has added nothing to the debate and will contribute nothing to the solution to crime in any part of the country.
      We have held no major debate on DNA, and people do not realise what the Government propose. People who are under investigation may be required to give a DNA sample. Even if proceedings are dropped, or someone is subsequently tried and acquitted, and affirmed to be innocent, they will be included on the list of those about whom the state holds information.
      Of course, such a measure enables the powers that be to know more about defendants and to consult a larger database when crimes are committed. However, if we take that argument to its logical conclusion, we should all be on the database. At birth, our names, parents and birthplace should be registered and a DNA sample taken. That would be a disgracefully large leap in the interests of beefing up the powers that be. We could convict people more readily, and lock up many more people, if we simply gave the state more power. But is that the sort of society we want?
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Yes.
      Mr. Hughes: Yes, says the junior Whip. Thank you very much. Authoritarian Labour people in councils such as his symbolise centralisation and the corruption that often accompanied it. I take no lessons from Doncaster or from old Labour fiefdoms such as Southwark, where power went to the centre and corrupted, which meant that the citizen was less free.
      Mr. Lock: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that people who have committed an offence should be convicted of it? If the police have evidence, does he believe that it assists justice, or victims, if they are prevented from using it?
      Mr. Hughes: Evidence that police have accumulated from innocent people, against their will and under duress, should not be held to facilitate the police's power to do their job. We cannot suddenly claim that society consists of two tiers of people—those who happen to be picked up by the police, irrespective of the merits of the case, and everyone else. I am sure that the Minister does not support that. Home Office Ministers are trying to persuade themselves that they want to give the police more power whenever they ask for it, irrespective of individuals' rights.
      1120
      The Minister says that we should stand by our beliefs. We shall do that. The Bill has so much merit that we shall not try to prevent its passage to another place. The Government have a majority, so it will go through anyway. However, in another place, we shall try to remove the provisions that we do not like. If there is an early election, we will insist that those aspects are not retained. Liberal Democrats will not agree to a measure that provides for curfews for the under-16s, a range of fixed-penalty notices or DNA samples. Those provisions will not appear in the Bill if an election is held in May.
      It may not be popular to stand up for defendants, protesters, suspects or young people, but a Parliament in which people do their job properly will defend the victims of crime, as we have done consistently, and those who may, for various reasons, be imprisoned, or addicted to drugs or alcohol, for a while. We must have a balanced view in this place. Unfortunately, some good Government ideas have been mixed with some poor ideas, some ill-thought out ideas and some illiberal ideas, which should be resisted. I am confident that the House of Lords will resist them, and that if there is an early election, they will not be on the statute book before the election.
      9.40 pm
      Mrs. Brinton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
      I was glad to be a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, which should, if passed—I know that it will be tonight—enable the police and others to deal more effectively with a range of disorderly and criminal behaviour. I was grateful to be a member of the Committee because it enabled me to pursue some particular concerns that I had raised on Second Reading, which partly related to constituency matters.
      I had planned to range over a large number of issues, but aware that time is tight and that we want to hear the Minister's full considerations, I shall concentrate on a couple of specific issues that affect my constituency and, indeed, Cambridgeshire.
      The first issue is DNA samples and fingerprinting. As we know, forensic science is, rightly, growing in importance in the fight against crime: in convicting or, it should be stressed, in exonerating an individual accused of a crime. The advance in the science and technology of DNA will make it more useful to the police, provided they have the powers to make optimum use of it. I should like the House to pay tribute to Ben Gunn, chief constable of my local force, Cambridgeshire, who has worked closely with others at national level in considering the present proposals and has given great help.
      I have been told by my local force that the police are grateful for the support that the Government have given them on those issues. I should also mention the £208 million of extra funding that the Government have invested in DNA over the next three years, which will underpin police powers to make maximum use of it.
      Mr. McCabe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mrs. Brinton: No. I am taking no interventions at this stage.
      I make a point that I alluded to on Second Reading. Whatever powers or instructions are given to the police, there should be adequate resources to enable them to carry them out.

      1121
      I was concerned to hear from my local constabulary, where I have spent some time on useful secondment under the parliamentary police scheme, about the national automated fingerprints identification system—NAFIS—due to be completed this May. Considerable funding has been spent, rightly, on state-of-the-art equipment. I hear that it has produced excellent results so far, but that there may not be enough skilled operatives to use it properly, particularly in smaller forces such as Cambridgeshire.
      The new system means the devolution of record keeping, which was previously maintained by New Scotland Yard. Unless that extra responsibility is backed by appropriate funding, the result is likely to be a lower rate of successful identification, rather than a higher one. Indeed, I am told that there is already evidence of that in certain areas.
      Finally—it is the key point of my comments—I was extremely glad to support the Government's new clauses in response to concerns that were expressed in the Chamber and outside about unacceptable levels and kinds of protest and their intimidating effects on individuals and groups. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) for his moving and effective comments on the issue.
      The new clauses propose to give the police new directions to stop harassment of a person in the person's home and to amend the Malicious Communications Act 1988 in a number of ways, making it more appropriate to the present day of electronic communication, so that it is no defence for a perpetrator to state that he or she believes that his or her threat to another is reasonable. Rather, the issue will be whether it is reasonable according to agreed and shared definitions.
      On Second Reading, I voiced my concerns about the level and nature of protests by animal rights activists against employees and others associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences, some of whose employees or associates are my constituents.
      I have examples of the tactics used that have constituted the harassment and victimisation of individuals. I pay tribute to Opposition Members who raised those issues effectively in Committee, in the Chamber this evening and on other occasions. We are talking about demonstrations outside people's homes; verbal abuse using a loud hailer; graffiti on homes and cars; and abusive telephone calls to relatives, friends and children's schools. In Committee, I read some of the letters that I have received that detail the abuses. I welcome the amendments on this subject. I do not believe that anyone in this House or outside would support such abuses of individual rights.
      I am convinced that this is a vital Bill, which must and will achieve its Third Reading today. I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No Opposition Back Bencher has had a chance to speak in this Third Reading debate. Would you take back to the Speaker the concern—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing arguments that we have had earlier this evening. I have to say to him that many of the points of
      1122
      order raised earlier took quite a lot of time and probably partly explain why some Members have not been able to speak on Third Reading.
      9.46 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister said, this Bill has had a most extraordinary passage; one might more properly say, a lack of a passage. Those outside who follow these proceedings will find it extraordinary that the parts of the Bill referring to police training—an issue of huge public concern—police organisation, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad have not received any scrutiny by the elected House of Commons in Committee or on Report and Third Reading. The Minister seemed completely to dismiss the importance of that.
      Such rubber-stamping and a negation of democracy is reminiscent only of Stalinist Russia in the 20th century. [Laughter.] Government Back Benchers, who seem to think that this is funny, will find that they must justify to their constituents the fact that they have been part of this negation of democracy, by pushing through a Bill that contains important issues that have not been debated.
      The Government—particularly Government Back Benchers—believe that debate does not matter and that one can assume that what the Government are doing is right. They believe that the world started in year zero in May 1997, which is similar to what the Pol Pot regime insisted on in Cambodia.
      Mr. Blunt: There is an assumption among those on the Treasury Bench that any debate is out of order. The Advocate-General for Scotland, with the Minister sitting alongside her, said
      "If there were less filibustering and more focused argument, the provisions could be considered."—[Official Report, 6 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 140.]
      That is wholly at odds with the proper and sensible consideration of the issues by the Committee.
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right, but it goes further than that. The Advocate-General for Scotland had no basis for suggesting that because all three Chairmen of the Committee had specifically ruled that at no stage had there been any filibustering.
      This has undoubtedly been an unsatisfactory matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it all resulted from a wholly artificial timetable. Ministers—particularly the Minister of State—were clearly operating under orders. They were told by their lords and masters that they had to clear the decks in case the Prime Minister wished to call a general election for April, so these wholly artificial timetables were imposed on us.
      In the brief time that remains, I want to touch on a couple of points that were raised in the debate. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) spoke about the importance of the protection of scientists. As the son of two research scientists, I thoroughly agree. I think that the best part of our consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report has been our discussion of the best bit of the Bill—the protection from harassment provisions. If the predictions of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) come true, that part,

      1123
      and only that part, might end up on the statute book. That would be appropriate as those are the only provisions that have been debated properly.
      I was delighted that the hon. Member for South Thanet reiterated his support for our proposals. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) also made a helpful contribution tonight, as she did in Committee. Both hon. Members spoke passionately and well in support of their constituents and scientists. The hon. Member for South Thanet is still saying to the Minister, as we are, that further steps are required. We have already welcomed the Government's acceptance of our suggestion in Committee that the Bill needs to be amended further. They repeated their acceptance in respect of clause 13 tonight, but yet further work on the law of conspiracy might be carried out in another place. There is no doubt at all that we need to keep that in mind. We hope very much that when the Minister replies to the debate he will confirm that he is still listening to the hon. Members for South Thanet and for Peterborough, and to us.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey spoke about the defects in the procedures for scrutinising these issues. There is no question but that we need to keep the way in which such Bills are scrutinised always in mind. There may be better ways of scrutinising them. There is certainly a much better way of dealing with important criminal justice measures, particular in relation to significant bodies such as police authorities and the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the NCS. There has been a bypassing of democracy. While we do not dissent from some of its underlying principles, the Bill is an example of legislation that attempts to implement what the Prime Minister said when he asked for eye-catching initiatives on crime with which he could be associated.
      9.52 pm
      Mr. Lock: This has been an interesting Third Reading debate, but let us focus first on the Bill. It contains a wide range of measures that will provide the police and others in the criminal justice system with the powers that they need to tackle disorder, to beat crime and to improve the position of victims in our society. It is an important Bill and it is a disgrace to the scrutiny and the importance of those measures that we have heard so much today about the procedure and so little about the substance.
      Those outside this place who read our debates will find it extraordinary that we have spent so long talking about how many sittings there were and how many hours were spent in Committee and so little about when it is right for the police to close down a disorderly public house that is causing trouble to a neighbourhood and whether it right for the police to retain DNA samples and about all the other important issues in the Bill. However, we have discussed an important issue of principle between the Government and the Liberal Democrats: when the police have the ability to convict criminals and, when there is evidence, should the power of the state be used to maximise the number of criminals who are convicted for their crimes, or should there be artificial rules to weigh the system in favour of the defendant and against the power of the state? It is used to bring those who commit crimes to justice. The DNA provisions in the Bill are designed to ensure that where there is proper evidence and where there are proper issues they should be placed before a
      1124
      court—but evidence should be used and those who commit crimes should not have loopholes which they can use to escape conviction.
      Whereas the Liberal Democrats have at least set out their principles—we disagree with them, but we understand them—the Conservatives voted against measures in Committee, they were not prepared to say whether they were in favour of the Bill or against it and they were not prepared to commit themselves to supporting either the defendant or the victim. However, we are grateful for sinners who repent and we welcome their support now, albeit at the last moment.
      Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that the first moment was Second Reading, when we supported the principle of the Bill?
      Mr. Lock: The Conservatives supported the principle of the Bill to the extent of not voting against it, but when we came to the detail they were not prepared to support the provisions, and it is only today that they are prepared to say that they will not vote against it. That is hardly a ringing endorsement on behalf of the victims who need those powers.
      Other issues have attracted good debates. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on their sterling work on behalf of the scientific community. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet made an excellent speech describing the benefits of scientific experience and experiments, and the importance of giving scientists the freedom to be able to work without intimidation and harassment. I am sure that his speech will commend itself to the scientific community, and he will know that he has their support in bringing these issues before the House. He has done an extremely good job on behalf of the scientific community. It should be grateful to him, as it should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough.
      We have had good debates on other issues. It is difficult to get the balance right on fixed-penalty notices and to know which offences should be included, but I am grateful to those hon. Members who contributed to that debate. It was a good debate and we think that we now have the balance about right.
      The Bill will be best known for procedural issues and the Opposition's adoption of student sit-in politics. What makes the way in which they have behaved even more extraordinary is the fact that they sought to hold up the progress of a Bill giving powers to the police and strengthening the position of victims, with which they agreed.
      It may have been correct that, in Committee, there was no technical filibustering, but it cannot be said that there was focused debate at all points. Much time was spent discussing procedure and a vast amount of time discussing the fact that the Opposition did not feel that they had enough time.
      On Monday, the shadow Leader of the House said in high dudgeon that 16 sittings should mean 16 sittings. That is the debate. Sixteen sittings amount to 36 hours, but, as the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said in the same debate, the Bill was debated for 40 hours, which is substantially more than 16 sittings. The "Dangerfield"

      1125
      series may have been entertaining on television, but when the details were relayed at length to the Committee by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), it lost its edge. Numerous pressure groups have responded, but the Criminal Bar Association's brief, which I regret was not so brief, added little to parliamentary scrutiny when read out at enormous length by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have heard the Minister say that we had 16 sittings. Is that in order when, according to the Official Report, the final sitting was the 15th sitting?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Lock: It is certainly not a matter for the Chair, but it is typical of the points that have been taken.
      This is a good Bill and it has been properly scrutinised. Its powers are needed for the police and for the victims of crime and I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      Question agreed to.

      Weights and Measures
      10 pm
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move,
      That the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 85), dated 16th January 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be revoked.
      The House now proceeds to scrutiny of an important regulation touching on the subject of metrication. Our objection to the regulations—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Would hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Our objection is that the regulations mark another stage in the Government's determination to drive out pounds, ounces and other familiar imperial units of measurement, and to replace them with an enforced metrication policy, even when that is unnecessary and unwanted.
      The background to the regulations is that in 1999 the Government ended the permitted sale of loose goods—fruit and vegetables, meat, fish and so on—in pounds and ounces. From 31 December 1999, it became a criminal offence to sell those loose goods in the familiar units that we had used for so long. That has led to the absurd prosecution of a market trader, Mr. Thoburn, in Sunderland. His only crime, it is alleged, is that he is selling fruit in pounds and ounces.
      The court case is costing tens of thousands of pounds. It is still under way, and we await the verdict.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend share my perplexity about the matter? Some people might consider it a modern thing to use système internationale d'unité measures, but the United States uses pounds and ounces in NASA space probes, as well as miles, feet, inches and square yards in other circumstances. Can my right hon. Friend understand what the Government's motive could be for abandoning historical units of measurement such as pounds and ounces in favour of metrication? Metrication is popular in Europe, but it is not understood here.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to give the United States as an example of a country that uses imperial measurements. However, I do not think that they are called imperial units there; rather, they are known as non-metric, or even English, units. Indeed, in some cases in the US, there has been a reversion to such units and away from metrication.
      My hon. Friend asks why the Government are so intent on metrication, and I confess my bafflement on that point.
      The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): The Government have had to address the issue because, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the previous Government signed up to metrication time and again, and reconfirmed as much in this Chamber, time And again.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is not quite the case, as my remarks will show. Doubtless the Government will try to blame everything on everyone but themselves, but in this case it will not work.

      1127
      The point that I was developing leads on from the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). It is that the metrication process has nothing to do with consumer rights or the protection of consumer interests. In the case of Mr. Thoburn and his sale of fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces, it is neither suggested nor alleged that he was in any way misleading his customers. Quite the reverse—he was serving his customers in the units they asked for; he was not short-changing them in any way. In the market in Sunderland, there were many other outlets. There is choice in a market, by definition. If he was doing something that his customers disapproved of, they could easily buy their produce from somebody else. He would lose business if he was thought to be imposing his values on an unwilling public. He and his customers were simply exercising choice, and the Government are now denying them that choice.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Thoburn case. Am I right in thinking that the genesis of the regulations can be traced back to 1989 and the European Council of Ministers, whose United Kingdom representative was the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), now foreign affairs spokesperson for the Conservative party?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is getting this slightly wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) obtained for this country an extension of the rights of traders to continue to use imperial measurements. This Government failed to do that in 1999, so the guilt lies on the Government Benches rather than ours.
      Dr. Howells: I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. Why does he not simply admit that the Government of whom he and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) were members signed up to metrication and then managed to obtain a 10-year extension which would enable traders to put supplementary measurements on each weighing scale? That is precisely what we did the year before last.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid that the Minister cannot avoid responsibility in that way These prosecutions are proceeding because in 1999 the Government failed to extend the right to use imperial units in trade in loose goods. We obtained that extension in 1989—that is a matter of record.
      The Government did not even try to obtain an extension in 1999. I have a helpful written answer from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who is his place. The hon. Gentleman said:
      "The Government have not discussed the derogation for goods sold loose with Members of the European Commission."—[Official Report, 8 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 583W.]
      The Government did not even discuss the matter, let alone ask or insist.
      1128
      An extension of this right could easily have been obtained. The original directive was negotiated by the Labour Government in 1979. It includes the following lines:
      "Whereas the laws which regulate the use of units of measurement in the Member States differ from one Member State to another and as a result hinder trade; whereas, in these circumstances, it is necessary to harmonize laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to overcome such obstacles".
      It is clear from that preamble that the entire rationale was built on the premise that the use of imperial measurement hindered trade. However, Mr. Thoburn and his market trader colleagues in Sunderland are not engaging in international trade. How can it possibly be said that the sale by a market trader in some way infringes the rules and regulations of international trade? It is preposterous.
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does it not go even further than that? If it was a question of concern for international trade, and a trader insisted on using a unit of measurement that was not acceptable to potential customers on the continent, he would not be able to trade. People trade in the measurements that their customers want.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Trade exists by satisfying customers. Someone who supplies goods in units that are inconvenient or are not understood will not sell them. People do not need bureaucrats or central Government to tell them that. It is much better to leave such matters to normal commercial intercourse at market level.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Christopher Leslie rose—
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me, but I want to make progress.
      The domestic sale of loose goods has no single market implications and does not affect other member states in any way. It is a purely domestic matter and therefore falls under the subsidiarity requirement, which is now written into the treaty of Rome, as amended. Respect for subsidiarity is insisted upon, so if the Government had asked in 1999 whether United Kingdom traders should continue to use pounds and ounces for domestic trade, no case whatever would have been made against the proposition, which would have been allowed. As has been mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham succeeded in obtaining a further derogation when he applied for one. The same would apply in respect of many units of measurement.
      It may interest the House to be reminded that some imperial measurements have indefinite extensions. They include the mile and the acre, and pints of milk can still be sold in returnable bottles. The use of such measurements is still permitted because the Government and the European Union know perfectly well that if they insisted on abolishing them in favour of metric measurements, the public would not accept their decision. The principle is already established. When it is convenient for the public to continue to use traditional imperial measurements, they are allowed to do so. Will the

      1129
      Minister clarify, however, whether those extensions are indefinite? Could we be required by majority voting to abolish the mile, the acre and the pint in due course?
      Mr. Leslie rose—
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I give way to the jack-in-the-box on the Government Benches.
      Mr. Leslie: How cruel; I am not sure that I can recover from that remark.
      The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was responsible for pushing through approval of European Community document No. 4102/89 in April 1989. During debate on the document, which welcomed metrication proposals, he said that pounds and ounces would be able to continue only
      "until the end of the century."—[Official Report, 11 April 1989; Vol.150, c. 839.]
      Does that sound like an indefinite period to the right hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman investigates the matter slightly more carefully, he will see that the derogation negotiated by my right hon. Friend applied until the end of the century. He probably anticipated that a less feeble Government would be in power when it ran out and that they would listen to what the public wanted and have the determination to do what he had done and obtain a further extension.
      Mr. Fabricant: Many five-year derogations have been renewed by Conservative Governments. On another matter, is my right hon. Friend aware that 74 per cent. of the British public said in a recent survey that they wanted to keep imperial units? Is not that the motivation of Mr. Thoburn and others who want to provide what their customers want?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Politicians and Governments have previously been ahead of the public in their insistence on replacement of some measurements. It has become apparent to everyone—or at least to Opposition Members—that the public do not want the regulations. We live not only in a democracy but in a society in which consumers should be consulted and listened to. If affection remains for a familiar unit of measurement, the House should listen to people's concerns and withdraw a forced and artificial switch that is simply not required. The United States has done that, and we are asking the Government to listen in exactly the same way.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the gentleman whom he mentioned earlier, Mr. Thoburn, is breaking the law?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is not for me to assume the role of a judge. Moreover, as the matter is sub judice, it would be highly improper of me to do so. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to pre-judge the case, that could be an extension of Labour policy whereby we hear the verdict first and the evidence afterwards. I thought that
      1130
      we might confine th it sort of legal procedure to "Alice in Wonderland". The law is oppressive, and the responsibility for that entire prosecution and its attendant expense lies firmly with the Government, for failing to obtain that extension of the permitted use of imperial measures in 1999, as I have already described.
      Ms Bridget Prentice rose—
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is perfectly true—
      Mr. Fabricant: Give way to Metric Mary.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady is so charming, I shall give way.
      Ms Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman voted for the provision in April 1989 on the basis that it was
      "providing adequate transitional periods to enable businesses and consumers to adapt".—[Official Report, 11 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 837.]
      Why is he doing a U-turn now?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Because we are listening to what the public want. We obtained a 10-year derogation, and it was never envisaged that that would necessarily be the end of the matter. Is the hon. Lady seriously advancing the proposition that one Parliament can bind its successor? Is she supposing that a decision taken 10 years ago was valid for all time, even when it was deliberately time-limited? Is she advancing that extraordinary proposition? If so, she should make her position clear.
      I turn now to the details of the present regulation.
      Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier. I hope that he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we can hear his views at greater length, because I think that Labour Members have some explaining to do on this matter.
      Under the regulation before the House, to which I shall now turn in some detail, the Government are seeking to go further than the provision that I have just described, by bringing to an end the permitted dual pricing. At present, imperial measurement can be used in what the directive calls "supplementary indicators". That is, imperial equivalents to metric, units can be shown, provided that they are less prominent and used secondarily to the metric units. That is the established law. The Government are now announcing an r nd to that, in the regulation. As well as ending sales in imperial units in 1999, the Government are now going further by removing the right to show imperial units at all.
      It might be asked—this is a matter for the Minister to answer—why anyone needs permission to display helpful additional information in this way. The answer could be that, under the system of law that governs these directives, we now need positive permission to do something. Under the traditional legal system that has been in place for centuries, we have always taken the view that we could do what we liked—it was assumed that we had total freedom—unless something was expressly prohibited.

      1131
      However, it now appears, instead, that it is assumed that we can do nothing unless it is expressly allowed. That is the continental legal tradition, and it is now being incorporated into these metric regulations. Thus it will be forbidden for a trader to put any helpful additional information about imperial measures under the metric sign. That will become illegal, which is a most extraordinary proposition as well as a serious infringement of liberty. I ask the Minister to address the point.
      The other interesting fact about the regulation is that supplementary indications—the term describes permission to show imperial units as well—are permitted under EU law, not to help shoppers, which has never been a consideration, but so as not to damage EU exports.
      I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. America has not gone metric in the way originally predicted and willed by the EU Commission, but it has reversed the mandatory use of metric measurements in federal contracts, revoking that law. Indeed, many states are moving away from metric altogether. I am advised, for example, that Louisiana, Missouri and Illinois scrapped kilometres on road signs in 1998, bringing to 18 the number of states that have reverted to using miles. Through great swathes of the United States, there is movement away from using metric measurements.
      Mr. Owen Paterson: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that that more open-minded attitude to weights and measures, which are a matter that should be left entirely to the choice of the client and the supplier, also extends to certain European countries? Is he aware that the leather trade in Italy uses three square feet—the Lombard foot, the Tuscan foot and the Neapolitan foot? Many Italian suppliers use square metres, but in export markets they leave the matter entirely to the choice of the customer
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Exactly. Even countries that have used metric measurements for many years sensibly permit the use of other units of measurement where that is convenient for industry, trade and customers. I am afraid that, throughout history, Governments and politicians have pressed metrication on others, even if it is not wanted and even if it takes away choice.
      That has been recognised in the United States, which is moving away from that system. Significantly, EU firms that export goods to America are not allowed to sell in that market in metric-only markings . They must show imperial and metric markings. To acKnowledge that fact and the concerns about the damage that will be caused to industry by having to run two production systems—one metric only, the other using dual markings—the EU has responded by permitting sellers of pre-packed goods to continue to use dual markings, even when they sell in the EU. That has also been extended to loose goods and, indeed, every other good.
      Even though dual-use markings were not introduced for the convenience of shoppers and traders, they are still permitted and will continue to be so. Even more bizarrely, although that permission was extended to the end of the previous century by an EU derogation, the Government did not even apply for a parallel derogation for domestically traded loose goods when that was clearly required by our own people.
      1132
      In other words, international organisations and companies in the EU obtained a derogation because that was convenient for them and important to their marketing to the United States, but the Government sat on their hands and did not even ask for an equivalent derogation for the permitted use of imperial-only measurements for loose goods traded in markets such as that in Sunderland. That shows the feebleness and illogicality of the Government's position.
      I want the Minister to say why the derogation and the regulation apply only up to 2009. The explanatory notes describe that as a final date. Why, having banned the use of imperial measures for the pricing and selling of loose goods, are the Government still so intent on banning supplementary labelling as well? Why are they so sure that the United States will fall into line? We can easily imagine circumstances in which, as we approach 2009, the United States persists in its use of imperial measures. We shall have to go through all this again. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us: did he argue for a longer period? Did he, indeed, argue for an indefinite extension? If not, why not?
      Cannot we all now see that the public are attached to the continuing use of imperial units? Why, then, should it be made illegal to display such information from a certain finite date, which the regulations call a final date? Why are the Government so intent on taking away this freedom? We all know that they are an interfering, regulatory Government, and that they are extremely reluctant to challenge any proposal from the European Union—
      Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No.
      We also know that the Government are in a complete muddle over their metrication programme. That is clear from the ludicrous persecution of a market trader in Sunderland.
      Why do the Government not do something right for a change? Why do they not at least permit the indefinite use of imperial units alongside their metric equivalents? Why do they not put a stop to this metric madness, start listening to the public and start standing up for freedom? Unless we get some very good answers to those questions, we will certainly oppose the regulations.
      10.27 pm
      The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I welcome the opportunity to explain the regulations—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh no you don't!"] Oh yes I do.
      The regulations were made under powers conferred by the Weights and Measures Act 1985, formulated and signed up to by a Government led by a Conservative Prime Minister—although, of course, the schizophrenia of the Conservative party knows no bounds. Conservative Members forget all this, but it is here in Hansard. The hon. Member for Stafford fought it tooth and nail at the time—
      Mr. William Cash rose—
      Dr. Howells: No, I will not give way.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Even if the Minister cannot get metric measures right,

      1133
      and even if he cannot get pounds, shillings and pence or any other imperial measures right, he should at least know that I am the Member for Stone.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for the Chair.
      Dr. Howells: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I was paying him a tribute by saying that he stood up against that lot on the Conservative Front Bench.
      Tonight's debate is really about the Conservative party's paranoia in regard to the United Kingdom Independence party. The Conservatives fear that the UKIP will take votes away from what they call their key seats in what is left of their heartlands: that is why they have jumped on the ludicrous case of a so-called metric market. It is total nonsense.
      The intention of the directive that the Conservatives now criticise, but to which they signed up, is to establish harmonised use of the international system of metric units for economic, public health, public safety and administrative purposes in European Union member states, of which we are one. The directive originally set 31 December 1989 as the date after which non-metric units would no longer be authorised for use as supplementary indications. The Conservatives did not negotiate a never-ending derogation; they signed up for 10 years. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has forgotten that, as he has forgotten many other facts, but I now remind him of it.
      The current Government recognised that a further extension for supplementary indications would be necessary for two reasons. First, with the change to the gram and the kilogram for goods sold loose after 1999, it was clear that consumers would welcome a further period in which trade measuring instruments could display indications in metric and imperial weights.
      Secondly, under United States legislation, consumer packages—including imports from the United Kingdom and other European Union member states—must be labelled in metric and US imperial units. Packing in metric-only for the EU market and in metric-US imperial for the US market would clearly add to costs for UK exporters. However, Conservative Members are so fixated with jumping on to the tawdry bandwagon of their big rival, the United Kingdom Independence party, that they will say anything. That is what they do these days.
      Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Howells: I shall in a moment—I have not finished yet.
      Conservative Members will jump on any bandwagon that is rolling along. This bandwagon is not moving very fast, but it is better than none at all. It is what Conservative Members do these days. I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). I had always considered him to be intelligent, but I am amazed to see him sitting on the Opposition Front Bench for this debate.
      Mr. Gibb: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, the Government sought an extension to the
      1134
      derogation for dual measurement, but not one for the directive on loose sales from bulk. Why did he seek a derogation in one case but not the other?
      Dr. Howells: We did not need one. We negotiated a further 10-year extension for supplementary indications, until 31 December 2009. It is also important to recognise that a directive was passed by the European Parliament. If United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, including Tory ones—there are Tory MEPs; the Tories did very well in the most recent European elections—considered that to be such a dastardly act, why did they not table an amendment to the directive? Not one amendment to the directive was tabled. That is very strange.
      I know, however, why there was not an amendment. It was because that old United Kingdom Independence party had not found a metric maetric and the bandwagon had not yet started scraping along the ground. It was therefore not necessary for a Tory MEP to table an amendment. Then again, perhaps Tory MEPs simply forgot to table one, just as the right hon. Member for Wells has forgotten that it was a Conservative Government who signed up to all this and set themselves a 10-year target to end imperial measurements and convert entirely to metric.
      Various regulations have been made, under the Weights and Measures Acts of 1963 and 1985, to set out constructional requirements and limits of error for different classes of weighing or measuring equipment. That has been done to ensure that when that equipment is used for trade, it will act as a fair arbiter between buyers and sellers. That applies not only to everyday foodstuffs such as fruit and vegetables and fish and meat, regardless of whether they are sold loose or pre-packed, but to other goods used in commerce and industry. It also applies to central heating oils and to supplies of petrol and diesel fuel.
      It is an important task of trading standards officers to check that that equipment stays within the allowed limits of error. The equipment may drift into inaccuracy with the passage of time it may be damaged through misuse, or it may be used fraudulently. TSOs have an important task on behalf of all of us in ensuring that weighing and measuring equipment stays within the bounds and continues to play its role of fair arbiter.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is telling us about the regulations implications, but would he mind sparing a thought for the housewife who now has to read recipes in metric measurements? The other evening, for example, I had to make some mashed potatoes. The instructions told me to take 628 cl of water, 235 g of potato and a knob of butter approximately 5 cm by 5 cm. By the time that I had looked all that up, worked it out and discovercd that it was about 1 pint of water, half a pound of flakes and a knob of butter about an inch square, I was bored to death with trying to work it all out and opened a package of instant rice. The fact remains, however, that recipes are now all printed in what is gobbledegook to most people. There should be, if nothing else, a derogation allowing manufacturers of food products that require measurements to use good old imperial measurements.
      Dr. Howells: As the hon. Lady knows, I always appreciate her analysis. However, I must tell her that

      1135
      since 1974—long after both she and I were in school, I fear-our children have been taught metric measurements. It may be that we find them gobbledegook, but I had a look at the best-selling cookery books today and found that they all contain metric measurements. Some of them have imperial equivalents alongside the metric, which is very helpful for an old-timer like me—though not, of course, for the hon. Lady, who is ageless. It is wrong to assume that our children have not leaned about metric measurements. Even those who were educated way back in 1974 may well be able to boil an egg these days.
      Let me return to the regulations before us, rather than the United Kingdom Independence party. The regulations are listed in the schedule to the present regulations and in regulation 3(2). They cover such equipment as, at No. 1 on the schedule, industrial beltweighers used for sand and gravel and for loading grain on to ships, and, at No. 8, petrol pumps, which are shown as measuring equipment for liquid fuel. There can be no competition on the basis of price if such equipment does not act as the fair arbiter of quantities bought and sold so that buyers of those goods can be confident that they are getting what they pay for. That is the point of the directive.
      Mr. Fabricant: On that very point, is the Minister not aware that people still think about the cost of petrol as being £4 a gallon? They do not think about litres. That is how they know that petrol is so expensive. The Minister is being unfair to himself in saying that only old fogies like him still understand imperial units. If that were the case, it would not be that only 7 per cent. of the population said, in a recent survey, that they preferred metric to imperial units.
      Dr. Howells: I would love to see that survey and to know where it was carried out. I suspect that it was conducted in the bar of the hon. Gentleman's club.
      Let me go back to the 1999 directive. We sought and achieved agreement at EU level for the use of supplementary indications for a further 10 years. As the right hon. Member for Wells knows, that is precisely what the previous Government did during the previous 10 years and in the eight years before that. It was the right thing to do, and we did it. It provides the opportunity for traders to display supplementary indications alongside metric indications, if traders decide that that would be helpful to their customers. There are about 160,000 weighing machines in this country for measuring loose goods. Some 130,000 of them have been converted. Those figures speak for themselves.
      Mr. John Austin: Though I am, perhaps, an even older fogey than my hon. Friend, does he agree that if the Conservatives are still working on the basis that there are 240 pennies in the pound, we can see why their economic policy is in such a mess?
      Dr. Howells: I cannot improve on that. When the great Seb Coe—I found out only yesterday that he is in the other place now—ran the 1500 m in the Olympic games, why did the Conservatives not ask that he should be allowed to run his own bit extra to win a gold medal for a mile? Linford Christie could have finished half a yard ahead of everyone else by running 100 yd instead of 100 m. The Conservative position is nonsense, of course. The Opposition are raising their objection only because
      1136
      they are frightened of losing seats. There is nothing else to it. I know that some of the hon. Members sitting on the Tory Front Bench are highly intelligent human beings, and I cannot believe that they agree with the nonsense that we have heard tonight.
      10.39 pm
      Mr. Brian Cotter: Although we Liberal Democrats recognise the advantage of using common units of measurement for scientific, technological and professional activities, we believe that attempts to implement what is seen by ourselves and the public as heavy-handed measures to impose metrication by compulsion are counter-productive. I fully accept that, as the Minister said, it was the previous Tory Government who started us on this road. It is clearly owing to them that we find ourselves in this situation. However, I do not approve of the way in which this Government are handling the matter.
      The European Community directive that the order seeks to impose was originally designed with the intention of harmonising the use by member states of the international system. According to the regulatory impact assessment, that was done for economic, public health, public safety and administrative purposes.
      Before the 2009 deadline, after which complete metrication will be a legal requirement, traders are able to make use, as has been said, of supplementary indications. That means that we can make use of dual markings of products, which is quite acceptable. When the original deadline for metrication was announced, it was believed that member states would quickly adapt to the new system, but, clearly, that has not been so. The use of supplementary indications makes life easier for consumers, who are able to work with whichever measurement they are most comfortable with. I am getting on a bit, but by 2009 I shall have got on a bit more, and I might be unable to understand the measurements as well as I would wish.
      Mr. Cash: The problem will not arise.
      Mr. Cotter: God willing, the problem will arise.
      Under the regulations, the deadline of 31 December 2009 will be imposed and the use of imperial units will be illegal. The previous Government managed to get us into that situation.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the whole issue is down to freedom—freedom of choice of the consumer, freedom of choice of people who are in trade? Surely it should be up to them what they do. Does he not think that even a Liberal Democrat Government, for God's sake, would be going a bit too far in imposing a standard of measure that was unpopular among those who were forced to use it?
      Mr. Cotter: I am delighted at that intervention. I can rip up half my speech; the hon. Gentleman has made my points, which is surprising from a member of a party that has not been notable for its libertarian approach or the way in which it consulted the general public while in government.
      It is ridiculous to force metrication on the consumer when the system has not been truly accepted elsewhere. Indeed, part of the reason for making such progress was

      1137
      the hope that the United States would turn metrication into practice before 2009. In fact, the Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation recently voiced its concern that the United States might not adapt as quickly as had been hoped. When the deadline expires, those who wish to export their goods may face significant costs because they will have to produce one set of metric labels for Europe and very possibly another one for the United States.
      It is not the principle of metrication that I oppose, but the way in which the system will be implemented, the speed of implementation and the fact that this Government, having been dropped in it by the previous one, have not fought harder for a lengthier derogation. Why try to force the hand of metrication when, as has been said, there are still a number of units in use, such as the pint of milk and of beer that we very much favour?
      More than that, we have a long history when it comes to measures. As a matter of interest—I am sure that this will be of great interest to Members present—the acre of land has been in existence since 732, when it was introduced under the reign of King Ethelbert II, the King of Kent.
      The furlong, with which many people, particularly in the racing fraternity, will be familiar, came from the Greeks and Romans. They inherited it as an ancient measure, apparently based on the optimal length of a plough. I could go on at great length about old measurements, but I will just pick out a few. There are many other historical examples of measures that are still referred to, but not used very often. All of us will be familiar with rods, poles and perches. There are many more, such as bushels, cloves, firkins and gills, not forgetting noggins and pecks and, most important for us as politicians, scruples. As we all know, we are extremely scrupulous people, yet a scruple is a measurement.
      So the case is made that, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabri cant) said, it is a great lack of appreciation of the liberty of the British citizen that we should not be allowed, even if we have to accept metrication, a derogation beyond 2009. I hope that, as a result of the telling arguments made by me and others, the Government will consider renewing their efforts, even if they have failed at this point, to ensure that after 2009 we will be able to use what are called supplementary indications. People like myself will appreciate being able to see the pounds and ounces, even in small letters, on the product that they want to buy.
      I sincerely hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously.
      10.47 pm
      Mr. William Cash: This issue basically relates to a form of xenophobia. There is an assumption these days that we always have to do what is prescribed by the European Union and its institutions. The fact remains that there is a powerful case for renegotiating the arrangements in line with the wishes of the British people. I was fascinated to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). After all, the Liberal party is above all else a federalist party. I suspect that Liberal Members are trying to make out that they have some form of resistance to the regulations when they are
      1138
      completely in favour of them, simply because they know that the Euroscepticism—Eurorealism, as I prefer to call it—that has developed over the past few years has put them on the rack in so many of their seats.
      Mr. Cotter: I do not know whether I should bother to intervene, as I would expect the hon. Gentleman to make the sort of comments that he has made. As he well knows, we support the concept of metrication, but I am protesting about the lack of a libertarian approach, which means that after a certain date we will not be allowed to refer to the previous measurements. That is a key issue and it is the clear point that we are making.
      Mr. Cash: The lame excuse that has just been given speaks for itself.
      This is an unnecessary proposal. It would undoubtedly increase the damage to the economy that has already been caused by a number of factors, including dissatisfaction and confusion in domestic trade between suppliers compelled to use metric and customers who prefer imperial. Furthermore, it will create confusion in our trade with European and other countries, as a result of variations within the metric system.
      There are powerful reasons why the regulations should be resisted. Simply to say that we have to go along with them until 2009 makes a point in itself. The idea of a derogation raises the question whether the Government are opposed to the issue in principle. Why not stop altogether, if that is what they want to do? Why go in for something that is time extended for a period? The Government, like the Liberal party, are giving way on the issue of how long the derogation should continue. They know that there is tremendous resistance to the process, and they want a fig leaf with which to cloak themselves for the time being.
      It is astonishing that we in this Parliament—
      Dr. Howells: I believe that we should move towards metrication. The use of measurements has never been an entirely stable regime; it has evolved over the years. We have until 2009. I give the House the reassurance that if, in 2009, it is clear that consumers would like a further derogation, we will negotiate one.
      Mr. Cash: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, the motion is no more than another piece in the jigsaw. There are so many other measurements and units that are not being turned into metric. The Government are clearly committed to the idea of a European superstate and to the sort of consolidation that obtained during the Roman empire or any of the other great empires. That is the way these things go. At present, however, they are picking and choosing: they do not have the courage of their convictions. That in itself condemns the pusillanimous manner in which they conduct themselves on so many issues.
      The Government know that there are pressures under which they have to move, because they are prepared to accept the idea of going further and deeper into the process of European integration. However, they are not prepared to state that that is precisely what they want. That is why they vacillate so much over the single currency.

      1139
      Why is it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells asked, that the Government are not prepared—I would regard it as outrageous—to take the further step on all measurements and units? I invite the Minister to explain.
      Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking me the question and giving me the opportunity to answer it. Like the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I would find it difficult to order some commodities in anything other than imperial. However, when I order a pint, I am determined that I will get a full pint. The hon. Gentleman's colleagues talked out the legislation that related to a full pint. They do not want fairness for consumers—they are ready to allow the breweries to continue cheating them.
      Mr. Cash: It will come as no great surprise to the Minister to learn that I do not always agree with what my party has to say on the European issue.
      We should bear in mind the fact that it is only in the United Kingdom and in Ireland that these sorts of proposals are enforced by criminal penalties. I put it to the House—we shall see how this plays—that the only referendum to be held on the Nice treaty, unless the Conservative party wins the general election, as it surely will, will be in Ireland. There are many in Ireland who are becoming increasingly concerned about the manner in which they are being taken over. The question for Ireland, as for the United Kingdom, is increasingly, "Who governs us?" The proposal is a further example of trends that should be resisted and opposed.
      It was clear when the measure was first accepted that the Government did not expect any prosecutions. Mr. Thoburn has been prosecuted but we do not yet know the outcome, and it is apparent that many members of the Government regard the prosecution as a big mistake. Do they propose to prosecute others in the United Kingdom? They have already nodded and winked at the prosecution of Mr. Thoburn, and it would therefore be extraordinary if they were not prepared to take the matter further.
      The proposal is objectionable. It also illustrates the Government's vacillation and pusillanimity, because they are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is. We can understand the reason for that: they are prepared to go so far to comply with European requirements, but they are not prepared to stand up for the British people. The Minister knows that that is true
      10.56 pm
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). His words convince me that the remarks that I am about to make are right. The Minister's opening comments were interesting. It was predictable that he would try to blame the current position on the Conservative party. That is the Labour party's great mantra nowadays. When they change something for which we were responsible, they claim credit for it; when they decide not to change something, they blame us.
      The Minister could have made a good point, but it eluded him. The Conservative party's record on the subject of our debate is not entirely pure. When we entered the Common Market, we were told that it was, indeed, a common market. The White Paper that preceded
      1140
      the Bill that took us into the European Union stated that there was no question of losing essential sovereignty. That was a splendid way of putting it: there was no question of losing sovereignty; we simply lost it. The people of this country were beguiled or conned into believing that they were entering a common market. It was never that; the European Union was a political objective with a political agenda. Recently, that agenda has been worked through. The items that we are considering tonight are part of that agenda, and of an inexorable political process of forming not "federal states of Europe" but a European state.
      Let us go back many years, longer ago than when I was first a Member of Parliament. The Conservative party had something for which to answer then. It says much for our party that we are now capable of facing up to our actions and, as far as possible, to their consequences. If the Minister had made the criticism in that way, he would have made a valid point. However, he is not on such strong ground when considering the regulations.
      The Government could have applied for derogations, but they chose not to do that. They allowed the lapse of a derogation that would have permitted the imperial pricing of loose goods. They did not even believe that that was worth doing; that says much about their attitude. If they find themselves in a position to consider whether to renew the derogation in 2008, their actions will again say much about their attitude.
      Derogation means asking a foreign power for permission to continue to use our weights and measurements. It means going cap in hand to a foreign state and saying, "Do you mind terribly if we continue to adhere to our own laws, traditions and customs?" From time to time, a gracious foreign state will say, "Yes, you are entitled to do that." The mere fact that we have to go through that charade and consider applying for derogations so as to be allowed to continue our own customs says much about the European Union.
      We are moving into a European state so quickly—it has no pretensions to be anything other than a European state. The only people who deny that it is a European state constitute a very small number, both in my party and in the Labour party. In Europe, this debate would not be understandable. If any European were listening to the debate, they would not understand what we were talking about. They would say, "What are they going on about? Surely, in a single state, the state has the right to make the law."
      It would be difficult to explain in a few words how illiberal and unattractive this thing is, at best. The idea that it is necessary to protect traders or to further trade is simply untrue.
      Ms Joan Walley: I apologise for having come late to the debate, but I am looking at the record for 11 April 1989. I may be completely wrong, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman told me whether he voted in favour of European Community document No. 4102, on units of measurement? I feel that there is a bit of inconsistency here. Is there?
      Mr. Nicholls: Even for the hon. Lady, that is a uniquely silly remark to make. To drift into the Chamber and to ask me to recall whether I voted for a particular statutory instrument in 1989 is, even by her standards, particularly silly.

      1141
      If the hon. Lady had been here for the whole of the debate, let alone the whole of my speech, she would have heard me say that there was something unsatisfactory about derogations. There is something very unsatisfactory about having to ask for permission to be able to retain one's rights and customs. However, if that is the position we are in, it is worth exercising that right. The charge against the Government is that they did not even think it worth applying for a derogation in this case.
      As I said before the hon. Lady made her ill-fated intervention, the idea that it is necessary to impose such legislation to protect trade is complete nonsense. The point is that units of measurement are there for the convenience of those who choose to trade in them. If someone aggressively says, "I intend to trade in imperial measurements," when what is wanted are metric measurements, either they will cease to trade in that form of measurement, or they will fail.
      Obviously, if someone is trading with the continent and wants to make his goods attractive on the continent, he will ensure that the pricing is metric. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with metric measurements, but the idea that they must be enforced on people with the full rigour of the criminal law to protect trade is nonsense.
      We are dealing with a political agenda, plain and simple. We are dealing with a European state that arrogates to itself the right to ride roughshod over the domestic customs of a member state. This debate teaches us, more than anything else, that we cannot go on in this way. We cannot go on playing a part in Europe in a relationship in which we do not feel comfortable—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman considerable leeway, but I now need to remind him that this is not a general debate about Europe. We are dealing with the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001. The scope of the debate should concentrate on the desirability of continuing with two alternative systems of measurement in the given areas for the stated time, and on the nature and costs of the benefits involved.
      Mr. Nicholls: I will not labour the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in trying to assess the advisability of going along with that, it was worth making the point that we have a responsibility to understand why we find ourselves in this position. We have the ability tonight to say that the regulations are simply unacceptable. Conservative Members should have sufficient confidence to say that we are not responsible for the regulations. We should vote against them in due course next week, on paper.
      11.4 pm
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: This issue demonstrates the clear difference between our party and the Government. We believe in common sense. We believe in freedom. If ever there were an issue of common sense and freedom, this is it.
      When 7 per cent. of the population say that they prefer the metric system and 93 per cent. say that they are happier working with the imperial system, what common sense is there in any Government imposing this measure
      1142
      on people's lives? There is no common sense in imposing this measure on people going to markets, corner shops and Safeway, and even when they measure out their mashed potato in ti e privacy of their own home.
      The Minister asked where I got my information from, as he could not believe that 93 per cent. of the population rejected the metric system. I am surprised that a Minister, with all the resources of the state, does not have access to the information that I have. The information came in a survey conducted by RSL for Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO Ltd.; it is on the website members.aol. com/footrule/. There he will find the information, which is in the public domain. If the Minister takes my word for it—
      Dr. Howells indicated assent.
      Mr. Fabricant: I see that he does. Some 93 per cent. of the population reject this ridiculous and dishonourable motion.
      This issue has been rejected, in effect, by the United States of America. As far back as the 1970s, the USA tried hard to introduce the metric standard. Members who have been to North America will know that when they drive on the 15 from Seattle to Vancouver, passing the Freedom bridge—which, interestingly enough, says along the top, "Two children born of a common mother"—they will see that on the south side miles are used, and on the north side kilometres are used, as Canada has adopted the metric system. Despite the fact that the US enjoys the longest unpolict d border in the world, it has rejected the system.
      Britain has rejected it, too. In 1969, the then Labour Government introduced the Metrication Board. In 1980, the Metrication Board was abolished; it was a failure. The only success it had was the introduction of decimal currency. I believe that most people still think in terms of miles, feet and inches. In fact, it is to the Government's advantage that petrol prices are quoted in litres. As I have said, when people realise that petrol is now £4 a gallon-the most expensive in Europe—they will realise how expensive life has become under this Government.
      The position is clear; people do not want this measure. The Government have demonstrated yet again that they are appeasers in Europe. They chose not to fight against regulations concerning water boards, which resulted in a firm in my constituency, Armitage Shanks, having to be sold. I oppose the motion, which is not common sense and does not represent freedom.
      11.8 pm
      Mrs. Teresa Got man: I did not intend to say anything in the debate but, having listened to the Minister—under whose politically correct socialist crust probably beats a heart with a degree of liberalism—I was upset to hear him make ageist comments about the 40 million or so people in our country who were not brought up with metric measurements and who still resort to the imperial measurements because they mean something to them.
      I know that I am 5 ft 3 in tall and that I weigh between 9 and 10 stone. If I tell that to people, they know what it means. I know what a pint means; I know how many yards of fabric I want; if I tell someone that I am going a mile up the road, they know what I mean. I know that I

      1143
      take size 5 shoes and my husband takes size 10. I know what that means, but the metric measurement of 37 cm means nothing to me.
      There is no shame in that, and there is no reason why a housewife should be forced to interpret her recipes in what is basically a foreign measurement. It is not a natural measurement; it has not evolved out of people's sizes and the distance that they travelled in a certain length of time. As hon. Members have said, all our imperial measurements have evolved out of elements that relate to people's daily lives, yet here we are forcing them to think in an entirely foreign system of measurements. In my view it is the equivalent of forcing them to think and calculate their orders in Chinese. The Government would do well to take that into account and not to pooh-pooh it. Making decisions involving shopping and measuring is an important element of women's daily lives. I should like the Minister to address that point.
      Dr. Howells: May I attempt to convince the hon. Lady that I am certainly not pooh-poohing the idea? That is why we negotiated another 10 years of having imperial measurements on weighing scales—so that we can understand them.
      Mrs. Gorman: The Government inspectors have insisted that people print their packets of food, and shopkeepers weigh their commodities, using a foreign system of measurement. Tonight we are debating the fact that anyone who does not do that will be prosecuted. I am trying to touch the heart that I hope the Minister has, in support of people whose daily lives involve having to handle commodities in what amounts to a foreign language. If for no other reason, the Minister and the Labour party would do themselves a power of good if they did not knock older people, some of whom will still be alive in 10 or 20 years' time , after the current derogation expires, and who would prefer to continue to use the language of measuring distance, weights and so on that they have been familiar with since childhood.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree with the powerful point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)? Is it not almost humiliating that we are having to go cap in hand to what he correctly described as a foreign power, to ask for this derogation in the first place?
      Mrs. Gorman: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. It does us all a power of good if, for a change, we take into consideration the concerns of the people whom we represent here. It has been said more than once this evening that the great majority of them would prefer to keep the forms of measurement with which they are familiar and in which they have been educated. If younger people feel comfortable with men is measures, by all means let them be printed on boxes and packets. I expect that young people mix up mashed potatoes late at night too, but there are a large number of people who do not want the metric system to be imposed on them, and they should not have to use it.
      A long time ago I used to help small businesses with their problems. The regulations imposed by European directives were driving them up the pole, so we decided to go to Europe and talk to the people who drew up those regulations. They made it absolutely clear that the
      1144
      directives were not obligatory. They said, as has already been said tonight, that some countries, like ours, impose them on people, but that we do not need to do that.
      There is no need to ram the directives down people's throats, but our civil servants gold-plate them and make them worse. They make demands that are entirely unnecessary. We are here to represent people's views, not to dictate to them. That is not why they send us here, and we should not be involved in doing that. As soon as the Government learn that and accept that the time is not right to do away with our imperial measurements, the sooner they will improve their proper role of representing what the great majority of people in this country feel about this matter.
      11.14 pm
      Mr. Christopher Gill: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Taking a leaf out of her book, I should like to tell the House that 140 lb of pigmeat makes 1 cwt of bacon. Many people in Britain today are familiar with such equations. I could not give the metric equivalent of that equation, but I make that point to show that I have been in business, which, regrettably, not too many hon. Members these days have.
      I know from my experience in business that to foster trade one has to respond to what the customer wants. If the customer wants to buy in avoirdupois rather than in metric, that is what the customer should be allowed to do. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I belong to the party that believes in choice and diversity. The people who should exercise the choice are the customers, the British people. That choice must not be circumscribed by the people in Whitehall who think they know best.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made the important point that, historically, we in Britain have been able to do anything and everything unless it was prohibited by the law, which is in complete contrast to the continental system under which something can be done only if it is expressly permitted. This is another example of how we are moving more and more towards a continental system, which, to many of us, is regrettable, and does not suit the country's nature and mood.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is apt. We go cap in hand all the time to ask Brussels whether we can keep systems that we have historically enjoyed for hundreds of years. Such systems have served us well and there is no reason to change them. When we get a derogation, we say that we have won a victory. What a victory, simply to have hung on for another five or 10 years to something that we have enjoyed for centuries.
      I risk being ruled out of order in saying this, but my hon. Friend is right when he says that this is all driven by politics. It is all driven by the determination that nothing will stand in the way of creating a united states of Europe. Metrication is another step along that route, just as decimalisation was 20 or 30 years ago.
      I return to the argument about trade. Our trade with the EU is important and amounts to a substantial sum, but it represents less than 11 per cent. of our gross GDP. In other words, 89 per cent. of our GDP is accounted for by trade within the UK and with the rest of the world.

      1145
      Converting to metrication will bring no benefit to that. We are doing it simply to accommodate our trade with Europe, which represents 11 per cent. of our GDP.
      We are in great danger of getting things completely out of proportion. As a business man, I would not rejig the whole of my production and accounting methods and the way in which I ran my business for customers who represented 11 per cent. of my business. I would be more inclined to ensure that my business was tailored towards the other 89 per cent. The same equation applies to our consideration of the single currency, which I appreciate is not the subject of tonight's discussion.
      The Minister must understand that a serious desire to encourage trade and create the prosperity that flows from it requires that regulation be limited. The Government must stop telling people how they should do things, and allow the market to work. They must allow customers to exercise their right to choose what products to buy, at what standard and at what price. They must also be able to decide in what measurement they want to buy goods, and in what currency they will pay.
      I implore the Government, in all their future dealings with the European Union, to avoid prescription and harmonisation and to leave scope for choice and diversity, which encourage markets and stimulate economic activity.
      11.20 pm
      Mr. Owen Paterson: I had not intended to speak in this debate, so I shall be brief. However, I was struck by the Minister's lack of international awareness, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) hinted that he had a warm and golden heart.
      I used to be abroad for about a third of the year, and my international experience is that there are no hang-ups in other countries about the unit of measure that is used. As I said earlier, three different types of square foot are used as measures in Italy: in descending order, they are the Lombard, the Tuscan and the Neapolitan square foot. Those measures are trusted in some countries, but others—especially Germany—insist that Italian products are bought in square metres. The choice is entirely up to customers and suppliers. Nearly all exports to Asian countries are measured in square feet, and no Italian supplier would think twice about that.
      The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) listed a number of what he considered to be arcane measurements, including the bushel. However, when I visited the international corn exchange in Chicago—the largest such exchange in the world—with the Select Committee on Agriculture last year, I found that it dealt entirely in bushels. The choice is up to the traders there, and they are all relaxed about it. When they go home in the evening, I am sure that they are happy to deal in imperial measurements.
      I do not see why British citizens cannot work in international business and deal in metric measurements one week, then go off the next week and deal in 32 inch floppy disks. The matter is entirely one of individual choice. It is not for the state to be prescriptive and try to impose uniform units of measure.
      1146
      The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the Saxons. The Old Testament states that it is an abomination in the eye of the Lord to give false measure, and I accept that it has long been the role of the state to ensure accurate measurement. However, it is not the role of the state to enforce a uniform unit of measurement.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) rightly said that a vast amount of trade in this country is carried out using imperial measurements. People are used to dealing in certain units, especially when buying common consumer goods and confectionery. They have suffered quite sharp product inflation because, although an item's packaging may look familiar, the actual measure sold in that packaging is considerably less than what people are used to.
      The Government should look into that problem with some intensity. By iniformly imposing metric measure, we are not safeguardling consumers, many of whom, all unawares, are being ripped off quite sharply. For that reason, I oppose the regulations.
      Question put:—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Division deferred till Wednesday 21 March, pursuant to Order [7 Novemb?r 2000].

      DELEG TED LEGISLATION
      Mr. Deputy Spe iker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation
      Motion made, ana Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      PARTNERSHIPS
      That the draft Limite 1 Liability Partnerships Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.

      SOCIAL SECURITY
      That the draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.
      That the draft Hou sing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 14th February, be approved.

      PENSIONS
      That the draft Pensions Appeals Tribunals (Additional Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
      That the draft Pensions Appeals Tribunals (Late Appeals) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approed.

      INVIESTIGATORY POWERS
      That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
      That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Designation of Public Authorities for the Purposes of Intrusive Surveillance) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

      REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
      That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Franchise of Relevant Citizens of the Union) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
      That the draft Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.—[M Bens.]
      Question agreed to.

      NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE,
      Ordered,
      That—
      (1) the proposals for a draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and a draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, being legislative proposals relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
      (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 22nd March at 9.15 a.m. to consider the proposal for a draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, referred to it under paragraph (1) above, and the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at that meeting at 11.15 a.m.; and
      (3) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 22nd March at 2.30 p.m. to consider the proposal for a draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, referred to it under paragraph (1) above, and the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at that meeting at 4.30 p.m.—[Mr. Betts.]

      SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 28th March at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee.[Mr. Betts.]

      LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
      Motion made,
      That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
      1148
      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-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Betts.]
      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. Betts.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT 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. Betts.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      Planning (Oxfordshire)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
      11.25 pm
      Mr. Robert Jackson: My purpose in seeking the Adjournment debate tonight is twofold. First, I want to draw attention once again to the rising tide of concrete, bricks and mortar that is flowing over Oxfordshire. Secondly, I want to draw attention to the Opposition's proposals for dealing with this problem and securing a measure of relief.
      Lest it be thought that I am exaggerating when I speak of a rising tide of concrete, bricks and mortar, let me simply state the bald figures. Over the past decade, Oxfordshire has been the construction site for some 23,000 new houses, and over the period immediately ahead, until 2006, it will be required to accommodate a further 14,000, with another 11,700 to come by 2011. The two decades between 1990 and 2010, in other words, have seen the equivalent of the construction in Oxfordshire of a new city the size of Corby, with some 50,000 new inhabitants.
      I said that I was seeking to draw attention once again to this problem, not only because I have been an active member of the parliamentary campaign against overdevelopment in the south-east led by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and because I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) in this campaign, but because I raised this matter in the House only a month ago. That was when I undertook the delicate parliamentary task of presenting two contradictory petitions at the same time, without backing either. The two petitions neatly illustrate the very difficult situation facing Oxfordshire and, in particular, the town of Didcot in my constituency and its surrounding villages.
      Over the years immediately ahead, Didcot faces a requirement to build another 3,200 houses, over and above the 5,000 that have been built there over the past decade. One of the petitions that I presented was from residents to the west of Didcot, urging the Deputy Prime Minister to call in for ministerial decision the proposals to build the new houses on Didcot's western fringe. The other was from residents to the north of Didcot urging the right hon. Gentleman to do no such thing, but to uphold the county council's decision to go west rather than north.
      On both sides, strong passions have been generated, friendships sundered and once cohesive local communities sharply divided. Each side passionately believes that the development must go to the other side. Neither side seriously asks why there should be development on this scale. All regard it as a kind of visitation, and every eye is directed to Whitehall, some with trembling hope and others with frowning apprehension, to see which way the ministerial juju-man will jump. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. This will not be the end of the story, of course. Whatever the Deputy Prime Minister decides, we can be sure that a flurry of actions for judicial review will be unleashed.
      I do not know what it would take to prove to the Under-Secretary that Oxfordshire, like many other areas in the south-east of England, faces a crisis of suburban
      1150
      overdevelopment. Certainly, that is what local people believe, but perhaps their subjective feelings will cut no ice in the eyries of Whitehall.
      Let me suggest three objective reasons for believing that what is happening in my part of the world is excessive and unnecessary. First, there is the fact that Oxfordshire simply cannot meet both the Government's target for new housing and their target for new build on so-called "brown" land in built-up areas. The latter target is supposed to determine the location of at least 60 per cent. of new housing. However, between 1996 and 2000, only 48 per cent of new development in Oxfordshire was on brown sites. This was not, I assure the Under-Secretary, for want of trying on the part of local planning committees. The problem is simply that Oxfordshire is not a long-standing urban area, it has relatively little built-up brown land and over recent decades the pressures of development have been such that almost all the brown land that has been available has already been built over.
      That is just one piece of evidence that shows that Oxfordshire is being overdeveloped. Let me suggest another. Between 1991 and 1999, the county's population increased by 45,000 Some 41 per cent. of that increase can be attributed to natural change, or the normal demographic development of the local population. However, a striking 59 per cent. of that additional population represented net civilian migration. Oxford city, which accounts for roughly two fifths of the county's population, cannot expand further because of its green belt, so the bulk of the substantial growth in the number of incomers is being channelled by the planning system into three or four primary areas of development, one of which is Didcot. The effects of overdevelopment are experienced not only by existing populations, but by new residents. Too much has been happening too quickly. The new developments are too crowded and too lacking in necessary infrastructure.
      Where do the incomers come from? It is sometimes suggested that counnies such as Oxfordshire and towns such as Didcot have a duty to expand as they are the new growth points of the national economy. Last year, however, no more than 12 per cent. of Oxfordshire's new residents came from what might be termed the declining industrial north. In contrast, some 42 per cent. came from elsewhere in the expanding, post-industrial south-east. The overdevelopment of Oxfordshire occurs only partially at the expense of draining away active workers and the stunting of growth prospects in the north and the midlands. It is occurring mainly to reduce the pressure for better housing in the inner cities and other areas in the south-east.
      The Government are proposing to build thousands of houses in the wrong places. I should like to stress that point to the Under-Secretary. The Minister for Housing and Planning said last February that
      "seven out of ten new households forming over the next 20 years are likely to be single person households".
      He went on to say that
      "many will be only too pleased to live in town centre locations, close to shops and entertainment as much as transport links".
      In the light of those comments, will the Under-Secretary explain how building thousands of houses on green fields in my constituency will fulfil such needs?
      The situation that I have been describing, which exists in Didcot and Oxfordshire, is, of course, not untypical of many other parts of the south-east. It suggests that there

      1151
      is something fundamentally wrong with the processes and procedures that have brought it about. The Government carried out their own review of those procedures in their first couple of years in office. They decided to maintain and take forward, with some minor changes, the planning arrangements that are at the root of the problem. Radical new thought has come not from new Labour and its Liberal allies, but from those on the Opposition Front Bench. That development is creating for the people of my constituency a clear choice at the forthcoming general election. I hope that this debate will help to underline that choice.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is to be congratulated on his far-reaching proposals for the reform of our over-centralised planning system. On behalf of the Opposition, he proposes to act within a few months of the return of a Conservative Government to abolish the procedures that impose national housebuilding targets such as those that have driven the overdevelopment of Oxfordshire.
      Discretion on local development will be given to local authorities, which will decide how much new housing there should be, where it should be located and what sort of houses should be built. They will be required to secure sufficient new accommodation for forecasted local population growth, but incremental building to support economic development will be a matter for local people to decide. The district councils will be in the lead, while the county councils will have a strategic co-ordinating role. At the same time, the views of town and parish councils will be given greater weight and local residents will be given a right of counter appeal when a proposed development breaches due process or a duly adopted comprehensive local plan.
      I have no doubt that such a radical departure from the half century-long tradition of centralised planning, which goes back to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, will attract some scepticism. Indeed, we may hear something of that from the Under-Secretary. Such scepticism about the radical decentralisation of the planning process expresses the conviction that local people and their local representatives cannot be trusted to make planning decisions from a perspective that transcends their own narrow self-interest. The underlying thought is that decentralisation will be a charter for nimbyism. My retort is that nimbyism is a product of the existing, over-centralised system, in which responsibility has been transferred from the local level to the distant centre.
      In such a system, everyone feels that they must fight as hard as they possibly can for their own immediate interest—nimbyism—because that is what everyone else will do, but in the end the decision will be taken from on high. Nimbyism is an expression of powerlessness. If we learn once again to trust the people, we will, I believe, be surprised by the level of responsibility for wider interests that they will show when they have real power in relation to those interests.
      Meanwhile, I hope it will not escape the notice of my constituents and electors in the Wantage constituency—at Didcot and its surrounding villages in particular—and in Banbury, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is in the Chamber with me tonight, that the Conservative party's policy will give an opportunity for a fundamental rethink of all large-scale
      1152
      planning proposals that have not yet been decided by the time my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) kisses hands at Buckingham palace.
      11.36 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) for raising this subject, because this debate gives me the opportunity to reply to him, not only on the issues relating to Didcot and Oxfordshire but on issues that he has raised in relation to Conservative party policy on these matters.
      The planning criteria in Oxfordshire are exactly the same as those applied to similar counties in the rest of England, although every planning case is considered on its merits. I am aware that the process of deciding on the location of new housing in Didcot, in particular, and the provision of new housing in Oxfordshire generally, has caused anxiety to some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
      I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman was placed in the difficult position of having to present two opposing petitions at the same time, while representing the opposing views of his constituents. He was trying to face in two directions at once. In so doing, he has opted out of facing up to some of the challenges that face Oxfordshire and Didcot in relation to providing for people who need and want to live there. That is the issue at the heart of this debate.
      I know that progress on the alteration to the Oxfordshire structure plan for Didcot has not been easy. In August 1998, the Oxfordshire structure plan for the period from 1996 to 2001 was adopted. The county council was unable to agree a housing distribution figure around Didcot, which the hon. Gentleman will know is on the boundary of the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district council areas. The Oxfordshire structure plan was, therefore, published with a separate figure for Didcot of 5,500 dwellings, but stated that an early alteration to the plan would settle the housing allocation round the town.
      Following the adoption of the structure plan, South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse district councils carried out public consultation and technical work, but reached different conclusions on the direction of growth at Didcot. That is germane to some more general points that I shall make later. In December 1998, Oxfordshire county council resolved to recommend growth to the north of the town, in South Oxfordshire district. The decision was finely balanced, and I understand that the committee voted by a majority of only one to recommend the north of the town.
      In November 1999, as the hon. Gentleman said, an examination in public took place over four days to consider the Didcot housing issue. Representatives of the Government office of the south-east attended all the sessions, but made it clear from the outset that it was not the role of the Government to comment on the proposals, because although this was a structure plan alteration, the scale of the proposals was site specific.
      In January 2000, the panel report on the alteration was published and it recommended growth to the north-east of the town. The panel attached considerable weight to the agricultural land issue, which was of higher quality to the

      1153
      west of Didcot than to the north, although it also felt that other issues were finely balanced. Although it considered the western option to be slightly better related to the town, it determined that the best and most versatile land issue outweighed that factor.
      The county council considered the panel report, but it was not bound in planning law by the recommendations. In March 2000, the county council rejected the advice of the panel and allocated the bulk of housing mainly to the west of the town. The statement of reasons published with the proposed modifications explained that the county council had changed its view as the western option had the advantage of better integration with employment sites and with the town centre, saying that that outweighed the disadvantages of building on best and most versatile agricultural land.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, requests were made at the time—to some extent, those continue—for the Government to get involved in the structure plan alteration, but we reiterated the view that it was a matter for Oxfordshire county council. We made it clear that the structure plan alteration should set an adequate framework to ensure that local plans responded positively to the new approach to planning for housing set out in planning policy guidance note 3.
      We want sufficient housing land to be provided, but the priority is to re-use previously developed land in urban areas, bringing empty homes back into use and converting existing buildings rather than using greenfield sites. [Interruption.] Do hon. Members want to intervene rather than comment from a sedentary position? I am happy to take an intervention.
      Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady gives the impression that there is brownfield land available to be developed in Oxfordshire. There is not. Whether it be in South Oxfordshire or in Cherwell district, new development will have to take place almost entirely on greenfield sites. It is as simple as that. The idea that development can mystically and magically take place on existing brownfield sites is mistaken.
      Ms Hughes: We accept that not all development can take place in urban areas or on brownfield sites. How much development should take place outside existing sites depends on the overall need for housing land, the capacity of existing urban areas to accommodate additional housing and the efficiency with which land is developed. Where development has to take place outside urban areas, we look to local planning authorities to utilise the most sustainable option. The Government have been assured by Oxfordshire county council and South Oxfordshire district council that PPG3 issues would be fully taken into account during subsequent local plan preparation.
      The hon. Member for Wantage referred to the overall housing figures for Oxfordshire. We acknowledge that we face considerable pressures in the south-east, and the figures for Oxfordshire have been arrived at through the same planning criteria as is used for other counties in the south-east.
      Last year, the Government published for consultation proposed changes to the regional planning guidance for the south-east. We have listened to comments and we have
      1154
      strengthened our policies for delivering urban renewal, providing affordable housing, avoiding profligate use of land, promoting a living countryside and encouraging development east of London in the Thames gateway.
      We have given local authorities the tools they need to achieve that. PPG3 contains a clearly stated presumption that previously developed land and existing buildings will be re-used for housing before consideration is given to developing greenfield sites. We have separately published advice on better design of development and on undertaking urban housing capacity studies. We have also made available guidance on how to manage the release of land in such a way as to minimise unnecessary loss of greenfield sites to development.
      I want to say something about the hon. Gentleman's more general points about the relevance of his party's policy to some of these difficult issues. Far from meaning the concreting of the south-east, the Government's policies will mean less profligate use of land, brownfield before greenfield development, and the delivery of our national 60 per cent target for new housing on brownfield land. It is not the' Government who are putting the south-east under development pressure; the pressures are already there, and it is a sad state of affairs when a representative of the area ignores them and pretends that they can be diluted out of existence.
      Given that the pressures are there, the question is how they can best be managed. The issue is how housing can be provided for people who need and want to live in the south-east. They are not predominantly people who are moving from other parts of the country; they are people who work in the area and need to live there, or the sons and daughters of those who already live there and may have done so for some time.
      Our policies, and the draft revised regional planning guidance, mean that no more land than that which local authorities already propose to use would be used to provide housing for people in the south-east. We are not producing a higher figure by stealth. We want to build the prospect of review into the system, which is a sensible approach-unlike that of the Opposition, who believe in fixed long-term figures.
      We propose that that the of provision should be reviewed within five years at the most, in the light of monitoring, urban capacity studies, and studies of potential growth areas proposed at Ashford and Milton Keynes. It is premature to specify what provision might be after, say, 2006, but at present it is expected to be about 43,000 dwelliigs a year in the whole area.
      We consider that the overall figure of 39,000 homes a year for the south-east outside London represents a realistic level of provision. We have taken a range of factors into account, including household projections, deliverable housebuildiing rates, the needs of the economy, and the capacity of the region to absorb growth as well as the impact of our policies for urban renaissance. We try to pay careful attention to environmental capacity as well as need: that is why we are emphasising the importance of building around existing conurbations, recognising environmental constraints and the need to avoid "pepper-potting" around the countryside.
      Let me repeat to the hon. Gentleman that migration from north to south is a very small component of the demand for homes in the south-east. Most of the growth in housing need relates to people who already live in the

      1155
      region. It is a reflection of changing lifestyles, such as the growth in single-person households. That is where most of the increase in housing demand originates. Those involved include young people who want to set up home for the first time, and elderly people—who now live longer—wishing to remain independent. Those people are already there, and it would be irresponsible to deny them the prospect of housing.
      We have agreed that fixed-term housing targets should not be imposed on local planning authorities. That was the policy of the last Administration, who, for example, directed Berkshire, Bedfordshire and Kent to increase their housing numbers, and imposed 20-year fixed figures through regional planning guidance notes. Unlike that Administration, we have adopted a system that recognises changing circumstances. Under our system of plan, monitor and manage, reviews of the housing strategy are triggered when required, in response to monitoring information—as a minimum every five years, and sooner if there are signs of under or over-provision.
      I should like to deal now with the kernel of the hon. Gentleman's exposition of Conservative party policy—that local authorities should be able to veto all new housing developments in their local area. The policy states:
      "we will abolish Whitehall targets for building new homes",
      with local authorities left to
      "assess and meet the needs of their local population".
      The local veto proposals amount to a NIMBY's charter. They are unworkable and they would cause chaos. Local authorities would be under no obligation at all to meet the needs arising in the area of any other authority that could not be met. Inter-regional planning and strategic planning across a region would be impossible. There would be no burden sharing and there would be an effective freeze on the movement of people and business. I think that that would deter investment and damage future economic prosperity. It would also push up house prices in areas of high demand and reduce the provision of affordable housing, thereby denying homes for some of the sons and daughters of local people.
      It is quite unreasonable to expect local authorities acting alone to take decisions on housing provision in the regional interest. The difficulties that planning authorities
      1156
      have in agreeing where housing provision should be made is well illustrated by the problems that Oxfordshire county council and the district authorities of South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse had in agreeing where housing should be provided in the Didcot area. That in itself is a case study of the difficulties facing local authorities when presented with those challenging issues.
      I do not deny for a moment the difficulties of the south-east, but willingly acknowledge them. However, I do not agree at all that it is reasonable to respond to those difficulties, which are basically a need for housing, by saying that it is best for each local authority to determine what will happen in its own area and only what will happen in its own area. It is vital that we retain a system that requires each local authority to accept in a corporate and shared manner some of the responsibility for the needs and future requirements of the region as a whole. That is the type of system that we have tried to institute and on which we are making progress.
      I think that that approach is a much more mature way of addressing those difficult issues. It makes demands of local authorities and requires them to work together both with their neighbouring local authorities and with regional planning authorities. I believe, however, that if each region is seriously and maturely to address the current and future housing needs of the region as a whole, that is the only way forward. I also think that the Conservative party policy that we have heard expressed so far on those issues would be a recipe not only for chaos, but for a total abdication of responsibility for the housing needs of future generations in all our regions, but especially in the south-east, where there are particular pressures.
      I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not share his view about the way forward on those issues. I also do not think that Conservative Members have a realistic, meaningful and truly sincere approach to policy on those issues. I think that their policy would leave many families, and the children of many families, without any prospect of setting in the area where they have grown up.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve midnight.

  Deferred Divisions

    PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 396, Noes 17.

    Division No. 151]

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Clappison, James

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Allen, Graham

    Amess, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Clelland, David

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Clwyd, Ann

    Ashton, Joe

    Coaker, Vernon

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Coleman, Iain

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Collins, Tim

    Bailey, Adrian

    Connarty, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Barnes, Harry

    Cooper, Yvette

    Barron, Kevin

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Beard, Nigel

    Corston, Jean

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cousins, Jim

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cran, James

    Beggs, Roy

    Cranston, Ross

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Crausby, David

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Benton, Joe

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bercow, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dalyell, Tam

    Best, Harold

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Betts, Clive

    Darvill, Keith

    Blackman, Liz

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davidson, Ian

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Blizzard, Bob

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

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Blunt, Crispin

    Dawson, Hilton

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Day, Stephen

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Borrow, David

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Boswell, Tim

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Brady, Graham

    Doran, Frank

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Dowd, Jim

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Drew, David

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Browne, Desmond

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Edwards, Huw

    Burden, Richard

    Efford, Clive

    Burns, Simon

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Evans, Nigel

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fabricant, Michael

    Cann, Jamie

    Fallon, Michael

    Caplin, Ivor

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Casale, Roger

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Caton, Martin

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Cawsey, Ian

    Flight, Howard

    Chaytor, David

    Flint, Caroline

    Chope, Christopher

    Flynn, Paul

    1158

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Gale, Roger

    Kemp, Fraser

    Gibb, Nick

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Key, Robert

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Khabra, Piara S

    Goggins, Paul

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Gray, James

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Green, Damian

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Greenway, John

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Lammy, David

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Grocott, Bruce

    Laxton, Bob

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Leigh, Edward

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Lepper, David

    Hain, Peter

    Leslie, Christopher

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Levitt, Tom

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Lidington, David

    Hammond, Philip

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Hancock, Mike

    Linton, Martin

    Hanson, David

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Loughton, Tim

    Hawkins, Nick

    Love, Andrew

    Hayes, John

    Luff, Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Healey, John

    McCrea, Dr William

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McFall, John

    Hendrick, Mark

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Hepburn, Stephen

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Heppell, John

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Hesford, Stephen

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Hill, Keith

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Hinchliffe, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hoey, Kate

    McNulty, Tony

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    MacShane, Denis

    Hope, Phil

    McWalter, Tony

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    McWilliam, John

    Horam, John

    Madel, Sir David

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Maples, John

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Martlew, Eric

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mates, Michael

    Hutton, John

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Illsley, Eric

    Meale, Alan

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Merron, Gillian

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Jamieson, David

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Jenkins, Brian

    Miller, Andrew

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

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

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Mudie, George

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Mullin, Chris

    Joyce, Eric

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    1159

    Norman, Archie

    Spellar, John

    Norris, Dan

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Spring, Richard

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Olner, Bill

    Steen, Anthony

    O'Neill, Martin

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Stevenson, George

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Page, Richard

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Paice, James

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Streeter, Gary

    Paterson, Owen

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pearson, Ian

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Pickles, Eric

    Swayne, Desmond

    Pike, Peter L

    Syms, Robert

    Pollard, Kerry

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pound, Stephen

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Prior, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Rammell, Bill

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Randall, John

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Rapson, Syd

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Timms, Stephen

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Todd, Mark

    Robathan, Andrew

    Touhig, Don

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Tredinnick, David

    Trickett, Jon

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Rooney, Terry

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Watts, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wells, Bowen

    Roy, Frank

    Welsh, Andrew

    Ruane, Chris

    White, Brian

    Ruddock, Joan

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Ruffley, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Willetts, David

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Sawford, Phil

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Winnick, David

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Woolas, Phil

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Yeo, Tim

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Soley, Clive

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Clapham, Michael

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    McDonnell, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    1160

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    That—
    (1)at the sitting on 22nd March the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Election of a Speaker not later than Four o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and
    (2)if proceedings on any such Motion have not been completed before Four o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.
    The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 122.

    Division No. 152]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Caplin, Ivor

    Ainger, Nick

    Casale, Roger

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Caton, Martin

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cawsey, Ian

    Allan, Richard

    Chaytor, David

    Allen, Graham

    Chidgey, David

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Ashton, Joe

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Austin, John

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Baker, Norman

    Clelland, David

    Ballard, Jackie

    Clwyd, Ann

    Barnes, Harry

    Coaker, Vernon

    Barron, Kevin

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Beard, Nigel

    Coleman, Iain

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Connarty, Michael

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cooper, Yvette

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Corbett, Robin

    Benton, Joe

    Corston, Jean

    Best, Harold

    Cotter, Brian

    Betts, Clive

    Cousins, Jim

    Blackman, Liz

    Cranston, Ross

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Crausby, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Dalyell, Tam

    Borrow, David

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Darvill, Keith

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Brady, Graham

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Brake, Tom

    Davidson, Ian

    Brand, Dr Peter

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

    Breed, Colin

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Dawson, Hilton

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Browne, Desmond

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dobbin, Jim

    Burden, Richard

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Burnett, John

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Burstow, Paul

    Doran, Frank

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Dowd, Jim

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Drew, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Edwards, Huw

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Efford, Clive

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Cann, Jamie

    Ennis, Jeff

    1161

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Keetch, Paul

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Kemp, Fraser

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

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

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Flint, Caroline

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Flynn, Paul

    Key, Robert

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Khabra, Piara S

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fyfe, Maria

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Galloway, George

    Kirkwood, Archy

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Gerrard, Neil

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Lammy, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Laxton, Bob

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Lepper, David

    Goggins, Paul

    Leslie, Christopher

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Levitt, Tom

    Gorrie, Donald

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Linton, Martin

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Livsey, Richard

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Hain, Peter

    Love, Andrew

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McCabe, Steve

    Hancock, Mike

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hanson, David

    McDonnell, John

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    McFall, John

    Harris, Dr Evan

    McGrady, Eddie

    Harvey, Nick

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Healey, John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Hendrick, Mark

    McNulty, Tony

    Hepburn, Stephen

    MacShane, Denis

    Heppell, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Hesford, Stephen

    McWilliam, John

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hill, Keith

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hoey, Kate

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hope, Phil

    Martlew, Eric

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Meale, Alan

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Moore, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Hutton, John

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

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

    Illsley, Eric

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Jamieson, David

    Mudie, George

    Jenkins, Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Norris, Dan

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Oaten, Mark

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverhton SW)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Joyce, Eric

    Öpik, Lembit

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Pearson, Ian

    1162

    Pike, Peter L

    Stevenson, George

    Pollard, Kerry

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Pound, Stephen

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Rammell, Bill

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rapson, Syd

    Raynsford, Nick

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Rendel, David

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Timms, Stephen

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Todd, Mark

    Rooney, Terry

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Touhig, Don

    Rowlands, Ted

    Trickett, Jon

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Ruane, Chris

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Tyler, Paul

    Sanders, Adrian

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sawford, Phil

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wareing, Robert N

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Watts, David

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Webb, Steve

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Singh, Marsha

    White, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    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)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Winnick, David

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

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Soley, Clive

    Woolas, Phil

    Spellar, John

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Wyatt, Derek

    Steinberg, Gerry

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Cran, James

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Baldry, Tony

    Day, Stephen

    Beggs, Roy

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Evans, Nigel

    Bercow, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fallon, Michael

    Blunt, Crispin

    Flight, Howard

    Body, Sir Richard

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Boswell, Tim

    Fraser, Christopher

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gale, Roger

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Gibb, Nick

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Burns, Simon

    Gray, James

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Green, Damian

    Greenway, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Clappison, James

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hammond, Philip

    Collins, Tim

    Hawkins, Nick

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hayes, John

    1163

    Heald, Oliver

    Prior, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Randall, John

    Horam, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Ruffley, David

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lansley, Andrew

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Lidington, David

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Loughton, Tim

    Spring, Richard

    Luff, Peter

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McCrea, Dr William

    Steen, Anthony

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Streeter, Gary

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Swayne, Desmond

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Syms, Robert

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Taylor, Rt Hon john D (Strangford)

    Madel, Sir David

    Taylor, john M (Solihull)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Maples, John

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Mates, Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Waterson, Nigel

    Norman, Archie

    Wells, Bowen

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Ottaway, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Page, Richard

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Paice, James

    Willetts, David

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Yeo, Tim

    Paterson, Owen

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Pickles, Eric

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS
    That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 12648/00, a draft Council Regulation laying down the health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, and 12646/00, a draft Council Directive amending Council Directives 90/425/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards health requirements for animal by-products; and supports the Government's objective of achieving a revised Regulation to protect animal and public health whilst ensuring that controls are proportionate to the risk they are designed to address.
    The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 10.

    Division No. 153]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Ainger, Nick

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Benton, Joe

    Alexander, Douglas

    Best, Harold

    Allan, Richard

    Betts, Clive

    Allen, Graham

    Blackman, Liz

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Blizzard, Bob

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Ashton, Joe

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Borrow, David

    Austin, John

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Baker, Norman

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ballard, Jackie

    Brake, Tom

    Barnes, Harry

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Barron, Kevin

    Breed, Colin

    Beard, Nigel

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Browne, Desmond

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    1164

    Burden, Richard

    Galloway, George

    Burnett, John

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Burstow, Paul

    Gerrard, Neil

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Gidley, Sandra

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gorrie, Donald

    Cann, Jamie

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Casale, Roger

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caton, Martin

    Grocott, Bruce

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Chaytor, David

    Hain, Peter

    Chidgey, David

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hancock, Mike

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hanson, David

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Harvey, Nick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Healey, John

    Clelland, David

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hendrick, Mark

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Coleman, Iain

    Heppell, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Hesford, Stephen

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hill, Keith

    Corbett, Robin

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Corston, Jean

    Hoey, Kate

    Cotter, Brian

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Cousins, Jim

    Hope, Phil

    Cranston, Ross

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Crausby, David

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Darvill, Keith

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Davidson, Ian

    Mutton, John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

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

    Illsley, Eric

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jamieson, David

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dismore, Andrew

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn HaWeld)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Doran, Frank

    Dowd, Jim

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Edwards, Huw

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Efford, Clive

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Joyce, Eric

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Feam, Ronnie

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Keetch, Paul

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Flint, Caroline

    Kemp, Fraser

    Flynn, Paul

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

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Khabra, Piara S

    1165

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

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

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Lammy, David

    Mudie, George

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Mullin, Chris

    Laxton, Bob

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Lepper, David

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Leslie, Christopher

    Norris, Dan

    Levitt, Tom

    Oaten, Mark

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Linton, Martin

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Livsey, Richard

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Olner, Bill

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    O'Neill, Martin

    Love, Andrew

    Öpik, Lembit

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    McCabe, Steve

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    McDonnell, John

    Pearson, Ian

    McFall, John

    Pike, Peter L

    McGrady, Eddie

    Pollard, Kerry

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Pound, Stephen

    McIsaac, Shona

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    McNulty, Tony

    Quinn, Lawrie

    MacShane, Denis

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    McWalter, Tony

    Rammell, Bill

    McWilliam, John

    Rapson, Syd

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Raynsford, Nick

    Mallaber, Judy

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Rendel, David

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Ccv'try NW)

    Martlew, Eric

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Meale, Alan

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Merron, Gillian

    Rooney, Terry

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Roy, Frank

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Ruane, Chris

    Miller, Andrew

    Ruddock, Joan

    Moore, Michael

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    1166

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Sanders, Adrian

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Sawford, Phil

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Timms, Stephen

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Todd, Mark

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Touhig, Don

    Singh, Marsha

    Trickett, Jon

    Skinner, Dennis

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

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

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Soley, Clive

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Spellar, John

    Wareing, Robert N

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Watts, David

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Webb, Steve

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Welsh, Andrew

    Stevenson, George

    White, Brian

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Chope, Christopher

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    McCrea, Dr William

    Steen, Anthony

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Rail Services (London and the South-West)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that I do not need to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the past few months have been miserable ones for rail travellers in the south-west. The post-Hatfield investigation of gauge corner cracking and the worst floods on record have conspired to make railway disruption in the south-west the worst in the country.
Thanks to the engineering genius of Brunel, we in the south-west enjoy one of the best railway services in the country. In 1904, ours were the first trains to exceed 100 mph. Since the introduction of the InterCity 125 trains in the 1970s, it has been possible to travel between my Exeter constituency and London in two hours. The Minister will know that a travelling time of two hours to or from London is an important factor in business and investment.
Since Hatfield, we have been lucky to complete journeys between London and Exeter in three hours, and between London and Plymouth in four. Hardly a week has gone by without some stretch of the line between Paddington and Penzance being closed by Railtrack and passengers being shunted off the trains and on to buses. The main line between Exeter and Taunton is closed yet again this week, and next week it will be closed once more. On Monday, the important branch line between Exeter and north Devon was reopened for the first time since the floods in October. It was open for four hours. Deadlines were given after Hatfield, assuring us when the work would be finished: the first end date was December, followed by January, then Easter; it is now clear that the service will not be back to normal until well after that.
I recently attended a public meeting in Axminster, which is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)—not exactly a bastion of socialism. The member of the audience who called for the re-nationalisation of the railways received the best applause of the evening. I do not want to go into that argument here, as it has been well rehearsed elsewhere. I mention it merely to illustrate the depth of frustration and anger among ordinary west country people at the quality of service that they have been offered by the railways in recent months.
I have in the past accepted the argument that it would be a waste of taxpayers' money further to line the pockets of the privatised railways by buying them back, especially as that money could be used for investment. However, to quote a former Conservative Minister, I believe that Railtrack is drinking in the last chance saloon. I hope that the Minister agrees.
236WH
That is the sorry background to the debate. My reason for requesting it now is a recent decision made by First Great Western, which provides the inter-city service between London and the south-west, that will make matters even worse. Great Western, as most of us call the company, agreed some time ago to introduce a new half-hourly high-speed service between Cardiff and London. At some time in the past few months—we do not know when—the company became concerned that the new rolling stock that had been ordered for that service would not be delivered in time for the service to start in May, as scheduled. Rather than delay the introduction of the new Cardiff service, Great Western decided to take some of the high-speed trains that serve the south-west and use them on the Cardiff to London route. We in the south-west will have to put up with the old 1960s locomotives.
Coming on top of what we have suffered in the past few months, that decision is staggering. Great Western says that it was encouraged to make that change by the Strategic Rail Authority, because a failure to introduce the new Cardiff service on time would have been a breach of contract, which would have resulted in the company being fined. However, the introduction of the old 1960s trains in the south-west will mean a failure to meet maximum journey times, therefore a breach of contract will occur and, one assumes, fines will be levied.
The company and the Strategic Rail Authority say that only a small number of services will be affected, but that is simply not true. All services, including those still provided by the high-speed trains, will be slower to accommodate the slower 1960s locomotives in the timetable. Great Western's decision has been such a public relations disaster for the company in the south-west that the only possible reason for its being made is that the fine that would be levied for failing to introduce the new Cardiff service on time is by far the greater one. In effect, the travelling public in the south-west are being asked to make a further sacrifice to help Great Western out of a problem elsewhere.
What are we being offered in return? Free tea and coffee as we trundle along on the old, slow trains. Seriously, that is how Great Western representatives said that the company intended to compensate south-west passengers when they attended a meeting of the region's Labour Members of Parliament here at Westminster last month. As my excellent local paper, the Express and Echo, put it in a front-page editorial this week:
"The cost to individuals and businesses in terms of their time alone far exceeds the value of elevenses."
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that that offer simply added insult to injury.
Throughout this sorry saga, it has been extremely difficult to get straight answers to straight questions from either Great Western or the SRA. I am still waiting for replies to letters written a month ago. However, Great Western wrote to me last week, kindly inviting me to inspect the old 1960s rolling stock at Milton Keynes. The visit, which is scheduled to take all day, includes a buffet lunch. I have nothing against Milton Keynes, and I am sure that the food on offer would be delicious, but if Great Western honestly thinks that Members of Parliament have the time to go on a day trip to Milton Keynes to look at 40-year-old rolling stock, that says

237WH
something about the company's grasp on reality. I am 40, so I remember the 1960s trains extremely well from my childhood.
My fellow west country Members of Parliament and I want simple answers to simple questions. How much would Great Western have been fined for delaying the introduction of the new Cardiff service? How much will it be fined for breaching its maximum journey times in the south-west? Does the SRA not recognise that all our trains—not just those that will exceed their maximum journey time—will be slower? What efforts have been made by Great Western to recover its losses from the company that has failed to deliver the new rolling stock on time? If such a provision was not written into the contract, why not? How much money is being allocated to compensate passengers in the south-west, who are again being asked to bear the brunt of other people's mistakes? To what extent has the SRA been standing up for passengers? So far it seems to be more concerned about making life easy for the train operating company than for its passengers.
When Great Western representatives met Labour Members of Parliament, we asked about the wider issue of post-Hatfield compensation. Hon. Members will be aware that Virgin Trains, which also runs trains in the south-west, has been offering half fares in recognition of the disruption that passengers have suffered since Hatfield. I have already mentioned Great Western's bad joke about free tea and coffee for passengers on the old trains; well, the company told us that it intended, as part of a wider post-Hatfield package, to offer ticket reductions to some off-peak leisure travellers. That is totally inadequate; it is not the leisure traveller but the regular traveller who is not a season ticket holder who has suffered most since Hatfield, yet such travellers stand to get absolutely nothing from Great Western's proposed compensation package.
Just in case hon. Members feel that they have not heard enough, in the past few days I have been told that First Great Western is planning to cut the number of services on which it offers restaurant facilities. I have written to the company for clarification. In addition, I learned from a recent article in Rail magazine that First Great Western is seeking a two-year extension of its current franchise from the SRA. Unless the company undertakes a rapid rethink of the way it treats the people of south-west England, that will be unacceptable.
There are many reasons to feel hopeful about the medium and long-term future of rail services in the south-west. Railtrack and the rail companies have exciting investment plans for the region. We can expect faster services between Exeter and London to be introduced in a few years' time. Beyond Exeter, down to Penzance, even more time will be gained, owing to the new generation of tilting trains that can handle the bends of Devon and Cornwall much better. There is a prospect of more branch lines and stations being opened, and we can expect long overdue investment as well as improvements to the Exeter-Waterloo line. A railway renaissance in the south-west is in prospect. We need that desperately if our economic prospects are to continue to improve.
238WH
None the less, the current situation is dire. The appalling rail services of the past few months, coupled with the devastating impact of foot and mouth, are beating the stuffing out of the region. Tourism—our most important industry—has already been affected by the state of the trains, and it now stands on the brink because of foot and mouth. In the past few years, Devon and Cornwall have had much to boast about economically, including record investment and employment. However, if we are to sustain that record, we can ill afford the impact on our transport infrastructure of the chaos of the past few months. On behalf of all the people of the south-west, I suggest that it is time for the Minister to get together with his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and do what he does best—bang some heads together.
It would be an understatement if I were to say that the managements of First Great Western, Railtrack and the SRA have not exactly covered themselves in glory in the past few months. By way of an aside, may I ask whether it is really acceptable that it is impossible to get anyone at those organisations to answer the telephone after 5.30 pm? All three have shown scant regard—nay, contempt—for the people whom they are supposed to serve: the travelling public. Their recent performance does not give me confidence that they can bring about the railway revival that the country and the Government want, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can persuade me otherwise.
9.42 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: I am sure that all hon. Members present congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on being imaginative and fortunate enough to secure a one-and-a-half-hour debate this morning I should really call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend, because I have known him since he was 12. His family have a home in my constituency not far from where I used to live. I pay tribute to his growth and development and to his ability, now that he has reached the age of 40, to make such a splendid speech. I knew when I saw him at the age of 12 that he had a great future ahead of him.
All those who work and live in the west country and those of us with constituencies there are sadly aware that the hon. Gentleman's speech was spot on. It is extremely unfortunate that his description of the situation is so accurate. It is not only rail that has been devastated. The Automobile Association has said:
"The South West…remains remote and isolated. Expenditure per kilometre of local roads is the lowest of any region of England."
I am glad of the debate because it enables me to voice my concern about the transport network and transport infrastructure into the west country. I am not interested in blaming the Government, but in making them aware of the problems. I ask the Minister to look to the future and to find solutions. The debate provides an opportunity, not to ascribe blame, but to lay down markers as to ways in which we might resolve the problems.
The need for new railway lines is a major issue. I am a great train buff who wonders at Brunel's imagination in building a magnificent and scenic rail route between Exeter and Plymouth. The feat of engineering involved

239WH
in driving that railway along the cliffs above the sea is amazing. In the past few years, Dawlish has suffered the effects of global warming: the encroaching sea constantly buffets the embankment there, damaging the track and necessitating regular closure. Railtrack has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to shore up the gaps, but we know what will happen—King Canute did not succeed either. The sea will win when it wants to: not only will it destroy the track at Dawlish, but it will cut off the whole of the west country from main line traffic.
The Dawlish line is now the only one into Newton Abbot, Totnes, Plymouth and all stations to Penzance. Before the Beeching cuts, there was track between Exeter and Okehampton which continued to Plymouth. The Government must consider the introduction of new track before the sea washes away the existing structure. The area suffers damage from causes other than the sea; a few months ago an 80-tonne rock fell on the track at Teignmouth, which again caused the closure of the rail link near Dawlish. That incident was attributed to the change in rainfall patterns.
While I do not blame the Minister, I urge him to press Railtrack and all those involved in transport to plan a new route into Devon and Cornwall. I suggested—not without meeting the criticism that is typical in this country, especially from Liberal Democrats—the building of a new track alongside the A38 between Plymouth and Exeter. The two-hour mark is important between the capital and principal cities, but the two-and-a-half-hour mark is equally important. It should be possible to get from Plymouth to London in two and a half hours if new track were built through Haldon Hill, along the A38, straight into Plymouth. I am not wedded to that exact route, but I am wedded to the opening up of the west country. I want a commercial growth corridor to develop between Bristol and Plymouth that is as important as the existing London to Bristol corridor.
An increasing number of companies will not contemplate relocating in the west country because of the transport infrastructure. One company in my constituency is building an extension in Texas, because the work force and the transportation there are better than it can hope to find if it builds a factory in Totnes. A first-rate public transport infrastructure for the region is long overdue.
The Government might be concerned, as I am, about the multimodal study that was set up some two years ago to examine transport needs in the south-west. Rumour has it that there has not yet been a report, and that when it comes its proposed solution to our transport problems will be tolls on roads, no more rail, no more new roads and the focus of the west country to concentrate on Bristol rather than Plymouth and Exeter. I hope that the Minister will tell us that I am hopelessly wrong and that the multimodal study, whatever it is—it sounds like something from science fiction—will provide a more imaginative solution.
I have given the general background to the west country's appalling infrastructure problem in terms of road and rail. The future of rail is tenuous, and I shall give some vivid examples to support the hon. Member for Exeter. I am a great train user. I used to be a great plane user, having spent a long time in the aviation industry as lawyer, passenger and adviser to several airlines. I was persuaded by First Great Western to
240WH
change my habits and no longer fly from Plymouth to London. My decision to go by train was also influenced by British Airways, which packed in the Heathrow link and flew to Gatwick instead without stopping at Exeter any more.
The beauty of the night train is that one can board a train at Paddington and stay in the compartment at Plymouth until 7.30. It disturbs one's sleep patterns to be called out at about 5 am in one's pyjamas and told that the coach will no longer come off at Plymouth and that one will have to travel on to Penzance or get off immediately. Several passengers, including me, found ourselves standing on the platform with our suitcases in our pyjamas and shoes on bare feet as the sleeper went straight down to Penzance. That became a regular feature of sleeper travel until I drew it to the attention of the excellent managing director of First Great Western, of whom I cannot speak highly enough. The trouble is that his railway has some problems, which I am sure that he is tackling.
Having stopped the Plymouth sleeper, there is now no hot water due to a problem controlling it. When people pressed the button, they either scalded themselves or the water came out cold. As the company does not want passengers burned, there is now only cold water. It reminds me of my school days, but at 6 am I would prefer not to be reminded of them. In addition, there is no heating. The company has decided that it is bad for passengers. Not surprisingly, I am now sometimes the only person in that sleeper coach. I understand why.
The former managing director of West Country Television keeps me advised of his transport movements. Since his company was taken over by Carlton he can afford to go by train, so he was travelling up from Plymouth on the 8.20 am train last Monday. He rang me at 14.20hrs, having reached only Reading after a six-hour journey. I make that journey regularly and I can confirm that it now takes longer to travel from London to Plymouth than it did in the 1930s.
We should go back to the 1930s—get rid of Railtrack and First Great Western and have some steam engines back. For steam engine buffs such as me, there are two lines in my constituency, one between Buckfastleigh and Totnes and the other linking Kingswear, Churston, Paignton and Torquay. Why not go back to the age of steam? It cannot be worse than our experience under First Great Western. The rolling stock is 25 years old. As the hon. Member for Exeter said, instead of its being repaired, we shall be given a tour of the coaches at Wolverton and shown how wonderful they are. I have always wanted to go to Wolverton. I am told that it is near Milton Keynes.
Travelling first class to Plymouth by train is more expensive than flying Apex to Gibraltar. It costs more to travel first class to Plymouth than to travel to any European city on an excursion return ticket with a major airline. A first-class ticket to Plymouth costs £176—and the price seems to go up by the day. When one buys a ticket at Paddington station, one expects to travel by train; if one wants to go by bus, one buys a ticket at Victoria coach station for about a quarter of the price of a rail ticket. However, every time I buy a rail ticket, I find myself travelling by bus. I sometimes wonder whether buying a bus ticket would result in one ending up travelling by rail.

241WH
First Great Western says that one of the problems of investing in new rolling stock is that its franchise is not long enough and that a 20-year franchise is needed to make such an investment pay. I hope that the Minister will consider that point seriously, whichever company takes on the franchise. I wish to declare an interest: I am a shareholder in First Great Western—but it has been a very bad investment.
I am sure that the Minister has got the message from me and from the hon. Member for Exeter, although the hon. Gentleman's message is slightly different from mine. I am a great supporter of the railways, of the managing director of First Great Western and of the west country. We must ensure that we have the right infrastructure and that Railtrack and First Great Western deliver a proper 21st-century service to the people of the west country.
9.56 am
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on achieving this important debate. Transport is necessary to all Members of Parliament, to allow us to travel between Westminster and our constituencies, but it is especially important to those of us who live in the further-flung constituencies.
As we often have to be in two or three places at once, it would useful to have a TARDIS, and I wonder whether the Minister would consider investing in some research and development along those lines. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said that the multimodal transport study sounded rather like science fiction. Perhaps that is what we need. We certainly need to look to the future for transport in the south-west, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman mention some of the long-term strategic solutions.
The matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter are pressing. He referred to the frustration and anger felt by his constituents, but those emotions are felt more deeply the further west one goes. When the outrageous suggestion was made that we in the south-west should use old rolling stock and that south Wales should have the benefit of our already fairly old rolling stock, the reaction of my constituents in Plymouth was one of extreme anger.
My fine local evening newspaper, the Evening Herald, reported that Kimberly Watts-Fitzsimmons, a 19-year-old student from Plymouth who had been planning to catch a train to Southampton, had decided not to make the journey because of reports of delays and disruption. She told the reporter that she would not have felt certain of reaching the end of her journey. She said:
"Replacing the trains with older models is so typical down here. It is as if Devon and Cornwall are not important."
That attitude is reflected in the outrageous suggestion made by First Great Western at the presentation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter referred that a free cup of tea would fit the bill.
The Minister knows that transport is at the top of the agenda of the business community in the south-west. I shall use my few minutes to refer to a representation made by a business man who uses the Plymouth to
242WH
Paddington line several times a week to take him to his business in London. He was kind enough to send me a copy of the letter he sent to the managing director of First Great Western, in which he says:
"We in Plymouth have survived the problems during the three months ending December"—
which affected the whole country—
"but these are now compounded by matters which I am sure are under the control of First Great Western."
He wrote the letter on 12 February, but when I rang him just before this debate, he informed me that he had not yet received a reply. That speaks volumes about the company's attitude to a very good customer who probably spends considerably more than £10,000 a year on rail fares. That customer continues:
"We do understand, and appreciate, the disruption caused by the flooding and the apparently defective tracks."
Many people were willing to put up with that disruption for quite a long time. I saw the effects of it when I visited the national rail inquiry service, where several hundred people in my constituency were valiantly trying to give out information so that both business people and others could make sense of the journeys that they had to make.
However, the business man goes on to say:
"What is making us extremely angry is the fact that even when travelling by bus from Plymouth to Tiverton Parkway we are required to pay a First Class Fare for this part of the journey both to and from Tiverton Parkway and are then presented with rolling stock on which there are little or no buffet facilities and minimal staff on duty."
He describes how in February he made
"a profoundly unfortunate decision in travelling First Class from Plymouth to Paddington on Wednesday morning leaving Plymouth at 0730 hours. It is obvious from the 'special timetable' that the service between Plymouth and Exeter is now treated as a 'local' service since it stops not only at Newton Abbot and Totnes but also at Teignmouth and Dawlish. On leaving Exeter the train was supposed to stop at Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bristol, Swindon, Reading and Paddington. In fact, we also stopped at Bath, Chippenham, Didcot Parkway, Maidenhead and Slough"—
all familiar to those of us who use the line—
"each time spending precious minutes, although the train was already running 20 minutes late, sitting in stations for no apparent reason other than I assume, to generate additional revenue. The most annoying aspect of this journey was the total lack of stores for the buffet since apparently they had not been ordered the previous day."
So much for the offer of tea and coffee, which is ironic. He concludes his description of the journey thus:
"Instead of arriving at Paddington at 1209 we ultimately arrived at approximately 12.50!"
That man goes on to refer to the company's plans to transfer all the high-speed trains from the Penzance line, but I shall not go into detail, because other hon. Members have already done so. He says that the lack of information provided to regular customers such as him is "intolerable and dishonest". He has spoken to several other first-class and standard-class passengers and says that regular commuters now refer to the company as "the late Great Western".
The train is essential to that man's everyday business. He was looking forward to an early reply and explanation from the company, but has not yet received one. Instead, he has had a reply from the rail passenger committee, which says that it will be interesting to see First Great Western's response to his comments on

243WH
first-class bus travel. I will also be interested to see it, because the company urgently needs to address that matter. The committee refers to changes and possible improvements in the refreshment facilities. Free cups of tea and coffee all round may be appropriate, but will certainly not be sufficient
Mr. Steen: The hon. Lady is right to talk about catering facilities. A little leaflet was sent to me, saying that there will be a travelling chef on the service, but I get the impression that he will be travelling on his own because there will be no restaurant or buffet facilities.
Mrs. Gilroy: Perhaps the free cups of tea and coffee will give him some company for a short period, but he will have to do much more than that to have a viable business with customers.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the attention that he has given to my representations on behalf of constituents, particularly in connection with the deployment of high-speed trains, with which he will, no doubt, deal in his reply. I shall not go into the details of the rail passenger committee's comments, but I draw to his attention its reservation about whether the deployment of the old type 47 trains will give us an adequate service. In its letter to the business man whom I have quoted, the committee writes that its
"greatest fear is that an inadequate number of additional trainsets has been leased, with the result that even the reduced, slower, service will not in practice be maintained: there is literally no other main line rolling stock to be obtained, as it simply does not exist; all the more modern stock is fully utilised somewhere on the network. Given that 15 coach trains were once operated to Plymouth, pulled by 2 locos, there seems to be no excuse for overcrowding, but, if an inadequate amount of additional, albeit elderly, stock has been leased your fears may well be realised"—
that is, the fears of the business man that the company will not provide the type of service that it claims is possible, even with the elderly rolling stock.
I understand from the response of the rail passenger committee to the business man that Mr. Christopher Irwin, the chairman of the committee, has it in mind to conduct a public mid-franchise review of First Great Western later this year, and he urges the man to make his views known at that time. I in turn urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that that mid-term review takes place, perhaps sooner rather than later. In connection with the fears of the rail passenger committee about whether the plans will in the interim give us a proper service in the south-west, I also urge my hon. Friend to impress upon the company that cups of tea are not good enough and that it must consider giving far more significant compensation, particularly in respect of the replacement bus, service that is such a frequent occurrence, especially for passengers from the Plymouth area.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I am pleased to say that, following a decision made in the House last night, four of us who chair business in Westminster Hall can now be called Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mrs. Gilroy: I apologise for that oversight. It gives me great pleasure to be able to refer to you as Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Winterton.
244WH
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced this morning that unemployment has fallen to less than 1 million for the first time since the 1970s. A few people may be looking with anxiety to the future of their jobs—and so they should, if they work in some of the companies that are providing such poor service to our constituents. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's response to the points that have been made this morning.
10.9 am
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part in the debate, although I shall speak briefly because I do not want to intrude on the private grief of the south-west. We in Gloucestershire have our own difficulties, to which my hon. Friend the Minister has responded on a previous occasion, but I want to update the story and ask him to take the matter forward.
The issue of the railways is currently a difficult one for anyone who takes an interest in it, as we have been through a difficult year. I am pleased to say that my local service is almost back to normality, but we have, in effect, lost a year, as some of the proposals announced for last April have yet to take effect. We have had some pleasing news from First Great Western and from Virgin Trains, which wants to run a train through to Birmingham from Swindon—my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) is sitting next to me. We look forward to that service starting soon. However, we have lost a year, which is disappointing. Passenger numbers seem to be back up, but we have clearly not made progress.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make a state of the nation announcement about the services that have been promised. That would be pertinent, given that the refranchising process has begun. By chance, I had a quick word with Mike Taplin of Gloucestershire county council last week. He is worried about the speed at which refranchising is taking place and, in particular, about the role of the Strategic Rail Authority. As a result of hearing his concerns, I tabled some questions asking for clarification about what is happening, with particular reference to the Wessex franchise, which has caused some concern. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who introduced the debate—I congratulate him on doing so—nodding at that. Those of us who are not central to the Wessex deliberations but are affected by them none the less want to know whether there is serious bidding and whether we will get an improvement in the service rather than the deterioration that some of us fear.
My main reason for rising is to repeat my concerns about a serious lacuna in transport provision in the south-west. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has already referred to the south-west multimodal study of services between London and the south-west. I think that it is now lovingly referred to as SWARMS. I dread Hansard asking me what SWARMS stands for, as I am not sure who is swarming over our public transport system. Some of us are concerned about the way in which the railways figure in that study.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) spoke about the need for targets. I think that there is a black hole in Gloucestershire, down which the county disappears for the purposes of the

245WH
multimodal study. To some extent, I am prepared to accept that in respect of roads, as I have strong views about whether we should build roads, but I would welcome comments from my hon. Friend the Minister about the strategy for the rail system, perhaps with reference to the august body that I mentioned.
I make no apology for mentioning once again the need to redouble the tracks between Kemble and Swindon on the Cheltenham-Swindon line, as doing so is key to the development of business opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton said that her local business people are keen on the development of the railways in the south-west, particularly in Gloucestershire. The Confederation of British Industry has identified the need to improve the line between Cheltenham and Swindon as the most important factor in holding back business development in the area, and general customers agree, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to re-examine the proposals. I know that, at long last, discussions are taking place behind the scenes, and I have managed to work with Mike Obst of Gloucestershire county council to push redoubling up the transport planning and political agenda.
People have been frustrated and disappointed in their attempts to get trains running and to improve services. I have tried to meet Railtrack, the SRA and the train operating companies, with mixed success. It is most disappointing to find that they do not even talk to one another—or, if they do, they come back with slightly different messages, which is unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend the Minister kickstart proper discussions to ensure that we have a 21st-century rail service that can actually move people around? Such discussions would enable those in my parochial backyard to see that our rail service could be useful and something of which we are genuinely proud.
10.16 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on securing today's debate. I should declare an interest as a small shareholder in the South Devon and Torbay Steam Railway Society, which gives me a dividend of roughly £2 a year, on which I pay about 40p in tax.
There are three railway lines or routes into the far south-west, which I will split into the London to Exeter and the Exeter thereon parts. First, there is the front-door route, which is the old Brunel route from Paddington via Westbury to Exeter. Secondly, there is the side-door Paddington to Exeter via Bristol line, which train operators have been using recently to project that they are adding more services, whereas in fact they are merely increasing journey times to London from the south-west, which makes them less useful, and adding more London to Bristol services. Thirdly, there is the back-door line—the old Southern Railway route from Waterloo to Exeter—on which some operators go beyond Exeter. There is a daily service from Paignton and from Penzance to Waterloo. The service from Exeter to the rest of the county includes several branch lines—the Barnstaple, Exmouth and Torbay branch lines—and the rest of the main line to Plymouth.
There is a wonderful opportunity for competition in a privatised railway service because of the alternative routes in and out of the region. The problem is that the
246WH
infrastructure on all routes is old and decrepit and that necessary investment is taking place on only the side-door route, which is the route that we do not want because it is the least direct and has potentially the longest journey time. A number of old routes have fallen into disrepair: the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) mentioned the old route via Okehampton; there was another route past Exeter—an alternative to Newton Abbot—that went through the Teign valley and linked Christow, Ashburton and Buckfastleigh, but that is long gone, mostly built over and impossible to bring back. New routes that would speed up journey times have also been suggested. One is to take the line between Exeter and Newton Abbot through Haldon Hill to bypass the seaside route, which would be an extraordinarily expensive feat of engineering, but probably no more so in modern terms than Brunel's seaboard route.
The hon. Member for Totnes suggested bypassing that route all the way to Plymouth, but that would also bypass Totnes and the great railway town of Newton Abbot. In talks with Railtrack representatives on Monday about the possibility of such a plan, they said that it could be done. A feasibility study would be needed, the permission of all the landowners along the route would have to be sought and the councils involved would have to be consulted; then, assuming that a funding package could be assembled, such a scheme might be possible in three decades. It is a long-term proposal, which my constituents would oppose as we already lie on a branch line some distance from the main route. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would put us even further away from that route than we are now.
However, Railtrack assured me that the work being done on the coastal route between Exeter and Newton Abbot is both substantial and successful and should see the line safely through at least the next two decades. The foundations are being underpinned to prevent further slippage of the ballast upon which the rails rest, which can be breached in strong storm conditions. Thus, there is a future for that stretch of railway, which is considered by many in the west country to be our shop window—the starter for journeys into the west country that whets people's appetite for the rolling hills and the beauty further down the track. The important thing is to reduce journey times, to increase reliability and to ensure that there is a good, modern link with the capital.
Mr. Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend will recall our discussion with Railtrack in which it was made clear that the long-term prospects of major rerouting in three decades—the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) may be prepared to wait for 30 years but most of us are not—ran the risk of diverting attention from action that is necessary now and of insufficient sums being spent on upgrading the route and tackling the various engineering difficulties throughout Cornwall. My hon. Friend, inadvertently, did not mention the route beyond Plymouth, which is extremely important. No doubt he will come to it in a moment.
Mr. Sanders: I certainly was going to mention it. My hon. Friend knows that to get anywhere else by rail, people in Cornwall must go through the beautiful county of Devon, so whatever happens there is crucial to the future of rail services the other side of the Tamar.

247WH
The Government and the companies must consider the three options and decide which route to invest in. For example, there is more likely to be a future for the Paddington-Bristol line than for the Westbury line, which links only to Taunton. The Paddington-Bristol line goes on to Wales, or north to Gloucestershire and other destinations, or south into Somerset. There is more potential business in that line and a greater return on investment is likely.
The Waterloo line is the most overlooked. Large parts of the line between Yeovil junction and Exeter are single track because one part of the track was ripped up in a cost-cutting exercise about 20 years ago. If it was double-tracked, it would speed up journey times. If services could be introduced on a double-tracked line on the Waterloo route and the train became an express service after it had passed through Devon and Cornwall, journey times would be significantly reduced to the point where competition would be possible with the fastest times on the Paddington route. That sort of competition in the railway services linking Devon with the rest of the country would lend to an increase in passenger numbers and inward investment, and Adjournment debates such as this one would become unnecessary.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. As he knows from my correspondence about the need for a Kingskerswell bypass and improved road building on the A303-A30, which is still short of dual carriageway into the capital, the west country is poorly served by road as well as rail. The railway line north of Exeter has vulnerable points at Cowley bridge when the water rises too high and the bridge is closed to traffic, all rail services to most of Devon and all of Cornwall, except for the Waterloo link, are cut off. That line, too, is vulnerable where it is single tracked, because there are no passing points when a train breaks down. That route must be examined—
Mr. Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sanders: I was getting to the end, so it will have to be a quickie.
Mr. Steen: It will just be a quickie. I merely wanted to express my support for the hon. Gentleman's approach. I would willingly forgo my campaign for a new line between Exeter and Plymouth if existing services were improved. His views on Waterloo and Exeter are interesting and important: I agree entirely that competition is lacking.
Mr. Sanders: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The water here is always more pleasant than south-west water—and certainly a good deal cheaper. I shall end on that note.
10.26 am
Mr. Robert Syms: It is a pleasure to see you in your place chairing our proceedings today, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on initiating our important debate. We have heard a sorry catalogue of woe that has had a tremendous impact on the south-west which as a region
248WH
has not been well treated by Governments of all political persuasions. Our local authority grants are less than other regions' and our road network attracts less investment.
The clear point emerging from this morning's debate is the economic impact of disruption to the rail network. From London, it is possible to reach Manchester and Leeds much quicker than parts of the south-west.
Mr. Steen: And Madrid.
Mr. Syms: Indeed.
The economic prospects of the south-west are somewhat disparate. I represent one of the richer areas of the region, in south-east Dorset, and Wiltshire, too, is fairly well off, but as one moves westwards, especially as one passes into Cornwall, the problems of unemployment and deprivation become more apparent. Cornwall's picturesque scenery makes it is easy to forget how many problems need to be tackled in the county. Great attention is given to inner-city areas, but Cornwall has been deprived of the attention that it deserves given its economic prospects.
Lying at the end of the railway line adds to Cornwall's difficulty. The disruption that has been continuing for some months must have had an adverse impact on inward investment and on people with businesses in the south-west travelling to other areas to drum up business. It is a serious problem and I hope that the Minister will assure us today that things will get better.
The rail network has witnessed a tremendous 26 per cent. increase in passenger numbers in the past five years—due in part to privatisation and in part to rising GDP—which has put tremendous pressure on the network. Much of it is ageing after decades of under-investment, so it struggles to cope with the increase. Recent tragic accidents have led to a loss of confidence among both passengers and rail industry management. I will not describe it as over-reaction, but part of the fallout of the Hatfield crash is that the many repairs and speed reductions have made it extremely difficult for the network to provide anything like a normal service in any particular region. More recent difficulties, including the collision the other day and what looks like a genuine accident near Selby, have not helped the general situation. It is vital that the Government, the Strategic Rail Authority, the train operating companies and Railtrack do what they can to improve public confidence in a means of travel that remains comparatively safe. Rail is an industry of the future, not of the past. As I listened to the contributions today I reflected on the fact that if Isambard Kingdom Brunel were head of Railtrack, confidence would be higher and we would have made a great deal more progress.
There have been many good contributions today. When my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) started to reminisce about the childhood of the hon. Member for Exeter, I thought we might be treated to some stories, but we did not get that far. The hon. Member for Exeter set the general scene very well and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes described how it affects both him and other south-west Members of Parliament and their constituents. He talked about the difficulties of sleeper services, heating, water and ticket costs, and made a good point about buying tickets to travel on the train and finding himself on the bus and vice versa. It has been a good debate.

249WH
The SRA made an announcement yesterday about its future plans. It unveiled a £60 billion overhaul of the railways, although it warned that it did not think that Railtrack had the financial and management capability to carry out much of what it regarded as the future. There has been press speculation about disagreements between Sir Alastair Morton and the Department, so the Minister might take this opportunity to express confidence in the Government's appointee. Hon. Members would be interested to hear any comments about that announcement and the impact that it may have.
The multimodal study has also been mentioned. This has been a wonderful Government for consultants. People have looked at problems, but they have not always come forward with solutions, even after four years of Labour Government. We shall look to the Minister for an indication of when the study will report and what solutions it might offer to the difficult traffic problems in the south-west. We need clear answers on those matters from the Minister.
There is no doubt that the disruption, particularly the problems with First Great Western, has greatly upset people in the south-west. Many hon. Members have full mailbags on the subject. In view of the assurances that had been given, I have asked Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions whether Easter will be the date for getting the rail network back to normal. Is that still the date or has it slipped again? A number of hon. Members pointed out that we were originally told December, then January and now Easter.
It is particularly important that we get the rail network back by Easter, because it is an important time of the year for the many people working in the tourist industry. Foot and mouth in rural areas is having a dreadful effect on the tourist industry. Until the rail network gets back to normal, those areas that are not affected by foot and mouth but that rely on tourism, such as Torquay and other places in the south-west, will be in difficulty. The Government must give assurances that the network will return to normal, that passengers can be confident that they will arrive at their destination at about the right time, and that the situation will improve, not worsen.
10.35 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on securing the debate on rail services between London and the south-west. I also congratulate him on the forcefulness and eloquence of his speech.
The debate has been unexpectedly wide-ranging and there have been many valuable contributions, several of which reflected the considerable concern that is felt in the south-west about transport. I am unable to respond to them in detail, as I must focus on the key issue of the redeployment of rolling stock on First Great Western services, but I will study the record of the debate in the Official Report and write, where possible, to hon. Members to respond to their questions.
250WH
First, I must firmly rebut any suggestions that the Government have neglected the transport concerns of the south-west. In December 2000, we announced our local transport settlement, which awarded a doubling of investment to local transport in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset. That included major schemes such as the north corridor for the benefit of Plymouth, the western bypass for Barnstaple—
Mrs. Gilroy: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: I will give way after I have concluded the roll of honour.
Taunton benefits from the north-west package scheme and Cornwall from the Camelford bypass. All those schemes have been warmly welcomed. I had the pleasure of visiting Plymouth and Taunton as part of the roll out of the announcements. Last week, I was in Cornwall to share in the county's celebration of its becoming the first county to receive a centre of transport excellence award. I also announced a £500,000 investment in bus projects in the county.
Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for the investment in the northern corridor. During his recent visit to the south-west, he had a memorable experience of our air transport. I hope that he will continue to examine that important aspect of travel, as it is of particular importance to business travellers. It is crucial for business investment in Plymouth that our airport is extended.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about rail services rather than air services, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to slip in a response.
Mr. Hill: It was our recognition of the importance of those airport facilities that led to the announcement on the Plymouth north corridor transport scheme, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for that news.
I was aware of the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter about the late delivery of new class 180 rolling stock, which has necessitated the transfer of rolling stock to the Cardiff route. I have corresponded with him on the issue, as has the SRA. The House is aware that the Government are unhappy with the performance of rolling stock manufacturers. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asked Sir Alastair Morton, the chairman of the SRA, to set up a pan-industry working group to identify and tackle the problems being encountered in bringing new stock into service. Although some progress has been made, the problems on Great Western show that there is much more to do.
I assure hon. Members that Ministers will continue to put pressure on rolling stock manufacturers and make it clear that their performance in delivering new stock is unacceptable. Manufacturers must ensure that they provide new stock on time and that it is reliable from the outset. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will soon meet rolling stock manufacturers and other key players in the rolling stock acceptance process to ensure that efforts to improve delivery times and reliability are redoubled.
Mr. Steen: What is the problem in the manufacture of rolling stock? Is there a technical problem? Is there no

251WH
money in the business? Are there no companies in this country that make it? I do not understand what the problem is.
Mr. Hill: In fact, few companies in the United Kingdom make rolling stock. Much of it is delivered by companies based in Belgium, Canada and Switzerland, and one problem is that the companies are unused to delivering new rolling stock to the British rail system. Notwithstanding the difficulties that we have experienced with the railway system in recent years, the problem is actually a positive reflection of the system's expansion, because new demands are being placed on rolling stock manufacturers.
There are also technical considerations. In carrying out trials, long lengths of track are required so that adequate speeds can be built up to test stock, but such track does not exist in this country—it is available in Switzerland, but not in the United Kingdom. We are working on the possibility of securing provision that would aid proper testing in advance of the delivery of rolling stock. The subject is an interesting one, and I dare say that the hon. Gentleman and I could discuss it at length, but I must return to the key issues that concern my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.
As my hon. Friend knows, the transfer of rolling stock has been brought about by the delay in delivery of the class 180 rolling stock. As a result, First Great Western has been forced to implement contingency plans to enable it to meet franchise commitments. First Great Western has a franchise commitment to provide a half-hourly service from London to Cardiff via Bristol from May; currently, the service is hourly for most of the day. To meet the commitment, First Great Western will, as a stopgap, transfer to the Cardiff route some of its high-speed trains that are currently in use on services to the south-west. Locomotive-hauled carriages with class 47 locomotives will, in turn, be introduced as a stopgap on some services to the south-west.
Although it is clearly not ideal, the SRA has agreed to the transfer of rolling stock because it was thought to be the most appropriate way to enable First Great Western to meet its franchise commitments and minimise disruption to passengers. High-speed trains running at 125 mph are required on the Cardiff route to meet the commitment to a half-hourly service, which would not be possible using locomotive-hauled stock that has a maximum speed of only 95 mph. The two high-speed train sets that will be transferred will be used to provide eight services on the London to Cardiff route—four in each direction. First Great Western is able to provide the full timetable only by transferring stock.
Mr. Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hill: With respect, I will not. Should the relatively limited time available allow, I shall return to the hon. Gentleman, because I want to talk about Waterloo.
The effect on services to the west of England will be relatively minor. At present, there are 16 services to Plymouth in the timetable, seven of which continue to Penzance; in the opposite direction, 14 services are provided, of which seven start at Penzance. Mathematicians in the Chamber will appreciate that that is a total of 30 services, most of which are operated
252WH
by high-speed trains. Only two are operated by locomotive-hauled stock, and a further four services will be provided by locomotive-hauled stock from May; therefore, only six services out of the 30 in both directions will be locomotive-hauled. The stock is not a great deal older than the high-speed trains, and will be refurbished before it is introduced. As a result, the degree of comfort offered will be equal to if not better than on the high-speed trains currently in use. I also understand that First Great Western has invited representatives from several rail interest organisations to its depot at Wolverton to view the stock before and after refurbishment—indeed, the invitation has been extended to local Members of Parliament, and I dare say that the visit could be made without benefit of a buffet lunch.
Three out of the four services that will become locomotive-hauled from May will exceed the maximum journey time specified in the passenger service requirement: one will exceed it by 10 minutes, one by 12 minutes and one by 27 minutes, the last making three additional stops on the way to London, at Pewsey, Castle Cary and Newbury. The Strategic Rail Authority has granted First Great Western temporary derogations from the maximum journey times for those three services for the duration of the summer 2001 timetable.
The Strategic Rail Authority considers that First Great Western has made efforts to honour its franchise commitment to provide the half-hourly service to Cardiff despite the late delivery of new stock, and that the company has tried to minimise adverse effects on passengers. However, on the advice of the Strategic Rail Authority, First Great Western is considering compensating benefits for passengers in the south-west. I understand that it will release details shortly. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that the compensation offered should constitute more than an occasional free lunch or a cup of coffee.
The locomotive-hauled stock will be kept on lease for two years. Therefore, even when it has been replaced, First Great Western will have it on the sidelines for use for special events or when other stock is unavailable.
Mr. Sanders: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bradshaw: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) first.
Mr. Sanders: Why are the franchise requirements for the Cardiff service more important than those for the south-west?
Mr. Hill: I understand that key question and I did try to answer it. The answer in a nutshell is that to meet the franchise requirements for the Cardiff service, half-hourly services will be required from May. The services that First Great Western will be providing to the south-west comply with the passenger service requirements written into the contract for the south-west. First Great Western is not prioritising one service rather than another, but trying to comply with both contract requirements in terms of its franchise?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am extremely pleased to hear a suggestion that the offer of compensation may be about

253WH
to be improved. Should not First Great Western compensate passengers for the full difference between the sum that the company would have been fined for breaking the Cardiff contract and the sum that it might be fined for breaking the south-west contract? Clearly, the first fine would have been much greater than the second will be. Furthermore, why do rail companies not write into their contracts with providers a provision that if rolling stock is late, compensation should be received? That compensation could be passed on to passengers, or, if necessary, the providers could be sued.
Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend has made two important suggestions and I shall follow up on both of them. I shall comment further about compensation and use some rather strict words in due course. However, I take my hon. Friend's point.
Mrs. Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend also respond, either now or later, to the point made by the rail passengers committee in relation to whether sufficient rolling stock has been leased to maintain services as predicted?
Mr. Hill: I am not sure that I shall respond to that point in this debate, but I shall follow it up in writing.
I shall now explore the relationship between Ministers and the Strategic Rail Authority. During my brief parliamentary career, I have noticed that Ministers are generally required to intervene in practically every aspect of our society, economy and public policy, despite the desire often expressed by all political parties to roll back the frontiers of the state. However, neither Ministers nor the SRA have direct control over the deployment of rolling stock. Rail services are provided under a franchise agreement, compliance with which is monitored by the SRA, having regard to Ministers' directions and guidance. Franchise agreements typically specify the outputs that should be provided, such as the number and the quality of services, but they do not specify how a train operator must provide such outputs.
If rolling stock is fit for use—if it has the necessary safety acceptance—its deployment is a decision for the train operator. The SRA has the power to intervene only if there is a failure to meet contractual commitments. Such intervention includes the derogations agreed with First Great Western for the three services that exceed the permitted maximum journey times.
Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister confirm that he and the SRA will be prepared to intervene if the outcome of the change of arrangements that he has outlined—giving priority to Cardiff rather than the south-west—turns out to be even more disadvantageous to the south-west and the predicted journey times prove to be overly optimistic?
Mr. Hill: If the service outputs set out in franchise requirements are not met, the SRA has the right to intervene. Ministers will scrutinise the SRA's activities in such cases, especially in the light of the powerful passions that have been evinced in this debate. I congratulate all hon. Members from the south-west on their forceful observations on the matter, which I am certain will have been carefully noted by First Great Western.
254WH
I emphasise that the substitution of the high-speed trains is a temporary measure. High-speed trains will be restored to west country services as new trains become available on the Cardiff route. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter is concerned about the service that is provided to his constituents, but it would be inappropriate to continue to criticise First Great Western on that matter given that, in truth, it is reacting to the failings of Alsthom Transport. I hope that my hon. Friend will draw some comfort from First Great Western's efforts to minimise disruption and inconvenience. I also hope that the debate acts as a timely reminder to Alsthom to deliver the new stock as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members rightly raised the need for passengers to be adequately compensated for the disruption that they have suffered and, in some cases, continue to suffer. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomed the industry's announcement of two compensation packages worth £70 million for passengers whose journeys were severely disrupted by speed restrictions and flooding. Passengers who hold season tickets of a month or longer can claim up to four weeks' free travel. Weekly and daily ticket holders will be able to claim compensation under train operators' passenger charters. While disruptions continue I urge the industry to consider all compensation claims sympathetically and to deal with them quickly, but compensation packages alone cannot make up for delays and inconvenience experienced by passengers. Train operators must work hard to rebuild passenger confidence and I urge them to consider other ways to attract passengers back on to the railways.
I look to the future of train services in the south-west. I am pleased that a number of improvements to such services are in the pipeline. First Great Western will introduce 40 new vehicles later in the year, with a further 30 to be introduced next year. I understand that Railtrack and the SRA are assessing various options for improving the Great Western main line, focusing on the relief of bottlenecks on the route, which are a significant cause of delays. That work should bring tangible improvements for passengers in the south-west.
As for the franchise replacement process, the replacement of the current short franchises is essential to the delivery of a better railway. The SRA has already begun a programme of franchise replacements to put in place new contracts that will facilitate the achievement of those goals. Franchise replacement aims to secure a sustained improvement in performance and a step change in customer service through increased levels of investment. The SRA is working to replace the shorter term franchises, but has not ruled out replacing the longer term franchises, of which Great Western is one, should the opportunity arise.
Earlier this month, the SRA announced that seven companies and consortiums had prequalified to submit proposals for the new Wessex franchise, which will comprise services currently provided by Wales and West Passenger Trains in the west country and some of the services provided by South West Trains, including the line from Waterloo to Exeter referred to by the hon. Member for Torbay. The SRA has stated that one of the key objectives of the Wessex franchise is to increase track capacity on that line to enable a more frequent service to be run, thus providing an alternative to the

255WH
busy A303 and the Great Western main line. The seven bidders will now submit proposals to the SRA for consideration. The authority is encouraging those parties to consult local partners so that their aspirations can be taken into account in formulating bids.
South West Trains' franchise is also subject to replacement negotiations and the SRA is considering the best and final offers of three parties. It has stated that providing relief for capacity constraints on the approach to Waterloo is a prerequisite for the replacement of the franchise. However, with the transfer of the Exeter-Waterloo service to the Wessex franchise, the franchisee will no longer provide long-distance services to the south-west. I understand that a decision on the preferred bidder is expected shortly.
In conclusion, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and other hon. Members are encouraged by the planned improvements to rail services to the south-west. As today's debate has shown, there is still some way to go before we can achieve our vision for the railways set out in our 10-year plan for transport. The legacy of years of neglect cannot be turned around overnight, but through the Transport Act 2000, the establishment of the SRA and the £60 billion that we have earmarked for the railways, a framework has been put in place to turn that vision into reality.
Mr. Steen: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as another three minutes remain for the debate, I should like to make a further contribution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That decision does not lie entirely with me. If the hon. Gentleman wants to address the House for the second time, he may do so only with the permission of the House as a whole. Is the House in accord?
Hon. Members: Aye.
10.58 am
Mr. Steen: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for giving me the opportunity to speak for another two minutes. I do not expect the Minister to reply, but I ask him, in the spirit of support for all who have spoken, whether it would be possible for him to meet the managing director of First Great Western after this debate to discuss the issues that have been raised by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents; he should be interested in the comments of both individual Members and their constituents. Each individual point should be raised because the problem relates not only to rolling stock, but to Railtrack itself. Although the managing director accepts many of the criticisms that I have made and many of the problems that we have highlighted, he has encountered major problems with the way in which Railtrack manages its affairs.
The Minister mentioned the lack of management, and that is one of the problems that we face in Railtrack. We lack engineers, experience and knowledge. I do not suggest that we should import more than rolling stock from Switzerland and Canada, but we must address the shortcomings of Railtrack's management, which is compounding the problems and making matters difficult for First Great Western.
Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the Minister's attention back to his point about the role of rolling stock supply companies, especially Alsthom? We did not fully cover that in debate.
Mr. Steen: I shall draw the Minister's attention to that important point—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have run out of time, and money.

International Sporting Events
11 am
Mr. Stephen Day: This is an important subject that relates to the Commonwealth games in Manchester. It is desirable that Britain succeeds in bids to host major international sporting events. Hosting an event inevitably encourages a nation's people to be enthusiastic about sport, and we should all approve of that. It also has huge economic benefits, and increases a country's chances of winning at the event.
If sports bodies can persuasively argue the case for a national bid, it is vital that the Government offer firm leadership. Sadly, while Labour has talked a good game, it has characteristically failed to deliver. It has succeeded only in causing chaos, instead of offering leadership and encouragement. It has alternated between interference and head-in-the-sand indifference.
Nowhere has that attitude been more evident than during our 2006 World cup bid. Labour promised in its April 1997 manifesto:
"We will provide full backing to the bid to host the 2006 football World Cup in England."
The Prime Minister was quoted in campaign literature as saying that he was fully behind that project. However, the first sign that all was not well was the decision to appoint the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), as a special envoy. That was a puzzling decision, given that he had tabled an early-day motion in support of South Africa's bid to host the tournament. Labour was content to talk up the project for as long as it appeared politically expedient. At the first sign that our prospects were bleak, it wanted nothing more to do with the bid—it hung the bid team out to dry.
Mr. Christopher Fraser: May I assist my hon. Friend? In the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I questioned the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) about his endorsement of South Africa's bid. His response was that what one says in opposition is separate from what one does in government. That is indicative of the Government's attitude.
Mr. Day: Indeed. My hon. Friend could have been referring to many Labour policies, and its promises before the election and lack of delivery afterwards.
Nelson Mandela went to Zurich for the announcement of FIFA's decision, while the Prime Minster stayed at home. The hon. Member for West Ham has unapologetically admitted:
"I knew that if the Prime Minister came out, and we lost the bid it would have been portrayed as 'Blair's humiliation'. I could not guarantee we would win and for that reason I couldn't recommend he travel."
Such important bids require the attention of the country's leaders. Whether the Prime Minister attends should not depend on what publicity might result. That says everything about the Government's attitude and how they operate. Days after the bid was lost, the current Minister for Sport said:
"We never had a chance of winning".
258WH
The situation at Wembley has been quite a saga. Thanks to the Government, the World cup bid has given very little help to our chances of hosting future events. The Wembley fiasco has damaged our efforts even further. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will provide further details, but I will briefly rehearse what has happened.
In July 1999, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that Wembley, complete with athletics, would be the
"centrepiece of a future Olympic bid".
In November 1999, the Minister for Sport said that she would scrap the design if she could, because it was
"the wrong kind of stadium".
The following month, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport took the capricious, and much criticised, decision to scrap the design that he had praised so warmly He later explained that the Government believed that they
"could secure our aim—the best long-term deal for football, rugby league and athletics—only by removing athletics from Wembley."
It is strange, then, that Sir Rodney Walker, who took over from Ken Bates as chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. in December 2000, has said that
"architects are examining design solutions for accommodating athletics".
That is a history of contradiction and indecision, and all the chaos and confusion have thrown into grave doubt our hopes of hosting a future Olympic games.
A more immediate concern is the need to deliver on a national pledge to host the 2005 world athletics championships. The Government say that that will happen at Picketts Lock, but there is no design, and transport concerns have not been properly addressed. We face a race against time to get things ready by the necessary date. More crucially, there is a large question mark over the funding of a stadium at Picketts Lock. I will leave it to my hon. Friend to explain that further, but the Government's claims do not tally with what Sport England has said. As happened with the dome, officials might be made scapegoats for a fiasco created in Whitehall.
Can the Minister shed more light on the proposals to base an Olympic bid around a stadium in east London, at Stratford? Do the Government support them? Is it true that a feasibility study would cost £300,000? Is it also the case that the British Olympic Association cannot afford to pay for that and that neither her Department nor UK Sport is willing to pay for it?
Manchester is nearer to home for me, and also for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Our fantastic success at the Sydney Olympics bodes well for our hosting of the 2002 Commonwealth games. Preparations are progressing well. The games will he based around a £90 million stadium, with a running track, built on an earth infill. The venue will hold 38,000 spectators. After the games, it will be converted for football use and become Manchester City's new home. That will please many of my constituents, a fair proportion of whom support City. An extra tier of seating, which will increase capacity to 48,000, will be built beneath the existing two tiers.
Sport England has made £114 million available for the games. The Manchester Commonwealth 50 pool, which is the swimming pool that will be used in the

259WH
games, received £22 million in May 1997. Eastlands SportCity, which incorporates the Commonwealth games stadium and the UK Sports Institute north-west network centre, received £92 million in March 1999. Central Government have pledged to meet the expected £10.5 million cost of the opening and closing ceremonies.
Local people are still worried that there will be a £20 million funding gap, which I understand—although it will help if the Minister explains the situation—will be passed on to the Manchester ratepayer. I presume that that means the people of the city of Manchester rather than Greater Manchester, but I would like her to clarify the point.
A Commonwealth games official stated that
"there is a real concern that there is going to be a £20 million hole and it is going to be very difficult to reduce that. The organisers have not attracted enough well known multinational companies. I am confident that the organisers could raise £30 million, but the problem is going to be where the other £20 million is going to come from."
Local people in my area, and especially those who live within the city of Manchester, are worried. The reluctance of companies to come forward is a result of many of them getting their fingers burned with the dome. The dome disaster has reached up to the north-west and caused a lack of funding from private finance. The promised Commonwealth games will be the biggest multi-sporting event in Britain since the 1948 Olympics, and the whole country is looking forward to it, but we need more than empty rhetoric, because the games will bring massive economic benefits to the Greater Manchester area, but will also bring economic concerns unless it is made clear what is to lie done about the potential gap between the available money and the cost.
I would like the Minister to assure me that, although Manchester city council has said that it will underwrite the games, that will not involve the whole of Greater Manchester and especially not my borough in Stockport. A shortfall would be a disaster for council tax and business rate payers in the city of Manchester, but there would be extreme concern were it to be spread to other local authorities beyond the borders of the city. I hope that she will clarify the situation.
You share my interest in transport issues, so you will understand my concerns, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because the Commonwealth games is coming to Manchester, I hope that the Minister will make representations to her ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to complete the Manchester airport eastern link road. The central section has been built, but it is not connected to the airport. I know that the eastern section—the Poynton bypass—is of especial interest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it will link the central section with the A6. It would also be nice if we could have the Hazel Grove A6 bypass in time for the games. It would be helpful if the Minister made representations on behalf of the numerous constituencies along the route so that the link road is built in time for the games. That is now unlikely, because the Government made the mistake of cancelling it.
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended that the Government review the finances of the games, so that the scale of central Government support could finally be decided. The most worrying
260WH
factor is the uncertainty, at the heart of which is the Government's lack of clarity about what will be their level of real—as opposed to rhetorical—support. The Committee also suggested that the Government should involve themselves more closely in the strategic management of the games. Manchester's ratepayers will not have been reassured, thus far, by the Government's silence on these fundamental issues.
If nothing else, the debate gives the Minister the opportunity to set the record straight, and I look forward to hearing her do so. I hope that she will be able to reassure us about this important issue. I thank hon. Members for listening. Finally, although I am grateful to be able to raise such matters in any forum in the House, they should be debated in the main Chamber of the House of Commons, not in this mock Chamber.
11.16 am
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be strange to have a Wednesday morning without seeing you, as I normally would in the Modernisation Committee.
I came here this morning intending only to listen, but I am afraid that the final comment by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) has forced me to my feet. It implied that Conservative Members do not accept parliamentary democracy as we do. The House decided that Westminster Hall was a good idea.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is precisely because Conservative Members believe in parliamentary democracy that we believe that debates such as this should be dealt with in the traditional way in the main Chamber of the House of Commons? Perhaps 30 or 40 Members would then have been present, not five or six. If—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The debate is about the staging of international sporting events, not whether there should be sittings in Westminster Hall—although on that subject, I am happy to tell hon. Members that last night the House took a decision, for which I am grateful, officially to reappoint myself and three colleagues as additional Deputy Speakers. That was long overdue.
Mr. Caplin: I fear that I am straying into business of the House matters, which is not allowed. Suffice it to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that with your guidance we now debate four times as many Back-Bench issues as before. That is why we have the time to debate this important matter.
I start where the hon. Member for Cheadle finished—in Manchester. I was fortunate enough to visit Manchester in January with several colleagues and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I do not recall seeing the hon. Member for Cheadle there. Of course, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a vice-chairman of the all-party Commonwealth games 2002 group, in which I am happy to be the token southerner.
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this is relevant.
Mr. Hawkins: On a sporting matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that

261WH
I am also an officer of the group, as the Member of Parliament whose constituency includes the only southern venue in the Commonwealth games—Bisley, where the shooting events will be held. He and I are the two very much more than token southerners of the group.
Mr. Caplin: I was never much good at geography.
During my visit to Manchester, I was astounded by the way in which preparations for this important sporting event are progressing. The swimming arena was first class, and we should have many more like it. I know that that is the plan of the Amateur Swimming Association. The design of the arena is superb, and it was in full use on the day that I was there. I have asked people in the city of Brighton and Hove to consider the development of the seafront area, which has some old, out-of-date swimming facilities. I hope that that will be possible.
The swimming facility in Manchester is first class and worthy of a visit from anyone. I was hugely impressed when I went to the main stadium arena. It was possible to gain the impression, even though the grass and track had not been laid, of a stadium that would be really something, not just for Manchester but for the whole country. The Commonwealth games are a celebration not just for the north-west but for the entire United Kingdom. The event will be a coming together.
The hon. Member for Cheadle rather talked down the city of Manchester, which was unfortunate. The people and politicians of Manchester have made good progress in developing the stadium and the facilities that they need. A comparison can be made with major sporting events in other countries, and they are way ahead in their preparations.
Mr. Day: I was not running down the city of Manchester. I think that I praised the preparation work so far. The uncertainty comes from the Government, not the city of Manchester. If anything I was standing up for the people of the city of Manchester and Greater Manchester, who may—although I hope not—be presented with a large bill. We need clarity about the Government's attitude.
Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I allow my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with those issues. She and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who has been leading the Government's task force on the matters in question, are much closer to them.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I found Manchester first class. I had the impression of a city that was ready to stage the Commonwealth games. As soon as I arrived at the airport I encountered marketing and advertising about the games. When I talked to ordinary people, I had the impression that they were ready to host the Commonwealth games in summer 2002, and looking forward to it. I, too, look forward to attending.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Wembley. I was one of those who vigorously lobbied my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about whether athletics should be included at Wembley stadium. My view is not a secret:
262WH
I wanted athletics out. I believe that Wembley should be primarily a football stadium, able to hold rugby league and rugby union events as well. That is also the view of the all-party football group, of which I am an officer. We have strong views about it, which we made clear to my right hon. Friend at the appropriate time. I argued in favour of the decision to remove athletics from the plan. I thought that athletics confused the issue and would delay the project.
I have no problems with respect to the team that is now running the project. Wembley National Stadium Ltd. has a good project to pursue. However, Wembley is a football arena, and has been for 80-odd years—since it was built. To include international athletics would be difficult. There is no space for the additional facilities that are needed. As a local example, it was possible in Brighton this year to stage, for the first time in 30 years, the south of England athletics championships. That was possible because the athletics stadium had been improved, so that, ironically, football could be played there, but also because warm-up facilities had been attached. Those are a requirement in international athletics.
I know the stadium area well and it would clearly not be possible to provide the type of facilities that my hon. Friend the Minister saw in Sydney, about which a great deal has been said. I was delighted with the Secretary of State's decision. It was right. The challenge for Rodney Walker and his team is to rebuild Wembley so that it is ready for business as quickly as possible.
I shall work backwards through the points made by the hon. Member for Cheadle. The World cup bid was worthwhile; we will not be regarded as a serious player if we do not say that we want to stage such events. The outcome was interesting: it was decided not by Governments but by FIFA. The hon. Gentleman's accusation that the Labour party did not support the bid was futile. It was clear that we did support the bid. When I arrived in the House in 1997, I understood that the 2006 World cup bid was supported not just by the Labour party but by the Conservative party. Now that the bid has been lost, coats are turning.
Mr. Fraser: I have just come from the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, where the same subject is being discussed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the comment by Simon Clegg of the BOA that the Government and the Prime Minister should have been involved throughout, and that we might have missed an opportunity to stage the Olympic games in 2012? The inference is that the Prime Minister did not get behind the hid.
Mr. Caplin: I have been playing football, which I find healthier than attending Culture, Media and Sport Committee meetings, so I cannot comment on what Simon Clegg said, although I have met him many times, including in the week before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his decision about Wembley. I told him at that time—before what has happened in the past 36 hours—that I could not see how the BOA could produce a proper plan to stage the Olympic games in London. I accept that events have since moved on, but at that stage no progress had been made on Wembley, so the decision was right. There are now new ideas, and I hope that the BOA can make progress, as I would like the Olympic games to be staged in London, if possible.

263WH
Like many others, I believe that the Manchester Commonwealth games will be a huge success. I hope that all political parties will maintain their backing and support for the people of Manchester and the north-west for the staging of this important international event, which will be seen in perhaps 50 or 100 countries. As politicians, we should say what we believe. That is what the Labour party has done with regard to sport. We backed the 2006 bid and lost. That is how it goes. We backed 2002 in Manchester. It will be a success. I hope that there will be a future bid for the Olympic games that we can also back.
11.28 am
Mr. Christopher Fraser: The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) has a passion for football. The Conservative party would like to give him the opportunity to spend all his time playing football in the next few months, so that he can take up some of the issues that he has mentioned this morning. I shall report his views about the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to his colleagues on that Committee, who are discussing this subject. I have heard more talk of sport in the Palace of Westminster this morning—both in that Committee and in this Chamber—than I have heard from the Government since the 1997 election. That is a sad indictment of this Administration.
The debate is timely. In May, Cardiff will host the FA cup, having already hosted a very successful Worthington cup final. Although football has been thrown out of Wembley stadium, we are no closer to knowing what to expect in 2004 The millennium stadium in Cardiff cost £120 million and has already been host to world and major domestic events, yet estimates of the cost of the proposed new Wembley stadium are between £475 million and £660 million—I am sure that the Minister will confirm those figures today. The latter figure would make it the world's most expensive sporting venue. That cost compares badly with the £260 million paid to build the Olympic stadium in Sydney, which I visited with the Select Committee—we were impressed with what was achieved with that sum—and with the Stade de France in Paris, which hosted the most recent World cup final, and the cost of which was also estimated at £260 million.
Not only does Wembley appear incredibly overpriced, but it has changed its concept. The original concept was for a multi-purpose stadium to stage athletic events. The bottom tier of seats would have been retracted and a running track inserted above the pitch. The Secretary of State explained:
"It has hitherto been the desire of this Administration—and, indeed, of the previous Government—that England should have a stadium able to stage a wide range of the world's major sporting events. As the House knows from previous debates and questions, the consistent aim has been to design a new national stadium that can stage the premier events of football, rugby and athletics."
However, there were serious reservations about the feasibility of the design. One of the main causes of contention was that the reduced capacity following the insertion of the athletic track would have been below the 65,000 required by the International Olympic Committee for an Olympic bid.
A report prepared by sports architects DLA Ellerbe Becket raised serious doubts about the stadium design for international athletics events. The Secretary of State explained the report's findings by saying:
264WH
"In any likely configuration, the sightlines for large numbers of spectators would be poor, and in some cases could fail Olympic requirements; the seating space for individual spectators would be far from ideal; the roof would cover some lanes of the track and not others; there would be no portal for people and equipment to gain access to the deck; the east-west alignment of the track would be detrimental to athletes; and, for any Olympic games, the deck would have to be constructed and in place for at least a year in advance, which could render the stadium unusable for international standard football for more than two years."
He said:
"My reluctant conclusion from the Ellerbe Becket report is that the stadium as designed—or in any similar configuration—cannot readily provide the central venue for an Olympic games bid for London."
Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one concern that we repeatedly expressed—not during the time of the current Minister—was that this Government made the mistake of going for the trendiest, most fashionable architects and ended up with an appalling design that, when it was presented to hon. Members, was clearly seen to have all the failings that it took the Secretary of State so long to appreciate?
Mr. Fraser: One need only look at the dome to realise that one does not design a sweet wrapper without knowing what the sweet inside will be.
The Secretary of State continued:
"Furthermore, it seems unlikely that it could provide an appropriate venue for the world athletics championships, for which we hope to bid in 2005. It will, however, be able to provide the best venue in the world for the 2006 football world cup."—[Official Report, 1 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 305-6.]
Three weeks later, the Secretary of State made a further statement, which is worth repeating, because it is important that we consider what he said. He said:
"Since my Statement to the House of Commons on I December, we have made considerable progress in resolving the difficult issues raised by the DLA Ellerbe Becket report…while WNSL have successfully addressed many of the concerns highlighted by Ellerbe Becket, it is widely accepted that the proposed stadium is not the ideal for athletics. There is general agreement therefore that, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of further detailed discussions among the interested parties, Wembley should be the focus of a world class stadium for football and rugby league and that alternative arrangements should be made for athletics…In the light of the prospective agreement between Sport England, the Football Association and WNSL on a revised Lottery Funding Agreement based on the new Wembley Stadium being focused on football and rugby league, the Football Association has proposed that £20 million of the existing Lottery grant be returned to Sport England."
He explained that
"the return of this money to Sport England together with the sums Sport England had earmarked for financing the conversion of Wembley to athletics mode for covering any loss of revenue while in athletics mode and for the purchase of land and construction of the athletics warm-up facility, will give Sport England scope to consider alternative options for an athletics venue in London."
The situation is complicated, but that was worth putting on the record, because an awful lot has happened. The overriding problem of the complete mess is that a venue is required so that London can host the 2005 world athletic championships, because a successful bid was announced on 3 May 2000. That is fantastic for London, Britain and British athletics, but the nub of the problem is whether a feasible and worthy venue can be provided.

265WH
In a statement in December, the Secretary of State suggested:
"Since 1 December, Sport England has together with UK Sport, UK Athletics, the British Olympic Association and my Department undertaken further work on the non-Wembley options for staging international athletics events in London. In this context, I particularly welcome the proposal from the Rugby Football Union that Twickenham be used for such events.
Constructive initial discussions have taken place between the DCMS, Sport England, the RFU and the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Sport England is taking forward further immediate work to establish the viability of this and other possible sites as the venue for the World Athletics Championships in 2005 and a further announcement will be made once this work has been completed.
This work will be carried out in close co-operation with UK Athletics, and the Government will wish to do everything possible to assist a bid for the 2005 event. Sport England will also assess the extent to which possible venues can be readily upgraded to accommodate Olympic requirements.
The Government remains committed to supporting a viable UK Olympic bid and is continuing its discussions with the British Olympic Association, UK Sport, and Sport England on the possibilities of a London bid for the Olympic Games."
On 25 March last year, UK Athletics chose Lee Valley park in north-east London ahead of three other contenders, including Twickenham, as the preferred site to stage the 2005 championships. In response to a parliamentary question, the Secretary of State said:
"UK Athletics selected Picketts Lock as the site on which to base their bid for the 2005 World Athletics Championships following extensive discussions with Sport England, UK Sport, the Government Office for London, a number of local authorities and with my Department. Since the success of the bid, the Lee Valley Stadium project team comprising the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and UK Athletics have commissioned consultants to advise on the optimum design for the stadium and on business planning options."
On the same day, the Minister for Sport said:
"UK Athletics are required to give the IAAF a progress report on the staging arrangements, including the development of the venue, by the middle of next year."—[Official Report, 30 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 327W.]
That is this year, so I would like to hear a full progress report this morning.
Questions have also been raised about the suitability of the proposed venue. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber)—alas, he is not present, as he is currently quizzing the Sports Council and others about similar issues in a Select Committee meeting—asked how many of the seats at the proposed Lee Valley stadium would be provided on a temporary basis for the world athletics championships in 2005. The Minister for Sport replied:
"According to the current design concept developed by Drivers Jonas as part of the feasibility study for the Lee Valley Stadium, between 15,000 and 20,000 of the 40,000–45,000 seats available for the World Championships will not be included in the long-term legacy stadium."—[Official Report, 30 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 326W.]
It is unclear how the stadium will attain the 65,000 seats needed under International Olympic Association guidelines for the hosting of future Olympic games. That is one of the main difficulties with the design for Wembley, although I accept that it is not the only one.
266WH
My hon. Friend also asked what assessment the British Olympic Association had made of the suitability of the proposed Lee Valley stadium as a venue for track and field athletics and the opening and closing ceremonies of a London Olympic games. The Minister replied:
"I have received no such assessment. The British Olympic Association are involved in discussions about the possible future uses of the stadium and attend meetings of the Lee Valley Stadium Forum."
We know that the BOA has since made an assessment of the feasibility of London hosting the Olympics in 2012 or 2016, but we are not allowed to see it.
My hon. Friend asked whether it was Government policy that the proposed Lee Valley stadium should be capable of being upgraded to act as the venue for track and field athletics and the opening and closing ceremonies of a London Olympic games. The Minister said:
"The main priority for the project partners involved with the development of the new National Athletics Stadium is to provide a world class facility capable of hosting the World Athletics Championships in 2005 which is also capable of ensuring that athletics have a national centre for the future development of the sport. No decisions have been taken which would rule out the possibility of the stadium being used as a venue for a future Olympic Games."—[Official Report, 30 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 326W.]
Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fraser: No. You have had your say. Perhaps you can intervene when the Minister sums up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not had my say at all, although the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) may have had his say. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) could use parliamentary language correctly.
Mr. Fraser: I am always interested in what you have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I had not been so rudely interrupted by the hon. Member for Hove, I could have finished my speech and allowed him, you or any other hon. Member to say what they wanted.
Mr. Day: Had you had an opportunity to have your say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you certainly would not have let it pass without mentioning the Poynton bypass.
Mr. Fraser: Now I will have my say. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hove can speak later if time permits.
We do not know the cost of Wembley stadium or what progress has been made, yet it is set to begin hosting sporting events in 2004. We do not know how much the proposed Lee Valley stadium will cost or when progress will be made towards its development, yet we are assured that it will be ready to host the 2005 world athletics championships. In addition, we do not know whether those plans will aid or hinder a future Olympic bid for London. We do know that the Department and the Government have presided over yet another fiasco. We thought that things could only get better after the dome, but sadly they have not.
Ken Bates, who was at the time chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd., accused the Minister of "interfering" in the redevelopment of Wembley football

267WH
stadium and of "constantly undermining" him. He also said that her period of office had been characterised by ignorance. I have an awful lot of respect for her in many other spheres, but I should like her to respond to that point made against her by Ken Bates. Appearing before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I serve, he said that it was
"more in sorrow than in anger"
that he contrasted the "mess over Wembley" with the success of the Australian Olympic stadium. He said that there had been
"nothing but criticism and undermining based on nothing but ignorance… The Government should have been on the sidelines cheering us on but instead spent 19 months knocking"
the project. He commented:
"We only know what she thinks when we read the newspapers".
I am afraid that that is nothing new. In fact, it would be interesting to see that in the first line of the Labour party manifesto, because we know what is happening on so many matters only when we read about them in the paper and not when they are discussed in this place.
Several questions need to be answered. How much will the new Wembley stadium cost? What progress has been made towards its development? Will Sport England get its £20 million back, and how did the Government arrive at that figure? Is the Lee Valley stadium a suitable venue for an Olympic bid in 2012 or 2016 and will it be ready in time for the championships in 2005, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) asked? Does the Minister believe that the fiasco over which the Government have presided throughout their term of office has made Britain more or less viable as a venue for international sporting events, including the Olympics?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I point out that this is a very important debate and I want the shadow Minister and the Minister for Sport to have adequate time to reply to all the questions. Is the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) present as a Back Bencher or as the spokesman for his party, as the office of the Chairman of Ways and Means gave me notice that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) was supposed to be present to reply on behalf of the Liberal Democrats?
Mr. Richard Allan: My hon. Friend was not able to be here. I wanted to come because Sheffield has a great interest in international sporting events. I am wrapping up the two functions, as it were.
11.46 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your reappointment.
While I share the strong views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) in their criticisms of the Government, I do not propose to attack the Minister. As she knows, and as has been said, we respect her as an individual. We believe that she was handed a poisoned chalice, and while 1 do not agree with everything that she says on sport, she has done her best to support athletics and sport in general. I wish to
268WH
concentrate on serious issues and problems that arose before her time and that she, as a junior Minister, has perhaps not been able to sort out.
Where I make criticisms of the Government, they are targeted on the Minister's predecessor and on the Secretary of State. Opposition Members, and especially those of us who are passionate about sport—as I have always been—often get extremely irritated by his pathetic attempts to paint himself as a sports enthusiast when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, he has presided over a series of fiascos in which his lack of attention to and interest in sport to back up the hype have been only too evident.
There are many positive aspects to sport in this country. I pay particular tribute to the work of Sport England, which, led by Trevor Brooking and Derek Casey, has done a fantastic job in the past few years, not least in delivering the vision originally set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister. As I have said, it would be appropriate if in due course the national lottery became known as the Major lottery. There is no doubt that without my right hon. Friend's decisions, we would not have had the huge injection of capital for sport and the development of sporting facilities.
In considering recent political history, and my right hon. Friend's term of office—indeed, his whole political career—one of the biggest tributes to him will undoubtedly be the fact that he created the lottery. It was not universally popular at the time. Indeed, it was roundly attacked by many Labour Members in opposition: they said that it would never work and would be a fiasco and they doubted that it would provide what we consistently said it would in terms of sporting facilities. Now that they are in government, they of course behave as though it was their idea all along but those of us who were here in the previous Parliament remember the bitter debates about the concept of the lottery, and the savage criticisms that many Labour Members made of it. I remember in particular the attacks on my right hon. Friend when he said that it would provide huge amounts of new money for sport.
The Government have been ready to claim credit for sporting success—not least that of our Olympians, who produced the best performance by a British Olympic squad for 80 years. Much of their success—and the Olympians acknowledged it—was due to lottery funding, particularly of elite sportsmen and women. Without the drive and determination of my right hon. Friend, and the Ministers and Back Benchers who supported him, there would have been no lottery funding.
Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hawkins: I will in a moment.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). He and I were Conservative Back Benchers in the previous Parliament and we regularly spoke in sporting debates to support my right hon. Friend and to back up his vision of lottery support for elite sportsmen and women leading to Olympic and international sporting success.

269WH
I now give way to someone whose sporting achievements should be recognised—he has scored some extraordinary goals for the parliamentary football team—even though I passionately disagree with him about politics.
Mr. Caplin: I served on the Committee considering the National Lottery Bill in 1998 when changes to the new opportunities fund were bitterly opposed by the Conservatives.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is right. I did not serve on that Committee, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole did. We felt that the Labour Government were wrong to take money away from sport by the creation of this so-called new opportunities fund, because it completely undermined what Labour Members had said in the previous Parliament—the hon. Member for Hove was not then a Member of Parliament—about the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.
I clearly recall from debates in the House that Labour Members constantly insisted on no substitution, or no use of lottery funding for matters generally funded out of taxpayers' revenue—especially health and education. Labour Member after Labour Member declared that lottery moneys should never be used to supplement health or education spending, which should always be funded through general taxation. What did the Labour Government do when they came to power? They introduced the new opportunities fund, so that resources could be diverted to health and education. They attempted to explain the U-turn by claiming that only specific projects within health and education were affected. Without doubt, however, as a result of the creation of the new opportunities fund, fewer resources were directed to sport. The lottery was hugely more successful—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but I have advised hon. Members that we should stick to the subject of our important debate—the staging of international sporting events. I want to ensure that those who have not yet spoken—not least, the Minister—have the opportunity to do so. I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman would direct his remarks to the specific issue before us.
Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry, but I was tempted too far down that road by the intervention of the hon. Member for Hove.
I have already mentioned Sport England, which emphasised the benefits to the whole country of hosting major international sporting events. I am fortunate that part of the Bisley shooting ranges—the only southern venue for the Commonwealth games in 2002—lies within my constituency. The boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) crosses the shooting ranges. I have always taken a personal interest in all sports, and I am proud to represent the village of Bisley. I hope that my constituents will benefit hugely from the staging of the Commonwealth games in Britain.
270WH
Sport England is right about the substantial economic impact of international sporting events. Infrastructure developments required to stage events remain for the benefit of the public after the event is over, and there are other longer-term gains. The Euro 96 football championship attracted 280,000 visiting supporters who spent more than £120 million in the eight host cities.
The Minister and I agree about the importance of sporting tourism. Sadly threatened by the tragic foot and mouth epidemic, tourism is the fastest growing industry in the UK. When that problem is behind us, sporting tourism will once again become a significant economic generator of income and jobs. The additional expenditure by visitors to Euro 96 was estimated at £195 million, with a further £64 million paid in taxation. The Barcelona Olympics in 1992 also provide a good example of the long-term economic benefits that major events can bring to a country. That event certainly put Barcelona on the tourism map. We all know about the huge economic impact of the 2000 Olympics on Sydney.
There is no doubt that governing bodies use major events to build on existing sports development. One of the sports that I am passionate about is cricket. The efforts of the England and Wales Cricket Board surrounding the 1999 World cup included employment of numerous cricket development officers, £120,000 of funding from Sport England, and promotion of the event as a carnival of cricket. Despite the fact that our test side had not yet undergone its recent welcome rejuvenation and success, the country as a whole benefited. The enthusiasm for cricket, especially among children, was hugely beneficial. World cup matches were taken all around the country, particularly to areas with large ethnic minority populations, and considerable efforts were made to attract younger supporters.
Many of us have talked about the vital importance of covering international sporting events that are held in this country on terrestrial television. I feel strongly that youngsters who participate in sport are far less likely to get into trouble with crime, and drugs in particular, because sport is a healthy activity. To encourage them into sport, youngsters should be able to see sporting events and their heroes on television. Unfortunately, the families of many youngsters in inner-city areas cannot afford satellite television, so it is vital that international sporting events are shown on terrestrial channels. I hope that that will always be possible.
I could say a great deal more about social regeneration and the Commonwealth games in Manchester. I was among the Members of Parliament and of the European Parliament who visited the Manchester Commonwealth games venues. I wish that tournament every success, and not only the shooting events that will be held in my constituency. I agree with what the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) said about the superb swimming facilities. Competitive swimming was by far my best sport when I was young. I was fortunate enough to swim at county and area level—I was not quite good enough to get into the national squad—and I have always been passionate about sport. I believe that Britain has a great future in developing its sporting facilities and hosting international sporting events.

271WH
My final point is about an article in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph by its chief sports writer, Paul Hayward, a journalist whom I respect. I read it on my way into the House this morning. He is savagely critical about the lack of infrastructure, and especially transport. He directed his remarks to the Select Committee hearing this morning and asked how this country can make a credible bid for the 2012 Olympics if we cannot solve our infrastructure problems. I believe that we can host the Olympics. I am not sure whether that will happen in 2012—the competition has not yet been held—but I will support this country whenever it bids for international sporting events. However, I think that the journalist was right to say that we must get our act together. Sometimes we run ourselves down too much, but the article raised serious issues.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will continue his commitment to sport. I believe that the Minister will do her best for sport, even though she represents a Government who have made many mistakes in that respect. I wish that she did not have to cope with the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who have done a huge amount of damage to the country.
11.58 am
Mr. Richard Allan: I was moved to participate in the debate because of Sheffield's experience. This year is the 10th anniversary of the World student games, staged in 1991. In many ways, Manchester is dealing with similar issues.
I should declare an interest: I am an unremunerated director of Sheffield City Trust, which is the charitable company that was set up to manage the sporting venues after the World student games events were staged. My agenda is not to pick over the bones of what happened in 1991; it is about making things work now, as best we can. That is why I want to draw hon. Members' attention to our experience of a major event in Sheffield 10 years ago.
I am disappointed at the business plan's over-optimism about the sponsorship and cost of the event in Manchester. That is a recurrent theme in international sporting events. As the Select Committee report on Manchester showed, people are left scrabbling around at a late stage trying to plug financial holes. In the case of Sheffield, the hole was not plugged and the people of Sheffield are still paying for events that cost more than the original projections. That is a particular problem when local authorities are leading the events.
One of the most important recommendations of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is that national Government should take the lead, with local authorities acting as partners, because acting as the lead agent is too great a financial risk for local government. I hope that local citizens in Manchester do not have the same problems in that respect as those in Sheffield.
By contrast, Euro 96 was a good experience for Sheffield because it was a national event. The Danes moved in and, true to their stereotype, managed to drink the city dry, yet there were no problems whatever. The event was a great boost for Sheffield. We should learn the lesson that it is better to accept the full cost of staging international sporting events at the outset, rather than trying to put together a business plan that will fall apart later.
272WH
The Culture, Media and Sport Committee report stated that Government strategy should set out clearly the rationale for public support for and investment in sport. The rationale is important in international events. We may have to accept that the financial hole created by an event will not be plugged by sponsorship and that it will cost the Exchequer £10 million, £20 million or even £50 million, and justify that cost in other ways, rather than making a plan that is intended to cover the cost, but finding later that the Exchequer ends up paying, either directly or through the local taxpayers.
People should not be able to justify or attack a project on the basis of their own partisan considerations. That happens in all parties: the Labour opposition in Sheffield attacks the Lib Dem administration when it dedicates council funds to support sporting events , just as the Lib Dems did when they were in opposition and Labour was in power in the city. There will probably be similar rows and recriminations on the political scene in Manchester, not when the event is going on, as people tend to pull together then, but when it is over. After the event, no one has the facts to be able to confirm that the event brought in the promised funds, or to say how that money was spent.
The Select Committee report makes a worthwhile recommendation that research into the matter should be a priority. We should have a more objective understanding of the costs and benefits of a sporting event rather than leaving it to partisan political operatives to find the facts that suit their case.
In considering the subsequent benefit from major events we should look at the role of sporting bodies in the United Kingdom. I am something of an outsider in these matters, as sport is not my specialty. I became involved by working with sporting venues and I was shocked at the bidding to hold events at sporting centres. I was told recently about events for which Sheffield was bidding. The city felt that it was being used to bid up the amount that the winning venue would receive. The bidding wars are ridiculous enough at national level; at international events they are appalling. I hope that the Government will use their weight to persuade international bodies to take action to stop "beauty contests" and ridiculous amounts being spent.
There is insufficient clarity or accountability in the processes at national level, too, and with more venues coming on stream all the time, the situation can only get worse. Cities throughout the country will be asked to bid for events. They will feel that they must go cap in hand to bodies that they do not believe are accountable to try to secure events to keep their venues open. Missing out on events can cause financial ruin. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government favour a stronger voice for cities and regions that try to hold events, rather than leaving them alone to go cap in hand.
The UK Sports Institute was intended to assist the strategy of creating centres of sporting excellence and to boost our ability to stage events. Sheffield will play a major part, and we are grateful to the sporting bodies for their investment. However, we are still disappointed that we did not get the headquarters, despite the fact that we felt that our bid would have reduced the overall costs of the institute. The decision to go for London was unimaginative and part of a London-centric perspective, which we as outsiders feel still pervades sport. We heard the argument that people from abroad

273WH
would not want to go outside London. That is depressing, particularly given that we have a major centre of excellence in Sheffield, with two universities doing work in sports medicine, science and nutrition and events research. We have no trouble attracting people from throughout the UK and around the world to Sheffield, yet some sporting bodies do not support and invest in our area as much as they could.
I finish with a plea to the Minister to respond to the helpful report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee by opening up the process of sports event decision making. Most funding is public, through central or local government grants and lottery money, but I do not believe that the stakeholders—the cities and regions of the UK—have a sufficient voice. We should have a national strategy that holds the debates on bidding for events in a public and accountable forum among the various cities and regions involved. If we had such a debate, we could accept the decisions, but as it is, individual sporting centres feel powerless in the process, which does not appear to be democratic or open. I hope that the Government will realise that, if they want a successful sport strategy, we need a national framework, so that event organisers in Sheffield or Manchester, for example, can take part in the process, rather than simply in the bitter and recriminatory cycle of finding that they have not been as successful as they expected.
12.7 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on securing the debate. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) have already discussed Wembley and Picketts Lock, and many people are anxious about whether those prestigious projects will be completed as originally intended or in the appropriate time scale. We must not lose sight of the fact that Wembley was meant to be a national, multi-purpose stadium. It will not be such a stadium, which I believe represents a failure of public policy.
As long ago as July 1999, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that the new design for Wembley would make it
"the finest arena in the world".
It was to be an arena for athletics, as well as for soccer and rugby, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle reminded us, the centrepiece of an Olympic bid. We have come a long way since then and the Secretary of State might think that he is right to kick athletics out of Wembley. I do not want to go into that argument again except to say that, as recently as December, the Minister said in a Radio 4 interview following the appointment of Sir Rodney Walker that athletics might be reinstated, renewing speculation that that was the Government's preferred option.
We also know that Wembley National Stadium Ltd. has always been willing to stick to the original design of the stadium so that major athletic events could be held there. That will now not happen, which focuses attention on where we will host the 2005 world athletics championships. It is now abundantly clear from what Sir Rodney Walker has said that Wembley cannot
274WH
possibly host the athletics championships in the nightmare scenario that the proposed Lee Valley national athletics centre at Picketts Lock is not ready. That is what the Minister must face up to. The event must be held at Picketts Lock or it cannot be held in London at all. It is vital that Picketts Lock goes ahead so that it can host those 2005 world athletics championships and to honour the Secretary of State's obligation to the International Amateur Athletics Federation to provide a suitable venue in London.
Before I raise some questions about Picketts Lock, we should pause to think about a few matters relating to Wembley. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole rightly drew attention to the comparative costs of Wembley and other new stadiums, including the marvellous Olympics 2000 stadium in Sydney that we all saw on our television screens. It was built for rather less money and it may have been less ambitious. The scale of Wembley has created problems.
The events this week have highlighted just how important the Wembley project will be to provide again a major venue for soccer in London. With Wembley awaiting demolition there is nowhere in London to host the semi-final of the FA cup between Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur—a match in which the Minister and I share an interest. I am fascinated to know why Chelsea's ground at Stamford Bridge was not thought suitable. Equally, football supporters generally have not been given an adequate explanation why Twickenham, which is one of the finest stadiums in the world, is not considered suitable for football.
Mr. Caplin: Nimbyism.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman may be right. I know that this is not the subject of the debate and I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to take this opportunity to say that the decision to host the match at Old Trafford at 1.30 on a Sunday afternoon is crass and shows that the interests of football supporters are not being considered. All that matters is the television schedule. I suspect that many fans who might have gone had t he game been held in London will not now do so.
Can the Minister clarify the situation with regard to Wembley's commitment to repay £20 million of its £120 million lottery grant? Many outside observers think that that has been done, not least because the Secretary of State has made clear his intention that the £20 million should be used towards the cost of Picketts Lock. Is not the truth that the money has not been repaid? I wrote to him before Christmas and in a reply dated 14 January he said that the agreement that has been renegotiated will not give effect to the repayment of the £20 million until— this is very important and I do not think that it has come out in public as yet—
"the successful completion of Wembley's loan syndication."
Can the Minister confirm that that means that the money has not been repaid and that it is conditional on Wembley being able t o raise through loan syndication the money that is necessary for the Wembley redevelopment to go ahead?
We know that the £20 million is crucial to funding the development of the proposed Lee Valley national athletics centre at Picketts Lock. We are told that it will

275WH
cost £95 million. I am grateful to the Minister for placing in the Library the minutes of the Lee Valley stadium forum meetings. That has helped us to monitor the progress on the project. The minutes of the 16 January meeting state that Mr. Shaun Dawson, speaking on behalf of the Lee Valley regional park authority, reminded the forum that the feasibility studies completed in November estimated that a new stadium would cost approximately £95 million and that there was a funding gap of £23 million. Does the figure of £23 million refer to the £20 million that is to be paid back, or does the £72 million that is secured include the £20 million? If that is the case, there is still a funding gap of £23 million, and £20 million may still not come back.
I understand that the Secretary of State attempted a few weeks ago to give an assurance to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that the funding for Picketts Lock was secured, but the briefing note for this debate from Sport England says that the conclusions of the feasibility studies will help the
"panel make an informed decision as and when it receives an application for the proposed Picketts Lock stadium to receive Lottery funding."
That shows that there is no commitment as yet from Sport England to fund the project, although I am sure that it will treat the matter sympathetically.
As the Minister knows, I have tabled questions to her regarding the timetable for Picketts Lock, and I note the progress that she outlined in the Lee Valley stadium forum report. However, many questions remain unanswered. What time is allocated for the design brief, consultation over planning, and completion of the planning application? Will the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions be required to determine the application? Will a public inquiry be necessary? What proposals are there for transport infrastructure including a new railway station and a road link to the M25, the construction of 3,000 units of residential accommodation and warm-up facilities and the demolition of the existing centre including the indoor bowling facilities, which will not be replaced under present plans?
What proposals are there for the tendering process to secure the contract cost and for the funding gap? We all know that that must be done, but we seek from the Minister a little more candour and a sense of urgency about the mammoth task associated with the project. As Sir Rodney Walker has said, the development of Wembley is at least two years ahead of Picketts Lock. If Wembley will not be ready by autumn 2004, how can anyone be confident that Picketts Lock will be?
I wish to stress, yet again, that the Minister must get a grip of the problem. If the Picketts Lock project fails, the Government of the day could have a major embarrassment on their hands. Who would then trust us to host a major international sporting event in the future? Our reputation is at stake. As the Minister knows, these issues have been repeatedly articulated in the national press. I will be charitable, and not refer to some of the things that have been said. However, regarding the current discussion of an Olympic bid, we are, quite frankly, miles away from being in a position to launch such a bid. We should first make a success of the Manchester 2002 games. I have been there and seen the stadium under construction, and I believe that the games will be successful.
276WH
We must also ensure that we honour our obligation to show what we can do in hosting the 2005 international athletics championships. That is the real task facing the Government—not only this Government, but the Government who will replace them after the general election. It is only then, when we have made a success of those two great events, that we should turn our attention to hosting an Olympic bid.
If the 2002 games and the 2005 championships are successful, the rest of the world will want to come to Britain, and will treat with urgency and respect the possibility of the Olympics coming to this country.
12.19 pm
The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on securing the debate. It is normal to say that such a debate is timely, but on this occasion it is untimely as it clashes with this morning's Culture, Media and Sport Committee meeting on the same subject. That is unfortunate, because I know that many hon. Members would have liked to attend. I look forward to the Select Committee's detailed report. Many questions have been asked today, and I will not be able to answer every one, but I undertake to write if specific questions are not answered.
I emphasise that the Government and the country support the staging of international events and recognise their importance. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about that. The events bring a feelgood factor to a country, as seen by the effect of the Sydney Olympics on Australia. They also help the economic state of the country in aspects such as regeneration and improvements to transport infrastructure. I assure him that I will pass on his comments about transport links to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The staging of international sporting events gives our elite sportsmen and sportswomen the opportunity to appear on the world stage in their home country. That is why the Commonwealth games will be important, and we are determined to make them a success. The games will be important not only for Manchester but for the north-west and the whole country. One of the Select Committee report's suggestions was that a Minister should have overall responsibility for such large events. That is why the Prime Minister gave my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office that responsibility. He has ensured that all factors work together. The games are not only about sport but about bringing together other aspects of the event. That is why a huge amount is being invested in the festival side of the games.
The support that the games have received through Sport England has been mentioned. Everyone is confident that the facilities will be wonderful and that those that are yet to be completed will be completed on time, and will bring great credit to the country. However, other Government support will be given, which shows that everybody must work together towards such an event. The Department of Health, at substantial cost, is appointing an assistant medical director over two years. The Department for Education and Employment is funding a range of education projects linked to the games. The Department for International Development is giving a grant for

277WH
education to the Commonwealth Institute. A range of arts facilities will be provided for the spirit of friendship festival, which will receive £1 million of lottery funding. People say that lottery funding is not Government funding. It is not Exchequer funding, but public funding that comes from people who spend money on the lottery.
The hon. Member for Cheadle was right to point to the funding gap, but that potential gap will remain only if sponsorship money is not received. At present, all those involved in the Commonwealth games are confident that the money will be raised. The games organisers are clear that they are ahead of sponsorship expectancy and further announcements are expected soon. The revenue target of £62 million is ambitious, and it is true that people who wish to win a bid are sometimes overly optimistic—that was the experience of Sheffield. However, the organisers have already attracted £30 million of commercial income, which places them ahead of any previous games at this stage of preparation. People said right up to the last minute that the Sydney Olympics would be a disaster or would fail to raise as much money as they were supposed to, but they were subsequently declared the best games ever.
Manchester city council gave a commitment to underwrite any shortfall. I know that the hon. Gentleman wanted to hear that. His constituents outside the city of Manchester will not be liable. The Government are working closely with the council and hope that no further support will be necessary, because we are determined that the games will be successful. I am optimistic, although I think that a danger sometimes exists in that, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, we as a nation have a capacity for playing the country down and saying that we cannot do things, rather than having a can-do approach.
The Lee Valley stadium will be built and will provide a terrific centre for the 2005 athletics championships. I point out to those who have referred to Wembley that there is no definite date for Wembley to reopen, so we cannot be confident that that complex will host the 2005 championships. In the next few days, the next stage of the Lee Valley stadium will occur, and the designs will be made public. That project has been criticised by the media, but more people now seem to understand it. It is good to hear that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that we are putting the relevant minutes into the Library. I am
278WH
keen to have as much transparency and openness as possible and have asked that after every meeting of the Lee Valley project team we give a press briefing. There is nothing to hide, and we should not be afraid of putting the facts to the public.
The Olympic games bid is at an early stage. Hon. Members who have just come from the Select Committee will have heard the statements of the British Olympic Association. I am not privy to what Simon Clegg said this morning, but we put our commitment in the manifesto and clearly stated that we want to support a viable Olympic bid. However, any decision on that will have to come from the BOA first. It will need to say which location is preferable. The association has presented its first assessment to us of what is required for a possible London bid, and last week it met the Mayor of London and presented the bid. DCMS will convene a meeting of all the stakeholders.
We are still at an early stage. A successful and viable Olympic bid will require huge amounts of money. We will have to take a decision as a country on whether we want the Olympics to happen here, taking into account all the national and sporting interests. As Minister for Sport, I am committed to ensuring that the process is as transparent as possible, that we have the debate in public and that there is nothing to hide. People must want to support the bid if huge amounts of money are to be spent on it.
I shall not answer any questions about Mr. Bates or Wembley. However, I shall make some points about Wembley stadium in the Select Committee. At this stage, in the last minute of my speech, it would not be worth while to try to address the many erroneous comments made by the former chairman of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. The project is football-led and under the direction of Sir Rodney Walker and WNSL, although we are working closely with them. The £120 million initially invested was provided primarily for the purchase of the land and there is agreement to return £20 million. Of course, it will not be given back until the parties involved have obtained their loan syndication. If they do not obtain it, there will not be a new Wembley stadium in any case. Sir Rodney Walker has already talked about other alternatives.
We could spend a lot of time speculating about what might happen, but it would not be helpful. I give my best wishes to the hon. Member for Cheadle and everyone in Manchester in their desire to stage the Commonwealth games, which is important for this country.

School Bus Safety
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Joyce: Last month, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, a 15-year-old pupil at St. Mungo's school, Falkirk, in my constituency, died tragically in a road accident. Kathleen had travelled home from school by a contracted school bus, as she did each day, to be dropped close to her family home in the village of Bonnybridge. On this clay, however, she stepped from the bus on to the pavement and walked around the front of the stationary vehicle, at the same time as a car passed the vehicle from behind on the offside. Perhaps distracted, Kathleen stepped out in front of the car. It seems that the oncoming car was not moving fast but that the driver had no time to react. Tragically, Kathleen was fatally injured. Her younger brother had been on the bus with her, and her mother arrived at the scene soon after the accident. Naturally, both remain deeply shocked, as do the rest of Kathleen's family.
That story is not remarkable or unusual. Such human and family tragedies happen every day, and often involve a painful period of adjustment for those left behind. Few things in life are surer than the fact that risk will manifest itself from time to time. When a child dies, however, the tragedy seems to be all the greater, because of the sense of injustice at the loss of a young life not properly lived. When tragedies such as Kathleen's death take place, we are obliged to determine whether anything can be done to reduce the chances of their happening again.
My aim today is to draw attention to several issues surrounding accidents such as Kathleen's death. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the need to work continuously on child safety, and I know that organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and Brake are excellent advocates of the same cause. I want to suggest to the Minister one or two measures that in might make a modest contribution to child safety on our roads.
This week RoSPA has been holding its annual road safety conference in Glasgow. The focus of the conference has been child casualties on our roads. Some of the statistical trends presented in research conclusions have been shocking but, sadly, often predictable. For example, road crashes are the leading cause of death among children. Furthermore, 20 per cent. of all child road casualties happen on the school journey, with the greatest period of risk being, as one might imagine, between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, as was the case with Kathleen.
There is also a socio-economic dimension. Recently, David White, Robert Raeside and Derek Barker of Napier university conducted a study of child road injuries in the Lothians, which border on my constituency. The research showed that children from less well-off backgrounds were as much as six times more likely to be injured in a road traffic accident. The research also showed that children from single-parent families and minority ethnic backgrounds in the less well-off areas are subject to the greatest risk. Other related findings were that the decline in children's death rates from injury over time has been less for children from the manual social classes than for children from
280WH
the non-manual social classes. As a result, mortality differentials between socio-economic groupings have increased. Moreover, injuries to children from socio-economically disadvantaged families tend to be of greater severity. In addition, those children have a higher risk of physical injury in the first place.
The answers to risk reduction across the board depend on several factors, as RoSPA points out. For example, research seems to suggest that as young boys tend to be more physically boisterous than girls, they, in effect, receive a training in spatial awareness that girls do not have to the same degree when they are very young. The apparent effect is that as girls in their early teens start to catch up with boys in terms of boisterousness, they appear to be exposed to a greater risk of road accident injuries. Perhaps schools can tackle that through education and awareness training.
Children now seem to spend less time outdoors than in previous eras, and parents can help to educate them about the dangers of the roads. Statistically, children walking to and from school are at the greatest risk, so parents should be alert to ensure that their children take a safe route for that journey.
The Government can also do many things, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has initiated the child road safety and Think! road safety campaigns and the road safety strategy. The Minister might want to say more about that.
To return to children travelling to school, children who use public transport should, if possible, be accompanied by escorts, and drivers of contracted school buses should be trained and educated for the task.
The DETR is planning a pilot scheme in conjunction with FirstGroup, a bus operator in the United States of America, to import American yellow school buses of the type that many people have seen on television, in films, or while on holiday in America.
Alexander and Sons has been manufacturing buses in Falkirk in my constituency for many years. It is not a part of FirstGroup; it is a manufacturer rather than an operator. However, it is important that there is a local bus-manufacturing presence, as that gives my constituents an awareness of the industry and the issues that surround it.
It is poignant to note that the Alexander and Sons manufacturing plant is close to St. Mungo's school, where Kathleen Fitzpatrick was a pupil. Her daily journeys took her past the gates of the factory. Local people have noted that sad fact.
American yellow buses have several advantages. They are immediately identifiable by all American drivers, who are expected to take measures that take into account the likelihood that children will decant on to the road. They have additional features, such as flashing lights and extending warning arms that stick out to make it clear to drivers that the school bus is stopping and that children are about to be dropped off. Also, I believe that, in America, drivers are not allowed to pass a stationary yellow bus from which children are

281WH
alighting, which neutralises the risk of children such as Kathleen being run down as they step out in front of a stationary bus.
It is self-evident that the United Kingdom can learn lessons from such American practices, although I accept that the roads and the culture are different in the United States of America, so the UK must cherry-pick the measures that are appropriate to its environment.
In the USA, 54 per cent. of children travel to school by yellow bus. In the UK, the equivalent figure is 20 per cent. In part, that gap might be explained by the greater average distance that American children travel to school. An increase in the number of children travelling to school by identifiable school buses would yield benefits in terms of not only safety but the environment, as cars depositing children at school account for 20 per cent. of morning rush-hour traffic.
At present, most of the 20 per cent. of UK children who travel to school by bus, travel on coaches that are subcontracted by local authorities. It is not unusual for such buses to be rather old—although undoubtedly legal—in style and specification. I have seen some very elderly examples on the roads. Buses on contract must display in their back windows yellow signs to alert passing drivers that they are on contract to schools and that therefore there are attendant risks with children getting off them. However, the contracts are temporary, so the signs should be displayed and removed when appropriate. Children sometimes take signs from the back of buses, so companies nail or screw signs to the back of the bus; when the bus is used for non-school contracted business, the sign is still displayed. As a result, drivers could become desensitised to the signs.
I hasten to add that the DETR inspects such things to minimise risks, but it is likely—I hope that this does not sound too sceptical—that those practices will continue at the margins because expediency is a fact of life. That is not a problem with yellow buses because they are not used for any other purpose. Drivers who see a yellow bus know that schoolchildren are in it. I accept, however, that in economic terms they are relatively inefficient and are therefore expensive.
I understand that FirstGroup, which buys but does not manufacture buses, believes that its bulk-buying capability would enable it to reduce the price of a normal school bus from £110,000 or £120,000 to £30,000—a remarkable reduction. However, I am sure that the DETR would not allow buses to operate unless it was confident that their specifications conformed to safety requirements. In other words, driving down the cost must not lead to driving down safety standards.
Whether or not yellow buses have a place on our roads, one US practice that is worthy of consideration in respect of reducing the risks for children alighting from them is barring vehicles from passing identifiable—however we decide that they should be identified—and stationary school buses in either direction when children are alighting. We could trial the concept as part of a yellow bus pilot scheme, but whether or not that happens, will the Minister say whether the idea has a future? Indeed, does he have other initiatives in mind that may reduce risks for schoolchildren alighting from school buses or travelling to school by other means?
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing this important debate. I add particular congratulations on the eloquence and effectiveness of his speech, because I understand that this is his maiden performance in Westminster Hall. I also thank him for his courtesy in providing notice of the major issues that he wanted to raise.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government, in the form of the Minister with responsibility for Road Safety, Lord Whitty, will carefully consider his remarks. I was sorry to hear of the accident that he mentioned and should like to offer my sincere condolences to Kathleen Fitzpatrick's family and friends. It may be little comfort in such circumstances—indeed, it will provide none at all to the family—but I believe that such accidents do not occur that often. In truth, I cannot provide reliable statistics because the fact that the child had just alighted from a bus was in a sense irrelevant to what happened. That may sound strange in the light of my hon. Friend's remarks, but when someone gets off a bus they are by definition a pedestrian rather than an ex-bus passenger.
The statistical returns for road accidents compiled by the DETR—the STATS 19 forms that are completed and returned to us by local police forces—ask whether incidents occur when people are alighting or boarding a bus. However, when they clear the doorway they are counted as pedestrians. The accident described by my hon. Friend was a case of someone walking into the road from behind a parked vehicle when her view of approaching traffic may have been partly, if not wholly, obscured. Indeed, that is how such accidents are most likely to be recorded.
My assertion—perhaps it is more a hope—that such accidents are few and far between is based on two factors, and although neither is particularly systematic, each might be regarded as a reasonable indicator. First, in response to recent informal inquiries the Local Authority Road Safety Officers Association said that it was unaware of any significant problem in this regard. Secondly, only two such cases have been brought to Ministers' attention in the past two years. One occurred in 1999 and the other in 2000, and in both cases a child was knocked down by a passing vehicle while trying to cross in front of the bus from which they had just alighted.
I shall not pretend that this is a satisfactory state of affairs as far as the statistics are concerned, and my Department will certainly consider whether it would help to amend the accident report form so that more detailed information can be gathered. A further reason to consider changing the form is the risk of an increase in the number of such accidents, if only because, hopefully, more children will use buses for part of their journey to school instead of travelling by car. One objective of our 10-year plan for transport is to increase the use of buses and other public transport—and, indeed, of walking and cycling—to help reduce the unnecessary car journeys that give rise to much congestion and air pollution. Hon. Members will recognise a potential conflict between such objectives and our targets for reducing road casualties, given that it is a fact that, mile for mile, travelling by car is safer than walking or

283WH
cycling. However, I can assure hon. Members that we hope and expect to succeed on both fronts, and are fully conscious of the challenge that that presents.
With the 10-year plan in mind, and as my hon. Friend said, local authorities and bus operators are developing various innovative and dedicated school bus schemes, some of which are based on the American system. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was pleased to announce in Glasgow on 17 February that agreement has been reached on the piloting in Britain of FirstGroup's US-style yellow school buses. The vehicles will be modified to meet all the requirements in our structure and use regulations, and they will satisfy accessibility regulations except where it is reasonable to grant a special authorisation. To avoid doubt, I should point out that, none the less, no exemption will be granted from the recently reduced maximum first step height for new buses that provide a local or scheduled service. The new maximum is no more than 320 mm, instead of 435 mm. For those who still prefer the old money, that translates into a new maximum of about 12½, in, instead of just over 17 in.
Perhaps more to the point, I can assure hon. Members that, like our native British buses, the new ones will be right-hand drive with doors on the left, so in that regard there will be no new safety worries. One road traffic rule in the United States, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West referred extensively, is that other vehicles must not overtake school buses when children are alighting or boarding. As he said, American buses are fitted with flashing lights and waving arms to warn approaching drivers at such times. However, FirstGroup says that at the moment it has no plans to fit such signals to the buses that it imports, so they will not figure in the pilot schemes here. Not is it proposed that the pilot schemes should include a provision on the overtaking of buses, and I shall explain why in a moment.
We shall want to evaluate the FirstGroup pilot schemes in due course to ensure that we learn as much as possible from them. To that end, officials in my Department will draw up proposals shortly. We shall be particularly interested to know what parents and children think of US-style buses, and we shall want to identify the schemes' success in persuading parents to let children whom they take to school by car to travel by bus instead. We shall also involve the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee in our evaluation.
Given that there is a large bus factory, Alexander and Sons, in my hon. Friend's constituency, it might help to point out that other operators and manufacturers are of course free to develop and market alternative school bus schemes using US-style or other types of vehicles, provided they meet the UK regulatory requirements. However, we shall consider applications for special authorisation on merit only until the end of September 2001. Thereafter, we do not expect to give special authorisations for vehicles with the same design, or which offer the same package, as that proposed by FirstGroup until evaluation of the pilot projects has been completed.
I revert to the safety issues involved in getting on and off buses, and not just school buses. As all drivers should know, the highway code has several separate references to the need to take special care when passing buses and bus stops, because of the increased likelihood of people
284WH
crossing the road nearby. Pedestrians should also take great care, because the size of buses obscures people from the view of passing drivers.
In most senses, the advice is inherent in the green cross code, which most children know well but do not always apply—like their elders and, supposedly, betters. In its most abbreviated form, it is the best advice that anyone can have when crossing the road. It says, "Think, stop, look, listen"—and not necessarily once only—
"and wait until it is safe."
However, reality can be more complex. Obviously, it is necessary to find a safe place to cross. That is the basic message of the hedgehog cartoon film, first shown last October, that will be screened again later this year. The message is also included in "Arrive Alive—a Highway Code for Young Road Users". About buses, it says:
"If you do need to cross the road after getting off a bus, wait for it to move away first".
My hon. Friend has asked us to provide advice to enhance the safety of children travelling on buses. We will repeat the messages about the safe use of roads wherever possible, not only to children using buses, but to those out and about on foot and on their bikes. We will direct the messages not only at children. I am not trying to put responsibility, still less blame, for road accidents exclusively on pedestrians. Drivers, too, must take proper care. They should slow down as they pass buses at bus stops, and be prepared to stop quickly if necessary. Through better training and testing, we are helping drivers to become aware of their responsibilities to all vulnerable road users.
I understand that in the case of the accident in Scotland in 1999 that I mentioned earlier, the driver was convicted of careless driving and fined about £300. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the case, which remains a matter of local controversy, so I will not go into detail. A fatal accident inquiry is to be held. The accident prompted the local Member of the Scottish Parliament, Bruce Crawford MSP, to table an amendment to the Transport (Scotland) Bill during its passage last December. It would have given local authorities the power to designate school bus priority routes where other vehicles would not be allowed to pass a stationary school bus. Although Scottish Ministers were sympathetic to the idea, the amendment, as drafted, did not work in legal terms.
I accept my hon. Friend's point, but we are not convinced that such a measure would be the safest option. It also has practical drawbacks. Some drivers, on seeing a school bus that was about to stop, might take unnecessary risks to get past it before it stopped. Drivers waiting to pull out from a side road might be tempted to come out ahead of an approaching bus, even if in other circumstances they might have considered it safer to let it pass first.
The proposal could also have an adverse effect on local traffic flows, with possible consequences for a wide area, and might be especially difficult to enforce in towns that are already congested. Most important, we fear that, if children were afforded such protection on school trips, they might develop a false sense of security, and take less care when getting off service buses, or when crossing the road at other times.
The Government take road safety seriously. That is clearly evidenced by the publication, last year, of our new road safety strategy. One of its targets is to reduce

285WH
child deaths and serious injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010. I warmly welcome yesterday's announcement by Sarah Boyack of the Scottish Executive of a £11.85 million funding initiative aimed at reducing the number of child road deaths in Scotland.
If we find that accidents involving school buses are a particular problem, we shall consider what more we can do to reduce them. Needless to say, we shall get a copy of the sheriff's determination in the Scottish case as soon as it is published. As ever, Ministers will be ready to listen to any ideas that hon. Members wish to suggest.

Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
12.55 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I welcome the Minister. I hope that he can respond to my concerns more fully than he did when I raised a constituency matter in the House at 2 o'clock this morning—although, as he said, I had not given him much notice. I gave him more notice on this occasion.
Although the debate was prompted by constituency cases, it will be of much wider national interest. The administration of the home energy efficiency scheme now amounts to no less than a national scandal. Answers to questions that I put to the Minister's Department, which are recorded in columns 530–34W of yesterday's Hansard, reveal that more than 58,000 households are waiting for about £44 million of work to be done under the scheme. Since it was extended last June, about £27 million of work has been carried out. At that rate, a £44 million backlog is equivalent to about one year's output. Those delays are substantial and unacceptable, yet the Government are still heavily promoting the scheme with advertising, raising expectations by so doing. They have spent about £3 million this yea] on advertising and promoting it.
The delays that are being experienced are being blamed on a shortage of heating engineers. However, it is clear from parliamentary answers that too few heating contractors have been engaged to do the work. There are 22 nominated heating contractors in the eastern area of England, and only 37 in the remaining three quarters of the country. Two contractors appear on both lists, one of which is NW Heating Maintenance, a firm to which I shall refer.
The previous Conservative Government established the home energy efficiency scheme under the Social Security Act 1990. While we were in government, well over 2 million people benefited from grants under the scheme and were consequently able to have energy efficiency measures carried out in their homes. Those who benefited were people on benefits, the disabled and the over-60s. Throughout that period, the scheme was overseen by the Department of the Environment and its administration was contracted out to an organisation called EAGA Ltd., a spin-off from National Energy Action. The company, which is now called the EAGA Partnership, is still responsible for the administration of the scheme across three quarters of England, including Dorset—specifically, my constituency of Christchurch. In its 45th report, published in the year 1997–98, the Public Accounts Committee stated:
"There have been wide variations in the cost of work done by installers, even for work on similar properties in the same area, and it is striking that some installers made almost all their claims exactly at the grant maximum. This may be a consequence of the way in which EAGA have limited the competition between installers."
The PAC concluded:
"There is now scope for the Department and EAGA to promote more competition between installers so that more can be achieved from the funds available to the scheme."
Against that background, I draw hon. Members' attention to what has been happening in practice. The scheme may have the word "efficiency" in its title, but experience on the ground shows that its delivery and

287WH
administration is far from efficient. EAGA has been much better at spin than delivery, taking a leaf out of the Government's book.
The present scheme was launched by the Government with their customary blaze of publicity. More than £100 million was allocated to be spent in England. It was no surprise that many people were attracted to the idea of having up to £2,000 of free central heating provided at the expense of the taxpayer. I have no quarrel with the concept of the scheme: I welcome it. My concern is that, so far, none of my constituents has benefited from it. Nine and a half months after it started, on 1 June 2000, not one central heat rig installation has been completed under the scheme in my constituency.
On 9 March, EAGA answered my question about how many heating jobs had been completed in Christchurch by saying:
"Within your Christchurch constituency, there are currently thirty nine heating jobs waiting to be allocated to installers and thirty five currently allocated, being carried out."
None had been completed. EAGA based those figures on claims from people living in postcode areas BH6, BH7, BH8, BH9, BH21, BH23, BH24 and SP6. That is an area wider than my constituency. On behalf of the wider Christchurch area, I ask the Government, why do my constituents appear to be discriminated against in this respect, as they are in so many others?
Among those attracted to the scheme in Christchurch were Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths of Burton and Mrs. Donovan of Ferndown. In March 2000, Mrs. Donovan's oil-fired heating broke down five times. She applied to the local council for a grant towards the cost of repair, but was told that the Government were introducing a different scheme to ensure that pensioners and older people would have adequate heating for the winter. In June, she registered for the new scheme. She was visited in August by an EAGA representative who told her that she qualified and would have a new system fitted, and that an engineer would call soon.
Nothing happened. On 2 December, Mrs. Donovan wrote to the EAGA Partnership to complain and she did not even receive a reply. After making other representations in February, in desperation, and having tried every other avenue, she turned to her Member of Parliament. She had been incredibly patient, perhaps too patient: she had waited for the engineer since last August. Her letter to me described her various health problems and said that she
"was very, very cold and had borrowed a warm air blower and a one bar electric fire."
She explained that she spent most of her time in her bedroom to keep warm. She said that she had made several telephone calls to EAGA, only to be told that she was at the "top of the list".
I took up Mrs. Donovan's case by writing to the chief executive of EAGA and received a holding reply. Shortly afterwards, Mrs. Donovan was visited by an engineer who confirmed that she needed a new boiler and said that he would be back soon—she imagined, in a matter of days. More than two weeks later, she telephoned me to say that nothing had happened. I telephoned EAGA and last Friday received a faxed letter to say that Mrs. Donovan would be sent a postal order for £40, which
288WH
"can be used to purchase a temporary heating measure—such as electric fan heating".
I was assured that her work was scheduled as a priority.
Interestingly, EAGA wrote to hon. Members on 7 November saying that there were clients who might have to wait up to four months before the backlog was cleared. The letter said that EAGA was operating a strict first-come-first-served policy. That has turned out to be palpably untrue. If such a policy had existed, Mrs. Donovan's heating would have been installed months ago.
Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths came to my surgery 10 days ago to discuss their experiences with EAGA. Mr. Griffiths is registered disabled and lives with his wife and four children. He applied to the scheme in July 2000. In August, he was visited and his application accepted. In October, he was told that the correct boiler for his needs was a Glow-worm Micron and that he would be provided with one. In November, he received a letter to say that because of especially high demand, delays were being experienced, but he should continue to be patient. It continued:
"Please do not chase your work by telephoning us as we cannot prioritise your job ahead of other people's work. We will not forget you and I will write to you again on 30th November to keep you aware of our progress."
The letter also assured Mr. Griffiths that all the work was being done on a first-come-first-served basis, that no one was jumping the queue and that additional contractors were being appointed to speed up the work.
On 8 December, Mr. Griffiths received another letter from EAGA's customer services, requesting him to be patient. Eventually, he was visited by a representative of NW Heating Maintenance and on 13 February he received a quotation for supplying and installing a new boiler in the sum of £1,288.56 including value added tax. He was surprised, because he had earlier been told that he would qualify for a grant of £1,000, but was now told that he would have to contribute £677.93 towards the cost of the new boiler.
After meeting Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths, I telephoned EAGA and NW Heating Maintenance. The latter, which is based in Liverpool, proved to be unable to respond to any of my calls, but I found out from EAGA that the £1,000 grant had been reduced because Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths had received cavity wall insulation and window draught proofing at a cost of £326, which had been set off against the £1,000. That came as a surprise to Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths because no cavity wall insulation had been installed. An engineer who called to do the work discovered that the house already had cavity wall insulation. He drilled a hole and found that out, and then fitted one window with some rather inadequate draught proofing. It now turns out that he charged EAGA £245 for the cavity wall insulation and £81 for draught proofing.
It would seem that Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths are the victims of a serious rip-off. The firm concened, Cosytherm Ltd., has been paid by EAGA—by the taxpayers, effectively—for work that it did not do. However, that is not the only rip-off to which Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths have been subjected. Mr. Griffiths has discovered that he could purchase a Glow-worm Micron boiler off the shelf for £413 including VAT. He has obtained a written quotation from a firm in

289WH
Bournemouth that could supply and fit a Glow-worm Micron, remove the old boiler and connect up the system for £879.90 plus VAT. NW Heating Maintenance has quoted £254 more to do the same work, despite supposedly enjoying all the advantages of massive bulk purchasing. Obviously, if Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths accepted the quote from the local firm, which they are not allowed to do under the Government scheme, the additional cost to them would be only £34 instead of £677. That is the difference between whether the work is affordable for them or not.
The Minister can be under no illusions. The unacceptable delays, uncompetitive pricing and general inefficiency of the new heating scheme arrangements are a scandal. However, insult has been added to injury by television advertisements encouraging more people to apply for free central heating, which both Mrs. Donovan and Mr. and Mrs. Griffiths mentioned to me. The advertisements for the scheme, which has been renamed "Warm Front", involve 85 advertising spots in the Meridian television area, at a cost of around £80,000, with the advertisements costing a further £95,000 to produce. I presume that they have been timed to give the impression of a caring Government in the run-up to the general election. It is a pity that they do not make it clear that, at the present rate of progress, people who apply now will not have their heating installed for a year, and that those who applied last summer, like my constituents, have still not had their work done.
Why are the Government carrying out expensive television advertising for a service that is already in crisis, and which cannot be provided? Why is there no effective competition among central heating installers under the scheme, so that the monopoly suppliers can not only delay serving their customers, but overcharge significantly, as my example shows?
Why is the EAGA Partnership the recipient of a soft contract that covers three quarters of England when it is obvious that it cannot deliver? What redress will the Minister seek from EAGA for the way in which it misled Members of Parliament and its customers with circular letters that assured people that it operated a strict first-come-first-served policy? I take that issue seriously. Those constituents waited patiently, believing those words at face value. I am sure that I was not alone among Members of Parliament in believing that the problem was under control, and that we should not worry about the delays because the people who applied first would be served first. We took that circular letter at face value, but it was not true.
Will the Minister now ensure that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee investigate urgently the contractual arrangements that surround the Government's home energy efficiency scheme? That investigation should include the costs of the latest advertising campaign and the abortive costs of having to pay £40 for every customer whose heating has not been delivered or who has been otherwise adversely affected by the delay. I should also like an inquiry into the rotten deal that customers and taxpayers receive as a result of lack of competition between installers.
290WH
Finally, as the scheme is designed to provide the most environmentally friendly and cost-effective heating systems, I hope that the Minister can explain why the quotes are for non- condensing boilers. Under a scheme with more than £100 million of taxpayers' money, surely it would be much more sensible for the boilers provided to be condensing boilers. That would reduce costs for the need group to which the scheme is directed, and it would have environmental benefits, but it does not seem to happen in practice.
I hope that the Minister can allay some of my serious concerns.
1.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for initiating the debate. It is good to see him again; it is such a short time since we parted company at 2 o'clock this morning.
The Government are determined to tackle fuel poverty, which affects millions of householders. Many of them are the most vulnerable in our society—pensioners, families and disabled householders—and struggle each winter to keep warm. That is why, last month, we published our United Kingdom fuel poverty strategy, which sets out our commitment to end the blight of fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010. It will help more than 3 million households.
In England, vulnerable households in the social sector will be helped by our drive to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010. That will ensure that they no longer suffer from fuel poverty. Those living in the private rented sector or who own their own home will be helped through the warm front team and the revised home energy efficiency scheme. The scheme, or HEES, is therefore a key element in our strategy to tackle fuel poverty.
As the hon. Gentleman said, HEES was started in 1991 and provided households with a single insulation measure, often simple draught proofing for windows and doors. A review of the scheme showed that it reduced heating costs of households by, at most, £100 a year. That level of reduction was not sufficient to move households out of fuel poverty, and it did not tackle the difficulties faced by those who lacked a central heating system or whose central heating system had broken down.
We have radically revised the scheme. The new scheme, introduced in June 2000, provides grants of up to £2,000, which is up from the £315 available under the scheme introduced by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. The increased grant allows us to provide complete packages of insulation and heating measures, which can reduce the cost of keeping warm by up to £1,000 a year. For the first time, we are providing efficient central heating systems for low-income householders aged 60 or over. We also believe that although HEES could never offer an emergency-type service, it should offer to repair central heating systems that have broken down.
The HEES package of measures should be sufficient to move the large majority of householders out of fuel poverty. We are providing funding of more than £600 million for the first four years—more than double the

291WH
level of the previous scheme—and our aim is to assist about 800,000 householders by 2004. To date, more than 76,000 pensioners and families have benefited from the scheme and enjoy substantially warmer houses as a result. A further 58,000 will have work carried out in the next few months.
HEES is managed in eastern England by Eastern HEES, a not-for-profit subsidiary of the energy supplier TXU. In the rest of the country, it is managed by the EAGA Partnership—an employee-owned company that has managed the scheme since its inception in 1991. The contracts were placed following a full, open competition in accordance with the UK public procurement regulations. The tenders were assessed by a panel that included external commentators. It was a unanimous decision of the panel to award the contracts to EAGA and Eastern HEES, as they offered the lowest prices of technically compliant bids.
The two scheme managers are now responsible for much more than simple administration. They are required to market the scheme, survey homes and recruit subcontractors to carry out the work. As their fees are not linked to the measures installed in each home, elderly and other vulnerable householders can be sure of receiving clear, independent advice on the most appropriate measures for their home. However, the scheme managers are paid according to the volume of work carried out, and so have a powerful incentive to ensure quick delivery. The UK public procurement regulations were also used by the scheme managers to recruit the individual heating and insulation subcontractors. I understand that the scheme manager placed advertisements in the trade press and wrote to all members of the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers—some 40,000 companies—inviting them to tender for work. Contracts were awarded, on the basis of lowest cost, to those companies that met our robust technical, quality and safety requirements.
When we announced the scheme in May 1999, many doubted that gas heating systems and insulation could be fitted within the grant maximums suggested. There is evidence to suggest that the prices paid by HEES are lower than those achieved by either energy suppliers, in respect of insulation, or local authorities, with regard to heating.
Changes to the scheme introduced last June were considerable, so it is not entirely unexpected that there have been problems with its implementation. The hon. Gentleman quotes examples from his constituency. I have also received constituency complaints—as, I am sure, have other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the scheme was substantially new and introduced nationwide last June. For example, during the first three months, there were delays in surveying homes that caused follow-on delays in installation. That problem was resolved.
At present, there are serious difficulties in providing heating improvements due to a national shortage of qualified heating engineers. The scheme managers continue to encourage heating companies to tender for work under the scheme. Existing installers are being encouraged to transfer resources from areas of low to those of high demand. We are also considering how to encourage more smaller installer companies to come forward.
292WH
The long-term solution is to increase the number of gas engineers. From last month, in conjunction with Transco, we introduced training programmes to provide an additional 800 engineers to work under the scheme over the next 12 months.
In much of the country, including the south-west, a fast-track system for heating repairs is being introduced. If an engineer has to shut down a boiler and the household has no other source of heating, the fast-track system should normally ensure that the replacement is fitted within five days. If the boiler can be made to work but still requires replacement, the change will be handled more routinely.
Those measures have led to substantial improvements. In much of the country, new gas heating systems and replacement boilers are being installed within three months of survey. The hon. Gentleman extrapolated figures from the start of the scheme and used them to suggest a waiting list of one year. However, that ignores the fact that, because the other scheme was so different, we started from zero. It is totally unrealistic to suggest that people are facing a year's delay when we were going through such a good rate of climb. They are not.
Mr. Chope: Would not the Minister accept that if we are told that it is a first-come-first-served scheme, my comments are fair? Mrs. Donovan applied in June, but she is still waiting.
Mr. Ainsworth: I shall try to deal with individual cases later.
In some areas, including that represented by the hon. Gentleman, serious delays remain in the installation of new heating systems, but we continue to seek improvements. Both scheme managers are keeping those with an interest in the scheme up to date. We realise that many people do not have other heating in addition to the central heating. The scheme managers will shortly be writing to all households that are awaiting heating repairs to offer those without supplementary heating the use of thermostatically controlled electric heaters while they wait for their systems to be repaired. The hon. Gentleman referred to that communication. I must point out, however, that although heating is an important component of HEES, the most popular measure remains the installation of effective home insulation, and insulation continues to be installed as normal and within agreed time scales.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions. First, he complained that the advertising was being done for political purposes and asked why we should be advertising when people were suffering delays. I ask him to accept that huge efficiencies can be gained if people come forward in greater numbers, particularly in areas where they have not been doing so. The area covered by Meridian has one of the lowest number of people coming forward, and that has led to inefficiencies.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are advertising something for their own ends. In fact, Age Concern criticised the Government for failing to advertise the scheme properly. On 12 January, Andrew Alsop of Age Concern told the BBC that the Government should publicise the scheme properly. It is a good scheme. Help is available and so is the cash.

293WH
However, the Department for Social Security needs to publicise better the help that is available. We were under pressure from organisations such as Age Concern to get the scheme up and running, and we needed to ensure that contractors were coming forward in greater numbers than they were. That will help solve the inefficiencies that are the result of low take-up; if the work is obtained in clusters, prices will fall and efficiency will rise.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned two cases. He tried to suggest that what happened to his constituent, Mrs. Donovan, is proof that the scheme is not being handled on a first-come-first-served basis. There was a delay in dealing with Mrs. Donovan, but EAGA issued the job to an installer that was unable to complete due to a high work load. We should investigate the juxtaposition of the hon. Gentleman's claim that no schemes are being installed in his area with the installer's assertion that its heavy work load was causing the delay to Mrs. Donovan's work. The installer may well have been unable to fulfil the commitment that it had given to EAGA—we should investigate that, and any information that the hon. Gentleman has will be useful. This was not just a case of "first come, first served" not applying; the work was issued to an installer, and the installer caused the delay. The work has now been reissued so that Mrs. Donovan can be treated with the priority that she deserves.
The hon. Gentleman made serious allegations in the case of Mr. Griffiths, in which payments were claimed for the installation of cavity wall insulation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows that that case is under investigation by EAGA, so I cannot comment except to say that it will be investigated. We hope to advise him of the outcome, and to learn any lessons that arise from it,
294WH
so that we can ensure that we properly protect the public purse in such matters. There is no question of discrimination—the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised two matters on behalf of his constituents and will receive a response.
At the moment, scheme managers are carrying out little or no advertising of the warm front team or of HEES in much of the country. They are able to rely on word of mouth to generate sufficient interest to meet the scheme's capacity in these areas. The exceptions are the south-east and parts of the south-west, where local referral networks are not fully effective. To ensure that eligible households do not miss out on help, the scheme manager, EAGA, is using advertisements in the local media.
A pilot series of television advertisements is running on weekday afternoons to reach older people in the area. The cost of the four weeks of television slots is some £80,000, and the advertisements cost about £95,000 to produce. Early indications are that they have generated a good response. More than 1,200 inquiries have been received from eligible households in the first three days alone. It is up to EAGA to determine whether the campaign offers better value for money than other routes. At the same time, EAGA is developing the local referral networks to make them more effective, and so remove the need for further advertising.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all that we can to tackle the delays faced by some householders. Their difficulties should not detract from the achievements of the scheme. More than 76,000 vulnerable households have already benefited and a further 58,000 will have work carried out in the next few months, with the result that they will enjoy substantially warmer homes. We have allocated more than £600 million for the first four years of the scheme, with the aim of helping 800,000 households by 2004.

Suez Canal (Service Medal)
1.29 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise, in a short debate, the Government's failure to recommend or the Queen to award campaign medals to those who served in the Suez canal zone between 1951and 1954. I had hoped that there would be more time for the debate because many other hon. Members are concerned about the issue. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) is present; no doubt he will hope to speak, and he has my permission and that of the Minister to do so briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) has also raised question about the matter.
I place on the record my appreciation of my constituent Mr. Davenport, who has been keeping me up to speed on the issue, and of the late Pip Newton, who led the delegation to press the case with my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, 18 months or so ago, when my hon. Friend was a junior Minister. Mr. Newton worked extremely hard to press the campaign. I also wish to record my appreciation for Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Golder and M r. Radford for all their work in documenting the case.
This issue matters to many people. They deserve recognition and, even at this late stage, justice can be done. The case for a campaign or service medal is simple. As people get older, children and grandchildren ask, "Dad,"—or "Grandad,"—"what did you do in the Army?" The person starts to talk about his experiences and is then asked, "Well, show us your medal: prove it!" Although that is said jokingly, it clearly rankles with many people who put in a long period of service in the armed forces and who then served in the difficult theatre of the Suez canal zone that that has not been recognised.
The question of medals also arises when old comrades meet, particularly on occasions such as Armistice day parades. When one is talking to someone at such events, the temptation is just to look at their medals or ribbons to see where they served. People who served in the Suez canal zone have nothing to show that they did so. About 18 months ago, I tabled a series of early-day motions listing the people involved in the campaign. I was amazed at the number of people who wrote to complain that their names could not be added because, despite having included three, we had exceeded the word limit for early-day motions.
Many people believe that they should have received recognition for their service in the Suez canal zone. Is such recognition deserved? The best evidence for that can be found in the autobiography of Selwyn Lloyd, who said firmly that one of the reasons for our withdrawal from the region in 1954 was that the conditions in the canal zone were so bad that it was having an effect on service recruitment and retention. I have with me a document prepared at the time to brief Members of Parliament. It states about life in the canal zone:
"Life is extremely monotonous. There are few amenities. Accommodation is very poor, with no prospect of improvement in view of the uncertainties of the future. Some men are doing guard duties every other night; the luckier ones every third night. All vehicles have to travel in pairs; all senior officers have a jeep escort, and, except in a few places, even bathing parties are accompanied by an armed escort."
296WH
It later states:
"To sit in a sand-bagged post, illuminated at night by arc lamps, with a village 100 yards away from which shots are fired every night and quite often during the day, without the slightest prospect of being able effectively to return the fire, is quite an ordeal for the old Sweat, let alone for the National Serviceman."
I could continue quoting from that document, which gives a great deal of evidence that serving in the canal zone was at least as difficult as serving in many other parts of the world. At any time, about 80,000 personnel were working there. The figures are disputed, but evidence suggests that more than 300 people lost their lives either from snipers and other violent activity towards them, or from accidents. Many more were injured.
I have acquired various press cuttings on the subject. A headline on 22 November 1951 reads, "Soldiers murdered by Suez mob". Others from the same period include "Suez flare-up: 12 die" and "British Army convoy ambushed". "New Suez road completed by Army" is another, which is followed by
"two British soldiers were stabbed to death and a third was seriously injured on Saturday night."
I could go on.
Since 1945, at least 16 conflicts around the world have led to loss of life. Only those who served in the Suez canal zone, however, have failed to be recognised by the award of a service medal. In terms of the number of people who lost their lives, the Suez canal zone veterans are seventh on that list of 16. The lack of recognition is ridiculous. Service there was extremely difficult. People had to put up with appalling conditions, yet they have never been awarded gallantry medals. They should have gained recognition for their services.
We could spend a long time examining why recognition was not given. Some suggest that it was the politics of the time—that it would have given offence to the Egyptians and made negotiations difficult. Others suggest that it was simply a muddle—that a recommendation was made to the medals committee in 1952, but it was too early to realise how much suffering people had gone through. Whether politics or muddle, the question remains whether it is too late.
I understand the argument that it would have been more appropriate to grant recognition at the time, but if something goes wrong, it is never too late to put it right. Another argument made by Ministers is, "If we concede on this, we shall face claims for more medals in connection with other circumstances." I view that as the worst of all arguments, because cases should be decided on their merits.
It is time for the Government to review the issue afresh. If they do not want to make a recommendation, they should allow the medals committee to examine the issue again. I am certain that the committee would become convinced that it matters to many people. A campaign medal is more justified in this case than for at least 10 or 12 others where campaign medals have been issued.
The question remains whether the medals committee should reconsider so long after the events took place. Since it was established in its present form, there has been no review of the way in which the committee works. The committee must have the opportunity to examine the merits of the case again. It needs to assess

297WH
whether there is a strong case for acting and what procedure is appropriate for taking action. I am convinced that if the committee were allowed to reconsider, it would decide that it is high time that the campaign medal was awarded.
I shall listen with interest to the Minister. My plea is for him to give the matter more thought and to find a way of letting the medals committee decide whether there is a valid reason—as I am sure that there is—for awarding a medal in this case.
1.39 pm
Mr. John Healey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on securing the debate, and thank him for encouraging me to make a short contribution.
We have worked together on the campaign for some time, and my hon. Friend has worked extremely hard on behalf of the veterans. I welcome the Minister, who is part of a Government team that was ready to take a fresh look at military matters when there appears to be a long-standing grievance or injustice.
In this case, there is a grievance and an injustice. The case for recognition for the service and the lives given by our troops in the Suez canal zone between 1951 and 1954 has never been considered by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. I have done much research on the subject, especially in the past couple of years, in the Public Record Office and in the Ministry of Defence library. I looked through the Committee's minutes in detail and it became clear to me that the HD committee has a good and consistent record as a committee; it is not, and never has been, a rubber-stamp body. It scrutinises the submissions made to it and rejects or accepts the cases made for medals, such as the general service medal.
The Committee uses no hard and fast criteria; nevertheless, it is clear that in every case it has taken account of similar factors, both before and after the Suez period, all of which are relevant in the claim for the Suez veterans to be entitled to receive the general service medal. However, despite the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Forces wanting the GSM to be awarded to his troops serving in the Suez canal zone, the recommendation never reached the HD committee. The Army Council never even discussed the case formally.
Although I do not underestimate the strength of attachment that the establishment has to the practice of non-retrospection, I make the following plea to the Minister. This year is the 50th anniversary of the deployment of our troops in the Suez canal zone. I urge my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues to make this year the one in which we allow the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals finally to give the case a full and fair hearing.
1.42 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on securing the debate on a subject that is dear to his heart, and to which he has given considerable time and attention. It is appropriate that he raises the matter in Westminster Hall rather than
298WH
over a cup of tea at breakfast time in the Members' Tea Room. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) has also taken a strong interest in the matter and continues to do so.
Service in the Suez canal zone in the early 1950s was an unpleasant and, at times, dangerous experience. The climate was oppressive. Troops were on declared active service. Their accommodation was mostly in tents and the conditions were Spartan. There were killings and woundings, although not as many as some, including my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, suggest. There are reports that 60 service men were killed and 600 wounded during the three-year period; the reality, although still regrettable, is that 40 deaths and 75 woundings were attributable to terrorist action in that time.
In January 1952, the Commander-in-Chief, Middle East Land Forces, General Sir Brian Robertson, wrote to the Military Secretary about the award of operational guaranteed decorations for service in the canal zone. Only an extract from his letter survives, but it seems that he also raised the matter of a campaign medal. In his reply, the Military Secretary said that he would "sound out" the Adjutant-General about that possibility. That would have been only one step in the procedure; the institution of a new medal or clasp was not, and is not, within the power of any single Department. Recommendations require the agreement of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Medals and Decorations, usually referred to as the HD committee, which in turn submits the request to the Sovereign for approval. No record has been found of the sounding out of the Adjutant-General, but we know that the Army Council decided that operational awards would be inappropriate, and that the War Office did not submit a case for a campaign medal to the HD committee.
General Robertson seems to have accepted that. There is no record that he appealed or asked for reconsideration. An opportunity to reopen the question arose a few years later when a clasp to the general service medal was instituted for the 1956 Suez operation, but no one took advantage of it.
As my hon. Friend said, there has been much speculation about why no case was put to the HD committee. It is often claimed that the Foreign Office blocked the case, and there are two conflicting interpretations as t3 why that might have happened. One is that the Foreign Office did not want to upset the Egyptians by admitting that we were, in effect, at war. The other is that the award of a medal would have pleased the Egyptians by conferring the status of a military operation on what was, in fact, terrorist activity.
Service deployments are part of a foreign policy that has diplomatic, economic and military aspects. If a case had ever gone to the HD committee, the Foreign Office would, quite properly, have had a say in the discussion. There is no indication in War Office or Foreign Office records that the two Departments had any consultation on the subject, or that the Foreign Office expressed a view, formally or informally.
The possible effect on opposing nationals did not prevent the award of medals for contemporary or near-contemporary security operations in places such as

299WH
Palestine and Malaya. Neither argument about the effect on the Egyptians would have carried any weight when the further opportunity to make a case arose in 1956.
It has also been claimed that a case was not put forward because the canal zone was a cause of embarrassment to the War Office. Those who claim that appear to be looking at the situation from their own viewpoint, not that of the Army 50 years ago. Troops were deployed in the canal zone to ensure the safe passage of shipping and to protect a limited British presence that existed by treaty with the Egyptians, even though the Egyptian Parliament had abrogated it. There is nothing embarrassing about that. If the War Office had been embarrassed, the Military Secretary would not have taken steps to ensure that so many of those stationed in the canal zone received awards in the 1952 birthday honours list.
Another allegation is that the War Office was influenced by the strength of public and political opinion against the operations. However, public opinion was divided, and there is no reason to believe that the War Office was swayed either way. The then Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir William Slim, widely acknowledged to have been the finest "soldier's general" since Wellington, is unlikely to have been deterred if he had thought that there was a good case.
It is frequently alleged that the members of the Army Council in 1952 were unaware of the conditions in the canal zone, including the casually rate to which I referred. The suggestion that the Army's most senior officers were ignorant of the situation in the biggest British forces base in the eastern Mediterranean and middle east is, to say the least, surprising. They were fully aware of the situation, and in September 1952, the Secretary of State spoke at a meeting of the Army Council about a visit that he had made to the area.
Half a century after the events, and without comprehensive documentation, any explanation of why no case was made can only be speculative. However, the most likely reason is that the Army Council did not consider that the scale and scope of the operations in the canal zone were in the same category as those of other contemporary or recent deployments. The second world war was a recent memory, and the Korean war was still in progress.
A few years previously, internal security operations in Palestine, over a roughly similar three-year period, had resulted in more than six times as many deaths and almost 10 times as many woundings as those that would eventually result from terrorism in the canal zone. A comparison with Palestine was made when the question of operational awards for the canal zone was considered. The British forces in Palestine were heavily involved in a large number of military operations of various types, against an enemy that was fully armed with modern weapons and organised on a proper military basis. In the canal zone, apart from one military operation that lasted one day, when British troops assaulted the Egyptian police barracks at Ishmaelia, the role of the forces was to provide static guarding, convoy protection and personal security against a quite different type of opponent.
300WH
Some veterans argue that their service compares favourably with present-day deployments for which medals have been awarded. That was part of the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish made in drawing attention to operations that had taken place in the period since the war. We need to be clear that the case must be considered against the standards of the time. Policy on medals changes over the years, and it is for each generation to consider whom it should honour. One view was taken during the first world war, another during the second world war and yet another is taken now. We cannot rewrite history.
Whatever the reason for the initial decision, the fact remains that no case was put to the HD committee either at the time of the deployment or later. There does not seem to have been sufficient agitation for the matter to be reopened until some 20 years after the events, when the late Pip Newton, to whom my hon. Friend referred, instituted a lobbying campaign.
The HD committee has a long-standing policy that it will not consider the institution of awards and medals for service given many years earlier. It will not look back at claims for medals if the operation concerned finished more than five years previously.
Mr. Bennett: Could my hon. Friend tell me when the committee arrived at that decision? Is it not now time for the committee at least to review it?
Mr. Spellar: That decision was taken shortly after the end of the second world war. It might be appropriate to put that point to the committee again, but it believes that there are sound grounds in respect of trying to judge historical decisions against the different criteria of the day. The reasons given by the committee are that, when no contemporary claim was made, it cannot second-guess why those who were in a position to ask for a medal decided not to do so. It also says that claims that were rejected at the time, either by the Ministry of Defence and its predecessors or by the HD committee, were based on contemporary evidence and that those who rejected the claims would have had access to the full facts at the time and would have had valid reasons for rejection.
As I said, that policy has been in force since the end of the second world war, but there had in practice been no retrospective institution of medals since the 19th century. The HD committee has made it clear on a number of occasions that it does not intend to reconsider the policy and nor will it admit that decisions taken in the 19th century should be precedents for the present day.
That is not to say that the Ministry of Defence has a closed mind on the question. In 1990, the then Adjutant-General set in train a review, which examined all the open and closed MOD records that could be found and consulted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Public Record Office. The then Chief of the General Staff also took an interest in the case. The Adjutant-General concluded that no evidence had been found to

301WH
indicate that the Army Council decision taken at the time was unsound or should be re-examined. Colonel Newton was given the opportunity to study the documents that led to that conclusion.
The following year, the next Adjutant-General sought guidance from the Cabinet Secretary, the chairman of the HD committee. The advice given was that the Ministry of Defence was
"right, so long after the event, to treat this matter as having been settled long ago and to continue to refuse claims for retrospective recognition".
Four years later, Colonel Newton raised the matter with a new Adjutant-General who studied the available material and concluded that the earlier decisions should not be re-examined. The following year, the then Chief of the General Staff examined the relevant papers and also endorsed the conclusion that the matter was settled long ago.
Three years ago, as Under-Secretary of State for Defence, I met a delegation headed by my hon. Friend that consisted of eight canal zone veterans, including Colonel Newton. They stated their case and handed me a number of documents. I asked my Department's Army historical branch to carry out a further review of all available documents to see whether any new facts had come to light and whether there were any grounds for reopening the case. The review was very thorough and my conclusion was that there was no new evidence to persuade me that I should make a case to the HD committee asking it to break its long-established policy and overturn the decisions taken at the time.
We remain willing to look at fresh evidence. For a long time it was believed that the correspondence dating from 1952 had been destroyed or lost. Some of it came to light in July 1999 with the discovery of a folder of papers that should have been passed to the Public Record Office 15 years earlier. We were open about that, and copies of the documents were sent to all hon. Members who had received ministerial letters mentioning the 1952 correspondence and to some of the more frequent correspondents among the veterans. I arranged for the papers to be examined by the Army historical branch; again, its conclusion was that they contained nothing to justify an approach to the HD committee.
302WH
A year ago, my hon. Friend and a colleague presented my successor as Under-Secretary with papers relating to contemporary political and public opinion about the canal zone; again the papers were examined and yet again the same conclusion was reached.
In summary, there are three basic facts. First, the War Office did not submit a case for a medal at the time of the canal zone deployment or shortly after. Secondly, the HD committee has a long-standing and firm policy of non-retrospection. Thirdly, despite successive reviews, no evidence has come to light that demonstrates that the War Office got it wrong and that the HD committee could be persuaded to breach its policy.
Mr. Healey: Can my hon. Friend explain what new evidence would persuade him to alter his position?
Mr. Spellar: Evidence relating to, for example, the Army Council could persuade me to alter my position. I mentioned earlier that General Robertson did not appeal or argue against the decision. However, we believe from the surrounding evidence that he probably made an initial inquiry. Evidence relating to whether the case was considered properly in terms of procedure might constitute grounds for reconsideration.
Mr. Bennett: There is increasing evidence about how delicate the situation was among Conservative MPs at the time. One faction was keen to get out of the zone as quickly as possible; the other faction was keen to stand and fight. That sensitivity suggests that there may have been a little political persuasion not to award a medal because it would have caused political difficulties for a party that had a small majority at the time.
Mr. Spellar: The fact that engagements were controversial has not prevented medals being awarded. I mentioned the Korean war, which was controversial in British domestic terms. I say to both my hon. Friends, and to the other hon. Members who have taken a considerable interest in the matter, that we are ready to examine further evidence and we understand the strength of feeling about the case. We acknowledge the service that was given by the veterans in the Suez canal zone in that period.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of China about the 10th report, Session 1999–2000, of the Foreign Affairs Committee. [152855]

  Mr. Battle
  Immediately after publication of the FAC report, Chinese officials in London and Peking told us that they were unhappy with aspects of its contents. The Chinese Government have issued a number of public statements criticising the report.

  Military Attachés
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the statements made on 27 February 2001,Official Report, column 700, relating to remarks attributed to French and Italian military attaches in Washington. [153136]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Italian ambassador and the French military attacheés have both written to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to deny the remarks attributed to the Italian and French military attachés in Washington on 27 February 2001,Official Report, column 700.

  Election Observers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many foreign elections have been observed in the past five years by publicly funded British observers. [153459]

  Mr. Battle
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Nonetheless, between spring 1999 and spring 2000 the UK supported election observation in 19 countries, either by providing international observers or by funding domestic observers.

  HMS Tireless
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he intends to hold with regional Government representatives in Andalucia regarding HMS Tireless. [153160]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have had regular contact regarding HMS Tireless with the local and regional Andalucian authorities through our Embassy in Madrid. There has also been an exchange of correspondence at ministerial level. We have always made clear that we acknowledge the concerns of the people in the region. We will continue to do all we can to allay these concerns and to provide assurances regarding the safety of HMS Tireless.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contact he has had with the Government of Indonesia concerning inter-communal killings. [153539]

  Mr. Battle
  We are deeply concerned by reports of inter-communal violence in Kalimantan and regret the extensive loss of life resulting from these clashes. We have urged the communities involved to halt the violence. We called on the Indonesian authorities to re-establish law and order, and to assist the communities in finding a peaceful and lasting solution. I issued a statement to this effect on 27 February.

  Brunei
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Brunei concerning the recent arrest of seven Christians. [153725]

  Mr. Battle
  A total of seven were initially detained. Four people have now been released, but three remain in detention. Our High Commissioner in Brunei is in close contact with local church leaders and has discussed the matter with senior officials in the Bruneian Government; and we are co-ordinating our actions with EU counterparts. Our High Commissioner in Brunei will continue, both through contacts with the Bruneian authorities and in consultation with EU partners and other Governments represented in Brunei, to press for those detained to be treated in line with Brunei's obligations as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  Kurdish Organisations
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts he has had with(a) the PKK and (b) other Kurdish organisations in Turkey and elsewhere. [153594]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not had any contacts with the PKK or any recent contacts with other Kurdish organisations in Turkey or elsewhere.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Macedonia with respect to recent inter-communal violence. [153593]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: I last spoke to the Macedonian Foreign Minister on 2 March, when I expressed our deep concern over the occupation of the Macedonian village near the Kosovo border by a group of Albanian extremists. I also commended the restraint shown by the Macedonian Government. On 12 March the Prime Minister wrote to President Trajkovski to express support for the Macedonian Government. I welcome the robust action taken by NATO and KFOR, not only in tightening control over the Kosovo side of the border but also in strengthening co-ordination with the Macedonian Government.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Home Office about fulfilling the commitment to extend the European Parliament franchise to Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [153458]

  Mr. Vaz
  holding answer 13 March 2001]: We are in regular contact with Home Office Ministers and officials on this issue. As I said in my evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 7 March, HMG unequivocally accept their obligation to secure the European parliamentary franchise for Gibraltar. We are carefully considering all possible options for achieving this objective before the 2004 EP elections.

  Colombia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings UK representatives have held with human rights organisations in Colombia since May 1997; and how many embassy staff in Colombia are dedicated to human rights work. [153692]

  Mr. Battle
  UK representatives have a regular and on-going dialogue with human rights organisations in Colombia. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I met a range of human rights organisations, NGOs, church and trade union leaders during our visit to Colombia in September 2000, including representatives from Christian Aid, CODHES, Mandato Ciudadano por la Paz, Indepaz, Redepaz, No Mas, and also Padre Francisco de Roux and Monsignor Pedro Rubiano. Recently on 8 March in London, I hosted a round table on Colombia with UK NGOs, Padre de Roux and the Presidential Counsellor for Security and Alternative Development. My right hon. Friend met a number of other leading human rights organisations during her visit to Colombia in March this year, including Women Waging Peace, CINEP and CCJ. We value all these contacts and will continue this substantial dialogue.

  Human rights are central to the work of the embassy in Bogota. A considerable proportion of the time of several embassy staff is devoted to human rights work.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support has been given by the UK to Plan Colombia to date; and what further expenditure is planned. [153693]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 14 December 2000,Official Report, columns 227–28W. There is no UK Government financial involvement in Plan Colombia either bilaterally or through the EU. Assistance through the EU of 105 million euro will support human rights, long-term economic and social development, and an end to violence. No expenditure is planned by the UK Government to support Plan Colombia.

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Predicted achievement of projects' core requirements (percentage)

  91

  97

  97

  97

  Average cumulative slippage of In Service Dates not to exceed (months)

  23.8

  13.8

  13.5

  11.8

  Average cumulative cost variation not to exceed (percentage)

  4.9

  3.6

  3.5

  0

  Customer satisfaction rating (percentage)

  65

  70

  75

  78

  Reduce operating costs in relation to 1997–98 Procurement Executive costs by (percentage)

  19

  22

  26

  26

  UN Commission on Human Rights
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the British representatives at the UN Commission on Human Rights held in Geneva for each session since May 1997; what reports have been issued by the Commission; and if he will place them in the Library. [153691]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK delegation to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has, since the 54th session in 1998, been headed by Mrs. Audrey Glover CMG. The delegation has also included representatives from the UK missions to the UN in Geneva and New York, as well as from the Human Rights Policy Department and the Global Issues Research Group of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All reports issued by the Commission, and all resolutions adopted, are available in full on the following website: www.unhchr.ch. I understand that the House of Commons Library receives UN documents, including the annual report of the CHR.

DEFENCE

  Single Living Accommodation
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve single living accommodation for Service personnel. [154041]

  Mr. Hoon
  Much of the living accommodation provided for Service personnel and their families is of good quality. But it is not consistently so. We have in hand a major upgrade programme for Service families' accommodation in Great Britain, with the aim of bringing core stock to modern standards by late 2005. The quality of the accommodation provided for single Service personnel also leaves much to be desired. This Government are determined that all those who serve their country are provided with good accommodation. So a significant proportion of the new money provided to the Defence budget in Spending Review 2000 will be devoted to a major and sustained upgrade programme for single living accommodation. Together, existing and new projects, including PFI, will see investment in this area reaching around £200 million per year. We intend to apply the principles of "Smart Construction" to this programme, achieving greater efficiency and economies of scale through prime contracting and close collaboration with the building industry.

  Defence Procurement Agency
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets he sets the Defence Procurement Agency in respect of delivering a percentage capability within a particular time scale. [153453]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: The current Key Targets for the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) are as follows:
  601W
  The DPA's targets are published annually in its Corporate Plan and reported against al its Annual Report.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed by the Defence Procurement Agency. [153447]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: As at 9 March 2001 the number of staff employed in the Defence Procurement Agency stands at 4,601.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the total running costs of the Defence Procurement Agency and its predecessor since 1971. [153448]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: Central records for running costs do not exist. However, the operating costs of the Defence Procurement Agency (and before that the Procurement Executive), including the nuclear and fissile material programme, have been as follows since 1995–96:

  Year

  million (cash outturn)

  1995–96

  776

  1996–97

  763

  1997–98

  711

  1998–99

  699

  1999–2000

  656

  These figures, and those since 1971, have been published in successive annual Appropriation Accounts for the Ministry of Defence.

  Balkans
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future UK force levels in the Balkans. [154042]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following a review by NATO of the Statement of Requirement for aircraft in the Balkans theatre we have agreed new burden-sharing arrangements with the US Air Force. This agreement means that for three months in 12, we will meet the requirement for four strike aircraft, and the US for the remainder of the year. We have now completed our first three-month commitment, allowing us to withdraw four RAF Harriers and some 150 support personnel from Gioia del Colle from 1 April. The RAF will next deploy four aircraft again in early 2002.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to store used nuclear reactor containers at the Devonport dockyard. [152859]

  Dr. Moonie
  As the Minister for the Armed Forces made clear to the hon. Member during the Westminster Hall Adjournment debate on Radioactive Discharges (River Tamar) on 17 January 2001,Official Report, columns 121–24WH, we currently have no plans to store used nuclear reactor compartments from decommissioned nuclear submarines at Devonport Dockyard. Later this year we shall be inviting industry to put forward their land storage proposals and, although these are likely to include the storage of intact reactor compartments, other options could be proposed. We expect potential storage sites to
  602W
  emerge from this further work. Decisions on the land store method and site will not be taken for some two to three years, and then not until after full consultation with the UK's independent regulators and the public.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many public interest immunity certificates have been requested by his Department; how many have been granted; and what subjects they covered, in relation to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. [153225]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has signed four certificates claiming public interest immunity in respect of intelligence material which is relevant to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. The Tribunal has approved two of the claims; rulings on the other two are awaited.

  Procurement
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the estimated savings to date as a result of the smart procurement initiative. [153451]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: Over the three successive annual planning rounds since the inception of the smart procurement initiative, we have identified costing reductions attributable to smart procurement which total £2 billion over the ten-year period 1998 to 2008. We expect to improve on this in the current and future planning rounds.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has put in place to ensure that contractor past performance is given sufficient weighting in the MOD's procurement decisions. [153452]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: In assessing the eligibility of suppliers to fulfil its requirements, the MOD takes account, where appropriate, of a number of factors, including company capacity, capability and past performance. Companies may be required to complete a pre-qualification to provide information on, among other things, delivery and performance history for similar projects. The Department recognises the importance of learning from, and building on, past experience, and to that end it is looking to implement a further series of measures designed to better capture past performance, including a supplier self-assessment scheme, joint industry/Ministry of Defence reviews aimed at improving future performance and closer vendor management initiatives.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total over-spend on defence procurement projects since 1971. [153449]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: Figures for cost performance of the largest projects have been published in the Major Projects Report since 1993 and copies are available in the Library of the House. Complete historic data for all projects are not held centrally.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning the use of
  603W
  trucks for the slaughter and disposal of stock affected by the current foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [153503]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: Officials from the Ministry of Defence are in close touch with their opposite numbers from the Ministry of Agriculture., Fisheries and Food, discussing the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak and possible requests for military support. All requests for support are treated urgently and sympathetically. Trucks for the slaughter and disposal of stock affected by the outbreak require sealed containers which do not form part of the military inventory.

  Maverick
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Maverick anti-armour missiles procured from Raytheon Corporation are in active service; and if he will make a statement. [152904]

  Dr. Moonie
  Maverick entered service with the Royal Air Force on 15 February 2001.

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [R] [152798]

  Dr. Moonie
  For staff covered by the main departmental pay system, the basic headline settlement added 2.5 per cent. to the paybill. A further 0.2 per cent. represented restructuring costs, including 0.1 per cent. for bonus payments in line with the civil service reform agenda. Together with funds released by staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4.7 per cent.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Redundancies)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC officers have accepted voluntary redundancy under the recently introduced terms; how many have left to date on voluntary redundancy terms; how many officers whose applications for voluntary redundancy have been accepted have still to leave; and over what period they will be leaving. [152383]

  Table 2: Categorisation of customer complaints 1999–2000

  Percentage

  Policy

  Incorrect action

  Delay/failure to take appropriate action

  Complaints about staff

  Disclosure of information

  Good cause

  Communication

  Human Rights Act

  In month

  April

  16.8

  17.7

  41.5

  5.5

  1.1

  0.1

  17.3

  n/a

  May

  16.8

  17.3

  45.7

  4.9

  0.9

  0.1

  15.1

  n/a

  June

  14.2

  14.5

  46.4

  4.9

  0.9

  4.1

  15.1

  n/a

  July

  13.0

  17.9

  46.9

  5.0

  0.9

  0.2

  16.0

  n/a

  August

  13.1

  16.2

  47.5

  6.0

  1.0

  0.1

  16.2

  n/a

  604W
  Mr. Ingram
  The number of officers who have left the Royal Ulster Constabulary under voluntary severance terms up to 3 March 2001 was 367. A further 116 officers will be leaving during the period 4–31 March.

  The closing date for acceptance to the second phase of the scheme is 31 March 2001.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints were made against decisions of the Child Support Agency in 2000. [152681]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 13 March 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  You asked how many complaints were made against decisions of the Child Support Agency in 2000. Unfortunately, information of this type is not collected. However, Agency statistics show the three main causes of complaint are poor communication, error, and delay.
  The Agency received 21015 complaints in 2000. In that year complaints reduced by 28% against an increased caseload of 1.4%. The attached annex shows the amounts and breakdown of the types of complaints. Table 1 shows the amount of complaints received and table 2 shows the different types of complaint for the twelve-month period from April 1999 to March 2000.
  The Agency is taking steps to standardise the way that it deals with complaints. A series of recommendations to ensure complaints are dealt with correctly both before and after the implementation of Child Support Reform have been made and are now being taken forward in all Agency Business Units.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1: Number of customer received 1999–2000

  Month

  Number

  April

  1,990

  May

  1,768

  June

  1,879

  July

  1,831

  August

  1,690

  September

  1,959

  October

  1,747

  November

  1,746

  December

  1,358

  January

  1,271

  February

  1,844

  March

  1,932

  605W

  Table 2: Categorisation of customer complanints 1999–2000

  Percentage

  Policy

  Incorrect action

  Delay/failure to take appropriate action

  Complaints about staff

  Disclosure of information

  Good cause

  Communication

  Human Rights Act

  September

  18.8

  15.9

  42.0

  4.9

  2.3

  0.6

  15.6

  n/a

  October

  15.3

  16.5

  45.1

  5.0

  0.7

  0.2

  17.2

  n/a

  November

  13.5

  18.8

  43.8

  6.1

  1.1

  0.3

  16.4

  n/a

  December

  13.9

  21.3

  42.1

  6.6

  1.1

  0.2

  14.8

  n/a

  January

  14.1

  17.1

  45.8

  5.4

  1.0

  0.4

  16.2

  n/a

  February

  12.5

  17.9

  43.6

  6.8

  1.4

  0.2

  17.6

  n/a

  March

  15.3

  17.8

  42.5

  6.2

  1.7

  0.2

  16.4

  n/a

  Year to date

  April

  16.8

  17.7

  41.5

  5.5

  1.1

  0.1

  17.3

  n/a

  May

  16.5

  17.5

  43.4

  5.2

  1.0

  0.1

  16.3

  n/a

  June

  15.6

  16.4

  44.5

  5.1

  1.0

  1.6

  15.8

  n/a

  July

  15.0

  16.8

  45.1

  5.1

  1.0

  1.2

  15.9

  n/a

  August

  14.7

  16.7

  45.4

  5.2

  1.0

  1.1

  15.9

  n/a

  September

  15.4

  16.5

  44.8

  5.2

  1.2

  1.0

  15.9

  n/a

  October

  15.4

  16.5

  44.9

  5.1

  1.1

  0.9

  16.1

  n/a

  November

  15.2

  16.8

  44.7

  5.2

  1.1

  0.8

  16.1

  n/a

  December

  15.1

  17.2

  44.5

  5.4

  1.1

  0.8

  16.0

  n/a

  January

  15.0

  17.2

  44.6

  5.4

  1.1

  0.7

  16.0

  n/a

  February

  14.8

  17.2

  44.5

  5.5

  1.1

  0.7

  16.2

  n/a

  March

  14.8

  17.3

  44.4

  5.5

  1.2

  0.6

  16.2

  n/a

  Pensions
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the impact on the weekly pensions of men aged 60 to 64 who, had they been women, would have qualified to receive the state pension, of allocating to them the funds for the proposed increase to existing pensioners. [153500]

  Mr. Rooker
  A man cannot draw State Retirement Pension before he reaches State pension age. Therefore no estimate has been made.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the practice of pension clawback by companies operating occupational pension schemes. [153671]

  Mr. Rooker
  Occupational pension provision is voluntary, and it is for employers to decide the nature of the scheme and the benefits provided. The decision as to whether a scheme should continue to operate on an integrated basis, or if not, how and when integration should be abolished, is a matter for employers.

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [152790]

  Mr. Rooker
  The headline pay settlement was 2.6 per cent. on the pay bill and, together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received increases averaging 4.5 per cent

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action will be taken to identify and remove 606W
  inaccurate, duplicate and fraudulent national insurance numbers once the Data Cleansing Project comes to an end. [152437]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Data Cleansing Project removed 182,000 National Insurance numbers (NINOs) during the last financial year—more than during the whole of the last Parliament.

  The Data Cleansing Project will move from departmental project status to departmental core business status on 31 March. Therefore the process of analysing our database to identify and remove inaccurate, duplicate and fraudulent NINOs will continue at current levels as part of our core business.

  In addition, from 31 March onwards there will be a rollout of an enhanced process for allocating NINOs. The new process will involve far more stringent tests before a NINO is allocated thus preventing fraud and error entering the system in the first place.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many national insurance numbers on the Departmental Central Index relate to people(a) now deceased, (b) who live abroad and receive no benefits, (c) who live abroad and receive benefits and (d) aged under 16 years. [152438]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are approximately 13.5 million records on DCI holding a date of death. These are needed in case spouses make claims on their deceased partner's contributions.

  Figures have never been kept on the number of records for people who live abroad and receive no benefits. These records are held in the event that people subsequently return and make a claim to benefit.

  Benefit is currently paid to approximately 2 million customers including their dependants resident overseas.
  607W
  There are approximately 12.5 million numbers held on DCI for children under 16. These become proper National Insurance Numbers when the child reaches 16.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of exempting Invalid Care Allowance from the overlapping benefits rules(a) entirely and (b) with respect to retirement pension. [152330]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that for the year 2002–03 the cost of abolishing the overlapping benefits rules for ICA recipients(a) entirely would be £450 million and (b) for those over state pension age only, £400 million.

  The rules on overlapping benefits have been a feature of social security benefit payments since 1948 and prevent more than one benefit intended to meet the same need being paid at the same time.

  Notes:

  1. The figures quoted represent 2002–3 benefit rates and caseloads and have been rounded to the nearest fifty million.

  2. The source used is the Family Resources Survey 1999–00, ICA quarterly extract December 2000 and ICA caseload forecasts.

  3. Given the limitations of modelling entitlement to invalid care allowance from survey data the estimate should be treated with caution.

  4. It is assumed that take-up among the entitled group will he one hundred percent.

  5. An adjustment has been made for IRB effects.

  Pension Deductions
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners had money deducted from their state retirement pension while in hospital during the last calendar year for which figures are available; and what the cost to the Exchequer would have been of not making such deductions. [153226]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 31 March 2000, some 31,900 retirement pensioners were in hospital and subject to a downrating of their retirement pension. The costs of abolishing such downrating is approximately £60 million per year.

  Poverty (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) people and (b) children were living in poverty in Lancashire in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001. [153167]

  Mr. Bayley
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of people's lives—including income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. There is no single measure that can capture the complex problems that need to be overcome.

  However, a number of these aspects have seen significant improvement in Lancashire since 1997. For example, the number of unemployed people in Lancashire has fallen by around 10,000, from nearly 27,000 in January 1997 to around 16,000 in January 2001. Between 1997 and 2000 the number of children in families in receipt of out of
  608W
  work benefits has fallen from nearly 50,000 to around 46,000. The proportion of 11-year-olds achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 has risen in English from 68 per cent. in 1998 to 76 per cent. in 2000 and in mathematics from 63 per cent. in 1998 to 74 per cent. in 2000.

  The annual report "Opportunity for all", available in the Library, sets out and monitors the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion.

  Note:

  Unemployment figures based on claimant count information.

  Sure Start Maternity Grant
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mothers in Wansbeck have received the Sure Start maternity grant since its introduction. [153143]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested as the number of recipients of Sure Start maternity grants (SSMGs) is not held by sex or parliamentary constituency. SSMGs may be claimed either by the mother or by her partner, one of whom must have been awarded a qualifying benefit.

  In the period since the introduction of SSMGs on 27 March 2000 to the end of February 2001, 1,368 people have received a SSMG in the Benefits Agency's Northumbria area.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the proportion of private landlords who will not accept tenants who are in receipt of Housing Benefit; and how these figures have altered since May 1997. [153390]

  Angela Eagle
  None. No data are held to make the comparison requested.

  Working Age Agency
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to extend the use of work-focused interviews within the Working Age Agency. [153900]

  Mr. Darling
  My tight hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I are establishing, later this year, the Working Age Agency. This will bring together labour market and benefit services for people of working age and enable us to provide a more integrated approach for our customers.

  As the first stage in the launch of the Working Age Agency, we will be introducing around 50 Pathfinder offices. A provisional list of their locations is set out in the table. People of working age making a claim for benefit in these offices will be required to participate in a work-focused interview as an integral part of the benefit claims process and will be offered specialist support to help them into work. I will shortly be laying regulations under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 for this purpose.

  609W

  WAA Pathfinder sites (provisional)

  City/town

  Number

  Greenock

  1 1

  Port Glasgow

  1 1

  Livingston

  1

  City of Aberdeen

  3

  Bridgend

  2

  Maesteg

  1

  Pyle

  1

  Porthcawl

  1

  South West Birmingham

  3

  Telford

  2

  Madeley

  1

  Wellington

  1

  Wallasey

  1

  Hoylake

  1

  Blackburn

  2

  Darwen

  1

  Manchester Openshaw

  2

  Halifax

  22

  Huddersfield

  22

  Dewsbury

  22

  Todmorden

  21

  City Derby

  4

  Gateshead

  2

  Felling

  1

  Blaydon

  1

  Birtley

  1

  Exmouth

  1

  Honiton

  1

  Tiverton

  1

  Sidmouth

  1

  Chelmsford

  12

  Southend

  11

  Rayeigh

  11

  Willesden

  1

  Wembley

  1

  Kilburn

  1

  Harlesden

  1

  Winchester

  1

  Streatham

  1

  1 ONE Basic Model Pilot

  2 ONE Call Centre Pilot

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children have been lifted out of poverty since May 1997; and if he will provide the basis for Ministers' calculation concerning the number of children who will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the present Parliament. [152432]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  As a result of personal tax and benefit reforms announced in this Parliament, over 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty. This is an estimate, using the Treasury's tax benefit simulation model, of the impact of measures on the number of children living in households with income below 60 per cent. of the median.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pre-school Provision (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) registered nursery and (b) playgroup places there were (i) in 1996 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available for (A) London and (B) each London Borough. [152196]
  610W
  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: The available information requested is shown in the tables. This includes information on day nurseries and playgroups for March 1996 and March 2000 and needs to be seen in the context of a national rise in playgroup places. In addition, for your information I have provided a table on the provision of education in maintained nursery and primary schools in England in January 2000.

  The responsibility for day care provision transferred from the Department of Health to the Department for Education and Employment in March 1998.

  Number of providers of day nurseries, playgroups and pre-schools and number of places

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Provide

  Places

  Provide

  Places

  March 1996

  London

  961

  27,793

  1,616

  39,137

  Inner London

  519

  13,912

  428

  9,740

  City of London

  3

  71

  2

  57

  Camden

  59

  1,558

  35

  623

  Hackney

  60

  1,853

  42

  956

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Haringey

  39

  1,023

  37

  967

  Islington

  60

  1,828

  35

  845

  Kensington and Chelsea

  19

  754

  16

  316

  Lambeth

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Lewisham

  61

  1,484

  39

  811

  Newham

  25

  750

  31

  549

  Southwark

  64

  1,730

  51

  1,203

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Wandsworth

  55

  1,761

  103

  2,599

  Westminster

  39

  1,100

  37

  814

  Outer London

  442

  13,881

  1,188

  29,397

  Barking and Dagenham

  9

  337

  33

  884

  Barnet

  6

  1,041

  69

  1,907

  Bexley

  10

  341

  64

  1,897

  Brent

  66

  1,929

  36

  942

  Bromley

  1—

  1—

  130

  4,495

  Croydon

  34

  996

  99

  2890

  Ealing

  38

  1,318

  44

  1,050

  Enfield

  26

  749

  88

  2,761

  Greenwich

  26

  806

  45

  1,016

  Harrow

  5

  155

  71

  1—

  Havering

  13

  460

  91

  2,333

  Hillingdon

  36

  1,285

  71

  1—

  Hounslow

  30

  829

  46

  1,116

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  24

  621

  46

  1,044

  Merton

  19

  567

  33

  860

  Redbridge

  32

  1—

  65

  2,200

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  23

  812

  70

  1,796

  Sutton

  19

  782

  51

  1,230

  Waltham Forest

  26

  853

  36

  976

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Provide

  Places

  Provide

  Places

  March 1997

  London

  899

  27,650

  1,600

  41,534

  Inner London

  501

  15,052

  429

  9,899

  City of London

  3

  78

  2

  57

  Camden

  46

  1,396

  37

  669

  Hackney

  62

  1,950

  39

  889

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  38

  1,192

  1—

  1—

  Haringey

  34

  775

  37

  972

  Islington

  62

  1,868

  35

  892

  Kensington and Chelsea

  35

  926

  17

  304

  Lambeth

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  611W

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Provide

  Places

  Provide

  Places

  Lewisham

  55

  1,436

  40

  881

  Newham

  24

  798

  29

  628

  Southwark

  48

  1,650

  51

  1,111

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Wandsworth

  57

  1,894

  103

  2,599

  Westminster

  37

  1,089

  39

  897

  Outer London

  398

  12,598

  1,171

  31,635

  Barking and Dagenham

  10

  355

  32

  856

  Barnet

  15

  566

  66

  1,988

  Bexley

  12

  448

  62

  1,763

  Brent

  62

  1,786

  38

  1,022

  Bromley

  1—

  1—

  133

  4,556

  Croydon

  36

  1,088

  95

  2,733

  Ealing

  40

  1,309

  42

  991

  Enfield

  32

  850

  89

  1,935

  Greenwich

  27

  895

  47

  1,052

  Harrow

  5

  155

  67

  1,728

  Havering

  16

  572

  90

  2,313

  Hillingdon

  5

  151

  68

  1,579

  Hounslow

  32

  876

  46

  1,110

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  27

  715

  46

  1,021

  Merton

  20

  585

  31

  805

  Redbridge

  4

  106

  61

  2,186

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  28

  1,016

  67

  1,680

  Sutton

  22

  845

  53

  1,277

  Waltham Forest

  5

  280

  38

  1,040

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Provide

  Places

  Provide

  Places

  March 1998

  London

  856

  24,271

  1,011

  22,185

  Inner London

  540

  13,145

  273

  5,826

  City of London

  3

  90

  2

  57

  Camden

  54

  1,495

  32

  596

  Hackney

  130

  4,161

  1—

  1—

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35

  1,121

  32

  1—

  Haringey

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Islington

  62

  1939

  32

  873

  Kensington and Chelsea

  22

  744

  13

  217

  Lambeth

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Lewisham

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Newham

  24

  750

  29

  656

  Southwark

  50

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Tower Hamlets

  35

  646

  27

  435

  Wandsworth

  86

  1,859

  62

  2,055

  Westminster

  38

  340

  44

  937

  Outer London

  316

  11,126

  738

  16,359

  Barking and Dagenham

  1—

  1—

  30

  754

  Barnet

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Bexley

  13

  1—

  61

  1—

  Brent

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Bromley

  1—

  887

  1—

  1—

  Croydon

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Ealing

  42

  1,401

  43

  1,012

  Enfield

  18

  515

  87

  2,033

  Greenwich

  28

  911

  41

  939

  Harrow

  7

  246

  66

  1,775

  Havering

  12

  1,296

  106

  2,529

  Hillingdon

  41

  1,568

  64

  1,450

  Hounslow

  32

  963

  45

  1,086

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  40

  1,401

  43

  1,012

  Merton

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Redbridge

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  29

  1,077

  67

  1,693

  Sutton

  22

  861

  49

  1,190

  Waltham Forest

  32

  1—

  36

  886

  612W

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Provide

  Places

  Provide

  Places

  March 1999

  London

  1,138

  37,825

  1,558

  38,858

  Inner London

  600

  18,845

  480

  10,054

  City of London

  3

  81

  3

  44

  Camden

  52

  1,407

  40

  698

  Hackney

  53

  1,700

  35

  791

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  31

  1,019

  33

  733

  Haringey

  30

  837

  32

  624

  Islington

  48

  1,624

  40

  862

  Kensington and Chelsea

  46

  1,544

  31

  622

  Lambeth

  49

  1,573

  37

  801

  Lewisham

  57

  1,620

  54

  962

  Newham

  19

  708

  30

  628

  Southwark

  50

  1,567

  48

  1,024

  Tower Hamlets

  24

  813

  20

  579

  Wandsworth

  76

  2,493

  63

  1,424

  Westminster

  62

  1,859

  14

  262

  Outer London

  538

  18,980

  1,078

  28,804

  Barking and Dagenham

  12

  431

  30

  739

  Barnet

  38

  1,657

  52

  1,296

  Bexley

  13

  537

  57

  1,549

  Brent

  58

  1,849

  33

  802

  Bromley

  32

  1,015

  127

  4,504

  Croydon

  39

  1,159

  85

  2,492

  Ealing

  41

  1,428

  39

  916

  Enfield

  18

  536

  86

  2,089

  Greenwich

  25

  763

  39

  905

  Harrow

  7

  250

  67

  1,691

  Havering

  16

  551

  81

  1,863

  Hillingdon

  44

  1,797

  61

  1,441

  Hounslow

  28

  844

  42

  965

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  20

  699

  48

  1,086

  Merton

  28

  842

  30

  774

  Redbridge

  29

  1,004

  56

  2,007

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  29

  1,112

  65

  1,669

  Sutton

  22

  853

  46

  1,110

  Waltham Forest

  39

  1,653

  34

  906

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Provide

  Places

  Provide

  Places

  March 2000

  London

  1,253

  42,855

  1,457

  34,818

  Inner London

  650

  20,409

  430

  8,834

  City of London

  3

  81

  2

  44

  Camden

  58

  1,744

  24

  423

  Hackney

  57

  1,874

  31

  661

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35

  1,080

  13

  213

  Haringey

  36

  1,127

  46

  985

  Islington

  55

  1,512

  33

  724

  Kensington and Chelsea

  42

  1,405

  33

  668

  Lambeth

  60

  2,013

  34

  745

  Lewisham

  60

  1,680

  56

  997

  Newham

  33

  1,133

  26

  575

  Southwark

  68

  1,885

  43

  915

  Tower Hamlets

  31

  952

  21

  415

  Wandsworth

  83

  2,926

  52

  1,205

  Westminster

  29

  997

  16

  264

  Outer London

  603

  22,446

  1,027

  25,984

  Barking and Dagenham

  13

  436

  27

  697

  Barnet

  43

  1,719

  48

  1,207

  Bexley

  13

  521

  54

  1,439

  Brent

  71

  2,195

  19

  569

  Bromley

  36

  1,046

  122

  3,544

  Croydon

  43

  1,430

  77

  2,301

  Ealing

  65

  2,283

  43

  985

  Enfield

  28

  953

  83

  1,248

  Greenwich

  25

  1,098

  49

  1,027

  Harrow

  11

  373

  62

  1,622

  Havering

  16

  446

  79

  1,910

  613W

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  Provide

  Places

  Provide

  Places

  Hillingdon

  40

  2,982

  57

  1,327

  Hounslow

  29

  876

  40

  869

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  19

  657

  48

  1,096

  Merton

  29

  949

  30

  773

  Redbridge

  31

  1,048

  49

  1,794

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  28

  1,125

  64

  1,678

  Sutton

  23

  869

  44

  1,054

  Waltham Forest

  40

  1,440

  32

  844

  1 Not provided by the Authority

  Note:

  National and regional totals, including estimates for missing data, can be found in the Statistical Volume "Statistics of Education—Children's Day Care Facilities" and the Statistics Bulletin on Children's Day Care Facilities, Issue No 08/00.

  All pupils under five in nursery and primary schools, January 2000

  Percentage of population

  Number of puplis

  Nursery schools and nursery classes

  Nursery and plimary school

  London

  122,800

  37

  62

  Inner London1

  50,900

  40

  65

  Camden

  2,270

  28

  49

  Hackney

  3,860

  35

  59

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,330

  42

  55

  Haringey

  4,800

  44

  73

  Islington

  3,180

  38

  67

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,480

  25

  42

  Lambeth

  4,360

  34

  55

  Lewisham

  4,610

  40

  67

  Newham

  7,520

  57

  88

  Southwark

  5,290

  44

  74

  Tower Hamlets

  5,250

  50

  82

  Wandsworth

  3,920

  32

  54

  Westminster

  2,020

  32

  48

  Outer London

  71,800

  35

  61

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,610

  45

  78

  Barnet

  4,960

  31

  58

  Bexley

  3,980

  38

  72

  Brent

  4,480

  34

  61

  Bromley

  2,720

  5

  36

  Croydon

  5,570

  30

  61

  Haling

  6,080

  45

  73

  Enfield

  4,310

  25

  56

  Greenwich

  4,370

  56

  72

  Harrow

  2,680

  20

  48

  Havering

  2,650

  16

  51

  Hillingdon

  4,320

  50

  64

  Hounslow

  3,960

  40

  70

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2,290

  38

  66

  Merton

  3,530

  55

  71

  Redbridge

  4,430

  40

  73

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,970

  18

  42

  Sutton

  1,940

  41

  43

  Waltham Forest

  4,010

  46

  60

  1 Includes City of London

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [152797]
  614W
  Mr. Wills
  The headline pay settlement was 2.5 per cent. on the pay bill. Staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4.1 per cent.

  Youth Parliament
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will meet members of the UK Youth Parliament to discuss with them proposals in the Parliament's manifesto relating to education and employment. [152963]

  Mr. Wicks
  I welcome the establishment of the UK Youth Parliament and congratulate the hon. Member on his role in promoting it. I attended the first sitting of the Parliament on 23 February and would welcome the opportunity to meet members again. I understand that the UKYP will be publishing its manifesto in April and I look forward to working with the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on the initial Government response.

  School Computers (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in Wansbeck are connected to the internet; and how many were connected in 1997. [153145]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department does not collect details about the numbers of internet connections at schools in individual constituencies. Substantial progress is being made towards the target of every school having access to the internet. Data from the Department's Survey of ICT in Schools 1996 are given, as the survey was performed bi-annually until 1998. The comparable survey in 2000 shows that the percentage of schools in England connected to the internet has increased as shown in the following table.

  Percentage

  Sector

  March 1996

  March 2000

  Primary

  5

  86

  Secondary

  47

  98

  Special

  8

  92

  Ofsted Inspections (Tyneside)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in(a) South Tyneside and (b) South Shields have undergone Ofsted inspections since May 1997; and how many of those have been subject to critical reports. [153298]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  HM Chief Inspector has advised that 72 schools in South Tyneside, including the South Shields area, were inspected by Ofsted between May 1997 and December 2000. Six schools were found to have serious weaknesses, one of which subsequently went into special measures following a re-inspection. Two other schools were judged to require special measures and one was found to be underachieving.

  I have asked HM Chief Inspector Mike Tomlinson to write to my right hon. Friend enclosing a full list of the schools inspected and to place a copy of his letter in the Library. The inspection reports can be accessed via Ofsted's website at www.ofsted.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (South Shields)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the South Shields constituency, the effects on South Shields of his Department's polices and actions since 2 May 1997. [153092]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the South Shields constituency and on South Tyneside LEA have been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (Don Valley)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153528]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Don Valley constituency and Doncaster LEA have been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information, relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Jarrow of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153559]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Jarrow constituency and South Tyneside LEA have been placed in the Library.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the Government's plans are for achieving full employment. [153896]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Today we are launching the Green Paper "Towards full employment in a modem society" jointly with the Treasury and the Department of Social Security. It sets out our plan for achieving sustained full employment over the next decade in every part of the country.

  We will continue our crusade to eradicate long-term unemployment. The strong and stable economy provides a firm foundation for enabling job opportunities for all. Through the welfare to work agenda we have shown that the key to helping unemployed people back to work is making sure that they have the skills to be able to take up these opportunities. This approach has helped over 270,000 long-term unemployed young people back into work, and has helped see unemployment fall to its lowest level since the 1970s.

  We will focus on helping people into work, but also to stay in work and gain the skills they need to progress in work. By raising the skills, employability and aspirations of those who need the most help, we are also providing insurance against a return to unemployment. People equipped with the skills employers need will find it much easier to get straight back into work.
  616W
  To help ensure that the economy can maintain its stability, we will broaden the scope of our welfare to work programmes to cover those who are economically inactive as well as the long-term unemployed. The Working Age Agency will transform the way in which we deliver support in finding work to all people of working age.

  We are setting ambitious targets to deliver this agenda. Our vision is of a high skills, high productivity and high employment economy which makes the most of everybody's skills and experiences. This strategy to deliver full employment will improve the lives of millions of people, and will deliver individual and national success.

  Working Age Agency
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to extend the use of work-focused interviews within the Working Age Agency. [153892]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I are establishing, later this year, the Working Age Agency. This will bring together labour market and benefit services for people of working age and enable us to provide a more integrated approach for our customers.

  As the first stage in the launch of the Working Age Agency, we will be introducing around 50 Pathfinder offices. A provisional list of their locations is set out in the following table. People of working age making a claim for benefit in these offices will be required to participate in a work-focused interview as an integral part of the benefit claims process and will be offered specialist support to help them into work. My right hon. Friend will shortly be laying regulations under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 for this purpose.

  WAA Pathfinder sites 1

  City/town

  Number of pathfinders

  Greenock

  21

  Port Glasgow

  21

  Livingston

  1

  City of Aberdeen

  3

  Bridgend

  2

  Maesteg

  1

  Pyle

  1

  Porthcawl

  1

  South West Birmingham

  3

  Telford

  2

  Madeley

  1

  Wellington

  1

  Wallasey

  1

  Hoylake

  1

  Blackburn

  2

  Darwen

  1

  Manchester Openshaw

  2

  Halifax

  32

  Huddersfield

  32

  Dewsbury

  32

  Todmorden

  31

  City Derby

  4

  Gateshead

  2

  Felling

  1

  Blaydon

  1

  Birtley

  1

  Exmouth

  1

  Honiton

  1

  Tiverton

  1

  617W

  WAA Pathfinder sites1

  City/town

  Number of pathfinders

  Sidmouth

  1

  Chelmsford

  22

  Southend

  21

  Rayeigh

  21

  Willesden

  1

  Wembley

  1

  Kilburn

  1

  Harlesden

  1

  Winchester

  1

  Streatham

  1

  1 Provisional

  2 ONE Basic Model Pilot

  3 ONE Call Centre Pilot

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Afghan Airliner Hijacking
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the people aboard the Afghan airliner hijacked to Stansted in February 2000 are still in the United Kingdom; what is the status of each of their asylum claims; and if he will make a statement. [153689]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: Of the 170 passengers who arrived on the aircraft, 81 returned to Afghanistan.

  Fifty-one passengers claimed asylum (plus 26 dependants). Because of the exceptional circumstances of the hijack and the wider issues surrounding it, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary personally decided each of the asylum claims.

  Of the cases which have been considered to date, four (plus 13 dependants) have been granted asylum. A total of 34 (plus five dependants) have been refused asylum, not 35 as was stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 5 February 2001, Official Report, column 439W. Thirty of the subsequent appeals to the independent appellate authority have been dismissed, confirming my right hon. Friend's original decision.

  The appellants whose appeals were dismissed are entitled to remain in the United Kingdom pending the outcome of their appeals to the tribunal.

  Twenty-four applications are yet to be considered. Twelve of the applicants are the alleged hijackers, whose trials began in January this year, and 12 are their family members. No decision will be taken on their cases until the outcome of the trial is known.

  Passports
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days on average it takes to(a) process a new passport application by post and (b) renew a passport by post. [153297]

  Mrs. Roche
  The average turnaround time for straightforward and correctly completed passport applications is currently five days. This applies to both new and renewal applications.

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [152794]

  Mr. Straw
  In the non-agency Home Office the headline pay settlement was 2.5 per cent. on the pay bill. Together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 4.75 per cent.

  Proscribed Organisations
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations(a) he and (b) his officials have met concerning the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001 since its publication. [153695]

  Mr. Straw
  On 28 February, when I announced that I had laid the draft order in Parliament, I met representatives of the Muslim and Palestinian communities to discuss its contents. On that day the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), also met representatives of the Sikh, Tamil and Kurdish communities for the same purpose.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the representations he received before drawing up the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001. [153510]

  Mr. Straw
  A number of representations were received, including from certain foreign Governments, groups and individuals, before the draft order was laid. I have, however, taken the decisions that I have because I am satisfied that, taking account of all the information available to me, the organisations listed in the draft order meet the criteria in the Terrorism Act of being "concerned in terrorism".

  Overseas Adoption
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were allowed into the United Kingdom from overseas countries for adoption by United Kingdom residents in the last 12 months; and if he will list the countries from which these children came. [152815]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on the number of children admitted to the United Kingdom from overseas countries for adoption is not currently available. The information that is available covers the number of adopted children given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. This number excludes those children given limited leave to remain and who are subsequently adopted through the United Kingdom courts, becoming British citizens on the date that the final adoption order is made.

  In 2000, a total of around 60 adopted children were given indefinite leave to remain. The nationalities of the children were:

  Argentina

  Bangladesh

  Chile

  619W

  China

  Cameroon

  Ghana

  Guatemala

  Hong Kong

  India

  Iran

  Jamaica

  Lebanon

  Libya

  St. Lucia

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Romania

  Singapore

  Sierra Leone

  South Africa

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Ukraine

  United States of America

  Vietnam

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  There were fewer than ten cases for each nationality.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on holding asylum seekers in Prison Service establishments. [152875]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are committed to a programme to increase the removal rate of immigration offenders and failed asylum applicants. Regrettably, it is necessary to detain some people in order to facilitate their removal at the end of the process. To this end, we are increasing the number of dedicated detention centre spaces. However, these new facilities will not become available until later in the year. In the interim, as a short-term measure, it was agreed that surplus Prison Service remand facilities could be utilised in accommodating immigration detainees. Under these arrangements, which are not exclusive to asylum seekers, only men aged 21 or over will be so accommodated.

  These measures supplement existing arrangements already in place with the Prison Service in the provision of dedicated facilities at Her Majesty's Prisons Rochester, Lindholme and Haslar.

  Early Release Scheme
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners who have been released under the Government's early release scheme reside in Lancashire; [153213]

  (2) how many prisoners who reside in Wales were released under the early release scheme; and how many of them have re-offended. [153214]
  620W
  Mr. Boateng
  The figures required to answer these questions are not centrally available, and would incur disproportionate costs to retrieve.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of illegal immigrants resident in Wales in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [153217]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is no official estimate of the number of illegal immigrants resident in Wales.

HEALTH

  Food Safety (Pithing)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Government policy on pithing in slaughter houses. [144396]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Our general position is strongly to support action at European Union level to combat BSE. The pithing ban was introduced by Commission Decision 2000/418 of 29 June 2000, which introduced new EU-wide rules on specified risk material (SRM). We welcomed that decision overall, as a significant step forward in protecting consumers.

  The Food Standards Agency has recently completed public consultation on a proposal to introduce a ban on pithing with effect from 1 January 2001, as required by the EU decision. Concerns that such a ban would particularly affect small and medium-sized abattoirs were raised in a number of responses to the consultation. Representations were also made that more time was needed to allow abattoirs to make the necessary changes to enable them to operate safely without pithing. In the light of these responses, the Government are currently considering very carefully when a pithing ban should be introduced.

  UK Produce
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress he has made to enable produce roared and processed only within the UK prominently to be advertised as such. [R] [149690]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: There is no reason why produce that has been reared and processed only within the United Kingdom should not be prominently advertised as such, although such claims made in respect of fresh or frozen beef and veal are subject to the current European Community rules on beef labelling.

  Doncaster Health Authority
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the value was of(a) the Government's financial support for Doncaster Health Authority and (b) additional investment in equipment, NHS modernisation, the health action zone, reform of primary care and winter planning in each year since 1996–97. [149066]
  621W
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is in the table, which details the central allocations made to Doncaster health authority for each of the financial years from 1996–97 to 2000–01 (to 31 December 2000) and also the capital allocations to the two Doncaster NHS

  £000

  Description

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01 a

  Total final health authority allocation (recurrent and non-recurrent)1 of which:

  156,755

  163,072

  b200,531

  238,835

  255,332

  Primary Care reform2

  0

  53

  836

  285

  558

  HAZc,3

  0

  0

  820

  4,101

  4,013

  Other NHS Modernisation4

  0

  0

  0

  1,800

  1,314

  Winter Planning5

  0

  908

  1,351

  0

  361

  Additional capital investment (general capital allocations)6

  6,189

  4,139

  4,481

  4,277

  4,879

  Additional capital investment (capital Modernisation Fund)7

  0

  0

  0

  281

  564

  a To December 2000

  b From 1998–99, allocations were based on unified allocations. Prior to this, non-cash limited prescribing and cash-limited General Medical Services were excluded.

  c Includes funding for all South Yorkshire coalfields health action zones, covering Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherman except for the following amounts which were directly allocated to Rotherham and Barnsley health authorities.

  Sources:

  1 Total allocations derived from "Outturn—Reconciliation of Resources"

  2 Included within the total allocation are amounts for Primary Care Reform

  3 Included within the total allocation are amounts for Health Action Zones

  4 Included within the total allocation are amounts for Other NHS Modernisation

  5 Included within the total allocation are amounts for Winter Planning

  6 Equipment allocations (general) for EFL statements for both Doncaster NHS Trusts

  7 Equipment allocations (capital Modernisation Fund) from EFL statements for both Doncaster NHS Trusts

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  HAZ Deprivation

  1,064

  2,126

  Smoking Cessation

  349

  349

  Innovation Fund

  25

  0

  1,438

  2,475

  Prader-Willi Syndrome
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend the Registered Homes Act 1984 to allow under 18-year-olds with Prader-Willi Syndrome to enter such homes; and if he will make a statement. [149685]

  Departmental and agency logos

  Cost (£)

  Notes

  Department of Health

  112,000

  Including Social Services Inspectorate and National Health Service Executive (included stationery and publications design)

  Medicines Control Agency

  0

  Medical Devices Agency

  0

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency

  0

  NHS Estates

  0

  NHS Pensions Agency

  0

  Associated branding

  Our Healthier Nation

  19,684

  NHS

  247,366

  This logo was created before 1997. Since then the Department has spent £247,366 on developing the NHS Identity Guidelines to support the implementation of this logo across the NHS (when items are being replaced). This implementation creates savings for the NHS by taking away the need for all NHS organisations to have different logos and enabling bulk purchasing due to one standard style.

  622W
  Trusts for utilisation on buildings and equipment. As part of the central allocations, money was included for Primary Care Reform, Health Action Zones, Winter Planning and NHS Modernisation. These are shown separately in the second table.

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: We have no such plans. The Registered Homes Act 1984 will be repealed in its entirety when the regulatory provisions in the Care Standards Act come into effect. There is nothing in either the registered Homes Act of the Care Standards Act which would prevent children suffering from this particular condition from entering care homes.

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152656]

  Ms Stuart
  Since 1 May 1997 £473,201 has been spent by the Department of Health on departmental and agency logos and associated branding. Further information is in the table.
  623W

  Departmental and agency logos

  Cost (£)

  Notes

  Teenage Pregnancy Unit

  250

  British Healthcare

  9,580

  Quality Protects

  4,310

  Capitec

  2,900

  Part of NHS Estates

  NHS International

  1,900

  Part of NHS Estates

  NHS Estates Engineering and Science Services

  800

  NHS Direct

  11,232

  The original NHS Direct logo was developed as part of a campaign and not costed separately. It was later adopted more widely as the single logo for the national service and guidelines on its use were prepared. It was updated in 1999. The cost given relates to the guidelines and the 1999 revision

  ProCure21

  1,080

  Part of NHS Estates

  Food Standards Agency

  61,040

  The FSA is a non-ministerial Government Department. It is accountable to Parliament through Health Ministers. It is thus not an agency of the Department. This figure covers expenditure prior to the establishment of the FSA on 1 April 2000 by its precursor, the MAFF/DH Joint Food Safety and Standards Group.

  Pathology Centres

  1,059

  Part of Medical Devices Agency

  The Department sometimes uses logos as part of advertising campaigns. These are part of the overall creative development and are not charged separately.

  Youth Parliament
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet members of the UK youth parliament to discuss the health aspects of the parliament's manifesto. [152966]

  Ms Stuart
  I have not received an invitation to meet the United Kingdom's youth parliament, but would be interested in reading their manifesto.

  Elderly Patients (GP Visits)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the desirability of enforcing common guidelines across all general practices relating to how often general practitioners should visit their elderly patients each year. [153385]

  Mr. Denham
  The NHS Plan principles of ensuring that the National Health Service provides a comprehensive range of high-quality services—services based on clinical needs—will be enshrined in the National Service Framework (NSF) for older people.

  The NSF, which will be published shortly, will for the first time set national standards and define service models for the health and social care of older people. The NSF will apply to general practitioners and to other providers of care to older people. There will also be programmes in place to support its implementation and progress will be measured against national milestones and performance indicators.

  Radiologists and Oncologists
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) radiologists and (b) oncologists are contracted to the NHS in England. [153154]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is in the table.624W

  Hospital medical consultants working in the oncology and radiology specialities—England

  At 30 September 2000

  Number1

  Clinical oncology

  310

  Medical oncology

  130

  Radiology group2

  1,620

  of which:

  Clinical radiology

  1,580

  Nuclear medicine

  30

  Notes:

  2 Figures rounded to nearest ten

  2 Total may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Care Homes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) privately run and (b) local authority run care homes there were in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001 in north-west Lancashire. [153219]

  Mr. Hutton
  The tables show the number of private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics for the health authority of north-west Lancashire and residential care homes in the former local authority area of Lancashire (as details of these homes are not available for north-west Lancashire). Information is presented for the years 1997 to 2000 but is not yet available for 2001.

  Table 1: Number of private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics in north-west Lancashire1, 1997 to 2000

  Number

  As at 31 March

  Total

  General nursing homes

  Mental nursing homes

  Hospitals and clinics

  1997

  81

  62

  16

  3

  1998

  82

  77

  1

  4

  1999

  76

  59

  12

  5

  2000

  76

  62

  9

  5

  1 Information presented for the health authority area

  Source:

  RH(N) Form A 1998–2000, KO36 form 1997

  625W

  Table 2: Number of residential care homes in Lancashire1 1997 to 2000

  Number

  As at 31 March

  Total number of homes

  Local authority staffed homes

  Independent homes2

  Dual registered homes3

  1997

  1,118

  106

  889

  123

  1998

  1,152

  103

  896

  153

  1999

  1,182

  93

  926

  163

  2000

  1,137

  91

  884

  162

  1 Details of residential care homes are presented for the local authority area of Lancashire. From 1998, owing to local government re-organisation, figures are presented for the unitary areas of Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool and the re-organised county of Lancashire.

  2 Consists of voluntary, private and small homes.

  3 Homes that are registered to provide both residential and nursing care.

  Source:

  RA Form A

  New Medical Schools
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make an announcement about the establishment of new medical schools. [153135]

  Mr. Denham
  Responsibility for the allocation of places to higher education institutions in England lies with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). HEFCE is planning an announcement later this spring.

  Camden and Islington Health Action Zone
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent on the Camden and Islington Health Action Zone since its inception; and what spending is planned for 2001–02. [153697]

  Mr. Denham
  Since its inception in April 1999 Camden and Islington Health Action Zone (HAZ) has received £3.36 million in direct funding from the Department. In 2001–02 the HAZ will receive at least a further £1.41 million, with decisions on smoking cessation and drugs prevention moneys yet to be made.

  In addition, Camden and Islington Health Authority has received £2.7 million targeted funding for HAs in HAZ areas. In 2001–02 this funding is subsumed within the Health Inequalities Adjustment, of which Camden and Islington HA's share is £3.1 million.

  Health Staff Pay
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in respect of(a) general practitioners, (b) hospital consultants, (c) nurses and (d) each of the professions allied to medicine (i) average earnings on 1 April 1997, (ii) average earnings on 1 April 2001, (iii) the percentage annual pay increase for each of the last five years and (iv) the percentage pay increase between 1 April 1997 and 1 April 2001. [153201]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is provided in the tables. Information on average earnings is not yet available for hospital consultants, nurses and each of the professions allied to medicine for 2000 and 2001.
  626W
  General practitioners

  (i) Average earnings on 1 April 1997–£45,822.

  (ii) Average earnings on 1 April 2001–£56,510.

  The percentage annual pay increase for each of the last five years

  Year

  IANI as of 1 April (£)

  Percentage increase

  IANI averaged across year when staged pay award (£)

  Percentage increase

  1996–97

  44,340

  —

  44,483

  —

  1997–98

  45,822

  3.3

  46,031

  3.5

  1998–99

  47,540

  3.8

  48,037

  4.4

  1999–2000

  52,600

  10.6

  —

  —

  2000–01

  54,220

  13.3

  —

  —

  2001–02

  56,510

  4.2

  —

  —

  1 Pay increases is 3.3 per cent. but IANI only increased by 3.1 per cent. because of changes in the definition of activities that are included within IANI.

  Notes:

  1. Average earnings are defined as Intended Average Net Income (IANI) as recommended by Doctors and Dentists Review Body. This includes part-times and is not on a whole time equivalent basis.

  2. Percentage pay increase between 1 April 1997 and 1 April 2001–23 percent.

  Estimated average total earnings of staff paid on national payscales by staff group—NHS trusts in England

  Average total earnings

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Percentage increase 1997–99

  Qualified Nurses (grades C-/+)

  Average earnings (£)

  18,800

  19,600

  21,400

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  4.3

  9.2

  13.8

  Hospital Consultants

  Consultants all

  Average earnings (£)

  60,400

  65,600

  69,700

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  8.6

  6.3

  15.4

  Professions Allied to Medicine

  Art, Drama and Music Therapists

  Average earnings (£)

  19,600

  21,000

  22,400

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  7.1

  6.7

  14.3

  Chiropodist

  Average earnings (£)

  18,200

  18,800

  21,700

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  3.3

  15.4

  19.2

  Dietitian

  Average earnings (£)

  19,900

  20,700

  22,300

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  4.0

  7.7

  12.1

  Helper

  Average earnings (£)

  9,900

  10,000

  10,800

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  1.0

  8.0

  9.1

  Orthoptists

  Average earnings (£)

  20,600

  21,300

  23,200

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  3.4

  8.9

  12.6

  Occupational Therapist

  Average earnings (£)

  19,400

  20,000

  21,200

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  3.1

  6.0

  9.3

  Physiotherapist

  Average earnings (£)

  20,000

  20,700

  22,200

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  3.5

  7.2

  11.0

  Radiographers

  Average earnings (£)

  21,500

  20,400

  24,000

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  -5.1

  17.6

  11.6

  627W

  Estimated average total earnings of staff paid on national payscales by staff group—NHS trusts in England

  Average total earnings

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Percentage increase 1997–99

  Technical Instructors

  Average earnings (£)

  12,700

  12,900

  13,800

  —

  Percentage annual increase

  —

  1.6

  7.0

  8.7

  Notes:

  1. Earnings figures are based on payments in August, multiplied by 12 to get annual equivalent amounts. The basic salary and earnings of part-time are adjusted to full-time equivalents.

  2. Average total earnings for 2000 are based on 1999 figures, uprated using information relating to pay rates and payscale restructuring from the advance letters, and assuming the same ratio of basic salary to total earnings.

  3. Average total earnings for 2001 are based on 2000 estimated earnings, uprated using information relating to pay rates any payscale restructuring and any new additional allowances, from the advance letters.

  4. Average total earnings includes basic pay, overtime and any additional allowances and enhancements.

  5. Results rounded to the nearest £100.

  6. Intensity supplements not included as they were introduced in April 2000.

  7. Consultant discretionary points take account only of five points, not eight as introduced in April 2000.

  8. For the purpose of this answer information on the Professions Allied to Medicine relates to groups of staff who have their pay determined by the Review body for Nursing staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB).

  Source:

  Department of Health's August 1997, 1998 and 1999 NHS Earnings Surveys.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  BNFL, Ulnes Walton
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what quantities and types of radioactive waste have been disposed of at the BNFL site at Ulnes Walton in Lancashire; and what radioactive limit is set for the site by the Environment Agency. [147743]

  Mr. Meacher
  Disposal of BNFL radioactive waste to the Ulnes Walton landfill site, which is operated by Lancashire Waste Services Ltd. at Leyland, Lancashire, is regulated by the Environment Agency under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

  An authorisation was issued for the use of empty clay pits to dispose of radioactive waste. Disposals started in 1964 and continued until 1983. Within the lifetime of the authorisation a total of around 42,600 tonnes of bulk waste material containing around 30,817 kg of uranium was disposed of. Of the total material disposed of, around 95 per cent. was disposed of between 1964–73.

  Clay lined pits were chosen to provide a natural barrier to movement of contaminants from the site. All waste disposals have been covered by a clay cap at least 1 metre thick which will be overlaid with 1 metre of soil as part of the overall site restoration by the operators.
  628W
  The types of waste authorised for disposal were process residues, building rubble, incinerator ash, contaminated graphite, general factory-type waste and plant contaminated with natural uranium with a limit of not more than 0.2 per cent. or 0.5 per cent. of natural uranium (or equivalent). The activity limits were set for the different types of waste. The wastes were also limited by weight if the material was not substantially insoluble in water.

  No disposals of radioactive waste have been made by BNFL to Ulnes Walton landfill site since 1983. An environmental monitoring programme has been conducted around the site by BNFL since 1972 and continues to date. The Environment Agency also undertakes independent check monitoring of the environment around the landfill. The results of these programmes indicate that the presence of radioactivity around the landfill is within the range found to occur naturally in the environment as a whole.

  Genetically Modified Crops (Cornwall)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what trials of genetically modified crops have been authorised for sites in Cornwall; on whose advice they were permitted and when; what results were obtained; and what conclusions his Department has reached on those results. [151793]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The public register of releases, held by my Department, shows that there have been no releases of genetically modified (GM) crops in Cornwall for the purposes of research since the register was established in 1993.

  Before this, releases of GM crops were controlled by the Genetic Manipulation Regulations 1989. Persons wishing to release any genetically modified organism (GMO) were required to notify their intent to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Officials from HSE and the then Department of Environment (DoE) scrutinised these notifications for compliance with the regulations and to ensure that the release would not pose a risk to the environment. Until June 1990 they were advised by the Planned Release Sub-committee of the Health and Safety Commission's Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification and the DOE's Interim Advisory Committee on Introductions. In June 1990 these two committees were replaced by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

  Pre-February 1993 records show that in 1990 researchers from the Imperial College School of Applied Biology were authorised to study the invasiveness and persistence of GM crops in 12 natural habitats. There were four sites in Cornwall at Great Grogley Dawns, Davidstone Woods, Penkestle Downs and Great Wood Tregays. Each was sown with four different GM crops (oilseed rape, maize, potato and sugar beet) and equivalent conventional crops. The outcome of this work was reported in the science journal Nature in 1993 (Ecology of transgenic oilseed rape in natural habitats, 363, 620–623). It showed that the GM seeds tested did not perform better or persist for longer than conventional varieties over a three-year period.

  More recently, the researchers reported that, after ten years of monitoring the sites, in no case were the GM plants found to be more invasive or more persistent

  629W
  than their conventional counterparts (Nature, 2001, "Transgenic crops in natural habitats", 409, 682–683). None of the crops GM or conventional varieties increased in number at any of the sites. All populations (both GM and non-GM) of maize, sugar beet and oilseed rape were extinct at all sites within four years of sowing. Potatoes survived at one site for 10 years but these were all conventional (non-GM).

  The regulators and ACRE have used the results of these studies to inform the consideration of applications to release GM plants containing the same or similar GM traits. The studies give information about the risks to the environment that they would become weeds of agriculture or invasive of natural habitats or that the introduced genes would be transferred by pollen to wild relatives whose hybrid offspring would then become more weedy or invasive.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what residue seeds are in the natural seed bed in the sites in Cornwall selected in 1989 for genetically modified crop trials; and if he will make a statement. [151794]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: Researchers from Imperial College London carried out trials of genetically modified (GM) and conventional crop plants in 1990 at four sites in Cornwall that had been selected in 1989. The researchers have been monitoring the sites since 1990 and have recently reported the fate of the seeds and resultant plants in the journal Nature (Nature, 2001, Transgenic crops in natural habitats, 409, 682–683). They report that the populations of both GM and non-GM plants declined after the first year. For maize all lines were extinct at the start of the second year. All beet were extinct by the end of the third year and all oil seed rape were extinct within four years. No trace of GM plants was found when the sites were checked after 10 years in 2000.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on regional assemblies in England. [152999]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We remain committed to move to directly elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. In the meantime, governance in the regions is evolving through the work of the chambers, regional development agencies, Government Offices and others.

  Council Tax (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the average band D council tax levels in Lancashire in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [153165]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The average band D council tax levels for Lancashire for 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are shown in the table. Billing authorities are required to set their council taxes for 2001–02 by 11 March and notify the Department within seven days. We plan to publish the information shortly.630W

  Average Band D council tax bill for billing authorities Lancashire

  Average Band D own council tax for Lancashire county council

  Year

  (£)1

  Increase (%)

  (£)

  Increase (%)

  1997–98

  759

  6.1

  588

  5.4

  1998–99

  848

  11.6

  673

  14.5

  1999–2000

  914

  7.9

  731

  8.5

  2000–01

  963

  5.3

  768

  5.2

  1 Average council tax bill for a Band D dwelling (occupied by two adults) in shire districts within the area of Lancashire county council.

  Rural Affairs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many staff, broken down by grade, have been assigned to the Rural Advocate; [153249]

  (2) how many staff at each grade will be employed in the Countryside Agency's Rural Proofing Unit. [153248]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Countryside Agency has informed me that the total number of agency staff working in the Rural Proofing Unit is 10. This is made up of 2 Grade 7s (1 part time), 3 staff at S level, 3 at H level, 1 at E level and 1 at A level.

  However, a wide range of other staff in the Countryside Agency will be supporting the Central Unit in its rural proofing work.

  Rural Amenities
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of rural parishes have a GP surgery. [153131]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The most recent comprehensive survey of rural services was undertaken by the Rural Development Commission in 1997. It showed that 17 per cent. of rural parishes had a GP practice within the parish. The Countryside Agency is undertaking a further survey of the level of service provision in rural areas. It will look at more sophisticated ways of measuring access to key services in rural areas. I understand that the survey will be published in the summer of this year.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of rural parishes have(a) no bank and (b) no shop. [153133]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The most recent comprehensive survey of rural services was undertaken by the Rural Development Commission in 1997. It showed that 91 per cent. of rural parishes were without a bank/building society and 42 per cent. of rural parishes were without a permanent shop (of any kind).

  The Countryside Agency is undertaking a further survey of the level of service provision in rural areas. It will look at more sophisticated ways of measuring access to key services in rural areas. I understand that the survey will be published in the summer of this year.

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out,
  631W
  with statistical information, relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effects on Jarrow of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153561]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to South Tyneside metropolitan borough council in 1997 to 2002 are shown

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Revenue Support Grant

  67.806

  71.803

  77.809

  76.875

  81.201

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  34.132

  35.529

  38.344

  43.029

  41.716

  Housing Investment Programme

  3.203

  3.652

  3.693

  10.809

  23.284

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  17.224

  15.952

  15.527

  15.741

  n/k

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.896

  3.128

  3.065

  n/a

  n/a

  Loan Charges Defective Housing

  0.062

  0.062

  0.062

  0.062

  0.062

  SRB funding

  31.857

  36.382

  38.448

  37.941

  36.983

  Neighbourhood Renewal funding

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2.692

  ERDF funding

  0.386

  0.522

  0.828

  0.671

  n/k

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.409

  0.254

  0.536

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.409

  0.254

  0

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.880

  0.880

  1.400

  1.876

  3.171

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  0

  41.255

  40.361

  40.560

  n/k

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  40.054

  40.059

  40.082

  n/k

  Capital Challenge

  0.788

  1.222

  0.990

  0

  0

  (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  50.399

  51.118

  50.0001

  0

  0

  1 Where known.

  2 This figure does not include the Major Repairs Allowances allocated to the authority which amounts to £11.071 million.

  3 1997–98 SRB figure includes Round 3 funding for "South Shields Challenge"; 1998–99 SRB figure includes Round 4 funding for "People, Employment and Pride"; 1999–2000 SRB figure includes Round 5 funding for "Extending the South Shields Challenge"; 2000–01 SRB figure includes Round 6 funding for "Jobs and Community".

  4 Figures quoted are the full amounts give to the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive of whom the authority is a partner.

  5 Tyne and Wear Fire Brigade also received Capital Challenge funding. This was spent on the training centre at Barmston Mere, Washington, although the whole of Tyne and Wear benefited from the investment.

  East Coast Main Line Franchise
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Strategic Rail Authority first asked him to confirm its recommendation of its preferred bidder for the East Coast Main Line franchise; and when he will announce his decision. [153255]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The Franchising Director made his initial recommendation on the East Coast Main Line franchise on 8 December 2000, which we have been considering. The Strategic Rail Authority announced a pause in the replacement process for this franchise on 14 February, which it subsequently lifted on 2 March. A decision will be announced in due course.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to increase regulation of permitted development rights to provide additional protection to ancient woodland. [153680]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This issue was raised in a recent working group report for the English Forestry Forum. The Government are currently considering their response to the recommendations contained in that report.

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the average
  632W
  in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Jarrow. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [152801]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The headline pay settlement was 3.5 per cent. on the pay bill and, together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received increases averaging 4.9 per cent.

  Air Quality (Tyneside)
  Dr. David Clark
  To .ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the days on which the air quality on Tyneside was classified as severely polluted in the last five years. [153080]

  Mr. Hill
  The national automatic monitoring station in Newcastle on Tyneside has been in operation since 1992. The dates when levels of air pollution were recorded as high or very high at the Newcastle City Centre monitoring station over the last five years are as listed.

  1996

  10 March

  11 March

  15 March

  16 March

  21 March

  22 March

  23 March

  24 March

  20 August

  7 December

  633W

  1997

  None

  1998

  13 May

  1999

  None

  2000

  None.

  All these pollution episodes were attributable to levels of particles in the air, except for those on 20 August 1996 and 13 May 1998, when levels of sulphur dioxide were high.

  Housing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the planned capital investment in council and registered social landlord new building in the 2000–01 financial year. [153698]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Planned capital investment in new development of housing stock by registered social landlords (RSLs) in 2000–01 funded through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme amounts to approximately £619 million. This is expected to lever in a further £656 million of private finance. Provision of new building by local authorities planned through the Housing Revenue Account amounts to £55 million and through Local Authority Social Housing Grant to £174.9 million in 2000–01.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many dwellings were completed in each London borough(a) in each year since 1997 and (b) in 2001 to date, broken down into (i) private residential, (ii) private rented, (iii) registered social landlords and (iv) local authorities. [153696]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The available figures have been deposited in the Library.

  Regeneration Projects (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the regeneration projects in Islington supported by his Department since May 1997. [153511]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The following regeneration schemes have been allocated funding from the Department in the London borough of Islington since May 1997:

  £

  Capital Challenge (Marquess Estate)

  1997–98

  1,500,000

  1998–99

  4,500,000

  1999–2000

  3,500,000

  Single Regeneration Budget: Kings Cross Partnership

  1997–98

  2,995,000

  1998–99

  7,961,000

  1999–2000

  8,279,000

  2000–01

  8,447,000

  2001–02

  5,944,000

  634W

  £

  Single Regeneration Budget: Finsbury Park Partnership1

  1999–2000

  300,000

  2000–01

  2,546,000

  2000–02

  4,902,000

  Single Regeneration Budget: Futures Gateway2

  1998–99

  31,581

  1999–2000

  109,751

  2000–01

  71,400

  New Deal for Communities: New Finsbury New Deal3

  2000–01

  681,785

  1 This scheme is a partnership between the London boroughs of Islington, Hackney and Haringey. Apart from £3,800,000, earmarked over the lifetime of the scheme for housing improvements on the Tollington estate, it is not possible to identify specific spend within Islington.

  2 This scheme is a partnership between the London boroughs of Islington and Hackney. It is not possible to identify specific spend within Islington.

  3 This funding was provided for Phase 2 of the scheme to enable the Partnership to develop a delivery Plan for Phase 3, and to fund some early win projects.

  A379
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet representatives of Devon county council, the South Hams district council, the Slapton, Stokenham, Stoke Fleming and Strete parish councils and the hon. Member for Totnes to discuss the continued closure of the A379 between Strete Gate and Torcross, Devon and its effect on local business and tourism. [153739]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I fully appreciate that local people want to see as swift a resolution as possible to this situation.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, (Mr. Hill), recently concluded that meeting South Hams district council would not assist the process of finding the most rapid solution possible to this issue. However the Government Office for the South West Region has been asked to liaise with all the bodies concerned to ensure that the urgency of the situation is appreciated and that all work to resolve the problem is undertaken as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct Devon county council not to pursue a statutory environmental impact assessment before providing a temporary reinstatement of the A379 between Strete Gate and Torcross, South Devon. [153741]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Decisions on whether an environmental impact assessment is required for projects requiring planning permission are in the first place a matter for the local planning authority. Devon county council is the local planning authority, and in this role it has issued a "screening opinion" that an EIA is required. No appeal has been made to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to arrange for the reinstatement of the A379 between Strete Gate and Torcross, Devon. [153740]
  635W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I fully appreciate the concern which the hon. Member and the people of South Hams feel, and the impact which the closure of this road is having.

  Devon county council, English Nature and MAFF are working together to reach a consensus on the way forward. I am advised that jointly Devon county council and South Hams district council are arranging meetings on the 19 and 23 March for all local interested parties to be given the up to date situation in their endeavours to resolve this matter.

  The Government Office for the South West Region has been asked to liaise with all the bodies concerned to ensure that the urgency of the situation is appreciated and that all work to resolve the problem is undertaken as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost of conducting a statutory environmental impact assessment before reinstating permanently the A379 between Strete Gate and Torcross, Devon. [153742]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is not for the Secretary of State to carry out an environmental impact assessment in this situation and therefore the Secretary of State has not made an assessment of the cost.

  Gypsy Sites Refurbishment Grant Programme
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will issue the results of round 1 of the gypsy Sites Refurbishment Grant programme. [154040]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has today written to all local authorities that submitted bids for Gypsy Sites Refurbishment Grant. 75 bids were received for this first round of the £17 million three-year grant programme. A total of 38 projects have been approved for grant funding in 2001–2002. A list of successful and unsuccessful bids has been placed in the Library of the House.

  All bids were evaluated against key criteria including: quality of the project plan; outcome of consultation with residents; cost of the project; site condition analysis; previous investment history; site sustainability and certainty of the local contribution element.

  Authorities whose bids have been successful are being given evaluation feedback. We consider this is important in its own right. It will also afford authorities the opportunity to improve their bids and resubmit them for consideration in rounds 2 and 3.

  We believe that the existing network of local authority owned gypsy sites represents a valuable resource for gypsies. The three year grant programme is in recognition of the importance the Government attach to local authorities keeping their sites in good condition and available for use by gypsies. It is also in line with our aim of providing everyone with the opportunity of a decent home.

  The injection of funding, and that which will follow in rounds two and three, will help local authorities extend the useful life of sites; bring them into full use and improve the quality of life for residents. Helping to keep
  636W
  gypsy sites available for use is also an important part of Government policy to minimise the disruption that can arise from unauthorised encampments.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made in concluding public service agreements. [154127]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have today concluded a second group of local public service agreements. The agreements are with the following authorities: Birmingham metropolitan borough council, Cambridgeshire county council, Derbyshire county council, London Borough of Lewisham, London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, Sheffield city council and Sunderland city council. I am arranging for copies of these agreements to be placed in the Library.

  Negotiations are continuing with the six remaining authorities taking part in the pilot scheme of local public service agreements. We expect to conclude these agreements soon.

  Regional Affairs Committee
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Regional Affairs Committee has not met in this Parliament; and what plans he has for it to meet. [151159]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: Now that the membership of the Committee has been determined, the Government are taking steps to arrange an early meeting of the Committee. This will be discussed through the usual channels.

PRIME MINISTER

  UK Youth Parliament
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet members of the UK youth parliament. [152251]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so, although I understand my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has offered to do so. If I have the time I will do so myself.

  Overseas Visits (Special Advisers)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister how many written approvals he has issued of overseas visits by special advisers accompanying a Minister since May 1997. [151561]

  The Prime Minister
  No central log of such approvals is held. However, the cost of special advisers accompanying Ministers on overseas visits is included in the figures published annually on Ministers' visits overseas. Figures for 1999–2000 were published on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W. This showed that expenditure on Ministerial overseas visits in 1999–2000 was £4.6 million compared with £7.9 million in the last year of the previous Administration.

  Departmental Websites (General Election)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister what procedures have been put in place to prevent departmental websites from disseminating material that could be of advantage to the governing party during a general election; and if he will publish them. [152042]

  The Prime Minister
  Election guidance is routinely issued to all civil servants once an election has been called. The guidance issued prior to the last election covered Government information activity in all its forms. It recognised the need to ensure that, although Departments could properly continue to provide factual explanation of current Government policy, statements and decisions during a campaign, they had to be particularly careful not to become involved in a partisan way in election issues, and to protect departmental systems from serving or appearing to serve a party political purpose. These principles remain unchanged, and guidance for any future general election will build on them to reflect the increasing use of the internet by Government. The guidance will be published when an election is called.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Imports
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total tonnage of beef imported from the Republic of South Africa in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [151917]

  Ms Quin
  The total tonnage of beef imported from the Republic of South Africa between 1998 and 2000, as recorded by the Overseas Trade Statistics, is given in the table.

  UK imports from South Africa

  Percentage of total beef imports

  1998

  339

  0.17

  1999

  291

  0.13

  2000

  218

  0.09

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much meat has been imported from countries which have recorded BSE in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [152299]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The table shows imports of meat in 1999 and January to November 2000 from those countries which recorded BSE in 2000.

  Imports of meat1 1999–2000 from countries which have recorded BSE

  tonnes

  1999

  20002

  Belgium

  All meat

  42,350

  43,718

  of which beef

  1,583

  1,809

  Denmark

  All meat

  218,395

  222,121

  of which beef

  2,728

  2,837

  638W

  Imports of meat1 1999–2000 from countries which have recorded BSE

  tonnes

  1999

  20002

  France

  All meat

  155,621

  130,063

  of which beef

  8,304

  5,078

  Germany

  All meat

  43,637

  51,790

  of which beef

  3,246

  4,241

  Irish Republic

  All meat

  192,369

  182,903

  of which beef

  97,338

  98,592

  Netherlands

  All meat

  333,176

  367,962

  of which beef

  13,533

  11,168

  Portugal

  All meat

  224

  301

  of which beef

  31

  —

  Spain

  All meat

  14,121

  14,144

  of which beef

  1,208

  1,679

  Switzerland4

  All meat

  24

  728

  1 Meat and meat preparations (including poultry, meat and game)

  2 January to November

  3 Less than

  4 2000 (January-December)

  Note:

  Data for EU countries are provisional and subject to amendment

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who pays the cost of inspection of imported meats from(a) EU and (b) other countries; and if he will make a statement. [152805]

  Ms Quin
  Meat produced within the European Union may circulate freely within the single market, and is subject to random checks by the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) or by the relevant local authority (LA) at the point of destination within the United Kingdom. Depending on the perceived health risk, checks may be random or 100 per cent. Following the recent identification of specified risk material in imports of meat from Germany and the current foot and mouth disease problems in the UK, the MHS has been instructed to step up levels of inspection to ensure that increased volumes of imports can be checked for the necessary health marks and correct documentation. If the point of destination is a meat cutting plant or a licensed cold store, the costs of inspection are charged to the operator of that premises. If the point of destination is a meat products or preparations premises, the costs of inspection are paid either by the Food Standards Agency (for MHS inspection at plants co-located with slaughterhouses or cutting plants) or by the LA (for inspection in plants separate from slaughterhouses or cutting plants).

  All meat imported from third countries into the UK must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIP) where it is subject to veterinary inspections. The inspection services at the BIP are the responsibility of the

  639W
  local authority. UK and EC legislation requires that costs incurred by the local authority while carrying out checks are recovered from the importer.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will invoke precautionary measures in respect of bovine TB to reduce the most commonly recognised causal factors. [150871]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The Government have a wide-ranging strategy in place to control cattle TB and find science-based solutions to the problem. This includes work on cattle testing, husbandry factors, TB vaccines and the role played by wildlife. Ministers are keeping under review the need to take additional measures pending results from the research in progress.

  Pig Swill
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what penalties apply for the collection from ships and aircraft of swill derived from outside the UK. [152382]

  Ms Quin
  Controls on catering waste from aircraft and ships landed in the UK require that it be collected and sent for disposal in secure transport under the authorisation and approval of local Divisional Veterinary Officers. The material may not be used for swill feeding to pigs. Failure to observe these conditions may result in prosecution.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of pigs fed with swill. [152832]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: We estimate that, last year, around 82,000 pigs in Great Britain were fed on swill, around 1.4 per cent. of the total GB pig population.

  Milk
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of rules regarding milk producer monopoly situations in(a) the UK and (b) the rest of the EU; and if he will make a statement. [152284]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The Government's view is that milk production is subject to the same competition rules on monopolies as other sectors of the economy. The hon. Member will be aware of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply in GB of raw cow's milk, which was published in July 1999. It concluded that Milk Marque was abusing its monopoly in the supply of milk.

  No official assessment has been made by the Government of the situation in the rest of the EU.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he is giving in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic (1) to agronomists about walking fields in order for them to recommend agricultural pesticide and fertiliser programmes; [152688]
  640W
  (2) to agricultural contractors about the conduct of field operations. [152689]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: Visits to farms and across farmland could bring contact with livestock susceptible to foot and mouth disease. Advice and precautions to be exercised by people working in the countryside has been posted on MAFF's website www.maff.gov.uk.

  Central to this advice is that people should follow strict cleansing procedures which would include leaving vehicles outside the farm, disinfecting boots and wearing boots or clothing supplied by the farm. People working in the countryside should ensure that all mud, slurry and manure is washed off before they leave the premises.

  It is essential that all visits to farms and possible contacts with animals are recorded. The records should include the date and time of the visit. Should disease occur on a farm then these records will be used to trace movements and possible spread of the disease.

  Sugar Regime
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent developments in the sugar sector concerning reform of the regime and the Everything but Arms initiative. [151399]

  Ms Quin
  There have been no recent discussions on sugar reform pending the Opinion of the European Parliament and a decision on the Everything but Arms proposal. Now that the General Affairs Council has reached a decision on EBA, I would expect negotiations on sugar reform to resume shortly.

  Under the General Affairs Council's decision on EBA there will be transitional arrangements for sensitive products, which in the case of sugar mean an increasing duty-free quota from this year, with general reductions in duty phased in from 2006.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Retailing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the organisations and companies that have been sent, for consultation, a draft of the code of practice for retailers' behaviour in relationship with their suppliers, following the Competition Commission's report on the supply of groceries from multiple stores. [153541]

  Dr. Howells
  The following organisations and companies have been sent a draft of the code of practice for consultation:

  Food and Drink Federation, AIM (International Brands Group), Dairy Industry Federation, British Independent Fruit Growers Association, British Printing Industry Federation, Brewers & Licensed Retailers Association, Periodical Publishers Association, Federation of Wholesale Distributors, GPMU, National Farmers Union, British Brands Group, Scottish Executive, Scottish Farmers Union, Farmers' Union of Wales, Tenant Farmers Association, Packaging and Industrial Films Association, Northern Ireland Bakery Council, Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association, Scottish Food and Drink Association,

  641W
  British Oat and Barley Miller's Association, Scottish Dairy Association, British Hardware & Housewares Manufacturers Association, British Giftware Association, Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate & Confectionery Alliance, British Frozen Food Federation, Pizza, Pasta & Italian Food Association, British Soft Drinks Association, Chilled Food Association, Cold Storage and Distribution Federation, Health Food Manufacturers' Association, National Association of British and Irish Millers, National Association of Master Bakers, National Dried Fruit Trade Association/British Food Importers and Distributors, Pre-Packed Flour Association, Snack, Nut and Crisp Manufacturers Association, UK Association of Frozen Food Producers, The Gin and Vodka Association of Great Britain, National Association of Cider Makers, The Association of Licensed and Multiple Retailers, The Society of Independent Brewers, Wine and Spirit Association, United Kingdom Vineyards Association, Fresh Produce Consortium, Asparagus Growers' Association, Blackcurrant Growers' Association, Brassica Growers' Association, British Food Importers and Distributors' Association, British Iceberg Growers' Association, British Onion Producers' Association, British Onion Growers' Association, British Apples and Pears Ltd., Federation of Agricultural Co-operatives Ltd., Tomato Growers' Association, British Potato Council, The British Trout Association, The Salmon and Trout Association, The Shellfish Association of Great Britain, British Starch Industry Association, British Rice Millers' Association, Grain and Feed Trade Association, Maize Growers' Association, Maltsters Association of Great Britain, National Association of British & Irish Millers, The Rice Association, United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association Ltd., UK Maize Millers' Association, Seed Crushers and Oil Processors' Association/National Edible Oils Distributors, Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Association, British Edible Pulse Association, British Egg Industry Council, British Poultry Meat Federation, British Free Range Egg Producers' Association, United Kingdom Egg Producers Association Ltd., The Council for Responsible Nutrition, The Proprietary Association of Great Britain, British Meat Manufacturers Association, British Meat Federation, International Meat Trade Association, Meat and Livestock Commission, National Pig Association, UK Association of Frozen Food Producers, National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, Federation of British Wholesale Fish Merchants' Association, National Federation of Inland Wholesale Fish Merchants, Federation of Milk Groups, Specialist Cheesemakers Association, Quality Meat Scotland, Scottish Quality Trout, Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers, Scottish Agriculture Organisation Society, Scottish Quality Salmon, Scottish Association of Master Bakers, The Scotch Whisky Association, Seafood Scotland, Asda, Somerfield, Tesco, Sainsbury and Safeway.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish a draft of the code of practice for retailer behaviour in relation to their suppliers, as recommended by the Competition Commission's report on the supply of groceries from multiple stores; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [153540]
  642W
  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Fair Trading is currently consulting with the representatives of suppliers on the Code of Practice. A copy of the draft code was sent to these representatives on 14 February. A copy of the draft Code of Practice is available in the Library of the House.

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been paid by his Department to(a) accountancy and (b) legal firms in each year since 1 May 1997 in relation to PFI projects. [153262]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: Over the period in question the Department has paid a total of £1.113 million for accountancy assistance and £1.731 million for legal advice in respect of its PFI projects. The annual amounts are listed in the table.

  £000

  Year

  Accountancy

  Legal fees

  1997–98

  388

  645

  1998–99

  588

  1,070

  1999–2000

  33

  16

  2000–01

  104

  0

  Astra
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if file documents 120, 121, 106, 140 and 141 of the inspectors' files in relation to the Astra case are company documents; and if he will place copies in the Library. [152767]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 22 March 2000,Official Report, column 611W, and 13 April 2000, Official Report, column 273–74W.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the amount invested in air conditioning equipment using hydrocarbons. [153622]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Unfortunately, insufficient data are available to provide a reliable estimate.

  Arms Brokers
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the introduction of extra territorial powers to control British arms brokers operating overseas. [153516]

  Dr. Howells
  The 1998 White Paper on Strategic Export Controls (Cm 3989) proposed that new primary legislation should give the Government powers to impose controls on the involvement of persons in the UK or UK persons abroad in trafficking and brokering in arms and other controlled goods. The White Paper proposed the introduction of controls under this power on trafficking and brokering activities by persons in the UK or UK persons abroad which involve the supply of arms to countries subject to UN, EU, OSCE or UK national embargo, and the supply of long-range missiles and of
  643W
  equipment whose export has already been banned because of evidence of its use in torture. In addition, the Government have decided, as part of its review of the White Paper proposals, to introduce a general system of licensing for arms trafficking and brokering, the details of which will be set out when the draft Export Control Bill is published.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the IT projects his Department plans

  Project

  Commencement

  Expected date of Completion

  Cost £ million

  Export Licensing Via the Internet System (ELVIS) Phase 2

  April 2001

  March 2002

  2.0

  Manufacturing Advisory Service (website and Database)1

  June 2001

  December 2001

  1.25

  British Trade International e-business strategy programme2

  April 2001

  March 2004

  19.8

  UK Oil portal

  April 2001

  2004

  2.0

  Companies House core systems replacement programme3

  April 2001

  March 2004

  15.0

  Radiocommunications Agency Accounting System (ALPACA) Stage 9

  November 2001

  March 2003

  0.6

  Radiocommunications Agency Strategic Management Information System Stage 3

  May 2001

  March 2002

  0.5

  Radiocommunications Agency Electronic Licensing Project Stage 2

  May 2001

  March 2002

  0.9

  1 This cost is spread over three years for development and support.

  2 This programme is grouped into five work streams incorporating: new e-services for business; customer management system; systems to support inward investment; activities to encourage an e-business culture within BTI; and enhancements to the IT infrastructure. There will be a three year rollout strategy of sub-projects.

  4 This programme is currently at pre-formal estimate stage; final cost and duration have not yet been fixed.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [151511]

  Project

  Expected completion date

  Cost (£ million)

  Small Business Service Gateway1

  April 2001

  11.2

  Open Individual Export Licensing System (OIELS)

  July 2001

  0.6

  Export Licensing Via the Internet System (ELVIS)2 Phase 1

  April 2001

  0.2

  British Trade International's Trade Partners UK internet gateway website (tradepartners.gov.uk) and intranet project3

  Launched May 2000

  1.3

  Prosecution Case Management system4

  March 2002

  2.3

  Patent Office Integrated Bibliographic and Image System for Trade Marks

  March 2001

  2.0

  DTI electronic records management system (MATRIX)

  December 2003

  73.0

  Integration of Fixed Links Licensing into Radiocommunications Agency Unified Licensing System

  April 2001

  0.5

  Radiocommunications Agency Electronic Licensing Programme5

  June 2001

  0.5

  1 The SBS Gateway will go live in April 2001 but other elements are likely to be added thereafter.

  2 This is the first phase in a larger project.

  3The Trade Partners UK Gateway website service was originally launched in May 2000 and is subject to ongoing development and enhancements.

  4 This project has started quite recently. Decisions on final lifetime cost (over an anticipated 10-year life) and duration will depend on the results of analysis which is still under way.

  5 Initial phase, including Electronic News gathering permissions and web-enabling of some licence products.

  Rayo Rocket System
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what controls Her Majesty's Government have over the(a) sale and (b) re-export of components or sub-systems exported from Britain to Chile, and assembled in Chile into the Rayo rocket system; [152487]

  (2) what discussions there have been between his Department and (a) British Aerospace/Royal Ordnance, and (b) the Chilean authorities, about (i) the export of the Rayo rocket system to Chile and (ii) its subsequent re-export; [152488]
  644W
  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. [151480]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The DTI plans to undertake the following significant IT projects in the next year. A number of smaller projects are likely to be undertaken, which are expected to proceed broadly to time and budget.

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 February 2001]: The following significant IT projects are currently being undertaken within the DTI. There are a number of smaller projects in progress all of which are expected to proceed broadly to time and budget.

  (3) if the export since July 1997 of components on sub-systems for the Rayo rocket system, from British Aerospace/Royal Ordnance to the British/Chilean company FAMAE Ordnance Ltd., requires (a) export licences and (b) end-user certificates; and what such export licences or end-user certificates have been issued; [152486]

  (4) when an export licence was granted for the pre-production model of the Rayo rocket system exported by British Aerospace/Royal Ordnance to Chile in July or August 1997. [152485]
  645W
  Dr. Howells
  The export of the Rayo rocket system, including components and sub-systems thereof, is controlled under entry ML4 in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. This means that an export licence would normally be required before any such components are exported. Since 28 July 1997 all applications for a licence to export arms from the UK have been considered under the UK national arms export licensing criteria, now the consolidated EU and UK national arms export licensing criteria. Criterion seven includes the assessment of export licence applications against the risk of diversion within the buyer country or re-export under undesirable conditions.

  Details of licences issued for Chile since 2 May 1997 have been outlined in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Between 1 January 2000 and 28 February 2001, eight Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and no Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) have been issued covering the export of goods with the relevant rating to Chile. As regards how many of these covered components on sub-systems for the Rayo rocket system and were issued to Royal Ordnance/British Aerospace inquiries are being made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. As confidential information is involved, the party concerned is being asked if they object to its disclosure. I will write to the hon. Member in the light of its response, and will place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  All applications for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) for the permanent export of goods subject to strategic export control must be supported by appropriate end-user documentation. Where the intended consignee is a Government body, and the application is not for a licence to export chemicals listed in Schedule 2 or 3 to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to a state which has not ratified the CWC, a copy of the official Government purchase order or a copy of the relevant part of the Government contract covering the order is normally sufficient. An end-user undertaking is not usually required for Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) applications for the temporary export of goods subject to strategic export control.

  An Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) is specific to an individual exporter and covers multiple shipments of specified goods to specified destinations and/or, in some cases, specified consignees. The exporter must obtain from each consignee an appropriate written undertaking for each export before the export takes place, or not later than one month after the date of export. Where the exporter intends to make more than one export to the same consignee in any period of one year, an annual written undertaking may be obtained in fulfilment of this requirement.

  As with SIELs, where goods are being consigned direct to a Government body, we will normally accept a copy of the Government purchase contract order, or the relevant extracts from the contract.

  An Open General Export Licence (OGEL) allows the export from the UK of goods specified in the goods coverage of the OGEL to specified destinations. In such circumstances, end-user undertakings are not required. Copies of OGELs are routinely placed in the Library of the House.
  646W
  Other than routine discussions involving the Department for Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation during the licensing process, the DTI has no records of any discussions with either British Aerospace/Royal Ordnance or the Chilean authorities about the export or re-export of Rayo rocket systems.

  Compact Discs
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the retail price of compact discs. [152098]

  Dr. Howells
  Following DTI's first International Price Survey officials have been monitoring developments in the CD market. Officials have had discussions with record companies, retailers, consumer organisations and the Office of Fair Trading.

  A competition inquiry into the supply of compact discs was launched by the Office of Fair Trading on 9 February. The inquiry will consider whether the way in which the record companies have responded to imports of cheaper CDs from elsewhere in the EU amounts to a breach of the Competition Act 1998. The inquiry is expected to take six months.

  Departmental Policies (Don Valley)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153525]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has provided the following support for businesses in Doncaster since May 1997. Information at constituency level is not available in all cases.

  Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)

  RSA is a capital investment grant linked to the creation or safeguarding of jobs in designated areas of need. 57 RSA grant offers totalling £4.0 million have been made to businesses in the Doncaster district, to support projects with a total capital expenditure of £5.4 million, and to create and safeguard a total of 991 jobs. Within these figures 12 offers related to the Don Valley constituency where grant of £0.3 million was offered against capital spend of £2.8 million and the creation/safeguarding of 87 jobs.

  Enterprise Grants

  The Enterprise Grants scheme is a simplified scheme that was introduced in April 2000 to help small firms undertake fixed capital investment projects. Five offers totalling £106,500 have been made to firms in the Doncaster district, of which two were in the Don Valley constituency.

  Smart

  Smart awards are designed to help small firms with the introduction of new products and processes. Ten Smart awards totalling £576,444 have been made to firms in the Doncaster district, of which five were in the Don Valley constituency.

  Business Link

  Doncaster Chamber of Commerce and Business Link have provided services to small businesses in the Doncaster area (including the Don Valley constituency) since 1997. These include general and specialised advice

  647W
  to help businesses grow, export development counselling, ICT advice, and a full range of specialist information. From April 2001 these services will be provided by the Small Business Service operating through a new South Yorkshire Business Link with local concessions, including one in Doncaster. This new service will be more customer focused ensuring that services are driven by local need.

  Departmental Policies (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  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 constituency, the effects on Jarrow of his Department's actions since 2 May 1997. [153564]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is not possible to quantify the direct effect of all the Department's policies and actions. However we do hold statistical information on the programmes administered by the Department and the expected effects of that funding in the Jarrow constituency are set out in the table.

  Nature of funding

  Regional Selective Assistance

  Enterprise Grants

  SMART

  1997–98

  Number of companies

  11

  0

  0

  Amount offered

  355,000

  0

  0

  Jobs created

  102

  0

  0

  Jobs safeguarded

  0

  0

  0

  Company

  Post Office shareholding per cent.

  Total investment £ million

  Date investment completed

  Citymail Group (Sweden)

  11.2

  4

  Summer 1998

  German Parcel (Germany)

  100

  308

  January 1999

  Der Kurier (Germany)

  100

  9

  April 1999

  Williames Group of Companies (Ireland)

  100

  10

  December 1999

  Citipost (Europe, North America, Pacific Rim)

  100

  28

  January 2000

  Crie Group (France)

  100

  15

  February 2000

  Pakke-Trans A/S (Denmark)

  100

  20

  March 2000

  General Parcel Austria & Slovenia

  100

  14

  March 2000

  Nederlandse Pakket Dienst (The Netherlands)

  100

  72

  April 2000

  Extand SA (France)

  100

  97

  May 2000

  Citymail Sweden

  67

  22

  June 2000

  Domberger Pakket Dienst (Germany)

  100

  45

  June 2000

  Direzione Gruppo Executive SpA (Italy)

  49

  29

  December 2000

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Service Opening Hours
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to extend public service opening hours in the line with modernising Government commitments. [154039]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I am pleased to announce that I am launching a booklet entitled "Open all Hours, service hours at times to suit" on Thursday 15 March. The report showcases a number of first-rate examples of public services that have extended their opening hours so as to be more accessible to the consumer.648W

  Nature of funding

  Regional Selective Assistance

  Enterprise Grants

  SMART

  1998–99

  Number of companies

  8

  0

  2

  Amount offered

  379,000

  0

  84,150

  Jobs created

  77

  0

  0

  Jobs safeguarded

  10

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  Number of companies

  12

  1

  1

  Amount offered

  687,850

  15,000

  45,000

  Jobs created

  107

  6

  2

  Jobs safeguarded

  46

  0

  4

  2000–01

  Number of companies

  1

  5

  0

  Amount offered

  200,000

  92,640

  0

  Jobs created

  176

  74

  0

  Jobs safeguarded

  0

  10

  0

  Post Office
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the overseas companies in which the Post Office has investment, with the date of each investment and the amount. [R] [153181]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The Post Office has advised that it has made investments in overseas companies as listed in the table.

  I have placed copies of the booklet in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the increase in the number of special advisers in Government Departments since 1997. [153405]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government's response to the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, published in July 2000, sets out the position on the appointment of special advisers.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [152799]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In my Department the average performance-related increase in salaries for staff below the senior civil service was 4.5 per cent. in the 2000–01 pay round. Negotiations are continuing in the Royal Parks Agency on their settlement.

  Pensioners (Free TV Licences)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioner households in the north-east region of England are in receipt of a free television licence. [153081]

  Janet Anderson
  TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as licensing authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. Estimates based on the 1991 census indicate that there were approximately 158,000 people aged 75 or over living in the North East Government Office region, although television licences cover households rather than individuals.

  Compulsory Purchase (Rochford)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he received the application by Rochford district council to permit it to purchase compulsorily the premises at 35, 37 and 39 West road in Rochford; when he will reply; and what time limit applies to the consideration of such applications. [153506]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: An application to the Secretary of State to confirm a compulsory purchase order in respect of these premises was received on 16 June 2000 and, following an objection by the owner, a (postponed) public inquiry was held on 9 and 18 January 2001. The Inspector's report was received on 15 February 2001 and is being considered. There is no time limit for making a decision, but we shall handle the matter as expeditiously as possible.

  Royal Parks Police
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if the Royal Parks police will introduce a grievance procedure similar to that of the Metropolitan police service; [153468]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the number of initiatives on equal opportunities, community and race relations awareness and training in the Royal Parks police in the last three years; [153469]

  (3) how many officers and staff there are in the Royal Parks police, broken down by sex and ethnicity; [153466]

  (4) how many outstanding employment tribunal claims from officers and staff of the Royal Parks police there are, indicating which will be heard more than a year after submission of the claims; [153467]
  650W
  (5) when and for what reason there was a change in the Chief Officer of the Royal Parks police; and if he will make a statement; [153465]

  (6) what briefing he has received from the Royal Parks police on the employment situation of Pepe Kaur; and if he will make a statement. [153470]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, William Weston. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from William Weston to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 14 March 2001:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your six Parliamentary Questions about the Royal Parks Constabulary (RPC) because this is an operational matter for which the Agency is responsible.
  A review of the RPC by former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Anthony Speed recommended that the senior management of the Force should be restructured and its Chief Officer should be a Superintendent. The then Chief Officer who was a Commander, was made redundant in February. An Acting Chief Officer has been appointed.
  All probationer officers have equal opportunities training as part of their probationer training. Established RPC officers are required to attend mandatory training in equal opportunities. A course was run in 1997/98 for all officers, which ensured compliance with National Police Training. Officers also attend a two-day legislation refresher course every year, which takes account of community race relations and equal opportunities issues. Over the past three years this has included training on the race relations implications of Stop and Search and guidance on the definition of a racist incident. This year's legislation refresher course (January-April 2001) includes community race relations awareness. A community and race relations/diversity programme is currently being developed for delivery in 2001/2. Gay liaison training has been given to appointed gay liaison officers.
  There is one outstanding employment tribunal claim from a police officer. The claim was made to the Employment Tribunal on 15 September 2000. The hearing is scheduled for 24 September 2001.
  There are 157 officers in the Constabulary. 109 are male and of those, 6 are from ethnic minorities. Of the 48 female officers, 3 are from ethnic minorities.
  I informed Ministers that Pepe Kaur, a probationer WPC, had brought a claim to the Employment Tribunal alleging racial discrimination against the Agency and that she has been absent on sick leave since last July.
  The Royal Parks Agency is currently updating its grievance procedure and has sought advice from the Metropolitan Police Service on aspects relating to the Constabulary.

  Culture Online
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish the Culture Online Vision report. [154138]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am tomorrow publishing the vision for Culture Online, the first stage in the development of the business case for this major new initiative.

  The vision sets out how Culture Online could deliver the knowledge and resources of our museums and galleries, libraries and archives, theatres and orchestras, into classrooms and living rooms across the country.
  651W
  The next stage in the development of Culture Online will be the production of a full business case, which will be used as the basis for a bid to the Capital Modernisation Fund.

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

  Athletics Championships (Funding)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guarantees he has been given by Sport England about the funding of(a) Manchester 2002 and (b) the proposed new athletics facility at Picketts Lock. [152515]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 March 2001]: Sport England has made awards from the sports lottery fund totalling £131 million towards the capital costs of venues for Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games.

  In relation to the Lee Valley Stadium, we have established the principle with Sport England that, subject to the details being worked out and a viable application coming forward, the £20 million coming back from the Football Association and up to £40 million which will not now be required for the conversion of Wembley for athletics will he available to fund world-class athletics.

TREASURY

  Mothers (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many mothers in London whose youngest child is under one year are in employment. [152204]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Ms Harriet Harman, dated 14 March 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of mothers in employment in London, whose youngest child is under one year (152204). I am replying in his absence.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) shows that in autumn 2000, there were 48 thousand mothers in employment in Greater London whose youngest child was less than one year old.

  MRSA
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to instruct hospitals to record on death certificates when MRSA is a cause of death. [146599]

  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 Tony Wright, dated 14 March 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question on plans to instruct hospitals to record on death certificates when MRSA is a cause of death (146599).
  Medical practitioners are required to certify the cause of death for patients under their care. Current legislation requires them to 'sign the certificate in the prescribed form stating to the best of his/her
  652W
  knowledge and belief the cause of death'. Guidance issued to doctors asks that they describe the cause of death as fully and accurately as possible.

  Statutory Instruments (Financial Implications)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that statutory instruments which have a financial implication are subject to consultation with his Department before they are laid before Parliament. [147533]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: Certain statutory instruments must have the approval or consent of the Treasury before being made. In other cases, the Treasury is consulted, as necessary, about any financial implications in accordance with the general principles governing the control of public expenditure as set out in "Government Accounting", the guidance on accounting and financial procedures to be followed by Departments. In all cases, it is for the relevant department to ensure that it has sought any necessary approval by the Treasury.

  Illness and Pregnancy (Insurance Premiums)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the level of insurance premium necessary to provide comprehensive private insurance cover for all the eventualities arising from a pregnancy. [151947]

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work his Department has undertaken to identify the likely level of insurance premium necessary to provide comprehensive private insurance cover against chronic illness for families. [151973]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answers 13 March 2001]: Insurance companies themselves determine the cost of their products, taking into account information such as their individual claims experience as well as any relevant statistics.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated(a) resource and (b) capital DEL shortfall is for each Department for financial year 2000–01. [153713]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Provisional outturn for public expenditure will be published in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper, as usual, in July.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change since the pre-Budget report (Cm 4917) in(a) capital and (b) resource spending by each Department resulting from transfers of responsibilities. [153715]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A detailed analysis of changes to spending plans, separately identifying changes due to transfers and classification changes, will be published in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the definition of clearance fees used by HM Customs and Excise. [152830]
  653W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: HM Customs and Excise publishes locally the days and times when their offices are open and the hours when their staff are available to carry out their assigned duties. Where a Customs presence is required outside these times, for example to process a customs declaration on a public holiday, a request is to be made in advance to the local office. Where it is agreed to, it may in certain circumstances, and dependent on the time or place concerned, attract an attendance charge.

  The charge reflects the duration of the attendance and the grades of staff needed to carry out the task and is calculated using published rates of charge for attendance. These rates are reviewed annually. Other than the flat rate applicable to private premises, which was amended in 1996, the current rates have remained unchanged since 1993.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 104W, on tax rates, what his estimate is of the first year yield of a 50 per cont. income tax rate for gross incomes exceeding £100,000 a year; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of full year capital gains tax yields which are received in the financial year the liability accrues. [151314]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 February 2001): None of the capital gains tax yield for 2001–02 is estimated to be received in the same year because capital gains tax liabilities are normally due for payment in the financial year following the tax year for which the liability arises. The first year yield in 2001–02 of a 50 per cent. income tax rate for gross incomes exceeding £100,000 is £1.6 billion. The estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and is consistent with the March 2001 Budget.

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil scrvants, excluding members of the Senior Civil Service, was in his Department for 2000–01. [152788]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on average pay increases for staff outside the Senior Civil Service will be published in the forthcoming Departmental Report for the Chancellor' s Departments.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Treasury received in fines levied for failure to complete individual tax returns by 31 January in each financial year from 1997–98. [148984]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: Taxpayers filing late under the self-assessment system render themselves liable for penalties. Figures for penalty receipts are accounted for by the Inland Revenue in
  654W
  account years ending on the last Friday in October, rather than in financial years. SA penalty receipts for the last three accounts were as follows:

  Account

  £

  1998

  18,085,069

  1999

  29,360,479

  2000

  32,960,556

  Neither the Treasury nor the Inland Revenue levies fines for failure to complete individual tax returns by 31 January.

  Married Couples Allowance
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the married couples allowance. [151617]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The married couples allowance and related allowances did not effectively support either children or marriage. They were available to all married couples, whether or not they had children, and were also available to single parents and to unmarried parents living together. The overlap between these allowances meant that twice the usual amount of relief could be available in the year a married couple separated.

  We are therefore replacing the married couples allowance with the Children's Tax Credit, which will give more help to families at the time they need it most: when they have children. Following this year's Budget, it will be worth up to £520 a year from April (over two and a half times the former married couples allowance). In April 2002, to help families with a new baby, there will be a higher rate of Children's Tax Credit in the year of their child's birth worth up to £1,040 a year, over five times the value of the former married couples allowance.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the difference between the carbon dioxide emissions projections set out in paragraph 6.15 of the Red Book and those in Table 1 on page 53 of the Climate Change Programme. [153388]

  Mr. Timms
  The carbon dioxide emission projections set out in paragraph 6.15 of the 2001 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report include the effect of the additional measures that are set out on pages 124 to 125 of the Climate Change Programme. These measures are not included in Table 1 on page 53 of the Climate Change Programme, which sets out the UK's baseline emissions.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he is making to establish a central support organisation for credit unions. [153571]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury maintains regular contact with the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd., and the other representative bodies, who are finalising their proposals for a CSO.

  Incontinence Products
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost to individuals and their carers of urinary incontinence products on which VAT is levied in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [153549]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise does not have data on the amount of expenditure on urinary incontinence products on which VAT is levied.

  Departmental Policies (Paisley, South)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Paisley, South constituency, the effects on Paisley, South of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153763]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Paisley, South, 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 971, or 35 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 85 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 61 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 946 young people in Paisley, South constituency gain valuable skills and experience—487 (51 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, 1,700 families in Paisley, South constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 13,100 in Paisley, South, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a 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 8,900 in Paisley, South.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Georgia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from Georgia about the teaching of English language to children of refugees in Georgia; and if she will make a statement. [152215]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have received no representations on the teaching of English to refugee children in Georgia. There are up to 400,000 people displaced by the war in Abhkhizia. We are supporting their resettlement in Georgia.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to help alleviate child poverty; and if she will make a statement. [152216]

  Clare Short
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are determined to do all we can to mobilise the international system to meet the International Development Targets by 2015 in order that today's poor children do not become the parents of larger numbers of children living in extreme poverty in the next generation. The targets include the aim of lifting one billion people out of extreme poverty, all children in primary schools, and infant and child mortality reduced by two thirds by 2015.

  These targets are achievable but require a greater and more united international effort. To this end the Chancellor and I hosted a conference in London on February 26 at which all the international institutions were represented. A copy of the commitments made at the conference is available in the Library of the House.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if, when she last met her colleagues from other member states of the European Union, they discussed the provision of aid to non-governmental organisations operating in Kosovo. [152217]

  Clare Short
  During our emergency assistance to Kosovo we funded a wide range of NGO projects. We are currently focusing on improving administrative systems, the capacity of Kosovars to govern themselves and preparing for elections. We have, provided support through NGOs for voter education, election monitoring, and housing projects.

  West Africa
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to address the humanitarian crisis in west Africa. [152218]

  Clare Short
  Half of Sierra Leone is under RUF rebel control and all basic services have broken down. One quarter of the population of Sierra Leone is displaced. We are providing £35 million per annum to support Sierra Leone and also supporting the UN peace keeping effort and helping train a new Sierra Leoneian army so that the country can return to peace. Fighting has recently spread to border areas as Liberian packed forces are seeking to destabilise neighbouring Guinea. This has led to the displacement of half a million people many of whom had moved to avoid fighting in Sierra Leone. The UN High Commission for refugees is trying to resettle and provide help to the refugees. We have provided £12 million for this work.

  African Conflicts
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to reduce conflict and promote peace in Africa. [152219]
  657W
  Clare Short
  Half the countries and 20 per cent. of the population of sub-Saharan Africa are living under conditions of conflict. This is a cause of massive suffering and a barrier to development on the continent. My Department, the FCO and MOD have arranged a high level seminar at the Queen Elizabeth 11 conference centre on 26 March to discuss with representatives of Africa and the whole international community how we can better resolve these conflicts in Africa. A paper analysing the course and nature of African conflict has been prepared for the conference and I will place copies in the Library and would welcome comments from Members.

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking, in co-operation with other Government Departments, to address violent conflict in Africa. [152233]

  Clare Short
  Twenty per cent. of the population of sub-Saharan Africa are living under conditions of conflict. Reducing conflict is critical if there is to be sustained development and poverty reduction in Africa. We have established new arrangements in Whitehall to develop joint policies and common approaches for conflict prevention and peacekeeping.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives her Department is taking to address the challenge of conflict prevention and resolution in Africa. [152236]

  Clare Short
  More than 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa are currently affected by or recovering from violent conflict. Violent conflict is one of the biggest barriers to development in Africa.

  We have established new arrangements in Whitehall to develop joint policies and common approaches for conflict prevention and peacekeeping.

  UK Youth Parliament
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to engage with the UK youth parliament to further the objectives of her Department. [152220]

  Clare Short
  Raising young people's awareness and understanding of development issues is the top priority of my Department's development awareness work, and we are working with the formal and development education sectors to achieve this. Currently we are not directly engaged with the UK youth parliament. However we will follow its work with interest and will seek suitable opportunities to share information on international development issues.

  Third-world Poverty
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of gross national product the UK proposes to spend on her Department's activities in 2001–02 on alleviation of poverty in third-world countries. [152222]

  Clare Short
  Early indications are that the UK is on track to reach an oda/GNP ratio of 0.29 per cent. for calendar year 2000, up from 0.26 per cent. in 1997. We cannot determine what the figure will be for 2001–02 with any certainty at this stage. The recent spending round settlement increased DF1D's development budget to 658W
  £3.6 billion in the financial year 2003–04 and the Government will ensure that the oda/GNP ratio will rise to 0.33 per cent. by that year.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her plans for assistance to Cambodia. [152223]

  Clare Short
  We will continue working with the Royal Government of Cambodia and other partners to improve the livelihoods of poor people, especially those living in rural areas. Provided that the policy environment in Cambodia is sufficiently sound, the amount of assistance allocated by DFID under the main bilateral programme will increase substantially over the next three years from the level of £3.7 million planned in the current financial year. Our Country Strategy Paper for Cambodia was published in March 2000 and is available in the Library of the House.

  Zimbabwe
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the aid programme for Zimbabwe. [152224]

  Clare Short
  The economic and political situation in Zimbabwe is deeply worrying. The economy is set to shrink by a further 6 per cent. this year and the poor of Zimbabwe in particular are suffering badly—jobs are being lost, prices are increasing and there is a potential for food shortages.

  I have kept the UK development programme under close review since 1997. We have since made clear that we support land reform in Zimbabwe but having fulfilled our commitments under the Lancaster House agreement could only fund reform which was transparent and provided land to poor farmers. I have recently authorised a £20 million HIV/AIDS programme because one in four adult Zimbabweans are HIV positive. I am sure the House will agree that we should do what we can to lessen the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe as a result of the behaviour of their Government.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her discussions with other Governments on a new WTO round of negotiations. [152225]

  Clare Short
  I have recently visited India and South Africa, where I spoke with political leaders about the need for a "Development Round" of trade negotiations. I stay in regular contact with Pascal Lamy, the EU' s Trade Commissioner. Later this month I am hosting a meeting of EU Development Ministers, at which the Directors General of the World Trade Organisation and United Nations on Trade and Development will speak. DTI Ministers, officials and my officials are also working hard to build a consensus on a new trade round with developing countries.

  Tanzania
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made with respect to the Country Plan for Tanzania; and if she will make a statement. [152226]

  Clare Short
  We published our three year Country Strategy Paper for Tanzania in May 1999 after extensive consultations in-country with Government, private sector, civil society and other agencies. Tanzania has since 1999 published the Tanzania Assistance Strategy and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. We welcome these and are reviewing our programme in Tanzania in order to strengthen our support for these initiatives. Our office in Tanzania is engaged in intensive discussions with Government and other partners and I expect to receive a report on progress and recommendations for our future support in June 2001.

  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the UN on appointing a commissioner on the trafficking of children. [152227]

  Clare Short
  A UN mandate already exist on the sale of children and the Committee on the Rights of the Child is dedicated to monitoring the implementation of the convention on the Rights of the Child. At the Millennium Summit, the Prime Minister signed the optional protocol to this convention which strengthens the protection it provides against the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The Government have also signed a new convention against transnational crime, which includes a protocol on trafficking of women and children.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of efforts to stop trafficking in humans in Africa. [152426]

  Clare Short
  We are determined to do all we can to see an end to trafficking in humans in Africa. Along with our EU partners we have expressed our concerns in international organisations such as the UN Commission for Human Rights and the International Labour Organisation. In the past year in Sudan, the EU Commission has provided financial support to the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children (CEAWC): CEAWC has already organised the return of some 550 abducted women and children there. Our ambassador in Khartoum has been active in visiting the areas affected and in attending CEAWC workshops to urge greater effort.

  AIDS (Sub-Saharan Africa)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives she has to fight AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. [152228]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is the single most important development challenge in sub-Saharan Africa. The epidemic is undermining economic growth and fundamentally threatens social and economic development in many countries in the region. DFID continues to give greatest priority to prevention, but we also place great emphasis on reducing the personal, social and economic impact of illness and death caused by the disease.
  660W
  As national strategic plans to tackle the epidemic improve, we have begun to place our support within the framework of those plans. For example, we have recently approved significant HIV/AIDS related programmes in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe totalling over £60 million, and a £20 million programme is being designed to support Mozambique. A new programme for South Africa is also planned for this year We have also committed £7.5 million to a regional initiative on HIV/AIDS with the Southern Africa Development Community.

  In addition, the Government are exploring the potential of a number of options for increasing the long term affordability and availability of treatment for HIV/AIDS and related infections which will benefit sub-Saharan Africa, while maintaining a focus on the development of long term sustainable health systems which are needed to deliver them.

  Overseas Development (Expenditure)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the level of public and private sector resource transfers from the UK to del, eloping countries in the last financial year, expressed as percentage of GNP. [152229]

  Clare Short
  Figures on levels of public and private sector transfers to developing countries as a percentage of GNP are collated in calendar years and the latest data available are for 1999. In that year, public sector transfers represented 0.23 per cent. of GNP. This figure shows a drop from recent years, caused by some one-off anomalies in the timing of commitments and expenditure. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on 3 May 2000,Official Report, column 127W, which further details the reasons for this anomalous drop. The level of private sector transfers as a percentage of GNP in 1999 was 0.46 per cent.

  Ghana
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's support for poverty reduction in Ghana. [152230]

  Clare Short
  During my recent trip to Ghana, I had constructive meetings with the new Government, and representatives from civil society and business. There is a sense of optimism, but the economic situation is dire. I strongly encouraged the Government to apply for HIPC status as they are currently paying massive interest on international and domestic debt. The President has since announced that Ghana will apply for HIPC status. We are the largest bilateral donor and our programme of support may reach £58 million next year, focusing on health, education, rural transport and reform of government systems.

  Guinea
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Guinea. [152231]

  Clare Short
  There are around 420,000 refugees from Sierra Leone and Liberia in Guinea, most having been there for a number of years. Around 135,000 Sierra
  661W
  Leonean refugees are located in an area known as the Parrot's Beak, adjoining the southern border. This area also contains a significant number of internally displaced (1DPs) Guineans. Over the last few months, camps, villages and towns there have been attacked frequently by Revolutionary United Front and other rebel groups from Sierra Leone and Liberia. Refugees and IDPs have also been innocent victims of action taken by the Guinean army to repulse the rebels.

  At present, the situation in the area is calmer. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is starting to evacuate refugees from the Parrot's Beak, and take them to places of safety further away from the border region. At the same time, UNHCR is continuing to assist with the voluntary repatriation of refugees from Conakry to Sierra Leone, currently ruining at about 1,000 a week.

  Since December 2000, DFID has pledged more than £12 million to help in this work. We are also working with the Government of Sierra Leone to create the conditions needed for more extensive repatriation, first and foremost better security.

  Indian Earthquake
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to reconstruction and assistance following the earthquake in Gujarat. [152232]

  Clare Short
  My Department has made an overall allocation of £10 million to support the emergency relief effort without reducing our spending in other parts of India. To date over £8 million of this total allocation has been spent. As well as providing immediate support to the Search and Rescue effort and transporting numerous relief items to the region, funds have been channelled through a number of agencies for the provision of essential relief items such as tents, blankets, medical supplies, food, water and sanitation. We have also established an Emergency Field Office which is working closely with the Indian authorities and operational Agencies to address outstanding needs. In the longer term we have offered advice to the Indian Government on strengthening disaster preparedness arrangements which will include Gujarat.

  The Indian Government are presently developing plans for rehabilitation and reconstruction; it is expected that these will be largely funded by the World bank and the Asian Development bank.

  EU Development Programmes
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met members of the European Commission to discuss EU development programmes. [152234]

  Clare Short
  I frequently meet members of the European Commission to discuss EU development programmes. I most recently met Commissioner Nielson (Development) on 8 February and Commissioner Patten (External Relations) on 28 February. I confirmed our support for the extensive reform efforts now under way and stressed the need for effective implementation of the new EC Development Policy. I also held a telephone 662W
  conversation with Commissioner Lamy (Trade) on 6 March, during which I emphasised the importance of mainstreaming development thinking into trade policy.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about her Department's humanitarian work in southern Africa. [152235]

  Clare Short
  My Department is engaged in humanitarian assistance in the region on a number of fronts. Following the immediate relief operation in response to last year's floods in Mozambique we have remained engaged in rehabilitation as well as in developing new measures, via the UN system, to strengthen UN and Government of Mozambique contingency arrangements for future disasters. Over the past few months DFID, FCO, MOD, RNLI and the UK Fire Service have been working together to prepare contingency plans for different emergency scenarios. In addition we have continued to work closely with the Government of Mozambique's National Directorate of Water to set up early warning flood systems with the UK Met Office. DFID has also granted £250,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross.

  Following the onset of the current floods, we have switched gear to immediate response operations which are deliberately aimed at 'preventative rescue and relief, i.e. extricating people before the worst hits them and there is substantial loss of life and suffering. We are currently:
  funding two Puma helicopters which are busy moving people from the riskiest areas and transporting urgent relief supplies;
  providing three logisticians to WFP to assist in its operational response;
  providing a humanitarian specialist in Beira to reinforce DFID presence on the ground and conduct field assessments.
  Beyond this, in Zimbabwe, DFID has agreed to fund an Emergency Preparedness project, (£166,000, one year) to be implemented by Save The Children Fund (UK). It is preparing for the potential humanitarian crisis which may emerge later this year as a result of, among other issues, prolonged food shortages and large displacements of commercial farm workers. The project will gather and disseminate information on the current situation in commercial farms and peri-urban settlements, and work to build effective networks within civil society and between civil society and donors/government.

  Mongolia
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on Government assistance to Mongolia. [152237]

  Clare Short
  An appeal for $11.8 million has been launched by the Government of Mongolia through the United Nations in response to the current winter disaster or 'Dzud'. We have offered £1 million for the provision of emergency relief under the framework of the UN appeal to be channelled through humanitarian agencies working in Mongolia. The appeal aims to target vulnerable groups in the most severely affected provinces and seeks to fulfil unmet relief needs. It focuses on
  663W
  building the disaster management of the Mongolian State Emergency Commission and other relevant national partners to enhance preparedness and future response.

  In 2000, we contributed nearly £200,000 to an IFRC appeal aimed at 35,000 of the most vulnerable Mongolian herders.

  We also provide a Small Grants Scheme allocation (currently £225,000) to Mongolia. Activities funded through multilateral channels to which we contribute include support to the World bank's sustainable livelihoods programme and to the UN programme supporting national development priorities such as reproductive health care, distance learning and institutional capacity building. DFID also participles in the thematic donor meetings in Mongolia and will continue to work to ensure that the multilateral donor agencies remain poverty-focused in Mongolia.

  Pro-poor Growth
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work her Department is undertaking to define pro-poor growth, and if she will make a statement relating to pro-poor growth in Africa. [152238]

  Clare Short
  In September 2000, we published a paper, "Halving World Poverty by 2015", which proposes a framework for poverty reduction based on economic growth, equity and security; and eight priorities for the international community. This has been well received.

  In sub-Saharan Africa it will not be possible to reach the International Development Targets without sustained high rates of growth—7 per cent per annum or more. In recent years, some countries have been doing well, but very many have not.

  While economic growth can benefit the poor, for example by increasing the share of incomes earned by the poor, poverty reduction will depend primarily on action taken by African governments. Good policy environments are essential, so that resources can be used to maximum effect—those of government, donors and the private sector.

  Pro-poor policies mean that poor people not only receive a proportionately larger share of publicly-funded services, but that they have greater opportunities to earn income, especially in rural areas. It also means that the poor are able to participate in and influence the policy-making process in their favour.

  Our aim is to assist African countries in implementing poverty reduction strategies. Together with the international community, we have signed up to the PRSP approach. This enables us all to work together more effectively, with governments of developing countries taking the lead. This is challenging. It requires:
  strong technical capabilities and resources to undertake analysis to consider options and integrate issues such as sustainability, gender, and social exclusion.
  664W
  Inclusive approaches allowing consideration of all perspectives including those of the poor, the Parliament and colleagues in government.
  Building of broad-based alliances for poverty reduction.

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding member; of the Senior Civil Service, was in her Department for 2000–01. [152793]

  Clare Short
  The headline pay settlement was 2.5 per cent. on the pay bill and, with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4.4 per cent.

  Labour Standards (Code of Conduct)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support the Government are giving to initiatives to raise public awareness in developing countries on codes of conduct on labour standards. [153127]

  Clare Short
  The Government strongly support the ILO's core labour standards, and are actively seeking to raise awareness of voluntary codes of conduct based on these, for the working of business in developing countries. In particular, the Government set up and fund the Ethical Trading Initiative, which is an independent organisation with a tripartite membership of trade unions, nongovernmental organisations and companies which seek to implement and monitor a "base code" of labour standards in the supply chains of corporate members. The ethical trading initiative does this by working closely with local organisations in developing countries and by working to raise awareness of labour standards and the "base code" among employers and employees.

  The Government also work closely with other industry organisations such as the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum whose members are committed to corporate social responsibility issues including labour standards, and work in part to raise awareness of these issues in developing countries.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the humanitarian assistance given by her Department to civilians in Sierra Leone, with particular reference to the amputees in the special amputee camp. [152954]

  Clare Short
  DFID funding to date for humanitarian assistance to civilians in Sierra Leone has been allocated for the following purposes.
  665W

  Funding

  To enable 15,000 vulnerable farm households in Port Loko, Kambia and Bombili districts to produce food for direct consumption and income generation through the sale of surplus crops.

  282,000

  To improve health status in SL particularly reproductive health in line with the priorities of the MoH. (Freetown)

  392,000

  To increase access to, and maintain utilisation of good quality health services which are delivered, managed and increasingly funded by the MoH as the implementing agency transfers control to the MoH. (Bonthe)

  644,000

  The resumption of a quality primary education for children in Freetown, Bo and Kenema.

  379,000

  To provide displaced families in Mile 91, Yele and Masimera chiefdoms with essential household items and provide 10,000 displaced children with used clothing.

  260,000

  To protect the health of up to 20,000 displaced (new and existing) people in camps in Freetown, by ensuring sufficient water and sanitation provision, alongside hygiene promotion.

  302,000

  To maintain water, sanitation and hygiene promotion facilities in four camps and identify partner organisations to take over operational work within 12 months.

  850,000

  To provide emergency non-food items through the provision of basic shelter, clothing, bedding and water storage/collection materials in Tonkolili, Port Loko and the Western area.

  1,527,000

  To contribute towards meeting the minimum basic water, sanitation and shelter needs of 10.500 internally displaced persons located in the National Workshop IDP camp in Kissy, Freetown.

  51,000

  Primary health care, watsan, and shelter for IDPs (Easten Freetown).

  134,000

  To reduce morbidity and mortality rates among the rural community by providing a network of primary healthcare facilities throughout the district which provide accessible and affordable healthcare. (Bo)

  443,000

  Protection and tracing assistance to displaced families, health care and emergency food aid.

  500,000

  To equip vulnerable, disaffected and marginalised youth with the skills and education needed to sustain meaningful livelihoods in Kenema and Bo.

  76,000

  Rural development.

  449,390

  Community peace building.

  80,550

  Regional including Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast

  Separated Children's Programme. Better protection of the rights of separated children in the sub-region.

  906.261

  Community Leaders Peace Initiative

  169,488

  Regional Radio Initiative.

  230,619

  UNOCHA to assist their coordination role in the region.

  500,000

  WFP

  2,000,000

  Among those assisting amputees are World Vision, The Handicapped International and Medicins Sans Frontiéres.
  666W
  The amputee camp (which is not exclusively occupied by amputees) currently has 267 amputees.

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

Spanish Cannon: Removal by Royal Armouries
Lord Bridges Lord Bridges asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Royal Armouries, acting on the authority of the Receiver of Wreck, forcibly removed an historic cannon of 16th century Spanish ordnance from the premises of Suffolk Underwater Studies at Orford on 12th February before any agreement had been reached regarding the custody of the cannon.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government and the Receiver of Wreck have been in discussion and correspondence on this issue since the ordnance was recovered from the sea bed in 1994. The Receiver of Wreck gave title to the ordnance to the Royal Armouries for its future care, preservation and display to the public following a meeting at which the finder was present. The ordnance was subsequently removed by the Royal Armouries to ensure its safety on behalf of the nation after the finder had been notified. It is the policy of the Royal Armouries to loan artefacts to museums in the area of the find wherever possible. The Royal Armouries has reaffirmed its commitment to return the cannon to Orford on long-term loan as soon as a suitable accredited public depository is established, and it has offered to assist in this.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and reflective reply. I shall endeavour to guide events locally in the same direction. Does the noble Lord agree with the general principle that when an interesting archaeological find is made, if it is not of outstanding national importance it should, as a general rule, be exhibited locally where it can be established that there is a suitable place in which to store it and the Royal Armouries and the department are satisfied with the arrangements for its custody?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. That is in accordance with the long standing practice of the Royal Armouries and its views in this case, which I have already set out. I have also made it clear that the Royal Armouries is anxious not only to pursue that policy but to assist in the return of the cannon to a suitable site near the place of find.
Lord Roper: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the Receiver of Wreck is widely recognised by those involved in nautical archaeology as someone
842
who always tries to find helpful and useful solutions in cases like this? Does the Minister also accept that this matter highlights a rather serious lack of resources available to local museums in a period when the number of finds in nautical archaeology increases substantially because of the new technology which is now available?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the Receiver of Wreck will be pleased to hear what the noble Lord has said and shares his concerns. If we continue to find more artefacts both on land by the use of electronic devices and in the sea by intrepid divers more and more places will have to be found for them in museums. That is why the Culture and Recreation Bill is concerned to extend the regime of English Heritage to underwater archaeology.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten us as to the meaning of the word "forcibly" as used in the Question? Was somebody duffed up in order to take possession of the cannon? Do the authorities have a powerful group of people who go round doing this kind of thing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nobody was duffed up, but the Royal Armouries did send a trailer. The ordnance was chained to the outside of the premises of Suffolk Underwater Studies and the chain had to be cut to remove it.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble Lord look into the position of the submarine "Resurgam" which sank in Liverpool Bay in the 1880s, still lies at the coast near Rhyl and is certainly in danger of being despoiled by underwater divers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the name of the submarine is peculiarly appropriate to the question that the noble Lord asks. I am not familiar with the case to which He refers, but I shall look into it and write to him.

Anti-Smoking Therapy and Treatment
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Gale Baroness Gale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to assist people to give up smoking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, our measures to help smokers give up include a comprehensive education strategy and the NHS Smoking Helpline. In addition, we have announced today that we intend to amend the relevant regulations so as to allow doctors to prescribe any available nicotine replacement therapy as part of NHS treatment.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply, especially on National

843
No Smoking Day. Studies show that more girls than boys now take up smoking. Does the Minister agree that there is grave danger to the future health of girls who take up smoking, especially when they may wish to have children? Smoking can cause problems in conceiving, during pregnancy and for the health of the child. Can my noble friend say what health support and advice can be given to girls to discourage them from smoking?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that they follow the example of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who I understand celebrates the first anniversary of giving up smoking. I agree with my noble friend. It is worrying that statistics show that in the age range 11 to 15 and 16 to 19 more girls than boys smoke. Earlier this year we announced a £3 million campaign and initiative to co-ordinate all services for pregnant women who wish to give up smoking. Many local health authorities through their various smoking cessation plans have targeted programmes. I also agree that we have to think about young girls. The education tobacco strategy campaign is targeting young women. It is considering whether a specific programme should be developed in relation to young girls.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's statement today and the actions being taken which have been urged upon him from these Benches for some considerable time. However, does not the fact that the Government have not yet introduced in this House the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill display a rather lesser commitment to the cause?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Not at all, my Lords. So far as concerns the introduction of NRT through GP prescribing, we have always said that we wanted to see how the use of NRT through smoking cessation programmes would develop. I am very glad that we have made the announcement. So far as concerns the advertising Bill, that, as ever, is a matter for the usual channels. I remain ready and eager to take the Bill through the House when the occasion arises.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the Minister for his remarks. Will doctors be able to prescribe what helped me enormously after I had tried to give up smoking 5,000 times; namely, using double nicotine therapy? I used the patches and I also used the lozenges. The lozenges fitted in with the peaks of the desire for nicotine and ironed those out, and the nicotine patches gave a steady level of nicotine. There is, I believe, some Finnish research which shows that in many cases this method is very helpful.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the list of products to be removed from Schedule 10, which can now be prescribed, is extensive. It essentially involves Nicorette and a series of patches as well as nasal spray and nicotinal gum. An amendment is being made to
844
the general sale list order which will allow the sale of nicotine lozenges with a maximum strength of 1 milligram.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the Government are saying to employers to encourage young people not to start smoking? Those of us who live up in the City during the working week see groups of young people standing outside the offices of great banks and so forth smoking—having a smoking break. They are all very young. It is most unfortunate that the role models that young people follow smoke. But what are we doing to persuade employers to tell their employees that it is bad for them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. As part of any local smoking cessation programme, it is very much up to the local health authority to engage in discussions with employers and other relevant bodies, whether voluntary or statutory organisations, and to have a proactive campaign to encourage staff to desist from smoking. The NHS faces a considerable challenge in that area, particularly among the nursing profession. That is something that very much exercises us.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will elaborate further on the answer He gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on the subject of young girls and smoking. Does He not agree that it is a very serious matter? It is observable anywhere and it is schoolgirls particularly who are smoking. What steps are the Government taking to attempt to deal with this very difficult problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I expressed my concern at the level of young girls smoking. It is particularly of concern that more girls than boys are smoking at young ages.
The programme can be separated into two parts. First, there is the tobacco education strategy. Over three years £50 million will be spent on a whole series of media campaigns aimed at the general population and young women to discourage them from smoking. Secondly, at the same time, there are the local smoking cessation programmes. They will be run by every health authority charged with developing local programmes, some of which will be aimed at young girls. Schools very much have a role to play. I hope that they will co-operate with the health service to play their part.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the progress that the hospitality industry is making in the adoption of its voluntary code of practice on smoking? The latest figures I have seen are that only 1 per cent of its establishments have adopted the code. There are still enormous numbers of places where there is no segregation between smokers

845
and non-smokers. The industry is supposed to reach a target of 50 per cent by next year. Are the Government doing anything to make sure that that target is met?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the Public Places Charter which is a voluntary agreement in the hospitality sector. That commits signatories to increase the provision of facilities for non-smokers, to improve ventilation and to give customers better information about the level of smoke-free facilities in a given establishment. The targets that have been set are that, by March 2000, 40 per cent of all pubs, bars and restaurants which are members of the Restaurant Association should be aware of the charter and that 1 per cent should be compliant, but by December 2002, 90 per cent of its members should be aware and 50 per cent compliant.
My noble friend is right to say that the impact on the ground has so far been too slow. We are very much committed to working with the industry to encourage it to ensure that its members, as far as possible, take note. For many of them it makes good business sense to offer smoke-free facilities.
Earl Russell: My Lords, while smokers remain about 30 per cent of the population—there is no argument about discouraging people from starting—it would not be wise to make smokers either unemployable or unable to have a meal when away from home.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as someone who is now on his 30th attempt to give up smoking, I have some sympathy with what the noble Earl says. We roust do everything we can to discourage people from smoking. We should also ensure that, wherever possible, there are smoke-free environments for nonsmokers. But we should not treat smokers as people to moralise against, nor should we make them feel that their civil liberties and rights of existence are under threat. We want a balance. That is what the Government are trying to achieve.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware how much I regret not being in the Chamber for the first part of the Question because I was attending the very well attended all-party pipe smokers and cigar smokers luncheon?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it certainly sounds like it!
Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that NRT works only if the person who is taking it does not continue to smoke cigarettes at the same time? Bearing in mind that the cost of NRT is some £10 to £20 a week, what steps will be taken to ensure that GPs do not prescribe it to those who are not going to take it seriously?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to raise the question. In the health action zones
846
where NRT has been made available it has been for a period of up to six weeks, which has enabled an effective control to be placed on the use of NRT. That has proved to be successful. The noble Earl asked about GP prescribing. Prescribing is a matter for the clinical judgment of the GP concerned. I am sure that GPs will wish to take account of the point raised by the noble Earl.

Post Office: Public Service Role
2.52 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they last discussed the public service role of the Post Office with the senior management of the Post Office and what was the outcome of any such discussion.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, Alan Johnson, the Minister of State, met the chairman of the Post Office on 19th February 2001 to discuss the Post Office's proposed strategic plan for the period 2001–06. The meeting was part of an established process for government, as shareholder, to monitor and discuss the performance and future strategy of the Post Office. The process includes quarterly reviews of the Post Office's performance against its plans. Public service issues are taken fully into account throughout the process.
When the Postal Services Act is implemented later this month, the Post Office will continue to have public service obligations imposed by the Postal Services Commission through licence.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does He agree that public services are first and foremost just that? While we all want to see efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the quality of the service they provide to society is related to the commitment and the morale of those working for them. That is invariably true. Does my noble friend further agree that some of the difficulties encountered of late in the Post Office are perhaps because undue weight has been given to the business dimensions of the Post Office and not enough to its dependence on the well-being of staff for an effective service, not least in rural areas? Can He assure us that in future the Government will emphasise the crucial importance of that aspect of the Post Office's activities?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am happy to agree with my noble friend that the Post Office provides more of a service to the community than just a narrow business service. En many isolated parts of the country, the Post Office bus is the only kind of public transport. In many cases the postman or indeed the sub-postmaster is a lifeline for the elderly and infirm. It is important that that part of the service should continue. It is also necessary that the Post Office

847
should have a firm economic and financial basis so that those services can be properly delivered, which is what I think the staff want to do.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, was the abysmal industrial relations record of the Post Office discussed at the meeting that recently took place? Does the noble Lord agree that, apart from the Prison Service, the industrial relations record of the Post Office is one of the worst in this country? Does He further agree that until that problem is solved, there will be great public dissatisfaction in the areas affected?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the purpose of the meetings is to discuss the service performance of the Post Office. The noble Lord asked about the service level. The reason for discussing the service level is that it varies hugely across the country. In many places, people have an extremely good service; but in others, that is not the case. Clearly, it is important to try to deal with those very poor areas of performance.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the stubborn and bureaucratic refusal of the Post Office to correct errors on the postal address file? I declare an interest in that the large village in which I live appears from the file not to exist, although it has been there for 1,000 years. This increasingly matters as more people are consulting the postal address file, especially on the Internet. Will the Government ensure that when the licence for Consignia is agreed—it is now under discussion—it will contain provisions requiring errors to be corrected?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord raises two different issues. The first is the exact address and the second is the code that is used for transmitting letters to the right place. The second is fundamental because if it is not right the letters will not reach the right place. There are other areas where there is disagreement over what exactly should appear on the envelope. Clearly, the actual code that allocates the letter is important. If it is not correct, the letter will not reach the right place. If there are any such cases, the Post Office will be very keen to hear of them.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I declare my usual interest in these matters. I accept that my noble friend does not have responsibility for the day-to-day running of the Post Office—that is a matter for the Post Office management. In the last few days of the great British Post Office, before it sinks into oblivion and Consignia later this month, will He look into what is happening in the Watford area at the moment? The impasse is about management insisting on rigid rostering or, as it is called in our industry, duty attendance, as opposed to the flexible rostering that staff have been looking for. Some of us have spent 20 years of our lives getting the staff to agree to that. Will my noble friend agree to have a look at that point?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, having been involved in looking at the Post Office for 40 years, it is
848
my considered view that we should get Ministers away from dealing with detailed questions of industrial relations in individual post offices. That is not the way to deal with these issues. I hope that the Postal Services Commission will be able to review these issues in more detail and more effectively. What my noble friend suggests is not the way to deal with these matters. They should be dealt with by management and the Postal Services Commission.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that over the past few years the Post Office has acquired about 20 companies, mostly in Europe, for tens of millions of pounds, can the Minister inform the House of the rate of return on the capital employed in those acquisitions?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not have that information at my fingertips. I shall happily write to the noble Baroness and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in regard to the meeting to which the Minister referred in his first Answer, was the future of small, village sub-post offices and improvements to their viability considered?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give a specific yes, but I would assume so because it is a matter of great concern to the DTI and indeed to the Post Office that we do not continue to see a decline. That is why in November we set a clear formal requirement on the Post Office to prevent any avoidable closures taking place. It is encouraging that, as a result of that procedure, some 100 sub-post offices reopened last year.

Animal Rights Extremists
3 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the latest reported threats from animal rights extremists to Members of Parliament, they have any plans to proscribe by order any such organisations as terrorist.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear in another place during yesterday's debate on the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, He has considered this matter very carefully and does not judge at present that it would be right to proscribe any such groups. However, we do condemn their disruptive and sometimes violent attacks on individuals and property and we are committed to doing whatever is necessary to help the police to deal with these extremists.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, is He aware that I am

849
extremely dissatisfied with it? Does the noble Lord accept that the Animal Rights Militia and the Justice Department have both advocated violence? Surely it is time for those two organisations in particular to be banned.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness will recognise that additional measures are being taken to strengthen the processes by which we bring such perpetrators of violence to justice. The Police and Criminal Justice Bill will provide a new power for police to move protestors away from homes where such protests may cause harassment, alarm or distress. The Bill will strengthen provisions on sending malicious communications, making that an imprisonable offence. Furthermore, we shall protect the homes of the directors of vulnerable companies by providing that the addresses of those directors at risk of violence or intimidation can be withheld from the public by the use of a secure register. Those measures will provide protection, increased sanctions and new powers for the police to take effective action against extremists.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, do the police have any powers to deal with people who demonstrate on behalf of such organisations but disguise themselves by wearing stocking-masks and so forth over their faces? Does He agree that they can have no possible innocent reason for doing so?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the answer to both of the noble Lord's questions is a definitive "yes". The police are able to take action against people who adopt such disguises in order to inhibit the possibility of being arrested and having charges brought against them.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of the shambolic debate held yesterday in the other place on the order to which the noble Lord has referred—when a single order under the Terrorism Act was debated, proscribing 21 different organisations—does He agree that in the future there should be separate orders for each separate organisation so that they can be the subject of proper debate?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that the debate held yesterday in the other place was shambolic. It seemed to reflect the free expression of critical opinion and an explanation of the Government's position with regard to the order. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord immediately that it is only a matter of days before this House will have an opportunity to debate that order. No doubt on that occasion the noble Lord will participate in a free and democratic, but not shambolic, debate.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, can the Minister expand on his reply to my noble friend Lady Sharples? He said that such extremist groups are already subject to the law. However, when the leaders
850
of those organisations openly incite people to violence, are they not then committing an offence?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, incitement to violence, if proven, is an offence and would bring a condign punishment. Perhaps I may add that there is a danger here that press comment may exaggerate the extent to which groups such as those mentioned are organised at the same level as a number of the organisations which have been proscribed in the order to which I have just referred. There is a substantial difference between one or, in some cases, two people masquerading under organisational names, then using those names after they have carried out malicious acts and have been charged with them, and large, highly organised groups.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, did the Minister observe that when we debated the Hunting Bill on Monday last, one matter on which all sides of the House were united was in their condemnation of animal liberation groups and their activities in connection with that Bill, as well as the violent actions recently perpetrated against Huntingdon Life Sciences and other companies? As I have said, the whole House is united against such actions. I believe that is also true of another place. For that reason, I believe that, when we come to the order in a few days' time, it will be difficult for the Government to reply in the manner adopted by the Home Secretary last night in another place. He appeared simply to brush it off.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that it is correct for the noble Lord to suggest that the issues were brushed off in the debate held in another place yesterday night. Perhaps I may hasten to add that I know that all sides of the House join in the condemnation of the outrageous and extremist misbehaviour which has been carried out in a number of locations including, as the noble Lord indicated, sometimes in regard to hunts. However, I am seeking to draw a distinction between organisations which it is proper to proscribe because, in so doing, we can take effective action to limit the criminal behaviour of such groups, and dealing with individuals or tiny groups of people who merely appropriate a set of initials or a name. We must beware of giving such people the same credence as organised groups. What we are dealing with in this case are individual criminals who need to be brought to justice.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.6 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Strathclyde set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff)The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) rose to move, That the amendments in the Marshalled List, dated 14th March 2001, be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. With the permission of noble Lords, I wish to move all the amendments together. There are 92 amendments, but I do not propose to deal with all of them in detail. Perhaps I should say that they fall broadly into five categories.
The first group of amendments are consequential on recent legislation, in particular the devolution and Greater London Authority Acts. They also update references to the definitions of local authorities and government departments. The second group of amendments translate imperial measurements into their metric equivalents. I hope that noble Lords will not ask me to do the arithmetic. Thirdly, amendments have been tabled to make some practices of the House of Lords consistent with those of the House of Commons. Fourthly, amendments have arisen out of recent experience with the Private Bill procedure. Finally, amendments have been tabled to rewrite, in contemporary English, the notice to be served on owners of property by proposed legislation.
I hope that, in the not too distant future, I shall be able to move amendments relating to human rights compatibility statements to Private Bills. I should also inform noble Lords that it is intended that a new edition of the House of Lords Standing Orders Relating to Private Business 1991 shall be published. It will include not only these amendments, but will also incorporate certain stylistic changes to make it easier to read and to use.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Taxation and Public Spending
3.8 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to call attention to the rise in personal and business taxation under this government, and the warnings of the International Monetary Fund on the dangers of the planned record levels of public spending; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to bring the issue of the massive increase in taxation over the past few years to the attention of the House this afternoon. There are two reasons for initiating this debate. First, I strongly agree with the increasing number of noble Lords who argue that this House should be given more chance to debate financial matters. For this to happen on an Opposition Motion is not satisfactory. Ideally, we should hold a major economic debate as a matter of routine in government time soon after a Budget, without prejudice to the later right of the House to examine a finance Bill. I hope that, in his response, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will confirm that in future we shall do so.
852
However, for the time being, we have given the House this opportunity. Indeed, when I look at the distinguished list of names on the speakers' list, I believe that that decision was right.
The second purpose of the debate is to explore the Government's economic record and their steady drift from new Labour back to old, perhaps the only example of alchemy managing to transform something shiny into something depressingly familiar. Higher tax, higher spending, more waste, no delivery; the broad facts are incontestable.
There have been 45 tax increases since 1997, adding up to the equivalent of 10 pence on the basic rate of income tax. According to the Chancellor's own figures, the overall tax burden has risen by 3 per cent of GDP since the Prime Minister said that new Labour would not need to raise taxes.
The Red Book also shows that the Chancellor has collected £8 billion more in tax this year than predicted only a year ago. I know that the House will not be deceived. Such modest tax cuts as were conceded in the Budget are not a refund of this windfall tax bonanza. They will do little to offset the effects of rising national insurance contributions, higher taxes on company cars and the imposition of even more absurd new taxes, such as the energy levy, which the CBI has warned will seriously damage UK competitiveness. The energy levy will do nothing for our environment. It will hit, though, many of our hardest pressed industries, including farming. We will reverse it.
As taxes have soared over the past few years, are we not entitled to ask what is the nation actually getting for its money? John Lewis shops have a slogan—"Never knowingly undersold". For Labour's spin doctors it is, "Always knowingly oversold". The Chancellor revels in a slogan that would bankrupt any business copying his example—"Less for more".
Let us look at the real world outside Mr Campbell's briefing room. Everywhere, people and businesses are getting less while they are paying more. In the NHS, hospital waiting lists are longer, GPs are in despair, nurse recruitment is in crisis. In education, class sizes in secondary schools are bigger, schools are drowning in bureaucracy, teacher shortages are worse than ever. In the fight against crime, there are now 2,500 fewer police officers than there were and violent crime is higher. In transport, the rail network is in crisis, bypasses around country towns and villages have been axed, and the London Underground has stagnated for four years while the Deputy Prime Minister has failed to make a single decision. And today the countryside faces ruin. How can anyone admire such a record? More effort has gone into re-presenting the same figures than into achieving a single additional police officer.
I hope that the House will agree that it could all have been so much better. In 1997, the Labour Party inherited an economy that was exceptionally strong. Unemployment was falling fast. If it had continued falling at the same rate as in the last three years of the previous government during the first three years of this Government, we would have broken through the

853
1 million barrier of unemployment on the claimant account last July rather than waiting until today. Inflation was low and falling; tax levels were lower than those of most of our main competitors; strikes were a thing of the past; and our economy was growing 1 per cent faster than the EU average.
Initially, the Government seemed to have learnt from the disastrous record of their Labour predecessors. They claimed that they had abandoned tax and spend; they made a great show of following the spending plans of the previous Conservative government. They basked in the rewards that followed. I welcome good news as much as anyone. It is good that unemployment has gone on falling and inflation remains under control. But, at the same time, would it not be just to recognise that the foundations of that success were laid long before this Government came to power? After all, even this Government's prudence was borrowed.
Sadly, in the past 18 months, the Chancellor has thrown off the mask; old Labour is on the move again. Taxes have soared; tax increases are hitting the creative and hard-working; regulation is now our greatest growth industry; our share of world trade has declined; and our growth rate has now sunk below the EU average.
Like every one of their Labour predecessors, this Government never delivers what they promise. They increasingly remind me of one of those postcards that drop through the letterbox decades after it was posted. We are so amazed that it has finally arrived that we ignore its late delivery and overlook that it was written a long time ago and sent to those who have long moved on.
The Government came to office talking of welfare reform, but they have unleashed the biggest extension in means testing in our history. They pledged no tax rises, but have taxed business and families more than any government in memory. What a rich irony it is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls himself prudent. The reality is that he has sought out everything that is far-sighted and prudent—and then taxed it. Pensions, savings, insurance, marriage, private health care, home ownership, even the family car, on every one of these items where prudent people try to put something aside, the Chancellor has targeted his tax rises. He has penalised the very virtues that he claims to uphold.
I cannot think of any tax rise more retrograde than his massive tax raid on pensions savings. It has cost people saving for pensions a truly shocking £5 billion a year, rising towards £6 billion next year. How can this assault and battery of prudence be defended? The Sunday Times put it rather well last weekend. It said:
"it is like Gordon Brown leading a £25 million Brinks Matt robbery every day of the working year".
Little wonder that rumours abound that government Ministers are about to move their summer holiday venue from Tuscany to the Costa del Sol.
There is a simple test for governments who cannot stop patting themselves on the back: let them take pride in their achievements. Do not do it stealthily; do it with pride. Be open, be up-front, be honest. Is it too
854
much to ask? Let the Chancellor write to everyone going without because they have been told that they must save more for their pensions and let him explain why he has helped himself to their savings and made their retirements less secure.
Let him do the same to those buying their own home. Let him explain to professional families why it is "prudent" for him to drive them into years of additional debt and sometimes price them out of homes by savage increases in stamp duty. Let him explain to home owners in the south-east how their homes will suck their families into feeding the ever expanding appetite for inheritance tax. Let him explain to savers why he has cut by almost half the amount that anyone can put aside each year in tax free savings. It is no wonder that the savings ratio in this country has plunged to an all-time low, from 10 per cent to 3 per cent. These tax policies demolish government claims to support personal responsibility and long-term saving.
We, on the other hand, will support saving. We admire independence; we support freedom from dependence on the state. We will help 16 million savers by abolishing income tax on savings or dividend income, except at the upper rate, and we will take 1 million pensioners out of tax altogether by increasing the age-related allowance by £2,000 per year.
The Government, on the other hand, will not trust people to take care of their own money in retirement. They insist on their buying annuities; they distrust self-reliance and independence; they want people to look instinctively to the Government for care. The blunt truth is that they want gratitude. Mr Brown believes in the forelock society.
The effrontery of the Chancellor is seen in his expectation that people should be grateful for a feeble tax reduction in the Budget. We welcome the extension of the 10 pence band; we welcome any reduction in taxation from the Government. But what it amounts to is a Chancellor who last year gave us a 75p a week pension increase—and who was affronted when pensioners complained—now giving us a 69p tax reduction.
Well, he should not be surprised if taxpayers are cynical. After all, this is a "10p up, 1p down" Budget. Since 1997, the Government have put up taxation by £28 billion. A recent study by Pricewaterhouse indicated that two-thirds of the tax advantage that we enjoyed over our main European competitors in the mid-1990s has been tossed away. We now pay more tax than people pay in Spain, Germany, Ireland or Japan—not to mention the United States of America, where thanks to the recent defeat of the Democrats, people can now look forward to a 1.6 trillion dollar refund of their own money over the next few years.
Yet it took years before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, could bring himself to admit what was obvious to everyone in the land—that new Labour had raised tax and broken the Prime Minister's promise that he had no plans to put up tax at all. Sadly, where once Britain was the free enterprise, low tax capital of Europe, it is once again becoming over-taxed and over-regulated.
We even have a new phrase in the English vocabulary: "the stealth tax". Recently, the Centre for Policy Studies listed 45 different stealth tax rises. Even in the latest Budget we have seen more, such as the increase in VAT on spectacles planned for June; or the new quarrying tax that will hit industry for £380 million. One tax was so stealthy that the Chancellor did not even mention it: a special levy on middle incomes, a swingeing 7.5 per cent increase in the national insurance threshold. Some 9,000 police officers, 23,000 senior teachers and over 20,000 key NHS workers will be up to £3 a week worse off. Yet the absurdity is that these are the very people Labour says it wants to encourage. The moral of the story is this: there they go again—say one thing, do another.
Indeed, when the Chancellor singles you out for praise, that is the time to reach for your purse. We have already seen how he deals with prudence; he taxes it. Another favourite phrase of his, and of the Prime Minister's, is "the new economy". But look what happens. It gets taxed. The Inland Revenue's notorious IR35, so devotedly defended by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will drive the brightest and best firms in the new economy out of Britain in droves.
Another key buzz word is "enterprise". Well, it is a strange kind of help that the Chancellor gives to enterprise—he taxes it. The CBI calculates that the tax burden on British business has risen by £5 billion during this Parliament. New regulations have added another £12.3 billion to business costs. The contraction of manufacturing industry has accelerated, despite all those pre-election promises. Have we not yet learnt from bitter experience the dangers of loading tax on to business?
Government should take far more seriously the growing tide of profit warnings and the torrent of complaints from business about tax levels. The harder we make it for businesses to stay competitive, the harder the decisions they will face. Multinationals do not need to base themselves in Britain if higher tax is the result. Investors do not need to trade in the City and go on paying stamp duty when every other financial centre is cutting it. Small businesses do not need to expand, if all it means is more red tape, more interference and more tax.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, never tires of telling the House how he, as a small businessman, cares for small businesses. But I fear that the noble Lord is becoming increasingly out of touch like everyone else after four years in a ministerial motor. Ministers can read out the brief, but they do not have to live out the life. They give us the highest petrol prices in the world, at huge cost to business and the countryside, but they never have to take out £50 to fill the tank. Indeed, I am told that Mr Brown has never filled up a car in his life.
Ministers do not see small businessmen sitting up night after night wrestling with the morass of inspections, regulations, form-filling and payroll complications that flow from every new Labour Bill. They do not know what it means to labour for a
856
lifetime to build and save and to know that it will be taken away on death in inheritance tax. The Conservative Party does understand those fears and worries—and when we return to office we shall not forget.
In the 1980s, Chancellors—most notably my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon and my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby—set out with the laudable aim of simplifying the tax system. Mr Brown seems to have the opposite aim: to complicate the tax system. Never did I expect to hear the accountancy profession no less—the very people who gain most from Labour's tax complications—crying to high heaven for tax to be simplified. That is the measure of the Chancellor's achievement. It is as if the brewers were campaigning for prohibition.
My noble friend Lord Saatchi will deal with the difficult and uncertain prospects ahead and the alternative strategy that our party will follow. But I worry when I hear Ministers claim that they have conquered the economic cycle. That, after all, is the English translation of the soundbite drivel about boom and bust. We have seen in the past few months in America just how illusory talk of a new paradigm can be, how suddenly a storm can roll up in a previously blue sky, and how fragile business, investor and consumer confidence can be.
Even Mr Micawber would have seen something very troubling in the central Budget strategy of increasing spending faster than national income is likely to rise. When the pro-government Financial Times said that the Government had turned prudence into a matter of faith, not a matter of fact, the Chancellor ignored it. When the authoritative IMF warned of,
"risks … tilted to the downside",
and said that it,
"would be prudent to abstain from introducing significant new spending commitments … in the March 2001 Budget",
the Chancellor rebuffed the IMF.
Now, financial markets around the world are reflecting concerns about economic storm-clouds ahead as real companies in the real world are seeing their profits decline. But the Chancellor sails on blithely, like a surfer ignoring the red warning flags. If his faith is not rewarded, the people of this country will pay a heavy price in lost jobs, service cuts and even higher tax. As if the families, businesses and professionals of Britain have not already had to pay this new Labour Government far too much, for far too little, for far too long.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I begin by agreeing strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at least in his request that, in future, we should have major economic debates at the time of the Budget in government time— although I am bound to say that we used not to have them for about 18 years previously.

857
The noble Lord is right. There have been substantial increases in what the Opposition have come to call "stealth taxes". There have also been, at least in the past year, increases in public expenditure. The noble Lord is therefore right on both counts. He would have more credibility if he were to tell us that all those stealth taxes, as he calls them, would be removed immediately by his party and all the major public expenditure increases would not take place. But, as he knows, the Opposition have agreed that if by any mischance they were to become the government on 3rd May, they would retain all the major public expenditure increases. So the noble Lord lacks credibility in everything he has said on both scores.
I note the expression "stealth taxes" and, as I have said, there have been increases. But the Tory charges in regard to stealth taxes are hard to sustain. Those are not my words. They come from an article in The Times, not a strongly Conservative newspaper. Anatole Kaletsky wrote last week:
"Tory charges about a massive 'stealth' tax increase under Labour are … hard to sustain".
Those are his words. He is hardly a Labour supporter or a supporter of this Government.
On public expenditure, the noble Lord did not tell us about the savings that his party could make and intended to make. That is not surprising. However, it is not difficult to find some. After all, public expenditure is somewhere between £300,000 and £400,000 million. So finding the odd million or two would not be too difficult. Indeed, I can give the noble Lord an example: he could scrap the Barnett formula. I was rather surprised that he did not suggest that—or perhaps not, coming from his position.
Perhaps I may turn—as the noble Lord did briefly— to the "warnings" from the IMF mentioned in the Motion. The noble Lord did not speak at great length about them. I understand why. I tried to find them. I see the noble Lord is indicating that his noble friend will deal with them later. I look forward to hearing him. I tried very hard to find those warnings in the IMF document of 23rd February; I had some difficulty. In certain circumstances, and according to certain assumptions, one can, or may, make assumptions that indicate that we shall be in terrible trouble. But on reasonable assumptions, and on reasonable projections, the IMF comes to certain conclusions in its report, which the noble Lord did not quote. I could quote them, but I shall not do so in view of the time. However, if the noble Lord cares to refer to paragraphs 9, 10 and 14 in the report, he will see that they give full account of why the IMF thinks that the present economic position is both sound and, in its words—not those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—"prudent", which is a favourite word of the Chancellor.
The IMF also concluded that the Chancellor was absolutely right on his "golden rule", as it has been called; in other words, a separation of current expenditure from capital expenditure. The many businesses to which the noble Lord referred make a clear distinction between current and capital expenditure, but perhaps his great business experience
858
did not allow him to tell us more about that. Even if the noble Lord could find the public expenditure cuts, he knows, as we do, that they would not be found immediately. So we are told that we would have a situation where tax cuts would be made, without public expenditure cuts. If one reads the IMF report carefully, it is clear that that is precisely the criticism that it is making. It is not making a criticism of the Government; it is making a criticism of the Opposition's policies. Therefore, I am not too surprised that the noble Lord did not quote from the report at length. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has to say.
So has the Chancellor of the Exchequer been prudent in his Budget? Well, he only used the word twice this time in his speech. In the past he has used it much more frequently. He told us that he has been prudent. Others have said the same; the IMF, and another unusual source, the director-general of the Institute of Directors—an organisation not normally so friendly to the Government. They all think he has been prudent. I am not surprised. In my own view, he has been too prudent because the £3.6 billion we have been told will be spent this year, with tax reductions, is, in practice, unlikely to be spent. It was also under-spent during the past year. I believe that he has been prudent. I would have much preferred a little less of the bits and pieces of tax cuts that most people have hardly noticed—and, indeed, will hardly notice—and rather more in the way of public expenditure.
I have something of a guilt complex on the question of public expenditure, because I spent more than five years doing something that I never wanted to come into politics to do; namely, cut public expenditure. I readily admit that I am talking about a very different economic environment. In those days, we had not inherited what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer inherited. I willingly concede that he inherited a much better economic environment. However, like the rest of us, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows that there is a great demand for more expenditure, especially investment, in all areas of public life—education, health, local authorities, police, transport and, indeed, investment generally. To pretend that one can do all that and, at the same time, make major tax cuts is, frankly, misleading not just to your Lordships but also—if anyone is listening outside—to other people.
There are other areas in which I hope the noble Lord, and all of us, would like to see some improvement. I have in mind, in particular, child poverty. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing far too little when he talks about halving the level in 10 years. We should be doing far more.
I understand that "prudence" should be the slogan, although I point out to the noble Lord and to the House that 1.8 per cent inflation is such that we could, in my view, live with a little higher and a little more public expenditure. That is my personal view. The 1.8 per cent is in UK terms. If one looks at the "European" scenario—if I may be so bold as to mention that word in your Lordships' House—it will be seen that the figure is much lower.

859
However, worries have been expressed not only by the noble Lord when quoting selective parts of the IMF report, but also by a certain William Rees-Mogg, who wrote an article in The Times on Monday of this week, as his regular weekly contribution. The article was, as usual, very well expressed. I believe that he is known as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, in your Lordships' House, but in the newspaper he is called "William Rees-Mogg". You can tell from the photograph that it is him, even though it may have been taken some time ago! As I say, the noble Lord can be relied on to put his facts very carefully and to express himself well; and he did so in that article. He talked about the disturbing consequences that might be possible for world trade. That is perfectly true: there is the possibility of dangers in that direction. Indeed, we have already seen evidence of that this week with the stock market collapses about which the noble Lord wrote. The noble Lord quotes his colleague, Mr Kaletsky, from whose article I also quoted, who asked last week:
"How long can Mr Brown keep us this largesse?"
The noble Lord rightly depends on growth assumptions, which he concedes have been particularly cautious. They are likely to be rather better than he has forecast—that is, better than they have been this year. But it could all go wrong in two ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, tells us, because of "formidable imbalances" in the United States and the Japanese failure to restructure. Indeed, the noble Lord goes on to say that if they do restructure, it will,
"cause pain, and probably slow world trade".
That is a fair statement to make; it is also the sort of doom and gloom, no-win scenario, that one expects these days from others in the media rather than the noble Lord.
It is possible that Mr Brown will ignore the potential dangers; it is also possible that we could see the end of the world. That would be something even better to write about! But what would the noble Lord, or anyone else, have done in the event of such a scenario? We are not told. It is like the perennial pessimist: you sit at home worrying about it, doing nothing. On a wall that is situated somewhere near my flat in London, someone has chalked a phrase; namely, "Be pessimistic, you'll always be happy". If I may say so, that really fits the noble Lord's article. It would be absurd to plan now for that kind of catastrophe. We have a strong economy; indeed, if one reads the whole of that article, the IMF makes it quite clear that we have a very sound and strong economy. Therefore, it seems to me to be absurd to act now.
My experience as regards expenditure and tax—regrettably, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury for those five years—is that they are not set in stone. As of now, one can only say that the economic position is good and sound. I commend the Chancellor's Budget to the House.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, as this Budget is the last of the present Parliament, this is a suitable time to review the record of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to look forward. I intend to concentrate on the main lines of his stewardship and paint with a broad brush. The noble Lord has made the IMF report one of the issues in the Motion that he has put forward for debate. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I was somewhat surprised that there seemed to be no mention of it in his speech, although I understand that that will be remedied later. Until I read the report, I had assumed from press comment that it was rather critical of the Chancellor's stewardship However, it has been grossly misrepresented. The IMF report generally is one of high praise for the Chancellor's achievements. It does not condemn his spending plans or his tax record. Of course, it sounds a note of warning for the future because there are question marks about the impact of a recession in the United States, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, pointed out. There are question marks about world trade and about the future of our exports particularly if the pound continues to be strong, or even strengthens against the euro.
It points out that our record on productivity, except perhaps in the past two years, has been poor, especially outside the information, communications and telecommunications sector. However, to invoke this report—as some of the press have done—as some kind of condemnation or criticism of the Chancellor's overall performance is, to put it academically, rather like criticising someone's performance because he has been awarded an alpha minus instead of an alpha plus.
The noble Lord attacked the Chancellor's tax increases. He made the reasonable criticism—as have many members of the Conservative Party—that the Chancellor has rather tried to hide the extra taxes he imposed. Some of the extra tax take is simply the effect of economic growth, but some is due to tax changes. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I find it hard to see how the extra money which he has given to schools, hospitals and law and order—in our view rather belatedly—could have been given without some increases in taxation. We on these Benches differ profoundly from the general tenor of the Conservative Opposition's criticisms in that regard.
We applaud the Chancellor for his management of the economy overall. To some extent our sound position was due to the actions of a previous Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, who for some reason was not mentioned in the noble Lord's speech although he mentioned all the other Chancellors. It is not clear why he has been deleted from the records. While applauding the management of the economy overall, as has the IMF, we go further in our criticism than the IMF. We have three main criticisms. As I said, they are the very opposite of those of the Conservative Opposition. Two of them are connected. The first relates to the public services. The Chancellor boasts that he has avoided stop-go in the economy as a whole. But he has imposed stop-go on the public services with a vengeance: two years of stop, about one-and-a-half

861
years of go. At the end of four years he has left public spending as a lower proportion of GDP than it was when the Government took office. It is no wonder that so many Labour supporters feel deeply disillusioned.
You cannot run the health service, education or the police efficiently if you alternate famine with feast. Nurses have left the service; it will take years to replace them. Experienced nurses have left, new ones will take a long time to be trained. Experienced teachers have left. It will take years to train new ones. There has also been a tragic wastage of experienced policemen who will now be replaced with raw recruits.
Unlike the Conservatives we do not criticise the Chancellor for some tax increases. In fact, we would have supported somewhat higher taxation at the start of this Parliament to support a more gradual and even increase in public spending throughout the past four years.
Our second criticism concerns the poor performance in productivity noted by the IMF—1.5 per cent per year on average. We did not catch up with our European partners and we fell further behind the United States. Why was that? The IMF blames poor education and low investment. Education suffered because the Government refused to increase Conservative spending plans in the first two years. The Chancellor sought to boost productivity by a series of tax changes. They have made the system more complex. I know of no evidence that they boosted productivity. Low investment has been the key factor and here it is the high pound which has done the damage. It has played havoc with our manufacturing base.
What could and should have been done? I have no doubt that if at the beginning of this Parliament we had announced our firm intention to join the euro at a competitive exchange rate, we could have done so shortly after and the pound would have been much lower for most of the past four years. Industry would have benefited enormously. Of course, there would have been risks and some disadvantages. We would have faced some of the problems which the Irish now have with interest rates which are lower than are ideally suited to their particular circumstances. I accept that. But as the report of the Select Committee of this House on the euro showed, the evidence of all the Irish witnesses was that they had done better inside the eurozone than if they had stayed out and better than they expected before they joined.
Further, as the governor of the Bank of France testified, businessmen throughout the eurozone have no doubt whatsoever that their position has changed dramatically for the better. They all see the benefits of a single currency. Indeed, throughout the eurozone there has been the kind of fundamental restructuring of industry which one saw when the Common Market was first founded. We lost out then because we failed to join; and we are losing out now. We are losing out now because investment and productivity have suffered grievously from an uncompetitive exchange rate.
862
Indeed, the Chancellor's announcement about the euro on 27th October 1997 was in our view the biggest single mistake which the Government have made in the course of their tenure. At that time they would have won a referendum with a landslide. I sincerely hope that the chance has not been lost for many years to come.
Let me turn to the future. For the next few years public investment will increase at a high rate, somewhat higher than the underlying or actual rate of economic growth is likely to be. Stability should not be affected for a while because the public finances can stand the strain. But by 2004 the rate of increase now planned will be unsustainable without major changes, as the IMF pointed out. Either spending plans must be cut back or taxes must go up. That is the fundamental choice we face.
The Conservatives' preference is quite clear: on no account must taxes be raised because high taxes hurt the economy. Their preferred model is that of the United States; so is that of most City commentators. They contrast the low tax, low spending and dynamic economy across the Atlantic with its recent high rate of growth and low unemployment on the one hand, with the so-called "sclerotic" economies across the Channel, weighed down with high taxes and high spending which have resulted in low growth and high unemployment.
I favour the European model. The popular contrast is misleading. Despite its undoubted success in recent years and its many admirable features, it is far from clear that the American model is more successful economically. There has been a kind of see-saw in the relative progress of Europe and America. Sometimes Europe grows faster; sometimes America grows faster. In the past five years, possibly the past decade, the United States has been up. Before that Europe was up. In the next five years Europe is likely to be up again. If one looks at the past 30 to 40 years, Europe has probably been the more successful. Indeed. if one looks at the productivity figures produced by the IMF—they are of great importance and enormously significant—one sees that despite the so-called "sclerosis", the claimed debilitating influence of high taxes in Europe and the great spurt from IT in the United States in the past five years, productivity per hour is higher in Germany and France than it is in the United States. Even in recent years, growth in the Netherlands, Ireland, Spain and Portugal has certainly matched that of the United States.
Of course, there is a downside to the picture. If we compare ourselves with the rest of the European Union, it is clear that they pay more in taxes. The Liberal Democrats sometimes give the impression that the answer to every problem is high taxation, but of course it is not. Taxes can be oppressive, they can limit freedom and they can stifle initiative. Nor does spending money automatically produce results and improve services.
However, certain vital qualities of a civilised society can be achieved only if we are prepared to pay for them. We should not only compare our taxes with

863
those of our European partners, but compare our health service with that in Germany or France, or the standard of their secondary schools, their vocational training and the level of skills of the average worker in industry. That is why their productivity is so high. We could also compare their railways and public transport with ours—or, for that matter, the average crime rate or the number of people in jail.
Over the next four years, the next Government will have to choose what kind of society this country wants. I prefer the European route. We do not want new cuts in public spending in the last two years of the next Parliament. If we want to achieve standards in our schools that approach those on the Continent and standards in our hospitals that a modern, civilised society is entitled to demand, public services must have priority, even if some taxes have to rise.
3.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I am considerably embarrassed to find myself speaking at this point in the debate. I should like to correct any impression that your Lordships may have acquired from my position in the list that I have any expertise in this complex and technical subject where angels fear to tread, let alone Bishops. I had hoped that the Government Whips' Office would slip me in at the end of the list of speakers.
I shall make three simple, brief points from what I hope is a non-partisan point of view. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has just said, high taxation is not necessarily to be deplored. Indeed, it is to be welcomed, provided the money raised is used wisely for necessary and beneficial public expenditure in the interests of social justice and for the common good. Samuel Augustus Barnett was rector of Whitechapel at the turn of the last century. St Jude's was a depressed, poverty-stricken parish. he had inherited the traditional Victorian assumption that poverty could be put right by voluntary giving, but he quickly became convinced that that was not the case. He coined a phrase that all Christians ought to know and affirm:
"God loveth a cheerful taxpayer".
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has just compared levels of public expenditure in this country with those in certain other European countries. On public transport infrastructure and some aspects of the education and health services, we are the poor relations. There is nothing to be proud of in that. The Government should boldly resist any mutterings that may come from the IMF and continue to make good the backlog of many years of neglect of public expenditure in this country.
My second point—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—is to welcome the Government's recognition of the problems of child poverty and the attention paid to the issue in the recent Budget. However, even with the help that was announced recently, child poverty will remain a problem and a scandal in this country.
864
There must be questions about the Government's ideological link between the best levels of child tax provision and the obligation to work, especially for single parents. Childcare must be an option for parents that carries no financial penalties. I understand where the Government are coming from and acknowledge the vital importance of work to the national economy and the fact that work outside the family home brings a proper sense of dignity, purpose and satisfaction to those who undertake it. However, there can be no more important work than childcare, which, by and large, is best delivered by parents. Means testing— targeting benefits—must make common sense, provided it is comprehensible, the system is manageable and the benefits are claimed. That is a considerable proviso.
My third point is a very specific one, relating to the small print of the Budget. Some of your Lordships may have missed this point. When the rural White Paper finally appeared in November last year, one paragraph in it brought great rejoicing to the hearts of Church people. It was in the context of a section affirming the usefulness of church buildings for community purposes. It stated:
"We are acting to support the community role of churches in rural areas. … we have announced that we will seek European Commission agreement to our proposal to reduce the rate of VAT (from 17½ per cent to 5 per cent) payable for repairs and maintenance on listed buildings which are also places of worship".
We had been campaigning for that change for a long time, because the Churches pay far more in VAT on repairs than they receive in English Heritage grants in recognition of the part that they play in maintaining this significant aspect of the national built heritage. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed that proposal, but, alas, the Chancellor failed to persuade Brussels. We warmly welcome the Chancellor's Budget announcement of financial compensation to offset the refusal of Brussels to allow the reduction. The Churches will in practice benefit from a level of 5 per cent VAT on repairs to listed buildings.
I raise the question of whether the provision should be limited to listed buildings. The heritage constraints on adaptation of listed buildings for community use are very severe in many cases. Church buildings that are not listed are much more readily adaptable. The heritage lobby will not get involved in proposed changes to the internal arrangement and furnishing of such church buildings. If the provision was designed specifically with the aim of making rural churches available for community use, why is it limited to listed buildings? Did the Chancellor believe that Brussels might more readily agree if it were limited to listed buildings? Can that point still be pressed? We warmly welcome the compensation package, but we hope that the Government will continue to press the case in Brussels for a reduction in VAT not just on listed buildings, but on any other church building if the work would make it available for community use. Thus far, we welcome and are grateful for that development.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I follow the right reverend Prelate with pleasure and acknowledge the importance of some of the points that he made. I hope that he will forgive me if I address the more substantial underlying theme that was so effectively presented by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I am delighted that this House has an opportunity to consider the Budget at this stage and wish to see further progress in that direction.
I endorse one point made by my noble friend. There is mounting anxiety at the rapidly growing complexity of the tax system. Part of that is due to the changes being made to meet the point raised by the right reverend Prelate about help for children. I recognise the need for that—indeed, I stressed in my maiden speech in the other place a hundred years ago the need for something like a tax credit system that would reach the people who deserved and needed it. However, the complications remain exceedingly difficult and are only one aspect of the tax jungle that the Chancellor is rapidly extending. It was said last year by chartered accountants that the tax system was,
"irrational, confused, damaging the economy and out of control."
I suspect that the Budget will do nothing to improve that. I am grateful that the Chancellor continues to be committed to the Tax Law Rewrite project, which will at least simplify some of the issues.
My real anxiety is that put forward most formidably by my noble friend—the mounting incompatibility between public expenditure commitments and expectations of economic well-being over the longer term. I stress that it is over the longer term, because that was part of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
I was a little disappointed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Over the years that we have sat opposite each other in this House, I had begun to form the impression that he was something of a reformed character. But his words today could have been taken straight from one of the speeches he made during the years between 1974 and 1979 when the unspeakable defended the indefensible.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am prepared to acknowledge, as we must, that the Chancellor is entitled to a modest degree of self-satisfaction for the most immediate outlook. He is, indeed, probably the first Labour Chancellor ever to have been in the position of introducing a pre-election Budget in which modest short-term generosity was compatible with responsible economic guidelines. I believe that no other previous Labour Chancellor has had that opportunity. That is for a reason that has already been mentioned.
If one compares the position today with that as it was on 1st May 1997, outlined by my right honourable friend John Major in the other place a couple of days
866
ago, on 1st May 1997 growth was projected at 3.5 per cent per annum and inflation at 2.5 per cent; unemployment was falling fast and so was the public sector deficit. It is on the basis of those figures—growth that had started in 1992 before our exit from the exchange rate mechanism—that the Chancellor has been enjoying the second half of a period of eight years of sustained economic growth, built on the foundations laid by his predecessors, the most recent of whom—I am more than glad to add to the role of honour mentioned by my noble friend—is my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke.
Therefore, to that extent, the Chancellor has done okay so far and, in some aspects, entirely well. He has recognised the need for strict control of monetary policy, and he has taken the step, which many of his predecessors would have liked to take, of giving more responsibility for that to the Bank of England. That has brought economic benefit and also political relief for the Chancellor because that matter is now being handled by another department. It was a logical consequence of our more tentative moves in that direction.
Thus far, he has also followed a reasonably disciplined fiscal policy. I do not mean disciplined in every respect but at least in the sense of maintaining a balance. He has followed, although by a different name, the medium term financial strategy which I was derided for pronouncing in 1980. He has endeavoured to follow the same guidelines, but he has done so in two rather curious ways.
During the first part of his reign, he stuck to our published spending plans for two years. Then, almost simultaneously, he accelerated it. We have seen a substantial growth in planned public expenditure accompanied—although, again, not from the outset—by a steady growth in the tax burden. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, for a long time that growth was not acknowledged and not disclosed. However, in the end, they came clean and acknowledged it. I shall not go over the components that made that up.
The basis for my real worry is concern about the future. Those spending instincts are developing into spending plans, notably as outlined in the Budget speech. Moreover, they are not only outlined; they are proudly proclaimed. I am worried by the tendency of the Chancellor in that context. Although he speaks,
"within our cautious fiscal rules",
he is committing himself to increasingly extravagant projections. Education spending, he says, is,
"set to rise by 5.2 per cent. a year even after inflation".
Health spending is,
"rising by 50 per cent. over five years".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/01; col. 308.]
The projections go on further and further. Transport—he finally gets carried away, at col. 303, in a transport of delight—is,
"set to rise by 20 per cent. a year over the next three years … [in] our 10-year plan of £180 billion public and private investment".

867
There, I fear that he is coming close to counting chickens long before they could ever be hatched.
Overall, he says, at col. 307:
"We will increase spending not by 3.4 per cent. a year, as we planned … but by 3.7 per cent. a year."
alongside his forecast growth rate of 2.25 to 2.75 per cent. That is based upon a dangerously boastful belief that he has conquered boom and bust.
He is coming close to catching the occupational disease of economic managers, not excluding the chairmen of reserve banks as well as finance Ministers, who have come to believe that at least in their own country, whatever may happen elsewhere, they have abolished the economic cycle. I have to confess that even ex-Chancellors sometimes succumb to that illness. By the end of the 1980s I had been away from the Treasury for five years, and, even then, I was making speeches on the other side of the world praising the success of our economy in terms that made it sound as though we had learned to walk upon the water.
I make that concession by way of demonstrating to the Chancellor the risks that he faces. It is almost explicit in the following sentence from his speech:
"Britain must not repeat the short-termist mistakes of the 1980s—unfunded, unaffordable tax cuts, high interest rates"—
of course—
"cuts in necessary investment, with no fiscal rules. We will not return to boom and bust".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/01; col. 308.]
In the catalogue of what he there condemns, what is the difference between "unaffordable tax cuts" and unaffordable spending programmes? That is the real worry. Reversing spending would be much more painful and much more disruptive than reversing tax cuts. As the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, pointed out, that is the importance of the warning clauses in the advice from the International Monetary Fund. That body said:
"The magnitude of planned expansion in public spending is not without risks … It would be prudent for the March 2001 Budget to refrain from new spending commitments".
Of course, that advice has implications. If we are seeking to say that we can enhance public services without raising taxes and without having unduly extravagant public spending plans, then we as a nation must begin to contemplate some aspects of the European model. European countries, for example, spend on health approximately half as much again as we do as a percentage of GDP. That additional half comes from the private sector. Therefore, it is a model that we must certainly examine. It has nothing to do with privatisation of the health service but concerns looking elsewhere to raise the finance to improve the services as we want.
868
I return to the point that we are really debating. The risk of trouble for this economy is much greater. Here, I quote the IMF:
"If the downside risks coming from abroad were to prevail … it would limit room to cut interest rates and would worsen the exchange rate overvaluation",
and, again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, it would make it harder for us to join the euro—as indeed we should.
Those downside risks are not to be discounted when we look at Japan, which has constant and chronic problems, when we look at the hazards in the United States, and even when we consider the hazards of foot and mouth disease. I should not like to be in the Treasury now, counting upon a secure economic future on which to build the increasingly extravagant spending plans foreshadowed in the Chancellor's Budget. That is the real risk that we face. One can get carried away. There is no job more exhilarating, with its public acclaim and success, than that of the inhabitant of No. 11. And there is no acclaim more dangerous for those who hold that office.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on having selected tax as the topic for debate today. There is no better topic than tax to illustrate the contrast between a Tory administration and a Labour administration. During the Tory administration perhaps the rich paid less tax, but the poor certainly paid more. As a result, a quarter of our children were born into poverty and half of our pensioners lived in poverty. But, by careful targeting, four years of Labour administration have seen 1 million children lifted out of poverty—170,000 in this Budget alone. Next month, we shall see most pensioners lifted out of poverty, too.
During the Tory administration, the tax and benefits system condemned millions of people to the poverty trap and the low pay trap. By careful management of the tax and benefits system, during four years of Labour administration steps have been taken to destroy those traps and to make work pay. Despite that, the gap between the richest and the poorest deciles of our population is still widening. So much for the claim that increased taxes are destroying initiative.
There was a time when the Tory Party cared about the poor as well as the rich, but the single-minded crusade to cut tax benefits only the rich. The success of my right honourable friend the Chancellor is not only that has he recognised the plight of the working poor and remedied their situation but also that he has seen to it that the better-off can benefit from their hard work and entrepreneurial activity. He did that by bringing the tax and benefits systems together. That is a sensible move because it stops the curious situation in which the Government hand out benefits with one hand and take them away with the other through tax.
That is why we all now benefit from Labour's tax policies. The basic rate of tax has been cut to 22p and the new lop rate has been extended. It gladdened me

869
that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, welcomed that. Indirect taxes vary according to the lifestyle of the family. Noble Lords can always find a family who smoke, drink or drive an inordinate amount to boost their tax payments. Equally, however, tax credits have to be taken into account because they are very real tax reductions to the people who receive them.
Families claiming the working families' tax credit are £30 better off compared with those who used to claim family credit. Nearly 300,000 more families claim WFTC than claimed family credit. Families with children will have their taxes cut by up to £20 per week in the year of the child's birth, and by £10 a week from the second year. That means a tax cut—I stress that word—for around 5 million families. In any case, a family with children and with someone in full-time work will be guaranteed a minimum income of £225 a week from October this year.
It is that personal tax system that makes work pay and gets people out of the poverty trap. The minimum wage means that people will get fair pay. Maternity and paternity pay mean that mothers and fathers will be able to spend more time at home with their young children. That shows that the tax and benefits system encourages family life. I am surprised that noble Lords opposite do not welcome that; I have often heard them voicing support for family life.
To claim that we should pay less tax because we have a surplus is too glib. We should not forget that we also have large debts on which we are paying interest. Most taxpayers would agree to give priority to paying off their debts. That would save us from repeating the mistakes of the past and returning to the stop-go system which has been so damaging to our economy. By paying off debt, the Chancellor can smooth out the economic cycle by dealing with fiscal policy over the entire cycle—in good times and in bad. Of course, the cycle will not be abolished, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seemed to suggest, but it can be smoothed out. That is what my right honourable friend the Chancellor is doing.
That is why I think that warnings from the IMF about planned levels of public spending are overstated. They do not fully take into account the fact that the Government have cut public sector net borrowing by £44 billion since 1996–97. That enables us to balance the budget over the cycle and in good times and bad. I wonder about the report. According to the Financial Times, the dispute between the Treasury and the IMF about how we manage our finances has been going on for some time. The Financial Times tells us that while the IMF staff economists criticised the golden rule, the directors generally praised the UK's economic performance. The IMF staff economists are mainly concerned about the possibility that the Chancellor's public spending plans will push up interest rates. Well, interest rates are a matter for the Monetary Policy Committee. It. was interesting to hear the authoritative views of my noble friend Lord Barnett, who is a member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee.
870
I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can claim that we are paying more business taxes than other European countries. We have less tax on corporate income and lower employer social security payments than most of our competitors in the European Union. Our rates are certainly below those of France and Germany. Indeed, the 10p starting rate of corporation tax is the lowest in any major industrialised country. Our VAT rate is also comparatively low and the VAT threshold, at £54,000, is the highest in Europe.
In addition, allowing small companies to benefit from cash accounting in their VAT returns means that their VAT burden is effectively reduced. Small businesses and, soon, larger companies will be able to reduce their tax liability by claiming research and development credit if they invest in new products. So as far as the burden of taxation is concerned. British companies are at the lower end of the scale, which gives us cause for satisfaction.
However, we are also at the lower end of the productivity scale, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, reminded us, which gives us cause for worry. Sadly, there appears to be no correlation between tax levels and levels of competitiveness and productivity. Indeed, the opposite seems to be the case. Although our tax levels are well below those of France and Germany, our productivity on average is 20 per cent below theirs. Our future prosperity is not so much a matter of tax, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seemed to think, or of the exchange rate. as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, suggested, but of skills, innovation, investment and competitiveness. We should be concerned about productivity growth, not the level of taxation.
I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that closing the productivity gap will raise our standard of living. We will achieve that not by cutting taxes and hoping that deprivation, fear and insecurity will create the work-force we require; improving skills and investing in high-quality public services in health and education will produce a work-force which will close that gap. However, fiscal incentives are not enough. Business and industry also have to do their part.
The TUC has got the message. It has developed the Partnership Institute to help firms to raise productivity. Employers' organisations in engineering, steel and other manufacturing sectors have also come together to meet the productivity challenge. I welcome those positive initiatives.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford reminded us, there is more to managing the economy than simply saving money by cutting taxes. Delivering social justice and sound stewardship are also important, as is raising our standing of living through productivity growth. The Budget meets all of those challenges.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate alongside such

871
distinguished contributors. In supporting the Motion, I should like to touch on some of the political and economic messages that can be drawn from the Government's tax and spending policies.
It is now becoming clear that the Government genuinely believe that the state can and should intervene to shape people's lives. They believe that more government is better. They do not accept, as I do, that the lessons from the past are that public intervention is more often than not wasteful and distorted and that freedom and choice depend on containing the state's role and making it as small as possible. That is demonstrated by the projected size of the Government's spending programmes and by the intrusive way in which they have determined their spending and taxation programmes.
I shall start with the facts. Total expenditure—by which I mean current expenditure and investment—is projected to grow by more than 4 per cent in real terms over the next three years, rising from 38.4 per cent of GDP to 41.1 per cent of GDP. I calculate that to be an extra £62 billion at today's prices. How is that growth in spending to be funded? If one goes through the Red Book, it appears that taxes rise by about £40 billion at today's prices. The rest comes from the projected fall in the government surplus, going from a surplus of £16 billion in 1999–2000 to a net borrowing projected of £10 billion in 2003–04. That is a turnaround of £26 billion from surplus to deficit in four years. It contrasts with the picture in the final Budget report of the previous government which showed a growing budget surplus in the early years of this new century.
The Government claim that their last Budget was fiscally neutral and therefore prudent. This misses the point that adding spend to existing plans where spend and taxes are growing faster than GDP necessarily means transferring expenditure from the private sector to the public sector. To reduce the argument to an absurdity, one could double expenditure and taxes and still claim that it was fiscally neutral. Clearly, that would have a major impact on the economy and would not be prudent. The fact is that if expenditure grows faster than GDP, as is planned, that part of the transfer from the private to the public sector not achieved through taxes will have to come through higher interest rates and higher inflation.
In the current circumstances, the Government cannot rely on higher savings to make up for the increased share of GDP appropriated by the Government. The Bank of England issued a quarterly bulletin recently that points out that the savings ratio has already fallen from 10 per cent in 1997 to 3 per cent in the third quarter of 2000. As the Bank of England points out, this is not because there has been an excessive boom in consumption, which the Bank estimates at being fairly stable at around 4 per cent growth a year, but, according to the Bank, it is because of,
"falls in post tax income growth relative to consumption".
That means that as the Government have increased the tax burden faster than GDP, income has taken the cost. That increased tax burden imposed by the
872
Government led directly to the sharp fall in the savings ratio as people sought to maintain their consumption patterns despite the rise in taxes. With a 3 per cent ratio in the last quarter, it leaves little room for the savings ratio to fall further as taxes continue to rise.
This is not a sustainable position. It occurred during a period when public expenditure rises have been buffered by a significant decline in interest payments resulting from the low inflation levels and low interest rates in place when this Government took office and which have worked their way through to the benefit of lower public debt charges.
This pattern of public expenditure growing faster than GDP is clearly unsustainable beyond the short term. More than that, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe pointed out, it creates clear risks if economic growth falls, if taxes fall and surplus turns to deficit even more rapidly.
Beyond the risks of economic downturn that my noble friend mentioned, one of the other serious risks is if there is an unwelcome fall in the stock markets and asset values in the coming year. The Bank of England points out that it is only the rise in asset values over the past few years that has led consumers to feel comfortable with the lower savings ratio. If their confidence is shaken, savings will rise and consumption and GDP could fall rapidly. Then the Government's careful plans would soon look completely threadbare.
It is not just the macro issues upon which I wish to comment in looking at the Government's spending plans. I believe that the Government are ignoring the disincentive effects of higher taxation on economic growth and are making a judgment that they are better able to spend money than individual citizens. Much of the tax increase comes from fiscal drag from economic growth, which means that governments raise the tax burden unless they take action to offset that. In addition, research published by the Centre for Policy Studies—I declare an interest as chairman of that body—shows that even before the previous Budget the Government had introduced 45 tax increases over the past four years, accounting for a net £11 billion per year extra tax burden or, cumulatively, £36 billion over the course of the Parliament on top of the tax rises that came as a result of fiscal drag.
Those rises included £6 billion a year out of pension funds which will result in more future pensioners being dependent on the state. They include over £2.5 billion in direct tax increases, much of it paid by the low income families who, with the other hand, the Chancellor seeks to help. There have been over £2 billion of new taxes on business on top of the high yield from corporation tax and the burdens of regulation which increase costs and prices and will reduce investment and jobs. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that that is no way to raise productivity in the economy.
It is wrong to believe that one can raise taxes without destroying wealth or raising money by cycling through a government bureaucracy which takes several pence in every pound simply to pay for tax

873
collection and public administration costs, even if one believed—and I do not—that that spending is generally as well placed as if left in the hands of the individuals who earned it. It is wrong, too, to believe that one cannot contain public expenditure without hitting at the quality of health or education services. Health expenditure, for example, accounts for only 12 per cent of total government spending. It grew above the rate of economic growth by some 3 per cent a year in real terms under the last government, despite the fact that the overall share of the economy taken by government spending declined during that period. It is a question of priorities, effectiveness of government spending and living within one's means. It is not a question of public expenditure being a necessary good; in many cases it is an unnecessary bad.
Finally, I turn to the complexity of the spending programmes. We have a government who have introduced penny packages aimed to reward or penalise specific interest groups according to whether or not they fit the Government's autocratic definition of that which they approve or disapprove. There is an attempt to mould the behaviour patterns of the nation around what the Government and the Chancellor of the day seek to approve and think we ought to approve. I believe it is a dangerous trend for taxation and expenditure policy to go down that intrusive route of trying to define individuals' lifestyles. It exposes the danger of a rising tax burden.
I believe that we need less government, not more; a lesser role for government in running inefficient public services; less intrusion by government into the way we run our lives; less of a role for government in handing out our money to pursue their own special interests; more money left in the hands of individuals, families and entrepreneurs to build wealth and to enjoy the freedom from state diktats that come from being able to exercise independent choice rather than being dependent on what the state provides.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Woolmer: My Lords, listening to the debate, it is clear that the Opposition seek to raise the issue of, "Can you trust Labour in government to handle the economy'?" I remember that before the previous election they said, "Don't trust Labour, re-elect a Conservative Government". The electorate gave their verdict that lime and, I suspect, will give the same verdict in a few weeks. The answer from the Front Bench appears to be that there is a question mark at present about whether or not one can trust Labour and that we should look at the IMF report. I shall return to that subject in a moment.
The view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, appears to be that one can probably trust them now but in three or four years' time there will be problems. Interestingly, the kind of expenditures that the noble and learned Lord thought might raise problems in the future appear to be endorsed by the Conservative Party in saying that it will honour all these spending plans. I am not entirely sure where that leaves the Conservative Opposition. We heard very little about what spending they would cut or which
874
stealth taxes they would reverse. They appear to approve of everything we are doing, but are not clear about what they would do in their place.
The Motion before your Lordships' House today refers to the IMF report. I should like to confine my remarks to themes arising from that. As I read the report—I am sure that most noble Lords have read it also—it makes clear its support for everything that the Labour Government have been doing. It confirms the sustained economic growth, the low inflation rates, the low interest rates, the increase in private investment and the fact that those gains are due to strengthened macro-economic and structural policies, improved monetary and fiscal frameworks, credibility of monetary policy, operational independence of the central bank—the Bank of England—and so forth. Any reasonable reading of the IMF report would conclude that it is overwhelmingly supportive of, and endorses, Labour policies.
It perhaps was not a surprise that Mr Neil Collins, writing in the Daily Telegraph on 15th February, wrote in glowing terms about the economy. He said:
"There is a blessed land, so they say, where the rate of inflation is lower than the rate of growth. where there arc jobs for all, and where the government spends only what it raises in taxation. The land believe it or not is called Britain … It's tough to have to say so, but Gordon Brown has judged the big picture brilliantly'".
I concur with those sentiments.
As has been said, the IMF report deals with two themes, one of which is productivity. I shall not have time today to address that particular matter, but II agree that it is an issue of enormous, long-running importance. It must be a puzzle to all parties that, despite the many economic reforms—I willingly accept that they were initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, and have been followed through by successive governments, including the Blair Government—such as deregulation and the freeing up of labour and capital markets, productivity performance in Britain still remains behind that of our competitors. I am sure we shall return to that issue time and again over the next few years.
The first theme of the IMF report related to short-term fiscal and monetary policy and was really concerned with whether or not the Government would be tempted to have a spending spree Budget in election year. Indeed, on page 13 the report states:
"it would be prudent for the March 2001 budget—an election year budget—to refrain from new spending commitments or substantial tax cuts".
So the first question is: in an election year, was this a sound, prudent Budget? Can the electorate feel that the Government handled the economy soundly not only throughout their period of government but also, importantly, in an election year? I believe that the answer to that will be a resounding "yes".
Before the Budget, the markets in the City had assumed and built into their expectations a boost to the economy of around £3 billion to £4 billion. The amount of boost in the Budget was in fact £3.5 billion—bang in the middle of those expectations. It was indeed a cautious and prudent Budget. Given that

875
was so, can we assume that the Government will go forward in a prudent way in the years ahead? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, has his doubts. Let us review that matter.
My noble friend Lord Barnett referred to the fiscal rules. The golden rule of borrowing only to invest and not to fund current spending has been fully met. The rule of ensuring that public sector debt does not rise above 40 per cent of GDP has been more than met, as the IMF report confirms. In fact, it is projected to decline to 31 per cent of GDP by 2004–05.
But the electorate have every reason to ask how the Conservatives performed when they were in government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, properly refers to his own introduction of the medium-term financial strategy, the MTFS. Of course, that was in 1980. But if we look at the performance of the Conservatives in their last seven years of government, from 1991–92 through to 1996–97, we find a deficit on the current budget year in, year out, averaging over 4 per cent of GDP. That is equivalent in today's terms to a budgetary overspend of £35 billion. On the Order Paper today we are debating a Motion that is concerned about an increase of £3.5 billion. The electorate will have no great difficulty in comparing the Conservatives in government and their deficit of £35 billion year in, year out, with the surplus of this Labour Government.
The ratio of public sector debt to GDP in the 1990s, under a Conservative government, rose sharply to exceed 40 per cent. That was in fact because the Conservative government were borrowing to fund current expenditure. Public sector investment under the Conservatives fell in real terms from £15 billion in 1978–79, to just £5 billion in 1996–97. The record of the Conservatives in office in public investment was truly appalling.
It was precisely because of those cuts that our schools, hospitals, roads and railways got into such a mess, the result of which we are seeing today. It is that backlog of budgetary weakness and neglect of public services that the Labour Government have had to tackle. First, Labour had to get the budget back into sound balance, to restore the nation's finances and reduce public debt. Next they had to begin the process of investing in our education, health and transport services—a task which will be central to the Labour Government after the next election.
What does the IMF have to say about the priorities of the Labour Government? On page 16 the report says that it agrees,
"with … the need to enhance public infrastructure and human capital while maintaining a sound overall fiscal position. The priority placed on education and investment [is] well founded, given the strong fiscal position and evidence that the United Kingdom's weak productivity performance [is] partly attributable to inadequate public infrastructure and skills deficiencies".
Far from being critical of the Labour Government, the IMF report endorses that they have the right priorities. At the same time as tackling the country's economic needs, the Labour Government targeted affordable tax cuts to help working families, to provide
876
a better deal for pensioners with most help to those who need it most, and to provide much-needed support for women and children.
In their last few years in office, the Conservatives had a record of budgetary deficits, spiralling public debt, and of deep cuts in public investment, leaving our roads, railways, schools and hospitals in an appalling state. The Labour Government have begun the process of putting all those soundly right, with the right priorities and, at the same time, targeting tax cuts and social benefits on those most in need. In the coming weeks I believe that that record will be one that the electorate will endorse.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, in a general debate like this I always find it difficult to know what interests to declare. Since I will touch briefly on business taxation, I should perhaps start by saying that I am chairman of Frontier Economics, deputy chairman of 3i, a director of P&O Princess, GKN and two investment trusts.
I should like to start by joining the chorus of praise for my noble friend for initiating this debate; I hope that it will become a fixture. It is timely both because of last week's Budget and because of the symbolic but extremely welcome news that the long fall in unemployment that began in the early 1990s has brought the figure for those claiming benefit to below 1 million. It is also timely because we have been reminded over the past couple of days of the volatility of markets and the sharp fall in the market value of Britain's major companies.
Although it is by no means the most significant of these events, I shall start with the Budget. As many noble Lords have already said, the actual changes made in the Budget are very small. I welcome some points in the Budget in respect of taxes on new enterprises and the changes to capital gains tax, though the latter is still too complicated. However, the overall impact on the tax burden is very small. The widely-quoted figure is of the order of £3.5 billion. In fact, about £2 billion of that was already known to the markets, because those were matters put out to consultation last autumn, when—let us face it—the real pre-election Budget took place. It was a very small addition, which makes only a very short inroad into the rise in the burden of taxation that has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords.
I shall not further emphasise that matter. Suffice it to say that I am delighted to see the spread of honesty from the Labour Benches in recognising that this has taken place over the past three years, and I have far too much respect for the Minister's integrity to believe for one moment that he will attempt to deny that it has occurred.
The figures in the Red Book slightly understate what has happened to the burden of taxation. The reason for that is a brilliant new Treasury wheeze by which new benefits in the form of credits are expressed as a reduction in taxation and, therefore, a dampening down of the rise in the tax burden. Taken to its logical conclusion, that approach would treat the entire social security budget as a tax cut.

877
Perhaps I may now deal with the other side of the Budget; namely, expenditure. If the Government are displaying the considerable honesty of later this year going to the country as a high tax and high spend party, perhaps we should, having dealt with the first point, now look a little further at those spending numbers. At the moment, of course, spending is not historically at all high. Public expenditure as a proportion of national income is at approximately its lowest level for 30 years and that is because the Chancellor spent his first three years squeezing public spending, but also—and this is an important point—because he is having some difficulty increasing it. He has substantially undershot the mark.
There are two very good reasons for that. The first is that the great ship "Whitehall" is rather slow to turn round. The second is that, although much emphasis is placed on buildings, public spending largely relates to people, and the hiring of people has to be paid for. With unemployment in the UK at its present level, and with pay having been held down in the public sector, the Government are finding it extremely difficult to hire people to deliver public services. The kind of increases that they now intend to put into their plans cannot be delivered without a sharp increase in relative pay.
The public sector unions have been giving the Labour Government a fairly easy ride. But it has to be said that the market is not so sentimental. The sight of health service managers, heads of schools and education authorities scouring the world for people to fill positions should deliver a clear message.
A big issue is going forward about the pace of change in public services—the speed at which public spending can be increased and public services improved. If I am right that it requires a sharp increase in relative pay, and if that were to lead to a general increase in the rate of earnings, there would be issues for the Bank of England to consider in relation to the control of inflation.
Having dealt with the achievability of public spending targets, I turn to the question of their sustainability. The more that goes on pay, the less there will be available to increase the volume of public services. Looking forward, one then asks the question: what happens after one or two years of increase in public expenditure? We have the plans up to 2003–04, which is not that far away. What do the Government propose to do after that time? On their own account, they have been fairly cautious in relation to growth forecast, although they have not allowed for the possibility of recession. As other noble Lords have said, they will have to borrow again. They will cease to get that wonderful benefit from a reduction in debt interest, because debt interest by then will, of course, rise again with the new borrowing. How do they intend to finance further increases in public spending to maintain the momentum of improvements in public services?
The Red Book charts a path for tax in relation to national income. That flattens out from this point onwards. But I have to say that that is what the
878
Government said last year, since when the tax share of GDP has gone up by one full percentage point. I do not understand how the Government can maintain the momentum of public spending going forward without also again increasing the tax burden.
I cannot resist ending by taking up the challenge put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. As I am blessedly free from any policy responsibilities, I shall respond to him by saying that I think it is high time that the Barnett formula was reconsidered. The noble Lord does himself less than justice. I am sure that I do not need to remind him, he having done a certain amount of work on the matter, that the intention of the Barnett formula at the time of its introduction was to reduce the massive disproportion in expenditure north of the border.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the present extent of that disproportion. The Government spend 25 per cent more per head in Scotland than in England.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, £5 for every £4 per head spent in England. I find it quite unconscionable that the Government should have gone through the whole process of devolution without addressing that disproportion. I do not believe that they can leave it in abeyance for very much longer, because it is now a source of deep resentment in England. Do not misunderstand me. I am more than happy for the Scots to vote themselves that higher level of public service. The effect of the money may be seen in terms of shorter waiting lists and in terms of higher spending per pupil in Scottish schools, right across the board. However, I do not understand why parts of England that have no higher levels of income per head should have lower levels of expenditure per head. I do not understand why they should have to pay for the Scots to have that advantage.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
4.48 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness by declaring an interest as a director of an investment trust and as an investment manager for pension funds and charities. Like many noble Lords, I also had great difficulty finding criticisms of British economic policy in the IMF directors' report. So rare were they that I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, had read the report before he framed the wording of his Motion. Having read the report myself, I would certainly have given Gordon Brown at least nine and a half out of 10. I could disagree with my noble friend Lord Taverne about what variation of alpha we give him, but that is probably rather too Oxford élitist; let us stick to simple numbers.
The only real criticism that I found in the report was of the weak productivity performance of the UK between 1995 and 1998. However, it also reported that there had been an encouraging improvement during

879
the past year and a half. If it had a criticism, it was that investment in public spending on education and training was too low, not too high. That was the only criticism of any substance. I turn to the tax objectives that Labour set themselves in their last manifesto. They said:
"New Labour will establish a new trust on tax with the British people. The promises we make we will keep. The principles that will underpin our tax policy are clear: to encourage employment opportunities and work incentives for all; to promote savings and investment; and to be fair and to be seen to be fair".
Progress towards two of those goals can fairly easily be measured. Testing on the third is rather more subjective.
I shall examine them in turn. The first aim is to encourage employment opportunities and work incentives. With unemployment below 1 million, its lowest level since 1975, the big picture is clearly excellent. But the regional picture of employment and economic development is less benign. There are 33 parliamentary constituencies with unemployment levels below 1 per cent. Every one is in south-east England.
The pattern is just the same when we see what has happened to unemployment during the past year. Of the 25 constituencies where unemployment has fallen fastest, 21 are in the South East, with only three in the South West and one in Scotland. There is none in any other region. In the 25 constituencies where unemployment has risen in the past year, or where there have been the smallest falls, not a single one is in south-east England. There are four in Scotland; two in Northern Ireland; four in Wales; one in the North West; six in the West Midlands; seven in the East Midlands; and one in the South West.
So, the Government's overall record on unemployment has been good but they have allowed economic growth to become dangerously unbalanced, with overheating in the South East, all the associated problems of housing strain and pressure on public services, but a more patchy pattern elsewhere. When one examines the areas in which unemployment remains stubbornly high, a single theme comes through clearly as one looks at the names of the constituencies. Overwhelmingly, they are dependent on manufacturing and they are suffering from an overvalued exchange rate. Britain is still a very open economy. What really matters to so many of the depressed areas and regions is to have a competitive and stable exchange rate, particularly against the euro, as my noble friend Lord Taverne pointed out.
I turn to the second of Labour's three objectives; to promote savings and investment. The Bank of England's Quarterly Economic Report, which was recently published, contains an interesting article about that. It points out that the household savings ratio in this country has fallen from 10 per cent in 1997 to 3 per cent today. There are a number of reasons for that and wealth effects are one of them, but on one of Labour's three key objectives of tax policy—that is, to promote saving and investment—the Government have clearly failed. That is hardly surprising when by
880
far the biggest change in tax policy has been the removal of the dividend tax credit from pension funds at a cost of £5 billion to £6 billion. After all, regularly paying into a pension fund is still the most important form of regular, sustained, long-term saving for the hardworking families about whom Gordon Brown is so keen to talk.
I turn to the third and more subjective aim. How is Gordon Brown doing on being fair and being seen to be fair? I suggest that, unusually, he is doing better on the reality than on the spin. He has taken more out of higher earners' pockets through national insurance contributions and higher stamp duty on house moves than if he had broken the New Labour taboo against putting up the basic and higher rates of income tax. He has given substantial help to poorer families through tax credits and the national minimum wage and the real increases in spending are at last coming through on health and education, as he wriggles out of the eye-wateringly tight straitjacket which he imposed on himself during the first two years.
However, redistribution by stealth, which is what he is doing, is a dangerous game for a left-of-centre Chancellor. You can get away with it for a few years if the public finances are buoyant, the world economy is strong and if you get the odd bit of help, such as £22 billion from mobile phone licences. But the trouble with that policy is that the losers tend to work out what is going on rather more quickly than the gainers and the losers tend to shout louder than the gainers, with plenty of sound and fury from the Tory press.
If you are a radical Chancellor, in the long term it is far safer to make the case openly and with conviction for using the tax system to fight poverty and inequality, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, pointed out. Tell the country what you are doing and why. That is the way in which you build popular support for the day when the economic climate turns foul. That day may be coming sooner than we think, as the irrational exuberance of world stock markets and American consumers last year is now showing every sign of giving way to irrational despondency at the other extreme. Nor in our British case do we yet know—and we should not underestimate—what the one-off economic costs of the foot and mouth epidemic for us may be.
Overall, the Chancellor is not doing badly. But we on these Benches urge him to raise his sights. The purpose of prosperity is not to win plaudits—and they were plaudits—from the IMF; it is to end the grinding poverty in which so many of our people still live and to rebuild the creaking public services—education, health and public transport—on which the whole country depends. If the Government have the courage to raise that banner—the banner of fair taxation—they will have the whole-hearted support of these Benches and they will also have the unique combination of support from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and God, who loves a cheerful taxpayer, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford told us.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that we in this House need a debate on the Budget soon after its presentation. I believe that I have a small footnote in history because I pioneered the practice a few years ago. For two years running, we had a debate on the Budget the day after, on a Wednesday. For various reasons, that practice was discontinued, but I believe that we could again have a debate on the Wednesday after presentation of the Budget. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, favours resuming the practice. That is as far as I shall agree with him—we may as well get the good news out of the way.
If any of your Lordships were to appear on the television programme "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", and if Chris Tarrant were to ask, "In the past 50 years, which Chancellor increased the tax burden the fastest? Was it Healey, Howe, Brown or Lamont?", you would be best advised to ask me—to ask a friend—before you answer. It was the noble Lord and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who increased the tax burden from 33 to 38 percentage points during his chancellorship. Even the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, to whom I pay tribute for his tax-raising capacity during the 1990s—
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to acknowledge that for several years I was engaged in clearing up the debris left by the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Healey?
Lord Desai: My Lords, I always give credit to people who raise taxation because I am a great fan of taxation. But 33.4 to 38.9 per cent is a good achievement during one chancellorship; and 38.9 has never been exceeded. I am pleased to say that the noble and learned Lord holds the record and I respect that.
It is not difficult to cut the tax burden. As my noble friends Lord Haskel and Lord Woolmer said, you can always borrow money. If you add up the tax burden and government net borrowing, you see that the tax cuts of the 1990s were bought by the large public borrowings which accompanied them.
Again, if you were to be asked, "In the past 30 years, under which party the net borrowing was negative four out of five times?", please do not answer, "Conservative". It happens to be the Labour Party. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, started the rot by having a Budget surplus and my right honourable friend the Chancellor has continued that practice and produced a negative net borrowing.
Therefore, as regards fiscal responsibility, we are on fairly good ground. However, I was somewhat distressed by the Chancellor's habit of repaying the debt. I am not a great fan of repaying the debt but I am told that he has promised not to do it again soon. I believe that he will reduce it to 29½ per cent and then resume the good habit of taxing and spending. What can one do other than tax and spend? One cannot tax and not spend; and to spend and not tax is not very good either. A prudent person taxes and spends so that the budget is balanced over the cycle.
882
When my right honourable friend says that he wants to end boom and bust, he does not mean that he will abolish the cycle; he means that he will not exacerbate it by bad macro-economic policy. In the 1980s, shocks from outside the system were exacerbated by bad macro-economic policy, which was why inflation doubled twice, spending hit the buffer of7½ per cent of PSBR, taxation was 38.9 per cent and so on. It is important to take a long-term perspective and balance the budget in such a way that we do not exacerbate the cycle. If the Chancellor has run the economy properly and is lucky enough to have the money, at the margin he makes the choice whether to give a tax cut, have more public expenditure or repay debt.
My only criticism of the Chancellor—he knows that I have said it before—is that I would not have started to repay the debt so soon, but that is his choice. He is a Scot and I am not, and we all have our preferences. I believe that a gross amount of public under-investment in the British economy, to which my noble friend Lord Woolmer referred, was such a serious problem that my right honourable friend had to do something about it. However, being a cautious man, he did not do anything immediately because be would have been criticised by everybody, including the party opposite. He waited a while and, being a politician, gauged the political and economic cycle correctly so that there was a good Budget, not a bad one, at the time of the election. Even so, I must give my right honourable friend credit for his very modest tax cuts. A tax cut of £4 billion is one half of 1 per cent of GDP. That is hardly enough to make one get out of bed. As far as concerns the Chancellor's fiscal prudence, the Motion before the House can be safely rejected.
I turn to the International Monetary Fund. One is slightly embarrassed because the first item to make the headlines on 22nd February was co-authored by one of my former students. I always thought that he had problems—but so did the IMF. I have never been very trusting of the macro-economic expertise of the IMF because it has been wrong about practically every crisis in the past 10 years. Be that as it may, I shall even take praise from the IMF. One cannot make biting criticism of the economy. We now have one of the best macroeconomic dispensations that we have had for a long time.
I agree, and have said before, that the good times started after our exit from the ERM when the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was able, through good taxation, to reduce the budget deficit. Mr Kenneth Clarke continued that practice. I believe that the Conservative Opposition should say, "We started stealth taxes and you have stolen them from us. How dare your. I believe that stealth taxes were invented by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who learnt never to disturb the basic rate of income tax. One can always adjust other things around it and get a much higher rate of taxation. He learnt the trick from which we have all benefited.
I turn next to productivity. I believe that the numbers to do with productivity are fairly dubious. Everybody talks about our output per worker or per hour being low, and so on. Being a professional

883
economist, one is aware that when one talks about productivity one is measuring one's ignorance rather than one's knowledge. But if one looks at output per unit of capital the UK has one of the most efficient economies, but nobody points it out. All of this breast beating is out of order, and one will probably pursue the wrong policies if one tries to pursue productivity. The important point is not how well our productivity compares with that of others; it is bad enough to do it for our own country. What is important is that productivity grows enough so that we are able to afford a decent life for everybody.
As long as the economy is on a growth path, and we can afford public investment plus growth in private consumption and a reasonable amount of taxation, that is a successful macro-economic policy. That should be our concern, not comparisons with Italy, the United States, Germany or others. I believe that those numbers are wholly dubious. My noble friend Lord Haskel shakes his head because his son happens to be the local expert on this matter. Be that as it may, I still believe that productivity is dubious.
I have one minute. I support the observation of my noble friend Lord Haskel that we still have a very considerable amount of inequality. As the Whips turn round, I conclude by saying that we have a large amount of inequality. I shall sit down.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate: My Lords,
"The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest number of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing. Why do something the hard way when you can do it the easy way? We call this stealth taxes".
I am indebted to Samuel Brittan and others for that quotation. Last time it was education, education, education; this time it is the economy, the economy, the economy. Having failed with one they now try another. If I may refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, everything that is wrong with education, the health service and transport is the fault of the previous government. It is strange that the economy is all to the credit of the present Government. My noble friend Lady Thatcher in her time helped to make staggering changes for the better in British competitiveness. That is Labour's inheritance. What has it done with it? The tax system is now so complex that even the Revenue has trouble coping. This year's Budget report runs to a staggering 225 pages, and at a time when most of the tax changes just tinker with the problem.
I apologise for quoting figures which have already been quoted. Since 1996 government tax revenue has risen from 35.2 per cent to nearly 38 per cent of GDP. At the same time it has become increasingly difficult for the man in the street to understand what is going on. Even after the Chancellor's changes, income tax receipts have risen from £69 billion in 1996 to £104 billion this year. Tax revenue has risen by more than 33 per cent since 1996. Even the Chancellor has found it difficult to admit that taxes have gone up. His Budget speech omits significant details. You have to
884
read the small print with great care. Is this what the Government call "open government"? For example, we now know that the rise in the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions from £535 to £575 a week will hit middle-income earners who pay basic rate tax. The extension of the 10p tax band—a tax cut for all—adds a pitiful 69p per week. After adjusting for the Chancellor's so-called three-year spending plans—the last year of one overlaps the first year of another—his increased spending raises the NHS budget by 0.7 per cent next year. It is enough to confuse Einstein.
Nearly 1 million people have failed to register for the new children's tax credit. Nearly 300,000 people have failed to register for the working families' tax credit to which the Government believe they are entitled. These are the Government's figures. They had an opportunity to think the unthinkable and really reform the health, welfare and education systems but failed to do so.
Spending more money, however limited, will not achieve it. Let us consider the percentage of the education budget taken by local authority supervisory bodies. Look at the supervisory bodies in the NHS and the lack of proper management in the wards where it all starts. Let us get rid of some of the administrators and bring back the ward sister; and encourage rather than discourage patients to opt out of public health. Look at the paperwork. Even a golf club half-way hut—I emphasise "hut" and declare an interest as a golfer—has to keep records of its fridge temperature and its cooker heating capabilities and is subject to regular inspection. Is that really justified by the risks involved? Before we know it, Members of Parliament will have to take exams and pass regular tests.
The 45 new taxes raise £36 billion, yet the Chancellor congratulates himself on the lowest inflation for 30 years and the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years although he did not admit taxes had gone up until 13th March last year. However, the financial markets do not seem to agree. The FTSE 100 index is more than 20 per cent off its peak, and there is a nasty collapse going on in the United States.
The UK current trade deficit is over £20 billion, and must, because of a slowdown in growth in the United States, widen further. That may be financeable unless we start to become even more entrapped in the pro European monetary union debate. If the UK were to vote for further European integration, our problems will be just starting; namely, 80 per cent tax, including employer and employee, on standard wages. People have disputed this figure. If they wish to see my tax returns in France I shall be happy to supply them. Fifty per cent plus of GDP is taken in tax by government. The list goes on. That will really make our exports uncompetitive, which is exactly what some of our European competitors want. The problem is fundamental. Do we want to be a European style welfare state or to have a US style of capitalism with lower taxes, less regulation and services left largely to local authorities and/or private enterprise?

885
The Chancellor remains convinced that he can spend our money better than we can. Only four months ago spending was due to grow at 3.4 per cent per annum. The figure is now 3.7 per cent per annum. Even on his figures, he will be borrowing again in two years' time. Again he has missed the chance to reform the health service and education. How could any organisation, the largest employer in the land, cope with the proposed 50 per cent increase in its budget efficiently? It could not. A large amount would be wasted.
Last month manufacturing output dropped by nearly 1 per cent, the largest monthly fall since August 1997. Admittedly, manufacturing accounts for only 20 per cent of the economy. Industrial production is now nearly 1 per cent lower than a year ago. According to the Office for National Statistics, real disposable incomes have risen at the lowest rate for 30 years. The private sector is running a large financial deficit, some 4 per cent of GDP. As we have been told, the saving ratio has fallen from 11 per cent in 1996 to 3 per cent. That is clearly not sustainable. Why is there such a large and rapid turnaround of sentiment in the United States? Put simply, there was a negative savings ratio of minus 1.5 per cent last year, followed by a loss of confidence and very rapidly the private sector tries to save again. The economy can move 5 per cent in GDP in a few months, which is what it has done.
What is the answer to all these pending or even imminent problems? The IMF skirts with the dilemma. The way to solve it is to let the economy free. Do not control every aspect of life from the centre. Give industry back its freedom. Stop the ever-increasing regulation. Even now there is support for more regulation in pension fund markets. I have no idea how it will work: reduce the power and scope of the state; protect the weak and the poor; but for those that can look after themselves, let them get on with it and then the IMF may have no reason to continue to criticise our economic plans. The Chancellor will not agree. He imposes more restrictions on businesses. The minimum wage seems to go up even if prices do not. His spending plans assume that tax revenue will continue. How can it when he is quietly killing the goose?
5.14 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I very much enjoyed the contrasting opening speeches from the three main parties. I especially enjoyed the sparkling performance of the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. I wish she had more time to tell us the extent to which this almost comically Scottish-dominated government favours the Scottish electorate. I thought that required further examination.
My view runs rather more radical than to that of the Front Benches. I come not only to bury Gordon Brown but also to highly praise him. From the vantage point of the IEA back in 1957, it was not only on taxation that the record of both governing parties inspired little confidence. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, may remember, those were the days of monopoly trade unions, protected state industries,
886
incomes policies, central planning, multiplying subsidies, universal welfare, budget deficits and, of course, the consequent inflation.
The earliest brief stand against ever rising government spending was in 1958 when the then Chancellor, Peter Thorneycroft, with his Treasury colleagues, Enoch Powell and Nigel Birch, resigned over a mere £50 million. Today that would be equivalent to £1 billion. That was "super Mac's little local difficulty", if I remember correctly.
If the Thatcher Government's demolition of union monopoly released new Labour from the TUC's inflationary grip, it was the 1979 Budget of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, which put tax-cutting high on the political agenda. With his first Budget he reduced personal taxes.
Yet although Gordon Brown has not followed that example, nevertheless, with two cautions, I would give him high praise—higher praise than most post-war Chancellors, save possibly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, whose Budget was particularly important.
My first caution is that the full credit does not properly belong to Mr Brown and his advisers alone, since—as other noble Lords have said—he has built on the unacknowledged Tory legacy of stability bequeathed by his predecessors, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and Kenneth Clarke.
My second caution is that Gordon Brown's outstanding inflation record over, so far, four years, has been achieved only by abdicating control of monetary policy to the Bank of England. Since I was among the first in this House warmly to applaud that bold departure, I might be permitted to remind the House of a certain irony. When the first majority Labour Government under Mr Attlee came into power in 1945, they could not wait to nationalise the Bank of England. That was among the first steps that they took. Here we are 50 years on when new Labour has, in effect, privatised the Bank of England; restoring that key power to Threadneedle Street.
My reason for wishing to bury the Chancellor—as well as to praise him—is that he looks to be in serious danger of fulfilling the political adage that all success tends to end up in failure. To explain that danger it is necessary to ask why Gordon Brown's Monetary Policy Committee was what the noble Lord, Lord Healey, would have called "a jolly wheeze". It is generally agreed that, since Keynes, successive Chancellors, irrespective of party, have been under incessant pressure to cure recessions or win elections by stimulating the economy with lower interest rates or taxes. The logic taught by Milton Friedman was that expansionary monetary or fiscal policies were like drink, with the good effects coming first to be followed by a nasty hangover some time later.
The value of the Monetary Policy Committee is simply that it removes the bottle from the reach of chronic tipplers. In short, it depoliticises monetary management. But on Friedman's logic, the removal of

887
one weapon from the Chancellor's political armoury exposes the tax system all the more to manipulation for party advantage. Unfortunately, Mr Brown has shown himself no less inclined than the worst of his predecessors to yield to the temptation to fiddle with taxes. Here we have a born interventionist and social engineer, with a missionary—even Messianic—zeal to cure the ills of the world, with his hand not only on the tiller, but in the till.
To return to Friedman, increased government spending, like inflation is politically popular in the short run. But gradually, cumulatively, it raises costs, blunts incentive and, above all, it discourages everyday economy. Not even an Aberdonian spends other people's money as cautiously as he spends his own. And Mr Brown does not even come from Aberdeen. Indeed, he comes from nearer Glasgow where I am told they all have holes in their pocket.
Part of the technique of Mr Brown has been so to complicate the tax system, with perpetual, fiddling changes, that only experts can work out exactly what he has been up to. Accordingly, like others, I rely on the Institute for Fiscal Studies—many years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, played an important part in its development—to tell us that the Chancellor has raised taxes altogether by £24 billion to bring the total above £380 billion a year. As a proportion of national income, that represents an increase of 2.5 per cent to 40 per cent next year. That is different from some other figures, but I stick with the IFS calculations.
The lesson I would draw from the Chancellor's mixed record is that he is no more to be trusted with unchecked discretion over taxes than his predecessors could be trusted with control over interest rates. My proposals for reform are therefore twofold. First, as I have long argued, the Monetary Policy Committee should now be instructed to lower its average annual target for inflation from the present 2.5 per cent. That would still be sufficient to reduce the value of money by more than 80 per cent over the average expectation of life today—from £1 to 20p over some 80 years. As the present inflation rate is nearer 2 per cent, a reasonable programme would be to shave the target down by perhaps 0.5 per cent every four years to give us the boon of stable money and lower interest rates in 10 or 15 years.
My second reform would be to depoliticise the tax system by creating an independent taxation policy committee alongside the Monetary Policy Committee. Its task would be to review the Chancellor's Budget proposals, in advance of them being delivered to Parliament, against a target of reducing the total burden of taxes from 40 per cent of GNP to Colin Clark's safe figure of 25 per cent of GNP over a similar period of, say, 15 years.
Once launched, the expectation of stable money and lower taxes would bring earlier promise of unheralded prosperity, individual responsibility and consumer freedom to choose more leisure and that gracious living for which many new Labour and other Members of the House provide such an enviable example.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has left the Chamber, but perhaps he will read my advice in Hansard. He should not ring a friend; he should ask the audience. But he should be careful because sometimes the electorate is not quite as predictable as people think. I say that because we both come from the LSE and we know that there is "on the one hand" and "on the other hand".
For a few moments, I should like to take noble Lords away from the discussion on the recent national Budget. I shall deal with one specific aspect of business taxation that has not yet arrived. It is a tax to come. This Government have often indicated that they fully realise that successful business is vital to achieving a growing standard of living for all. We welcome that recognition. They have also said that relationships between business and government should be open and constructive. At this point I should probably declare all types of interest. I am a businessman, chairman of London First and a stealth tax payer. Against that background I wonder why the Government's recent Green Paper, Modernising Local Government Finance, proposes an extra tax on business in the form of a supplementary business rate.
As noble Lords will know, the proposal is for an additional surcharge on top of the national rate already paid by business. This surcharge would be set and controlled by local authorities. It is proposed to start at 1 per cent but increase to a maximum of 5 per cent of the normal rate at the end of five years. That will be a burden on all businesses, but it will particularly hit small businesses, many of which are already fighting to survive.
Having declared my interest as chairman of London First, perhaps I may refer to London. In London alone, a 5 per cent levy would add £150 million per annum to business costs. The Green Paper proposals include a reserve power whereby the Government could require "rate rich" authorities—whatever that may prove to mean—to pay part of the supplement to other areas. That may not be Scotland; I do not know. In reality that would probably be used to increase the £19 billion a year of taxation already raised in London but spent elsewhere.
The proposed supplementary business rate is a "back door" tax unless it delivers local benefits and has prior business consent. There are no guarantees that the extra moneys will be targeted to achieve specific local improvements that business wants. There is not sufficient safeguard to prevent local authorities from using it to fund existing borough services. The proposed arrangements for consulting business are complicated and bureaucratic. It gives us all kinds of general lessons on tax as well as this specific one. The proposal does not allow business a real say in how the extra money is spent.
A supplementary business rate on the lines proposed would do nothing to encourage businesses truly to get involved in their local areas by, for example, taking ownership and leadership of regeneration projects.

889
Incidentally it would be levied on occupiers, although it is often property owners who have the greatest long-term interest in a locality.
Is this just another whine from business about taxes being too high? No, I am talking about how the tax is levied. Fan of the criticism of the Government's taxation policies is that one does not find them until one reads the small print issued by the Inland Revenue a few days after the Budget.
The supplementary business rate proposal is an example of how not to work with business. The Government claim that they are trying to work hard with business. The alternative is to pursue the business improvement districts' approach as outlined in the Bill, which has passed through this House but has not been progressed following its introduction into the other place.
Perhaps I may briefly remind the House about BIDs. They are "town improvement schemes" that work. One can see them operating successfully in New York and other parts of America. One can see the improvements. Business improvement districts are statutory ventures, financed by an addition to property tax, and is thus an additional cost to business. However, under that law, it can be levied on all businesses in a locality only if the majority of those businesses have voted in favour of the creation of a BID. Compulsion is of course necessary to stop freeloaders.
Business improvement districts introduce intensive localised management in particular areas. They may embrace only small blocks or they may cover a much wider area. They deal with matters such as local employment opportunities, improving security and maintenance in an area and undertaking promotional activities. In this country they would, in my view, encourage greater partnership between business and local authorities.
Why has the Bill come to a stop in the other place? I understand that the Treasury has stated that it sees this as a tax. To my knowledge, it has been saying that for a long time and certainly it has said that over the past four years. It is a levy which would put up the costs of business. But the difference would be that business communities would be able to vote for and against the levy. It would not take place unless a vote had been taken. I am not trying only to reduce tax—much though I may wish to do that—but to seek a better means of how to use a tax. No such vote will take place on a supplementary business rate.
What lessons can be learnt from this when we return to the general subject of tax? There is too much bureaucracy. God knows how many experts have to be employed actually to understand the increased taxes being levied. If you are running a small business, you cannot afford to employ those extra people. Something is wrong with our taxation system. Similarly, if business taxpayers—although this point would apply to people outside of business—do not feel part of the decision-making process, it is obvious that they will reject the taxes by calling them stealth taxes, hidden taxes and so forth—and they would be right to do so.
890
I ask the Minister to try to persuade the Government to reintroduce the BID Bill, even though that may not be the best way to approach this. In that case, I would be quite happy to wait until the local finance Bill comes along, at which point I shall simply rewrite it so that the BID proposals can be put in.
If any government want genuine business involvement and an open and constructive relationship with business, the bureaucracy must be cut out and an open style introduced. As one aspect of that, let us opt for the BID approach.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I should like, first, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, both on the fact of this debate and on his impeccable sense of timing. To have selected the very day that it is announced that unemployment has fallen below 1 million and to choose the very week in which opinion polls have shown clearly that we have the most popular Chancellor of the Exchequer since polling records began and a Budget that has received one of the highest levels of public approval shows the noble Lord's great courage and judgment.
In the Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, clearly invokes the International Monetary Fund. I can only believe, having listened carefully to his speech, that, after someone else had drafted the resolution, he must have got around to reading the report. He then must have decided that the best way to invoke the International Monetary Fund was to ignore the report as if it had never happened. However, I do not think that the noble Lord can expect to get away with that.
We have heard all kinds of quotations from the report. Usually I am not one to embrace the International Monetary Fund with a great deal of enthusiasm, but even people like me can find points in it—in particular from the directors' meeting of the fund, following publication of the report—where the United Kingdom Government are commended on their strong performance as regards the United Kingdom economy. In the discussion held in Washington on 23rd February, the directors went on to say that,
"plans to increase public investment in infrastructure and human capital are justified in light of the evidence",
and that they,
"welcomed the Government's efforts 'to enhance competition, innovation and entrepreneurship'".
That was the judgment of the directors of the International Monetary Fund.
The directors continued by saying that they agreed that,
"sound fiscal and monetary policies, underpinned by transparent medium-term policy frameworks as well as the sustained implementation of structural reforms, have contributed to the strength of the economy in recent years".
They concluded this part by saying that they,
"expected output growth would remain robust",
and that the,
"prospects for inflation remain benign".

891
There is a great deal more where that came from. I am sure that, if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wants to read the directors' report and executive summary in full, he need only make a quick telephone call to Steve Field in the Treasury Press Office. No doubt he will then be speedily supplied with the text.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. I pointed out in my speech, and I do so again, that the IMF also said—this was the point of my Motion—that the Government would be prudent to abstain from introducing significant new spending commitments in the March 2001 Budget.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord listened in detail to the context in which my noble friend Lord Woolmer placed that quotation. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, does not feel particularly proud of having to scurry through a multi-page report to find one comment that was critical and of ignoring everything else. The rest of the report from the International Monetary Fund was a paean of praise to the economic management of this country.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave me the impression that, basically, he believes two things: that taxes are too high and that services are under funded. It follows, therefore, that he wishes either to cut taxes or to spend more. In fact, his right honourable friend in another place, Michael Portillo, appears to want to do both. He wants to cut taxes and to spend more. Shortly after the Budget he told us clearly that Labour's spending plans were unaffordable. He went on to say that,
"Labour is spending £600 more than the country can afford for every taxpayer",
That equals £16 billion. So Mr Portillo wants to see £16 billion-worth of cuts on the one hand, but he promises no cuts; simply a formula which states that he will match Labour's spending plans. Talk comes cheap. "Less tax, more services", is an easy incantation. "Cut taxes and match spending plans", is an equally easy incantation. But that is not an economic agenda. That is a fraud. If a company outside this House issued a prospectus on that basis, the people responsible would have their collars felt and would be locked up.
I come now to some of the important aspects of the Budget of my right honourable friend Gordon Brown. I turn first to the important question of debt repayment and the consequences which flow from that. Here, unlike my noble friend Lord Desai, I warmly welcome that debt repayment and its consequences. Last year, the Government repaid £9 billion-worth of debt. This year, the record is even better. As the Chancellor pointed out in his Budget speech,
"this year the net cash debt repayment will be £34 billion. This is more debt repaid by one British Government in one year than all the total debt repaid by all the previous British Governments of the last 50 years".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/01; col. 297.]
892
Next year, debt repayments—that is, the cost of servicing our debts—are to be £1.5 billion less than were forecast in the Pre-Budget Report. That means that, in total, they will be £3.5 billion less than in the current year. That represents £3.5 billion which can be spent on services rather than on servicing debt. The fund will be available not only this year, but next year, the following year and each year that we have a government and a Chancellor who will keep debt under control. It is a permanent benefit for expenditure.
Once that is combined with other things that have happened since 1997—for example, it is clear that the Government have been able, because of the fall in unemployment, to reduce social security costs by £4 billion annually—you can then start comparing the aggregation of the reduction in debt servicing and the reduction in social security costs. You will find that in the period 1979–97—the period of the previous Conservative government—42 pence in every extra pound was spent on either debt servicing or social security. Today, the Budget suggests that that figure will be only 16 pence in the pound.
That has very clear, direct repercussions on major areas of policy. In 1997, we spent more on debt servicing than we spent on the schools' budget. Today, we are spending £10 billion more on the schools' budget than on debt servicing. The benefits of the Budget this year continue to be based on the principles of financial and economic prudence. By repaying debt, the Government rejected the opportunity to create a pre-election bonanza.
The modest extension of public spending was, in my opinion, well targeted. It was targeted on families, public services, fairness and social justice, modernising road transport, increasing employment opportunities and, yes, on building stronger businesses and business opportunities.
Above all, this arose while delivering a strong and stable economy; an economy which is praised by the British people, envied by other governments, supported by the IMF report and substantially welcomed by it. It is only the disappearing membership of the Conservative Party and its diminishing band of supporters, which we read about in the Sunday press with so much interest this week, which cannot welcome the Budget for what it is: good news for Britain and good news for the British people.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, who is no longer in his place, said that it is difficult for the ordinary man in the street to understand what is going on. I think He underestimates the ordinary man in the street. The ordinary man in the street understands this Budget; he supports this Budget; he values its priorities. With his support, it will the Labour Government who produced the Budget who will be going on to a second term in order to continue their work of building an economically strong and socially just Britain.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I share the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde from the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, but for very different reasons. My noble friend quite rightly referred to the points that the noble Lord did not want to read out, while the attack made by the noble Lord was quite out of context.
Perhaps I may refer to the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, made about borrowing. I do not know whether the noble Lord has a copy of the report but, if he has, I suggest that he turns to page 209, which deals with the net cash requirement. It shows there that £19.5 billion had come in from "unanticipated spectrum receipts". They were nothing at all to do with the present Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer; they were a lovely windfall.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, of course they were. Does the noble Lord think that the tooth fairy produced them.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, the £19.2 billion surely arose as a result of government decisions to run the telephone auctions, the licence auctions.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, the previous Government had built up these various technologies, the sale of which enabled this windfall to fall into the lap of the present Government. However, whatever the cause of it, let us refer to what is stated here, which is that the £19.5 billion is being used to reduce the debt.
Turning to the Chancellor's speech, he refers to forecasts, plans, projections, adjusting for the economic cycle, being locked into a tight fiscal stance, and so on. He then goes on:
"Because of this and because of the spectrum cash proceeds, we are able to repay debt. Last year we repaid £9 billion. I can tell the House that this year the net cash debt repayment will be £34 billion".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/01; col. 297.]
So that was entirely due to the unanticipated receipt of the spectrum proceeds, which will be eroded by reductions of debt repayment in future years.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, suggested that the debt reduction was due to the Government's prudent financial management. That had nothing to do with it. I suspect that the noble Lord's comments were perhaps planted in a brief, and those who have not read the brief do not understand what they are talking about.
While I am commenting on previous speeches, perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that investment in this country has been higher than investment in Europe. I think that the noble Lord was suggesting that we would have higher investment than we have at the moment if we were to join the euro. That is not so according to the figures that I have.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, referred to the golden rule of borrowing only to invest and said what an excellent rule it was. It sounds attractive, but how do you decide what you are investing in. School meals?
894
Obviously they are current account. School buildings? I do not know; I think that they are probably capital account. A battleship? Where is that covered? That problem will be left entirely to the Chancellor to decide to suit his own particular books.
I was going to refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but as he is not in his place I shall not do so.
Turning to the summary of taxation, we have been quoted figures that it has increased since Labour have been in office by 3 per cent of the GNP. That is an enormous amount of money. It has gone up from 35.2 per cent to 38.2 per cent in that period. Those figures are taken from the Office of National Statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to those figures, but he put an altogether different slant on them. If he reads the books and the figures, he will see that taxation has increased by 4 per cent of GNP while the Labour Party has been in government.
That very heavy burden has been inflicted by a great number of stealth taxes. At the time of the last election, the Chancellor understandably said that Labour would not increase income tax. It has not done so. He has, in fact, reduced income tax, but he has used a very skilful device to increase a whole variety of other taxes. These increases have not dropped on people in one block and all at the same time—they have been spread out—but the Government have collected these vast sums of money, some 4 per cent more of GNP than in previous years.
The Chancellor has, for example, raised stamp duty—I take these increases not in any particular logical sequence but as they occur to me—and fuel duties; the marriage allowance was reduced and then abolished; mortgage tax relief has been abolished, causing great hardship to many who are buying their homes; the tax relief on life insurance has gone, which has had an extremely uncomfortable, adverse effect on pensions. After this Budget, a family on reasonably modest earnings could end up being £669 per year worse off.
I turn to productivity. Here again, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, quoted figures with which I find it impossible to agree. Productivity increased by 3.7 per cent under the Conservatives; it has increased by 2.9 per cent under the Labour Government.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The point I was making is that the difference between productivity in Britain and productivity among our competitors is, on various measures, between 10 and 20 per cent. If we improve our productivity and introduce more growth into the economy, that is how we shall improve our standard of living.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am sure that places can be found where productivity is much higher. But comparing like with like, given the degree of sophistication of the available technology, one must compare growth of 3.7 per cent under a Conservative

895
government with 2.9 per cent under the present Government. I raise the point only because the noble Lord raised it in a way that was not entirely fair.
As regards the savings ratio, before the Conservatives lost office the rate of saving was over 6 per cent. Labour's prediction is that the rate will be 2.5 per cent for the year 2001. Those figures are given by Ernst & Young, a highly respected firm of accountants.
The total tax increase under Labour is now said to be the equivalent of 10p on the basic rate right across the board. It comes to about £28 billion, and the rise is the fastest in Europe. For the first time, tax in this country has exceeded the level of that in Germany.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford is not in his place; however, I must refer briefly to VAT on church repairs, a matter that he rightly raised. Originally, the Chancellor said that no VAT would be payable. He found that he was wrong. Europe has said that it will re-examine the matter in 2003. I understand from the Budget that the possibility of zero rating might arise. In the meantime, the Government have said that they will top up the present 5 per cent and give a grant to the Churches, which I very much welcome.
The Chancellor has stated that education and health will each receive about £1 billion. The average person in the street, when asked what the Chancellor is doing for education and health, will say that he is spending £2 billion. We know that the Chancellor has a "triple" approach; when we look at the small print that amount is seen to be spread over three years. The amount that will be spent on education and health each year is nothing like that—the figure will be £380 million for education and £290 million for health.
As I said, one of the things that I find most difficult to understand is the way in which the Chancellor and everyone in government have completely ignored the sum of almost £20 billion pounds in unanticipated SPECTRUM receipts. I should be grateful to know how that bonus is being presented. Surely that windfall must have a dramatic effect on future budgeting. I shall be glad to hear some comment other than the information that is tucked away in the small print in a Budget document.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, perhaps I may refer briefly to the overall judgment in the Budget. Last week's Budget included the ratification of public expenditure projections for the next few years which had been announced in the Autumn Statement. But, as my noble friend said, it also laid down additional expenditure in the areas of the National Health Service and education.
I am concerned that the Budget gives a stimulus to an economy that is already rather stretched. Consumer demand has been strong; the savings ratio is low; the labour market is increasingly tight; and the current account is in significant deficit. Behind all that, the world economic outlook is increasingly uncertain.
896
As a result of the Budget, tax is to be slightly reduced; but public expenditure is to be substantially increased over a number of years. GDP is expected to grow: the central estimate is that growth will be 2.5 per cent over the next year or two. Yet public expenditure is scheduled to increase by more than 4 per cent in the coming year, and by more than 3 per cent in the year after that.
It is much easier to expand public expenditure than to constrain it. It must be remembered that public sector finances are highly geared to changes in the level of the economy. When the economy is buoyant, governments obtain rising revenue as companies pay more corporation tax; people pay a higher proportion of their incomes in tax as those incomes increase and, with more people in work, that again increases the tax take. An expenditure tax such as VAT will be buoyant with the economy itself.
At the same time, in those favourable conditions, welfare payments are naturally reduced and that produces a sharp improvement in government finances, as we have seen in the past few years. The difficulty is that if the economy then weakens, there is likely to be a reversal of the process and all the items that go with it; namely, there will be a loss of tax revenues and an increase in public expenditure on welfare and support services.
The danger is that the Chancellor is banking on a continuation of favourable economic performance but has made his expenditure plans on the assumption that they can move ahead of the rate of growth in the economy, even as the economy now stands. Therefore, any unexpected adverse developments or any shocks to the system could cause problems, leading either to the need to constrain public expenditure again or to raise taxes, or both. It is inherently risky to commit a government to public expenditure over a period of years at a rate exceeding the expected growth rate of the economy.
If there is a large surplus in government finances, it may appear at first sight perfectly safe and sensible to increase expenditure and to reduce taxes. Up to a point that is true. However, it must be remembered that the outlook can change fundamentally, and quickly.
I do not in any sense want to be a prophet of doom, but we must take account of a number of factors which have appeared recently and which cast some uncertainty, even over the economic projections on which the Budget is based. The two largest economies in the world have problems of their own. They are different kinds of problems. In the United States, there is severe retrenchment in the so-called new economy. That has had a significant impact on certain areas of the US economy, but it has also made an impact on business and consumer confidence in the US. Japan has been struggling for several years. It seems increasingly clear that that country is politically and culturally incapable of taking the measures to bring about the structural change that is necessary.
Only an optimist would say that the UK and continental Europe can remain entirely isolated and insulated from those factors. There is an increasing

897
risk that economic conditions in this country will perhaps be a little less favourable—I hope only a little—than they were expected to be until recently. The sudden shake-out in the stock market is something of a warning.
Stock markets are not the most reliable of economic indicators, but they have tended in recent years to give signals about growth or slow-down which have been borne out in practice. The scale of the present setback in the stock market is, therefore, something to which we need to attend. Companies that are giving profit warnings are, in effect, saying that they will have less money to pay to the Government in corporation tax; that they are likely to have to cut back on their levels of staffing; and that, therefore, they are likely to be less enterprising. That will have an impact on the real economy. I do not want to overstate the position, but the scale of the setback in financial markets has been sufficient to give us a warning that it would be unwise to ignore.
Then there are unexpected shocks. During the past few days in this House we have been discussing the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak. Obviously, that is primarily a problem for rural areas and for the agricultural industry. Perhaps I may refer to the experience of my home village in the south of Scotland—although in view of what was said earlier I scarcely dare mention it. The local tea shop has had to close, the garage is experiencing difficulties, the village shop has lost its passing trade and the hotel/pub is struggling. Those experiences are localised and, perhaps, still quite contained problems at the moment in certain parts of the country. However, they can have a wider impact, especially when one considers them in conjunction with the fact that agriculture is now in a very dangerous situation.
I said earlier that I did not want to be a prophet of doom; and certainly do not want to imply that an adverse economic outlook over the next two years is the only possibility. However, such matters sometimes arise when one is not expecting them. That is why I am concerned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made commitments to increase expenditure over the coming years at levels ahead of even his own projections of economic growth.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in the thanks that they expressed to the noble Lord for initiating this most important debate. However, as several other speakers have pointed out, it is more about the Budget than about the report of the International Monetary Fund which voiced only the mildest of criticisms of the Government's policies.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer reminds me of a sort of latter-day Martin Luther. He is saying, "Here I stand, I can do no other". His text is, "No return to boom and bust". It has been prudence all the way but not without purpose, as his recent Budget has shown. The Chancellor has recognised that an artificially boosted economy, often to try to win a general election, invariably leads to an economic squeeze, high
898
interest rates, repossession of properties, redundancies and factory closures. But Gordon Brown has also recognised that the essential ingredient for a successful economy is investment.
At the previous general election, and since, the Prime Minister pointed out that the future is, "Education, education, education". How right he is. The Chancellor has responded by announcing that education spending is to rise by 5 per cent a year above inflation. That should strengthen our education system, and help to improve skill levels. This analysis was endorsed, not criticised, by the IMF. As my noble friend Lord Tomlinson pointed out, there are policies to promote innovation, research and development, competition and entrepreneurship, which will contribute to raising productivity. The Chancellor is seeking the pathway for the achievement of economic success, so that we can compete effectively with our trading rivals in the markets of the world.
Any responsible government have to be concerned about the health of the nation, and must make provision through state funding for an efficient and adequately financed National Health Service. The vision of Aneurin Bevan, the creator of this great service, was immense. When the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister she made the famous statement that the NHS was safe in their hands. I do not know how many people believed her, but some while ago I spotted some figures in one of our daily national newspapers which showed that Italy spent 11 per cent of its GDP on health. Our comparable figure was given as 5.8 per cent. I do not suppose that those figures are now strictly accurate, but they certainly gave me food for thought at the time.
Nevertheless—and very wisely—the Chancellor has now authorised health expenditure to rise by 5.7 per cent above inflation each year. I am a supporter of traditional family life—of two-parent families—but the basic need for any family is to have a roof over its head. The important issue of mortgages comes to the forefront here. To his great credit, the Chancellor has adopted policies that have ensured that mortgage payments are averaging £1,200 a year less than was the case under the previous administration. What a boon this must be to families.
Another vital factor is inflation. We now have the lowest figure in this respect for 30 years. The executive summary of the IMF report states:
"The UK is experiencing the longest period of sustained, non-inflationary output growth".
With inflation at such a low level, I ask the pensioners of this country: is this not the best possible way to keep the value of your pension, rather than see it eaten away by inflation? Likewise, from next month., all pensioners will receive either the £5 single increase or the £8 increase for a couple. In addition, we have the winter fuel allowance, and there are now free television licences for those aged over 75 years.
Other measures were included in the Budget to help less-well-off pensioners. There was also an expanding lop tax rate, and a promise of a pensioner's credit in

899
the next Parliament to help low-income and middle-income pensioners. Nevertheless, I am not starry-eyed in regard to the Chancellor's proposals for pensioners. I believe that we should return to increases based on inflation and on average earnings, which was sadly taken away in the first period of the Thatcher government.
I turn to the most basic issue of all, employment. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, in his usual way eulogised the glories of the European Union. However, I read this week that German unemployment now stands at 9.3 per cent, while our unemployment is approximately half that figure. I recall that Germany has joined the euro. There must be a message there somewhere.
The great work of John Maynard Keynes, The Theory of Employment, was essentially about unemployment. For me, unemployment has always been like a tap left running; that is, a waste of economic resources. The Chancellor should be applauded for the fact that unemployment is now below 1 million—the lowest figure for over 25 years; 1 million more people are in work than in 1997 when the Conservatives left office. Over 25,000 young people have been helped into work through the New Deal. Youth unemployment has fallen by more than 75 per cent and long-term unemployment has been halved.
What worse start in life can there be for a young person than to be out of work? Unemployment is the worst scourge of all. I recall that under the previous government at one stage the unemployment figure reached 3 million. If the Opposition were returned to power, they would soon revert to their old failed policies. The result could be catastrophic for our country. Their 18 years of power can be summed up in that little catch-phrase of a decade or so ago, "private affluence and public squalor". The present Chancellor is doing a first-class job. He has a wonderful record of success. He deserves the grateful thanks of the nation.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I too begin by thanking my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter. However, if one is 19th on the speakers' list in a debate of this nature it is perhaps inevitable that many of one's points will already have been made by other noble Lords, no doubt in a far more felicitous manner. I have no wish to weary the House with repetition at this hour.
Like my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, I wish to focus on the "how" of taxation as opposed to the "why". It is another area where the Government have "spun" rather than delivered. If that means that I focus on the micro rather than the macro, I make no apology. I comfort myself with the thought that it is at the micro level that our fellow citizens have to live and work.
Until four years ago there was a long-established system for levying tax on private individuals who fell outside the PAYE system. Noble Lords will recall that
900
the system had three stages. Information on the individual's tax return had to be submitted by the end of January in respect of the preceding tax year. The Revenue then calculated the tax owed and levied a demand. Finally, in due course, no doubt after some arm-wrestling, the tax was agreed and paid. The contract—if I may use that word—between the Government and the taxpayer was that the taxpayer had one single legal obligation; that is, to submit the correct information on his or her tax return by the due date. The Inland Revenue had the obligation to make the tax calculation and the faster it did so, the faster it could claim the tax.
However, four years ago that whole system was changed with the introduction of self-assessment. Not surprisingly, the basis of the contract between the taxpayer and government changed too. Now, the taxpayer has not only to provide the information; he or she also has to calculate the tax. That saves the Inland Revenue hours of work without at the same time prejudicing its right to reach down and take an individual's tax return for checking. Moreover, the taxpayer not only has to calculate the tax, he or she has to pay it by 31st January each year or face interest or other penalties. Further, he or she has to make—
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If one does one's own tax return and sends it in by the end of October, the Revenue will work out one's tax. One does not have to do it oneself.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the relevant date is not the end of October; it is 30th September. That is fine if one does not have overseas earnings or, for example, complicated earnings resulting from membership of Lloyd's. A substantial number of taxpayers simply cannot submit a tax return by that date.
Furthermore, the new system provides for an interim payment to be paid by 31st July each year. That has done wonders for the Government's cash flow in regard to both quantum and timing. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that we on these Benches were reluctant to refer to Kenneth Clarke. I refer him to a speech of Kenneth Clarke on the Budget made yesterday in another place in which he said that the amount of money that flowed from self-assessment exceeded the wildest dreams of the Inland Revenue when it planned the introduction of that policy.
What does the taxpayer get out of this new contract? It was promised that the self-assessment system would be, and would remain, simple so that a sensible man or woman could complete the tax return without being an accountant or having a degree in astrophysics. At the beginning that proved to be the case. But now, while the Government have rigorously enforced their advantages—less work for the Revenue and improved cash flow—they have reneged on the benefit promised to the taxpayer. As the Chancellor has introduced scheme after scheme, wrinkle after wrinkle and initiative after initiative, the self-assessment system has become unintelligible.

901
I wish to introduce the Minister to the following little gem: Form SA151, the tax calculation guide for the year ended 5th April 2000. It is 29 pages long. I shall not detain the House by quoting extensively from it. However, I shall give two simple examples from it. Page 13 is headed:
"STAGE 6: NOW WORK OUT THE INCOME TAX DUE".
I should say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford that it does not state that one has to smile while one is doing this. Page 13 contains 31 boxes. If the Minister thinks that I have chosen a page to suit my argument, I should point out that page 12 contains 46 boxes. That totals 77 boxes on two pages out of a 29-page tax return. The notes on each page are equally unintelligible. It appears that the Revenue accepts that they are unintelligible as it suggests that if one is experiencing difficulty with the form one should contact one's Inland Revenue office for further advice. However, this is supposed to be a self-assessment system, not an Inland Revenue assessment system. Telephoning an Inland Revenue office is not an exercise for those who are faint of heart. Lengthy telephone queuing and the absence of relevant officials are just two of the challenges to be encountered. In short, I defy any man or woman on the top of the Clapham Omnibus now to self-assess his or her tax correctly.
Some will say that self-assessment does not affect many people. However, I understand that self-assessment affects something in excess of 3 million taxpayers. That number will include the cream of our business, artistic and academic talent. Is this a good way to encourage talent? Is this a good way to reward success? It is not as if that is the only example. As my noble friend mentioned in his opening remarks, the Inland Revenue is now being pursued in the High Court by a group of consultants with regard to the impact of the IR35 rules. As my noble friend said, these rules are primarily aimed at consultants in the information technology field. This country needs those skilled people desperately if we are to maintain our position in that key industry. They are very mobile people with transportable skills. Of all the industries that claim to be global—and many do—IT truly is.
Last week's Daily Mail carried a facsimile of a 40-page form that pensioners had to fill in to claim extra benefit. Taxpayers are in danger of sinking in a mass of unintelligible paper as a consequence of the Government's obsession with command and control and their belief that they can and should interfere everywhere. If we are to compete on the world stage, we need not only to minimise the tax burden, but to give taxpayers a clear, simple and credible system for tax collection. I am delighted to support my noble friend today.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I join in the congratulations offered to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. for his innovation in introducing this debate. There have long been complaints that we do not deal with the Budget adequately. I am pleased that he has had the courage to table the Motion. I hope that
902
my party will take note of some of the views that have been expressed and that perhaps we might stimulate such a debate in future. If not, I hope that the Conservatives will repeat what they have done this year.
The debate is a welcome opportunity to underline the Budget's key messages on what has been happening to the British economy. It gives us great pleasure to know that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who has left the Chamber, said, we now enjoy the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years, more people in work than ever before and the lowest unemployment since 1975. Importantly for a country of home owners and aspirant home owners, mortgages are on average £1,200 a year lower than under the previous Government. We keep our fingers crossed about the prospects for further reductions in interest rates.
All that comes against a background of the Government inheriting some underlying advantageous factors—I concede that—but also an unacceptably high level of national debt. As my noble friend Lord Tomlinson said, it stood at 44 per cent of national income. Happily, that will be reduced to 30.3 per cent in the coming year, with a net cash debt repayment of £34 billion. As the Chancellor emphasised, that is more debt repaid in one year than the total debt repaid by all the previous British Governments of the past 50 years. That is a fact.
Debt interest payments next year will be £1.5 billion lower than forecast in the pre-Budget report and substantially lower than expected in last year's Budget. In total, debt interest payments will be £3.5 billion lower than this year.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that those lower debt repayments are due to the unanticipated sale of one company?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, the decision to auction the licences was anticipated and planned Government policy. Taken together with the £4 billion annual reduction in social security costs achieved through lower unemployment and 1 million more people in work under Labour since 1997, that gives a marvellous opportunity to release resources for the country's priorities. Those are the facts. Cutting debt and unemployment and achieving higher growth and earnings have yielded higher tax receipts and the chance for balanced investment in Britain's future.
I was the General Secretary of the Inland Revenue staff federation for a number of years and was in post at the time when the government supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, came forward with plans for introducing self-assessment. It had nothing to do with the Labour Government. It was planned by the previous government.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I made it clear that the contract has been changed. The contract was that certain things would be done by the taxpayer, in return for which he would have a simple system. This Government have enforced the tax

903
collection aspect of the contract, but they have not honoured their side of the bargain, which was to keep the self-assessment system simple.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I shall continue with the point that I was making. I was on the inside at the time. The idea was devised as a simple tax assessment system, but the more that the Inland Revenue—not the government, which was a Conservative government—worked on it, the more they realised that they could not continue to call it that, because it would inevitably become increasingly complex.
I return to my major point of higher yields from tax receipts because of growth and more people in employment, as well as higher personal incomes. We have choices as to how to deal with the surplus. The money can be invested in our neglected infrastructure and public services, or it could disappear in general tax cuts above the not ungenerous targeted tax cuts that the Chancellor has proposed. That is the choice that I hope that the electorate will have in the near future. People will be free to make their own judgment on whether there have been unacceptable rises in personal or business taxation and whether they want more public service investment, not just in education, health, police and the Armed Forces, but also in transport and the environment. Sir Alastair Morton's report yesterday, showed what a state our transport system is in.
As voters reach their decisions, we will want to ensure that they are aware of the Government's record of success, which I have just described. They should also know that, in the words of Ed Crooks, economics editor of the FT, last Thursday:
"The modest tax cuts announced by Gordon Brown yesterday confirm that Britain remains a low tax country compared with most of the rest of Europe—if relatively highly taxed compared with Japan and the United States".
Crooks provided graphs of taxes around the world—tax revenues, the highest income tax rates and the main corporate tax rates. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, Britain comes out as one of the lowest on all counts. Our main corporate tax rate of 30 per cent is the lowest among industrialised countries. The Government have also cut small company tax from 23p in the pound to 20p and introduced a lop starting rate for small to medium-sized enterprises.
The average corporation tax bill of a small company has been reduced by nearly a quarter since 1997. The capital gains tax taper has been increased, thereby reducing CGT to 10 per cent after four years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, so kindly acknowledged. Last week the Chancellor announced further proposals for tax reliefs for business—for research and development, for intellectual property and goodwill, for start-up businesses, for disadvantaged communities and many more. The UK fiscal regime for small businesses does not have the excessive negative influence that the Conservatives allege. It can be supportive and can incentivise. If that is not the case, why have 170,000 new small businesses been set
904
up since 1997? Why had the stock of foreign direct investment in the UK risen to more than £311 billion by the end of last year? That is a clear demonstration that the UK continues to be the first choice for inward investment in Europe.
Where is the evidence of decline or contraction, of which we have heard so much this evening? It is certainly not in the IMF reports. Last year, the IMF was concerned that the growth in the economy could lead to a pick-up in inflation. But, in fact, that was not borne out. Now we have this year's IMF reports. My colleagues on these Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, have dealt more than adequately with the more recent alleged warnings of the IMF.
In sum, the case has not been made for the noble Lord's Motion, other than perhaps with regard to personal taxes. And that is questionable, given the very low interest rates from which so many people in this country have benefited, particularly through mortgage repayments. When that is taken into account, the position changes significantly.
As I said earlier, the voters will pass judgment on whether or not the increases have been reasonable. They will also pass judgment on the other issues which are of central importance to them; namely, public investment, children, mothers, families and poverty. The latter was not even mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he moved the Motion. When noble Lords opposite come to respond, perhaps they will give equal prominence to those points.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, despite headline tax cuts, such as the reduction in the basic rate of income tax from 23p to 22p last April, under this Government overall taxes have increased. The Treasury's own figures show a rising tax burden—that is, net taxes and social security contributions as a percentage of GDP—over the course of this Parliament. According to its figures, which since November 1999 have generally been adjusted upwards, the tax burden has increased by a full 2.2 per cent. That rises to 2.7 per cent if the working families' tax credit is included as a spending increase rather than a tax cut.
In its report on the 2000 Budget, the Treasury Select Committee called for a special investigation into the Treasury's decision to count money paid out under the working families' tax credit as negative tax rather than higher public spending. It also took the Chancellor to task for using confusing figures to measure the tax burden and for basing his claim to have been fiscally prudent on relative rather than absolute tax and spending numbers.
The Office for National Statistics has also produced figures on the tax burden which are very much in line with the Treasury's numbers. They show that the tax burden rose from 35.5 to 38.4 per cent between the second quarter of 1997 and the third quarter of 2000. That is an increase of £28 billion or, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, the equivalent of 10p on income tax.

905
Until March 2000, Ministers refused to admit that taxes were rising. But finally in that month the Government admitted that the burden of taxation had risen. The Prime Minister's official spokesman, Alastair Campbell, stated that that was the case. Figures published by the OECD in 1999 show that, compared with the rest of Europe, Britain has the fastest-rising tax burden (taxes as a percentage of GDP) and that, for the first time in a generation, now pays more tax than Germany.
How have those tax increases taken place? The Government decided that it would be far easier to operate by stealth—by jacking up indirect taxes and reducing allowances—than by altering the basic and higher rates of tax. For example, in July 1997, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, among others, mentioned, the abolition of ACT robbed pension funds of a figure estimated to be in the region of £5 billion a year, rising to £6 billion next year.
However. because the measure was difficult to understand, few pensioners made a fuss about it. Only now has it become apparent that those operating some pension schemes will have to ask for increased contributions from members. Most companies are asking for a 10 per cent increase, but Tesco recently asked for 15 per cent. Otherwise, businesses may not be able to afford to pay their workers' pensions.
Stamp duty has been picked on as an easy way to raise money. The highest rate has increased from 1 to 4 per cent in gradual stages since 1997. Fuel duty escalators have been raised well above the rate of inflation—in the case of unleaded petrol, from 36.8p per litre to 46.82p between November 1996 and March 2001.
With regard to direct taxes, the hiking of national insurance rates is a key example. When this Government came to power, the upper earnings limit on which national insurance was chargeable stood at £23,660 per year. That figure has been increased gradually to £29,900—a rise of 26 per cent. The most recent rise in this Budget was 7.5 per cent—almost three times the rate of inflation. It has been estimated by accountants that that change will mean that up to 1 million people earning more than £30,000 a year will pay approximately an extra £200 per year, raising £200 million for the Treasury. That type of stealth tax will affect people such as top nurses and senior teachers. The Shadow Chancellor stated that at least 9,000 policemen, 23,000 teachers, over 20,000 NHS workers and other hard-working, middle-income workers will have to pay more national insurance every week.
Exactly the same has happened to Class 4. contributions for the self-employed. However, there is a further twist. In 1996–97, Class 4 contributions were set at 6 per cent on profits or gains between £6,860 and £23,660. As a result, the maximum levy was £1,008. The upper limit has also now increased to £29,900. Last year, the lower limit went down to £4,385. I do not have a figure for this year. The final bad news is that the Class 4 rate increased to 7 per cent during that period. Therefore, the maximum annual Class 4 rate is now £1,786—an increase of 77 per cent since 1997.
906
Another way in which the Government have been able to gather tax by stealth is by cutting allowances. Mortgage tax relief was restricted; then it was abolished in March 1999. The married couples allowance has been abolished for those born after 1935.
The House of Commons Library has published figures which show that a typical working family is more than £600 a year net worse off after all Labour's tax and benefit changes. Of that figure, £400 comes from the loss of dividend credits, £326 from the abolition of MIRAS, and £300 from getting rid of the married couples allowance. The Chancellor believes that his tax increases have hit only the super-rich. The example to which I have just referred assumes that a man has an income of approximately £25,000 and his wife £18,000. It shows that ordinary, hard-working people are being hit.
Moving on to business taxation, we hear much the same story as we do in relation to personal tax. We welcome the cuts in corporation tax which have taken place since 1997, as we do the cut in basic rates of income tax. However, we do not welcome the raft of extra taxes and costs to businesses.
Recently, the CBI estimated that the cost to businesses of the red tape and taxes introduced by Labour since May 1997 is £32.3 billion. That includes taxes of £5 billion a year and £12.3 billion in red tape over the present Parliament. Those taxes include the windfall tax on utilities; record levels of fuel duty (the highest in the EU); the abolition of tax credits on dividends, as previously mentioned; changes in the timing of corporation tax payments; increased taxes on company cars; and the climate change levy, which alone will bring in £1 billion a year to the Government.
The impact has been particularly severe on small and medium-sized businesses, as confirmed by recent figures from the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The figures show that the cost to micro and small businesses of complying with new legislation more than doubled between 1999 and 2000. For micro businesses, the average cost of implementing new legislation rose from £1,700 in 1999 to £3,600 in 2000. For small businesses, the cost rose from £4,700 to more than £8,000.
The following regulatory, administrative and tax-collecting areas are also costing companies money. First, the annual administrative costs of the Working Time Directive are estimated to be £2.3 billion. Secondly, the working families' tax credit, which employers must administer on behalf of the Government, has set-up costs of £100 million and a further £240 million per year in ongoing costs. Thirdly, while the Conservative Party has accepted the policy of the national minimum wage and therefore its financial costs, there will still be an administrative burden of £674 million. Fourthly, the student loan repayment scheme is the other main payroll burden that the Labour Party has introduced for employers to administer. It has an annual cost of £359 million.
What is the Conservative Party's response? We wish to follow the example of the United States and of many other European countries and to cut taxes where we

907
can. Those tax cuts would be funded by sensible reductions in public expenditure. We will not cut the Government's spending totals for health, schools, the police, defence and transport. We can find £8 billion of savings, the major part of which would involve cutting back on government bureaucracy, with a saving of £1.8 billion. The other major components of the total are: social security cost reductions, with a saving of £2.5 billion; DETR cost savings of £1 billion; and endowing universities, which would save £1.3 billion. Those spending reductions would be used to finance tax cuts. Our aim is to target the cuts to hard-working families, pensioners and businesses.
Importantly, those tax-cutting policies are linked to public spending savings and can be made irrespective of measures in the latest Budget. The Conservative Party is not planning to cut public spending. We wish to restrain the rise in public spending to within the growth rate of the economy as a whole.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims to have two fiscal rules. The first, the sustainable investment rule, states that,
"other things being equal, a reduction in the public sector debt to below 40 per cent of GDP over the economic cycle is desirable".
The qualification, "other things being equal", means that the rule is far from rigorous. The second fiscal rule is the so-called golden rule. That states that over the economic cycle, the Government should borrow only to invest. The Shadow Chancellor reported in a speech recently that privately the IMF has been highly critical of the golden rule. According to the Financial Times of 13th February, IMF economists have for some time questioned the rule, arguing that it does not sufficiently restrain government spending. An IMF paper critical of the golden rule was drafted last year but never published.
In summary, the Government's current strong financial position is to a considerable extent the result of the higher level of taxation that has been imposed since they came to power. The danger, were they to get a second term, is that if the economy weakened to below 2.5 per cent growth for a long period, the Government would still be stuck with expenditure commitments that would wash away the surplus. The IMF's warning about the dangers of the planned record levels of public expenditure may come back to haunt the Government.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and begin by explaining the extent to which we on these Benches agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
First, we certainly agree that it is extremely valuable to have such a debate in the immediate aftermath of the Budget. We are grateful to the Conservatives for using one of their debate days for that purpose, but we hope that next year their example will be followed by the Government. This important subject should be dealt with in government time, not that allocated to one of the opposition parties.
908
Secondly, we obviously agree that taxation has risen during the Government's lifetime, although, if one excludes this year's windfall revenues from the sale of the telecoms licences, the proportion of taxation to GDP, at 38 per cent, is hardly at an historically high level for this country or particularly high when compared with our nearest neighbours across the Channel.
Thirdly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, who said that the Government might have done better had they acknowledged at an earlier stage that the effects of their fiscal policy would be to raise taxes. Instead, they pretended for a couple of years that the opposite would result. In our view, such activity tends to reduce the credibility of the Government and of the political class as a whole.
Fourthly, we agree that there has been a lack of transparency in some of the tax changes. At least, tax changes and tax increases have been introduced that are not understood by, although they affect, large numbers of people. The removal of the dividend tax credit for pension funds is the classic example. There was a sense that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was looking for taxes that he could raise that would barely be noticed and that he did not want to introduce headline tax rises, although that would at least have the merit of being immediately understandable.
Finally, we agree that the increasing complexity of the tax system is a burden that it would be better to reduce. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Ludgate and Lord Hodgson, referred to that. As we saw in our recent debate on the Capital Allowances Bill, we hope that your Lordships' House might have a part to play in that regard in future.
That, I am afraid, is it; those are my areas of agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The tenor of his speech was that there was something seriously wrong with the levels of tax and of expenditure. A feeling emanated from his speech rather than a raft of specific proposals, but that tenor was undoubtedly there. The implication was that either tax or expenditure should be cut. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, was more specific. He said that in many cases, expenditure was an unnecessary bad. Unfortunately, he did not explain that or give examples of an unnecessary bad, although we got the general message. That attitude from the Conservative Front Bench is surprising because expenditure on health, education and pensioners under this Government as a proportion of GDP is less than it was during the Major years. The Conservatives make a mistake. They seem to think that John Major got it wrong, although they no doubt supported his approach at the time. Their other comment on expenditure—William Hague said this in another place—is that the Conservatives would meet the Labour Party's health and education plans. In the main areas of expenditure, the Conservatives are not planning to make cuts at all; they plan to maintain the levels that the Government have set.

909
The Conservatives have produced plans to save approximately £8 billion. They were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will set them out in more detail. I hope that he will not object if I get my retaliation in first, before he speaks; the timetabling of our debate means that I have no other option. The problem with the £8 billion figure is that, when it is examined in detail, the proposed cuts are found to be either dubious or downright bogus. I shall give just two examples. The largest saving involves a £1.8 billion reduction in the cost of running the Civil Service. Staff numbers in the Civil Service are already falling dramatically and its real cost is also falling. Furthermore, the majority of staff in the Civil Service who remain are either collecting taxes—presumably, the Conservatives are in favour of that—or are in departments in which the Conservatives have pledged not to cut expenditure. The idea that there are huge billion-pound expenditure cuts to be made in the Civil Service seems to us to be highly implausible.
Other proposals relating to the £8 billion figure are extraordinary. Apparently, a saving of £200 million would be made because the Conservatives do not propose to set up regional assemblies. The Government may or may not be in favour of setting up regional assemblies, but it is clear that they will not be set up within the planning period that is covered by the public expenditure plans. There is not £200 million to save in those plans in the first place. The truth is that the Conservatives will either have to cut expenditure on core public services or keep taxes at their current levels. They cannot have their tax cake and eat it.
I turn to the Government. As my Liberal Democrat colleagues have already explained, we can just about forgive the Chancellor of the Exchequer for trumpeting the strong position of the economy and of public finances. He has been operating in relatively benign times but one can hardly blame him for handling a good card well. However, the Government face two major uncertainties, which several noble Lords have discussed this evening.
The first relates to the outlook for future growth. We know, from every passing day, that the economy in the USA is weakening quite rapidly. The economy in Japan is equally depressed. This has serious implications for us in terms of trade and investment. Although some economists writing about the proportion of trade to the USA or Japan suggest this is relatively small, I am not so sure. For example, we see in terms of investment that Motorola has decided to cut 7,000 jobs. It is almost certain that some of those job cuts will fall in the UK.
When growth falls—if it does—the Chancellor will have a difficult choice to make between cutting expenditure, raising taxes or increasing borrowing. At that point we shall have a real chance to assess the Chancellor's true worth in difficult times.
The longer term uncertainty relates to the level of public expenditure and public services. Total departmental expenditure is planned to rise by 8 per cent per annum in money terms over the period 1999
910
to 2004. This is the boom that has followed the bust of the first two years of the Labour Government. It is not sustainable over the long term. We do not know what the Government's long-term vision for tax and expenditure is. Do they believe that by 2004 we will reach the promised land in terms of quality of public services, and that public expenditure will plateau at 2004 real levels? Or shall we continue to attempt to reach European levels of expenditure—for example, on health as promised by the Prime Minister? The Government will have to make a choice in the long term between public expenditure and tax cuts— a choice as real for Labour as for the Conservatives. The Government to date have been curiously resistant to either making this choice or arguing for it.
As my noble friend Lord Taverne made clear, we on these Benches are unambiguous in believing that a civilised and productive society is more likely to be achieved under a European than an American model. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, say that we should go down the US route but protesting that we have to protect the weak and poor. I wonder whether he really believes that the US model adequately supports the weak and poor in the US—I certainly do not.
All noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to read the full text of the Liberal Democrat alternative budget. However, having criticised everyone else, it is only fair to set out some of the main points in it. First, we are committed to having no stealth taxes. If we are to persuade people to be cheerful taxpayers, they need to know exactly where any changes in taxation are going to be spent.
Secondly, the tax changes that we propose are all hypothecated; to provide help for the poorest and better public services; to provide long-term care for the elderly; to provide more doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen. We explain how we will raise the taxes to do it. For example, we say we think we will need a 50 per cent tax rate on the highest earners.
Thirdly, we will review the Barnett formula. This has been a slightly contentious issue within the Liberal Democrats, not least among some of our Scottish colleagues. It is very difficult in reality to argue against expenditure based on need.
Fourthly, as my noble friend Lord Taverne said, we are committed to join the euro and to set an exchange rate target to enable us to do it. In these ways we believe we can build and win the argument for a fair level of taxation that provides high quality services for all, encourages investment in people and physical capital and provides a sustainable basis for economic growth and social progress. To echo the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn—here we stand, we can do no other.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to wind up for our Benches on this debate because it has been stimulated by the Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and because of the distinguished speeches we have heard from key members of the House this afternoon. I hope that any

911
observer of this debate would agree that the House of Lords has a real contribution to make in the financial area. I hope that we can return to that on another day.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, said that he came today both to bury and to praise the Chancellor. I am here strictly on burial duty. The theme of the burial service was provided to me by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, because he said it was basically a question of trust. I begin on that theme by taking the words of the Chancellor in his Budget Statement:
"the direct tax burden for the average family falls … [to] the lowest level for 30 years".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/01; col. 307.]
That statement—failing as it does to draw the distinction between direct and indirect taxes—is an insult to the intelligence of the public. It is to treat the public like morons.
The truth emerges in a document published at almost the same time as the Chancellor was speaking—the Red Book. The figures shown in Table C10, page 195 have been referred to by other noble Lords. The Government's own figures document the increase in the tax burden under them from 35.2 to 37.7 per cent. To find the full truth of what has happened with taxation under this Government one has to turn to the last page of the notes to the accounts for the full story. It is the hiding place for creative accountants throughout the ages. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, purported to give my noble friend Lord Strathclyde a lecture in corporate finance. If I may return the compliment, what one finds in this note on the last page is that these public accounts do not conform with generally accepted accounting principles. My noble friend Lady Hogg has also pointed that out. If they did conform with generally accepted accounting principles, Table C10 would be inaccurate because it would understate the tax burden by 0.5 per cent. It is 38.2 per cent—the full 3 per cent increase under this Government.
In the light of that, would one say that what follows is a fair description of the Chancellor of whom we have been talking this afternoon?
"Gordon Brown is too fond of obfuscation. [He] has reduced budget transparency to a new low. Important tax changes have been omitted from the speech. Statistics have rarely been quoted on a consistent basis. The Budget documentation has been filled with political point-scoring rather than factual analysis. There has been a continued tendency to classify the collection of revenue as anything other than taxation."
That is the view of the editor of the Financial Times. We should look with an objective eye at the allegedly great triumph of this Government, the so-called strong public finances, the fiscal surplus.
The Government say regularly that they are presiding over strong public finances. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, described this as a very sound and strong economy. From where do those strong finances come? They appear on page 188 of the Red Book at Table C4, where one sees a £16 billion surplus for this year. From where did the £16 billion surplus come? Was it perhaps—as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said
912
it was—from the strong economy? It is not that because trend growth of GDP is only 2.25 per cent, half as fast as America and slower than Euroland. Does it come from high inflation? It does not because that is only 2.5 per cent. Does it come from the better off people in the country paying more tax on their higher earnings? It is not that because earnings have only grown by 2.3 per cent.
I hope that the Minister will not say that the surplus arose from the higher tax receipts from the formerly unemployed. I believe that the Treasury will shortly be producing figures to refute that. No; it is because out of this modestly growing economy, one item is miraculously growing much more rapidly. That figure cannot be found in the Red Book, of course, but the IFS worked it out for us.
Government tax receipts are growing by 4.6 per cent a year; they have done so since the Government came to power. That compares with 1.8 per cent during the 18 years of Conservative government. That 4.6 per cent a year is double the rate of growth in the economy, and there lies the true economic miracle of this Government. Taxes growing twice as fast as GDP, twice as fast as inflation, twice as fast as people's earnings. How has that happened?
It happened because the Government took full advantage of the complexities of the tax system to which my noble and learned friend Lord Howe referred. First, there has been a staggering proliferation of tax rates; the number of basic rates has doubled from 15 to 38. Tolley's Standard Tax Manual—the bible of tax accountants—increased to 3,293 pages in three years. Other noble Lords referred to the complexity of the tax calculation guide, the size and complexity of the Finance Bill and so forth.
The result is that the Government, with all that apparatus, are now in a position where they first tax people on low incomes; they then means test their incomes to satisfy themselves that they are in need; they then offer them benefits to restore their income back to what it was before they paid the tax; and, finally, they tax the benefits. As a result, 56 per cent of pensioners are now means tested—a record—and any pensioner, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson said, who wishes to claim the Government's new minimum income guarantee has to complete a 40-page form. Is it any wonder that out of 500,000 eligible pensioners, only 82,000 have attempted the feat? Age Concern described it as,
"a massively complex system and endless form filling for pensioners".
As the social security Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, had to agree in response to a Question in your Lordships' House yesterday, people do not know that MIG (minimum income guarantee) is an income support benefit. What do the Government believe poor pensioners think MIG is? Perhaps a Russian aeroplane.
The result of all that complexity is what my noble and learned friend Lord Howe called the "mounting anxiety" about lack of transparency, also referred to today by the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord

913
Harris, and my noble friends Lord Blackwell, Lord Stevens and Lord Hodgson. The complaint is that there is too much scope for hidden tax increases. The Chancellor can and does increase tax without ever announcing a tax rise. People just wake up one morning and find themselves in a higher tax bracket, with the result that tax as a percentage of GDP invisibly creeps up.
We are in a position to solve the mystery of fiscal buoyancy to which I referred. According to a Written Answer in another place, £2.6 billion of the surplus comes from the underclaiming of complex credits and benefits and £5.7 billion, according to the Independent Financial Advisers Tax Action Group, comes from the underclaiming of complex tax allowances. If we add to that the £3.4 billion the Government admitted to underspending on health and education, we shall have found £11.6 billion of the £16 billion surplus. In other words, three-quarters of the surplus comes from the fact that the Government have over-claimed tax, underpaid benefits and underspent on health and education. The bottom line is that the growth of real household disposable income—the amount left to spend after tax and inflation—has slowed to a feeble 1.6 per cent during this Labour Government compared with an average 2.5 per cent under John Major's administration and 2.9 per cent under Margaret Thatcher.
After all that, do the Government have a surplus? Will it be for Britain, as it will be for the US, 5 trillion dollars over 10 years? No. We have heard a lot about the repayment of government debt. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, was excited that the Chancellor had repaid £34 billion of debt. As he said, the Government were keeping debt under control. It is true that on Table C4, page 188, we find the repayment of the £34 billion to which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, referred. But perhaps I can point out an extraordinary fact. In the year after the repayment of the £34 billion, the Government again start to borrow. These are the extra borrowings: £1 billion, £10 billion, £11 billion, £12 billion. I added those up and according to my maths, that comes to £34 billion. Mr Micawber himself would be amazed. So here we have a Chancellor who repaid £34 billion one day and borrowed it again the next. No wonder he put VAT on spectacles; it was so nobody could see what was actually going on!
I shall pass over the notes I had on the IMF, which would only involve swopping selective quotations from the report, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde dealt with that. I close briefly by saying this. Would it not be more relaxing for the Benches opposite if the Government were more open? The noble Lord, Lord Newby, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, was open. Liberal Democrats differ profoundly from us, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said. He said that Liberal Democrats believe in high taxes because they believe that that is the route to better public services. Conservative Benches are open; we believe in low tax. We believe in the parable of the good Samaritan. We believe that low tax means more freedom and choice for individuals; it means higher tax revenues in the long run.
914
But what do the Government believe in? They preach low tax, but they practice high tax. Oh what a tangled web it is; what anguish for all. Would it not be better to be more like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who said, "Our party is not a party of lower taxation and I am proud of that"?
7.7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, deserves to be congratulated twice: first, on following the example of the Labour Party in Opposition in choosing to use an Opposition debating day immediately after the Budget to debate the Budget. That is what we did ourselves and what we said they should do. We feel that it is the right thing to do. It is responsible Opposition.
Secondly, above all, the noble Lord is to be congratulated on his miraculous timing, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, has already referred. Fancy having the debate on the day on which claimant unemployment goes below 1 million for the first time for 26 years—that from a party which, in 1979. fought an election campaign (the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will remember it well) which had a whole group of unemployed actors, most of them hiding their faces so their shame could not be seen by their friends, saying, "Labour Government is not working". Why was Labour Government not working, according to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi? Because in the period 1975 to 1979 unemployment had risen from 1 million to 1.1 million. What happened after Labour Government did not work, according to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi? The claimant count peaked at 3.09 million, a rate of 11 per cent, in July 1985 and reached 3 million again in December 1992. My noble friend Lord Islwyn had his figures exactly right on that.
What will the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, advise the. Conservative Party to do in terms of posters for the coming election? Will it be the same people, perhaps with two-thirds of them cut off? Will it be an exposition of the figure that I gave? I wait with great fascination to see how the spin doctors of Smith Square deal with this minor problem. And I congratulate again the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on his timing. Although he has followed my advice, bearing in mind the Budget and the quality of the response by the Opposition to the Budget, I would have thought as many as four times before leading with my chin in the way that the Opposition have done today.
It cannot be denied, and nobody has tried to deny, that the Budget was delivered against the background of a strong and stable economy. That cannot be taken for granted— although there were examples during the last American Presidential election of attempts to take it for granted— because that strong and stable economy results from decisions that we have taken since coming to office to avoid a return to the stop-go cycles of the past.
We gave the Bank of England operational independence; we put in place new fiscal rules and disciplines, about which I shall say more; we imposed

915
tough controls on borrowing and spending; and we returned public finances to a sustainable position. That means that we are now experiencing the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years, the lowest claimant unemployment since 1975, with more people in work than ever before, because claimant unemployment is not the only or even the best measure.
This Budget takes no risks with that hard-won economic stability. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, would have liked us to take more risks earlier in this Parliament, but we did not. Having increased by 3 per cent last year, GDP is forecast to increase by 2¼ to 2¾ per cent in each of the next three years; inflation is forecast to be 2¼ per cent this time next year, and on target at 2½ per cent by the end of next year; and household finances are strong, net financial wealth having risen by 26 per cent since the spring of 1997.
The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Blackwell and Lord Boardman, referred to the saving ratio. They noted that the forecast has been revised downwards since the Pre-Budget Report. In part, the levels of confidence in the present economic climate of low inflation may have reduced the need for households to save for precautionary purposes. As consumer spending growth slows, as is widely expected, the ratio is forecast to rise to 4¾ per cent this year, 5 per cent next year and 5¼ per cent in 2002. Long term savings on pensions and ISAs are still robust—a more important consideration than many others. Lower net saving is not funding an unsustainable boom, as in the late 1980s. The savings ratio is important. However, the validity of our policies has been confirmed by the Bank of England's quarterly bulletin.
Public finances remain sound, and they meet the Government's two fiscal rules. The golden rule states that over the economic cycle the Government will borrow only to invest, not to fund current spending. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is quite right to suggest that the effect of that is that one can never entirely get rid of economic cycles; but we have succeeded in moving the cycle. On a cyclically-adjusted basis, the surplus on current budget remains positive throughout the forecast period. The average surplus since 1999–2000, which, on the Government's provisional judgment, is the start of the current cycle, also stays positive, remaining above 1 per cent of GDP over the next five years. So the Government are firmly on track to meet their first fiscal rule, even in the most cautious case.
The golden rule alone does not limit the amount of borrowing that the Government can undertake for investment. I was puzzled by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman's, gallant defence of a return to cash accounting. I do not believe that he meant it. However, it is important to limit the amount of government borrowing to a stable and prudent level. Excessive levels of borrowing cause debt to rapidly build up and add to the burden of debt interest payments.
916
The second fiscal rule—the sustainable investment rule—states that public sector net borrowing as a proportion of GDP will be held over the economic cycle at a stable and prudent level. Other things being equal, net debt will be maintained below 40 per cent of GDP over the economic cycle. The ratio of public sector net debt to GDP has been reduced from 44 per cent in 1997 to 31.8 per cent this year. It is forecast to further fall to 30.3 per cent in the coming year and remain at about 30 per cent in the following four years. I can confirm that my noble friend Lord Woolmer was right in giving comparable figures.
In every one of the next five years, adjusting for the economic cycle, the Budget locks in the tough fiscal stance set out in both Budget 2000 and the Pre-Budget Report. That is an important point to remember when we come to consider the IMF judgments. Because of that, the Government have been able to repay the debt. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is right that a significant part of this year's debt repayment has been the spectrum receipts. However, it is important to note that the spectrum receipts have been used to repay debt, not for current expenditure. As a result of the repayment of debt, debt interest payments are lower. They are forecast to be £3.5 billion lower in the coming year. That money will be available for schools, hospitals and other spending priorities. Because we have succeeded in reducing unemployment and, therefore, reducing social security costs, additional resources of £4 billion per year are available for frontline public services.
Between 1979 and 1997—and I say this in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe—42p of every additional pound spent went to debt interest and social security. Now, the figure is only 16 per cent, leaving more than 80p of every additional pound to go direct to front-line public services. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said that the Chancellor was entitled to a modest degree of self-satisfaction for that. I believe that he is entitled to a good deal more than modest self-satisfaction, although he would be the last person to feel it or to show it.
The Motion that we are debating today includes references to the summary of the IMF board's discussion of the IMF staff report on the UK's 2000 Article IV consultation, from which the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and many others have presented selective quotations. I shall not read out the entire report; that would be devastating. In their report and summary of the board's discussion, published on 28th February, the IMF directors praised the current UK expansion as,
"the longest period of sustained output and employment growth and low and stable inflation in more than 30 years".
During a discussion on 23rd February, they said:
"Plans to increase public investment in infrastructure and human capital are justified in the light of the evidence".
They noted that,
"even after taking into account recent spending decisions, the fiscal position remains sound and fully consistent with the authorities' medium-term fiscal framework".

917
The Government entirely agree with the directors' conclusion that,
"additional fiscal stimulus would limit the room for further interest rate cuts".
That is why last week's Budget did just that. It locked in the tough fiscal stance set out in both Budget 2000 and the Pre-Budget Report, which were the bases of the IMF's comments. Criticisms of a budget which purports to be based on IMF comments are, therefore, entirely misplaced. The Budget took no risks with either public finances or growth of inflation. It built on a platform of economic stability. It locked in the fiscal tightening, it met all the Government's fiscal rules and then allocated additional resources in a balanced way to invest in Britain's future.
I take seriously the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Stewartby and Lord Newby, about the risks to the world economy, particularly in the United States and Japan. As they will know, the forecasts for growth in the world economy have already been revised downwards since the Pre-Budget Report to take into account the weaker than expected growth in the fourth quarter of last year. The forecast is in line with the views of external forecasters, including the IMF.
The UK uses a lower estimate of trend growth for forecasting public finances to act as a buffer against unexpected downturns. We still remain on track to continue to meet the fiscal rules, even in the cautious case, 'which is 1 per cent below the central case. Of course there are risks—no one can deny that—but it can legitimately be claimed that we recognise those risks and did so in the way we framed the forecast.
I turn to what is emotively called "the tax burden". We had a curious debate on the subject. The tax:GDP ratio is not dependent only on government measures; it is dependent on the strength of the economy. If the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, believes that that is an admission, he is welcome to it. It is self-evident. As the noble Lords, Lord Blackwell and Lord Brooke, recognised—apparently the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, did not—if there are 28 million people in jobs and unemployment is at its lowest rate for 25 years, fewer people are on benefit and more people pay tax. Should we apologise for that? Should we apologise for the fact that tax receipts benefit from that? I see no reason to apologise for economic success.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies was quoted against us by the noble Lords, Lord Saatchi and Lord Harris. Perhaps I may quote back to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, what the institute stated:
"Budget measures announced during the 1992–97 Parliament meant that revenues by the end of that Parliament were £19.6 billion higher than in 1996–97 and an additional £7.4 billion higher in 2002 than they would have been in the absence of any Budget announcement".
The Tories in fact put up taxes drastically.
The IFS Green Budget this year concluded that:
"If the Government implements all of the measures for consultation announced in November's PBR [which they did], there will have been no change in Government revenues resulting from Budget announcements over the Parliament".
918
The tax:GDP ratio for the previous comparable year, 1999, was lower than in any other European country. This year, despite the strength of the economy, the increase in oil prices and record employment levels, the tax:GDP ratio will still be no higher than it was in half of the period in office of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Next year, the tax:GDP ratio will be £5 billion lower than the previous government 'were planning in their last Budget before the 1997 election.
I am not pleased with that comparison; it is the last year I shall be able to use it because the previous government's forecasts go no further. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and others applauded the previous government on the basis of their forecasts rather than on their achievements, I believe that it is therefore legitimate to quote their forecasts back to them.
Finally, in the light of the fact that Budget projections show a steadily falling tax:GDP ratio over the next three years, what are we to think about the attack on the tax burden? The tax burden is a crude measure. The same percentage could encompass policies of social justice or social injustice, proper provision for public services or what my noble friend Lord Islwyn rightly called private affluence and public squalor.
What matters to people in this country is not the macro measure but the fact that, compared with indexation, households will be on average £590 a year better off from measures introduced over the Parliament (£150 a year better off from this Budget and £240 a year better off from all the measures taking effect this year). Families with children will be on average £1,000 a year better off as a result of measures introduced over this Parliament as a whole. Finally, the direct tax burden on a single-earner family on average earnings with two children will be at its lowest level since 1972. I do not think that God loves me, but under those circumstances I am a cheerful taxpayer—"Canon Barnett" had it entirely right!
That is a record to be proud of. This is a timed debate but I shall give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Was he including in those figures the effective increases in indirect taxes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lord, yes, of course. I would have said "direct taxes" if I meant direct taxes.
I turn to business taxes, which took up much time on the Opposition Benches. Corporation tax receipts are expected to be £32.1 billion, which is £2.3 billion less than last year and £3.2 billion if one excludes corporation tax from North Sea revenues. It is well recognised that there have been greater cuts in corporation tax for small and medium-sized enterprises. The proportion of tax revenues which come from business—that is, all business taxes— is down from 31.4 per cent of tax revenues under the Conservatives to 30 per cent today. This is a government who cut taxes for business.

919
There has been so little attack on the Budget in practice that I have to cut out large chunks of my speech. I wanted to defend what we are doing about productivity but no one has attacked us on that.
Noble Lords: Tell them anyway!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course, I recognise that we have a long way to climb. The noble Lords, Lord Woolmer, Lord Taverne and Lord Haskel, made that point most effectively. But even if we take the labour productivity measure—I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Desai about taking capital productivity—according to the latest data, year-on-year whole economy productivity growth was 2.6 per cent in the third quarter of last year; manufacturing productivity was up by 5.4 per cent to December 2000; and there are encouraging signs of increasing productivity growth. Many of the detailed provisions in the Budget, and in the Budget speech, addressed that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, made an interesting speech to which I cannot respond because it is outside the scope of what has been covered. However, the Government are consulting on a new tax credit for community investment to encourage private investment in enterprises in disadvantaged communities. I know that that is close to his heart.
I must qualify part of what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. The figures I gave were for personal tax. It is not a question of the difference between direct and indirect tax, as I think she suggested, but of personal tax as opposed to business tax. I hope that that was clear in what I said because I then moved on to the separate subject of personal tax.
None of these issues was criticised, but I shall pick up two points about the environment and transport. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Northbrook, profoundly misunderstand the nature of the climate change levy, which they describe as being an additional burden. It is not an additional burden in fiscal terms; the climate change levy is neutral. It is balanced by the reductions in national insurance contributions.
As regards particular points which were raised in the debate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford would like the grants for repairs to listed places of worship to include also unlisted places of worship. We might consider listed buildings other than listed places of worship before we went on to unlisted places of worship. The right reverend Prelate is in danger of us giving him an inch and wanting a mile—
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The request was directed at places which could be used for community purposes if work was done to convert
920
them. That is at the heart of the matter. I was not referring to other places of worship regardless of the factor of community use.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion and I believe that I addressed it in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard.
There was no significant criticism of what was stated in the Budget about employment opportunities and the success of the New Deal. If there had been criticism, I would have hastened to reply to it from a very comprehensive and overwhelmingly convincing brief. We are taking a whole range of measures to make work pay. I am a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, describes it as fiddling to address social issues. What he regards as fiddling we believe to be a virtuous circle. We are doing something which is socially just, because it makes poor people better off and encourages them to go back to work. One then reaps the sensible economic reward in that, by the way, it increases tax revenues. We are told that there is something deplorable about that.
But the Budget goes much further to provide support for families with children and to help to tackle child poverty. I have heard no criticism this evening about the children's tax credit and the measures on maternity and paternity pay. They mean that over the Parliament as a whole, following the Budget the tax and benefit changes introduced will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. There has been no comment on that from the Opposition Benches, nor any recognition of that element of social justice and common decency.
What we have seen over too many years in this country has been chronic under-investment in schools, services, transport and law and order. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, believes that we could have made an earlier start to put it right at the risk of the kinds of results experienced in Ireland. I do not share that judgment. One had not only so many years of under-investment but also the chaos in public finances inherited in 1997. I refer to the double debt of £28 billion of borrowing. It takes time to turn round a tanker of that kind.
We have taken a responsible approach to public finances which allows us to allocate substantial new money to key public services—£43 billion over three years—as part of the 2000 spending review. The money will start to come on stream from next month. In the Budget—I shall not repeat these figures because they have not been criticised—over the next three years over £2 billion will be focused on health, education and tackling drugs and drug-related crime.
The plans announced in last year's spending review and this year's Budget provide for sustained, and sustainable, high growth in the British people's priority services. From 2001 there will be a real annual average growth of 5.4 per cent for education, 5.6 per cent for UK health, 20 per cent for transport in England—14 per cent for the UK—and 4.2 per cent for the criminal justice system in England and Wales. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, called that

921
extravagant; the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said that it was an "unnecessary bad". The Conservative Opposition have said that they will stick with these plans, but they cannot have it both ways.
In your Lordships' House there are radicals, or true Tories (if I may so describe them). The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, the noble Lords, Lord Stewartby and Lord Blackwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, have joined together in forecasting doom about the future of the economy over the next few years. I have been doing this job for nearly four years. The opposition parties have been forecasting doom in each of those years but in none of them has the doom occurred. I respect the true Tories, including the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I do not know whether the nmble Lord likes that description. I believe that he is the Real IRA as compared with the Provisional IRA.
Look at the scale and nature of the attack on this Budget from the Official Opposition. They have not attacked any of the fundamental propositions which the Labour Party has placed before the country this year and in other years.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, I do not know, whether I qualify as a true Tory. I am encouraged by the Minister's remarks. Do I understand that we shall not receive word until next month about real expenditure on the London Underground?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the London Underground is a matter which depends not only on the Government but also on a number of other factors on which I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to comment in the middle of ongoing negotiations. In the circumstances, how timid has been the attack of the Conservative Front Bench and how neutered its approach to public expenditure and taxation. It has been neutered because noble Lords opposite want to say that they will provide lower taxes and, at the same time, maintain public expenditure on what they know to be the priorities of the British people. They know that they cannot make those two objectives meet each other. Their pathetic attempts to defend what they describe as the gap of £8 billion—which would be at least twice that—make it clear that they have no answers to the economic problems which face this country.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly for their congratulations to me on initiating this debate. We have proved that to hold a debate as soon after the Budget as possible is an extremely worthwhile exercise. I very much hope that the next government, of whatever complexion, will adopt the suggestions made by the Liberal Democrats and ourselves in opposition: that there should be a debate in government time properly organised by the government to debate the Budget. When the Finance Bill is published at the same time perhaps we should adopt some of the suggestions
922
of my noble friend Lord Saatchi and have a separate debate on the complexities thrown up by that process and be able to table amendments so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can take them more seriously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the noble Lord suggest that that be before or after it goes into Committee in the House of Commons?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the hope is that the Finance Bill will be published here soon after the Second Reading in the House of Commons. Therefore, it will come here in the form of a No. 2 Bill before it goes into Committee in the House of Commons and we shall be able to debate it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the noble Lord suggest that we debate it in parallel, with amendments tabled in the Commons and in the Lords? Which would be the Bill to emerge?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should be happy to deal with a Finance Bill in the way that we deal with other Bills. However, governments would not like that because they would not get their legislation out by the end of July. Therefore, we arrived at the "Saatchi" scheme by which a No. 2 Bill would go through the House of Lords in parallel. At the end of that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be offered a choice of amendments which, if accepted, would, I believe, vastly improve the quality of the legislation passed.
I should like briefly to make a purely non-political point. This debate demonstrates just how wide is the expertise and knowledge in this House on these matters, which is why governments should take the House of Lords more seriously when it comes to financial scrutiny. The debate has also demonstrated that tax is a dividing issue and will remain so in the weeks ahead when we come to the general election. The Liberal Democrats have promised more Taxation. In Scotland not only will there be more taxation: there is also a promise of less expenditure because the Barnett formula is to be reformed. I believe that the Government will still need to explain how they intend to fund the gap between the increase in public expenditure and the growth in the economy. That is something to which we shall return in the weeks ahead, and I for one shall enjoy that debate.
As is customary at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 which were laid before the House on 14th February be approved. I am grateful to your Lordships for agreeing to consider at the same time the draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2001. These regulations were also laid on 14th February 2001 by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Lord Chancellor's Department. I can confirm that these regulations are compatible with the Government's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
It may be helpful if I first deal with the regulations on decision making and appeals. Your Lordships will recall that under the Social Security Act 1998 we introduced decision making and reform to the appeals system across child support and social security benefits administered by the Secretary of State.
The regulations before the House support measures introduced under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. The Act continues the reform process by aligning local authority decision making for housing and council tax benefits with the rest of the benefit system. More importantly, the Act brings those two benefits into the mainstream social security appeals arrangements. From July, claimants will have a right of appeal against a local authority decision on their benefit claim to an independent appeal tribunal administered by the Appeals Service agency. There is a further right of appeal, on a point of law, to the social security commissioners and then to the higher courts.
The regulations set out detailed provisions for reconsidering and changing local authority decisions on benefit claims. They also set out procedures for making an appeal identical to those in other social security benefits. They apply existing legislation relating to the powers and procedures of appeal tribunals to housing and council tax benefits appeals.
There are 23 regulations. I am very happy to describe them in detail to your Lordships tonight, or simply to do my best to answer any questions. I am in your Lordships' hands. I know that these were—so to speak—nodded through in the other place as being essentially technicalities about letters and dates and so on. Rather than take up the time of the House, I am willing simply to move them. However, if noble Lords wish, I am willing to read out the other 11 pages. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as the Minister suggests, it would be sensible to put specific questions rather than to go through every part of the regulations. Noble Lords present took part in the primary legislation which has spawned this massive, by normal standards, document. It is almost as big as a Bill. Given that noble Lords present are familiar with the subject matter, there is no need for it to be spelled out in great detail.
924
Having said that, I thank the Minister for her opening remarks, not least because I understand that she is here at some considerable inconvenience to herself. On these Benches, we appreciate the expertise which she brings to discussions on such matters as the regulations we have before us.
Perhaps I may ask for clarification. As the Minister has pointed out, the effect of the regulations is to bring the appeals procedure very much into the mainstream of such arrangements. However, they cover a wide range of subjects. When we debated the primary legislation, one of the matters discussed was membership of the tribunals. If there are difficult financial matters about balance sheets, income expense accounts and so on, there are provisions for an expert on financial matters, and, more generally, for a legal member on the tribunal.
The regulations cover a wide range of issues. For example, the tribunal will hear decisions on social security, child support, vaccine damage, tax credit and compensationary recovery questions and on decisions under the Road Traffic Act. So far as concerns the vaccine damage side, will there be provision for a medical expert to be present? That would be appropriate. At the moment that is not so. There are arrangements for financial and legal experts but not for medical experts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, to which regulation is the noble Lord referring—or is he using this matter as a hook to open up wider questions on the appeals procedure?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, my understanding was that the Appeals Service agency will cover all the matters I have just mentioned.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, these regulations bring the housing and council tax benefits into the appeals system. We are therefore discussing those regulations tonight rather than having a general debate on the Appeals Service Agency. If I can be, I would wish to be helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I move from that matter to the Explanatory Note to the regulations. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I was misled. The Explanatory Note points out that matters have not been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee because the regulations are laid within a fairly tight timescale. None the less, perhaps I may ask the Baroness whether she feels that it is advantageous in any case to have advice from the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is also pointed out that:
"The regulations are made after consultation with organisations appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the authorities"
covered by these regulations. Can she tell us which authorities have been consulted?
I have another point about the Explanatory Note. I vividly recall a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, in one of our earlier debates. The noble Baroness said that she had asked her secretary to read

925
out a clause. Her secretary did so. She replied, "I cannot understand a word of it; read out the Explanatory Note". The secretary said, "That was the Explanatory Note". I feel in much the same position. The Explanatory Note states:
"Part I contains provisions relating to citation, commencement, interpretation and service of documents".
That is fine, but it then states:
"It also includes a provision as to treating a person as a person affected by a decision".
That is the Explanatory Note. I do not have the remotest idea what that means. Perhaps the Baroness can tell us. It is bad enough to have the many unbelievably complex measures which the Minister, quite rightly and with our support, did not read out, but I rather despair of noble Lords' ability to understand what that kind of remark in the Explanatory Notes means.
We are here concerned with a statutory instrument in relation to housing and council tax benefits. I shall not go into some of the points on other areas covered by the appeals procedure. We can return to them on other instruments concerning different parts of the main legislation.
I am concerned about one aspect with regard to the housing benefit fraud. The national housing benefit review of 1997 to 1998 states that 16 per cent of those receiving housing benefit were paid an inaccurate amount. I am not clear to what extent the errors made by the department have been corrected by the appeals procedure, or whether that is the figure before the appeals were taken. It would be helpful to have some information on that point.
I have one final point. The integration of the appeals procedure—to a considerable extent, that is what it is—will mean that housing benefit payments will come under the Appeals Service Agency and will be subject to the Appeals Service Agency targets. As I understand the position, the agency has a number of performance targets. In my former incarnation as a Member of the other place, I used to worry about the way in which the appeals procedure worked. One of the targets is to reduce the public sector sickness absence to the public service baseline level.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to absentee staff or to failure to attend by clients?
Lord Higgins: My Lords, from my experience in another place, I am referring to both. There were constant problems. On some occasions, people making the appeal did not turn up. That was a major problem. On other occasions, everyone else turned up except the chairman. It is an important point. Can the noble Baroness say whether the aim of reducing the public sector sickness absence level by reducing absence by 10 per cent by 31st December 2000 was in fact achieved? The effectiveness of the regulations and the actions taken under them depends very much on the efficiency of the Appeals Service Agency and, in particular, on the achievement of its targets.
926
Those are my only specific points. I did not think that it was appropriate to go into enormous detail on my other points.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when I took my place, I had not intended to say anything about the regulations. But I have heard one thing which I regard as a landmark. This is the first time that I have had to respond to regulations to which the Minister has given a certificate of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is my duty and very great pleasure to welcome that.
A small moment might usefully be allowed for what the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, once described as "the usual process of osmosis", by which information reaches Ministers in this House. During that moment, therefore, I may perhaps respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said about targets for sickness absence. I am not at all sure that those are useful. The rate of sickness absence varies much more according to the incidence of 'flu epidemics and ailments of that kind than according to things which government can properly alter. Those who come into work suffering from such ailments usually give them to many other colleagues and increase sickness absence. Any target which puts pressure on people to come into work when they are not fit to do so and in an infectious condition is an unwise one. I am not sure that the noble Lord was prudent to press the Government to insist on it with rather more vigour. I hope that that has allowed the necessary time for osmosis.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is a generous instinct on the part of the noble Earl but I fear that it has not happened. None the less, I shall do my best to answer the questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about consultation. Housing benefit is nationally financed but is administered locally by local authorities. The noble Lord appeared to suggest that the DSS would have made the errors. No, it is the local authorities that make errors. I am sure that he will accept that. Our prime consultation has been with local authority users. We have been working with them. The other group with which we must statutorily consult is not the Social Security Advisory Committee but the Council on Tribunals. We have worked closely with the council. In addition, we have written to around 30 interested pressure groups, including the CPAG, Centrepoint, Age Concern and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, giving them an outline of the new proposals and inviting comments. If the noble Lord wishes, I can enlarge on some of their responses. Broadly speaking—this follows the appropriate point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—while some local authorities might prefer longer to introduce the scheme and might prefer to keep an appeal system local, there is none the less a demand for transparent justice. One has a national appeal service and that is

927
the point about compatibility with human rights. We discussed those broader issues when we debated the Bill last summer. At the time, noble Lords welcomed it.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This is the first occasion when a Minister has said that an instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. If it is appropriate to make such a declaration, would it not be more helpful—given the rather select band of noble Lords in the Chamber at the moment and the extent to which even Hansard may be read on this issue—to put it on the instrument itself?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that may well be right. I shall follow up that point. It is a perfectly fair one.
The noble Lord also asked about the meaning of "treating a person as a person". I suppose that that is better than the alternative. I shall try to see whether there is a more helpful and useful way of putting it. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, usually asks me about what are called Humpty-Dumpty clauses—when capital is to be treated as income and income is to be treated as capital. I have never quite had one where a person is to be treated as not a person and not a person is to be treated as a person. Let us hope at least that we are being consistent.
I was asked about housing benefit errors. Sixteen per cent of errors in housing benefit are made by local authorities in housing benefit administration. That does not surprise me given the complexity of the issues associated with the rent officer's level, the amount of housing benefit for which one is eligible and backdating. But those are errors made by local authorities. One of the steps we are seeking to take—we raised it very obliquely in our discussions on the Social Security Fraud Bill—is to strengthen local authorities' capacity to ensure that housing benefit is accurately paid the first time round and to build out both error and fraud.
The noble Lord asked about Appeals Service Agency targets. He did not ask specifically, but it may be worth putting on the record that the target to hear the appeals is meant to be 14 weeks. We are making good progress in that direction. None the less, it is still a longer time than many of us would think desirable.
The noble Lord also asked about absenteeism. I cannot help him on the more general point about the level of absence among support staff, secretarial staff and so on. But most of the tribunals will be held by a single person—a legally qualified chairperson. If the chairperson is not present, the tribunal does not go ahead. Where the matter involves financial complexity, a financial person will be involved. A landlord—landlords may appeal as well as tenants— might have complex books and arrangements. We therefore need that kind of expertise. Under the present system, introduced as of last year, I would expect absenteeism of the professionals at the tribunal level to be very modest indeed—except, as the noble Earl said, when one is hit by a 'flu epidemic.
928
Another issue is the problem of people who wish to appeal failing to turn up. We debated it at some length last summer. As the noble Lord will recall, our response in that context was to go for paper hearings. If someone had failed to notify that he was going to attend in person, although the forms—partly as a result of pressure from the noble Earl, Lord Russell—made it clear that he probably had a better chance of having his case heard in the way he would wish if he attended in person, there would be a paper hearing. That has allowed us to reduce a good many of the delays. In some cases, we have had to cancel half of the morning sittings because people have not turned up.
I think that I have covered all the points raised by the noble Lord. I am glad that both the noble Lord and the noble Earl felt able to welcome the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2001
8 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have spoken to these regulations and I hope that noble Lords will allow me to move them formally. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I wish to make only one short point about the Explanatory Memorandum. In the previous debate we treated the Explanatory Memorandum with a degree of facetiousness, but I think that this is an important issue. Once again, I am rather puzzled by the memorandum. It appears to be an Explanatory Memorandum for the regulations now before us. However, almost none of it refers to these regulations, but is expressed in the following terms:
"The Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1999 were recently amended by the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure)(Amendment) Regulations 2000 … The amendments were in consequence of the transfer under the Tax Credits Act 1999 … of functions relating to family credit and disability working allowance (now known as working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit) from the Department of Social Security to the Treasury and the Board of Inland Revenue".
All that may be immensely illuminating, but it refers to the previous regulations rather than to the regulations before us. I am not at all clear why, other than demonstrating that the Government amend their regulations on an annual basis, this explanation is supposed to be helpful.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me. Does this arise from the crossword puzzle problem to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, drew our attention during the debate on

929
Bill do now pass on the Social Security Fraud Bill? That is a general problem. If this is designed to explain that, I would regard it as helpful.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take the criticism expressed by noble Lords of the degree of transparency here. The point of these regulations is that they are consequential. It is the Lord Chancellor rather than the DSS who is responsible for the administration of the appeals tribunal system. That is why the regulations are bundled together in this way.
The regulations relate to the Lord Chancellor and are consequential on the substantive regulations on housing benefit that we have just discussed. That is because they have implications for the organisation of the appeals system. which is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it might have been helpful if the Explanatory Memorandum had said that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations 2001
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will agree that these, too, are good news regulations.
We have discussed the subject of inherited SERPS on many occasions in this House. I should like to thank noble Lords for the way in which a constructive discussion has taken place all around the House. I think that noble Lords will accept that the Government have listened to the views expressed here, as well as to others outside the House. I believe that we have now found a solution which, although it will cost the taxpayer considerably more, is none the less workable and fair. That is due in no small part to the contributions of noble Lords. I address not only the Opposition Front Benches, but also the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who would normally be present on the Cross Benches. However, I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his place. I suspect that he is here to encourage us and to take in the celebrations.
Noble Lords will be well aware of the problems that have arisen over inherited SERPS. I do not propose to go over that ground, except to say that, in 1986, the then Conservative government legislated to reduce the amount of SERPS that a widow or widower could inherit from their late spouse, a change that was due to come into effect in April 2000. But the change was not notified in DSS leaflets for 10 years. The leaflets were corrected in 1996, but there is evidence that, after 1996, in some cases, people continued to be given incorrect or incomplete information by DSS staff. The matter
930
has been investigated by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the National Audit Office published a highly critical report in March 2000.
The DSS itself investigated the matter and, from 1999, began taking steps to put things right. We issued a bulletin to all staff and checked that all leaflets were revised. As a result of a proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we amended the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, giving the Secretary of State some flexibility to modify the inherited SERPS arrangements. In March 2000 we announced the delay until October 2002 of the reduction to 50 per cent. We also put forward proposals for a new inherited SERPS scheme, on which we consulted.
During that consultation, representations were made that, although the scheme was better than none, there would still be unfairnesses and cliff-edge cases. As a result, on 29th November 2000, we announced an alternative approach which I shall now explain.
Quite apart from the problems of communicating the planned changes to the public, the original plans of the previous Conservative administration were seriously flawed. I do not take issue with the proposal that widows should receive half the original pension, but the proposal as envisaged in 1986 contained no transitional arrangements at all. There was a cliff-edge effect where the amount of SERPS that could be inherited was due to drop from 100 per cent to 50 per cent almost overnight. Most noble Lords would accept that that does not reflect good social policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, among others, has been assiduous in pressing the case for existing pensioners to be exempt from the reduction. The main point was that current pensioners who were SERPS contributors between 1978 and recently did not know about the proposals and so did nothing and could do nothing about changing or inquiring into their SERPS position. We understood and agreed with that point. Our proposals, therefore, will completely exempt the spouses of existing pensioners from the reduction. They will continue to receive 100 per cent of SERPS.
We intend to go further. As well as protecting the spouses of existing pensioner couples, we shall also fully protect the spouses of those who are not yet pensioners, but who will reach state pension age by 6th October 2002. Furthermore, we will phase in the reductions in respect of those due to reach state pension age between 6th October 2002 and 5th October 2010, in recognition of the fact that the amount someone needs to save to make up for the reduction increases the closer they are to pension age.
The legislation to protect the spouses of those reaching pension age before 6th October 2002 is already in place. The regulations before noble Lords will provide the legislation for the phased reduction, protecting the spouses of people who will reach state pension age between 6th October 2002 and 5th October 2010. We consulted widely on these regulations with the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Social Security Select Committee, the Public Administration Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and

931
the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Furthermore, we have been working closely with Age Concern and Help the Aged. Our proposals have been broadly welcomed.
Perhaps I may now explain in more detail this large item; it is a £12 billion item. For that reason, it is worth trespassing a little longer on the attention of noble Lords to explain exactly how these regulations will work.
The regulations will mean that where someone reaches state pension age between 6th October 2002 and 5th October 2010, when they die their surviving spouse will be able to inherit between 90 per cent and 60 per cent of their SERPS. The exact amount the surviving spouse will be able to inherit will depend on when between those dates their late spouse reached state pension age or would have reached state pension age had they not died.
For example, the surviving spouse of someone who reaches state pension age between 6th October 2002 and 5th October 2004 will inherit up to 90 per cent of their late spouse's SERPS. A surviving spouse of someone who reaches state pension age between 6th October 2008 and 5th October 2010 will be able to inherit up to 60 per cent. A taper has been put in place between the two. The schedule to the regulations sets out the details.
The problems with inherited SERPS originally arose through a failure, under the previous administration, properly to publicise the changes in the first place—even among the staff of the DSS, let alone the public. The department has learnt from those mistakes and we are determined to make sure that people are aware of and understand the new rules. The spouses of existing pensioners deserve to be reassured that their pension is protected. And people still of working age should get the information they need so that they can consider their position, armed with the facts.
Because people are affected in different ways, depending on their age, we will use different strategies for informing them. I shall welcome the views of noble Lords as to whether they feel that these strategies are adequate.
I shall turn first to current pensioners. The department is writing to all pensioners explaining that the spouses of existing pensioners are not affected by the reduction in inherited SERPS. Secondly, as regards people who will reach state pension age between now and 5th October 2002, we will also write to all of this group, again reassuring them that the spouses of people reaching state pension age between these dates are not affected. As far as concerns people within 10 years of state pension age, we propose to write to all those in the sliding scale group. Currently, we are exploring the options and taking steps to make sure that we can deal with follow-up inquiries.
Over and beyond all those individual letters, we are also currently running the comprehensive television "working dogs" campaign to raise awareness about
932
pensions issues generally, and we are increasingly using modern methods of communicating with the public, such as the Internet.
I am satisfied that these regulations are ECHR compliant. They will mean that the rules on inherited SERPS are prudent, fair and, I think, very decent. The spouses of existing pensioners and of those close to pension age are fully protected and the changes are being phased-in for spouses of people who are due to reach pension age between 6th October 2002 and 5th October 2010, thus preventing the "cliff edge" effect of previous proposals.
Our objective has been to devise a system which will eventually reduce to 50 per cent the amount of SERPS which can be inherited, but in a way which is fair and which recognises the fact that the amount that someone needs to save to make up for the reduction, were they to be aware of it, increases the closer they are to pension age.
I hope that we have devised such a system. If we have, it is in no small part due to the contributions of your Lordships. I commend the regulations, in good heart, to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved. [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. This matter has had a very long history, as I think a high percentage of noble Lords in the Chamber, including the Government Whip, who have sat through much of the proceedings will recognise. It has developed steadily as a result of the debates which we have had, and a great deal of progress has been made. I certainly join with the Minister in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who have been in the forefront of trying to sort out the matter.
It is a sad story. As the noble Baroness said, it is now likely to cost some £12 billion to put right. I still regret that we have not been able to find out who is responsible so far as concerns the Civil Service's part in the matter. However, what the Government now propose will go a considerable way towards putting things right.
The Government's original plan was not satisfactory and was heavily criticised on all sides, not only in this House but by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which said that the scheme as presented was not operationally viable and that it was a "cheat's charter" and an invitation to fraud, and so on. We on this side of the House were certainly very glad when, in November 2000, the Government brought forward their new plan. However, there are some points that we need to clarify.
I have a confession to make. Two days ago I received a letter from the Department of Social Security—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, so did I!
8.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as did my noble friend Baroness Blatch. I am surprised that the department wrote to the noble Baroness, who is much younger than I.
The letter concerned widows' inherited SERPS and affected those in the SERPS scheme. But I am not, and never have been, in the SERPS scheme; I was in a contracted-out scheme. It would appear to be the case that the department is now sending these letters to everyone regardless of whether or not they were in the SERPS scheme. This is likely to cause confusion to those who are not eligible and they may well write in and ask, "What is this all about? I should like some money". It also suggests that the department simply does not know which pensioners are contracted out and which pensioners are contracted in. That seems to be a rather worrying point.
Having said that, the new scheme which the Government announced in November is certainly an improvement on the previous scheme. However, the noble Baroness will remember that in previous debates on this issue I raised the question of the points made by the ombudsman. I criticised him for the very long time that it took him to produce details of four sample cases and for the fact that his report on the subject was rather strange; it was written almost entirely with reference to a letter he had written to the Permanent Secretary at the department, rather than in a more normal format. The letter is dated 9th May, so it is at the in-between stage.
He did not express in the letter any view as to the merits of the case. He said:
"in my report, I reserved my position on redress, confining myself to some general comments, and why I undertook to offer advice to Parliament, once the details were known".
He went on to say:
"It is for the Government, not for me, to produce detailed proposals; and I will comment on them when they are produced"—
and he stated that it would be ultimately for Parliament to decide and so on. I am not the least bit clear whether the ombudsman has now commented and, if so, what he said about the present scheme.
One particular aspect of what he said previously in regard to the onus of proof was very clear. He said that in his view the onus of proof should be reversed as to whether someone had been misled and whether they had, as a result, suffered loss. Indeed, the Minister will remember that I moved an amendment at an earlier stage suggesting that at least the first part of that requirement should not hold; that it should be assumed that people had been misled and should be left to prove whether or not they had suffered loss. That amendment was carried in your Lordships' House but reversed in another place.
As I understand it, there is still a group of people who may have been misled, who may have suffered loss and who are not now covered by the Government's proposals. It would seem that the Government are changing their view with regard to the reversal of proof. While obviously a large percentage
934
of the people affected will be covered by what the Government now propose, there would seem to be some people in certain age groups who may still feel that they have been misled and have suffered a loss as a result. Is it the case that if any claims of that kind are put in, the normal procedures for compensation referred to in the ombudsman's report will not apply, but the onus of proof will be reversed? If people in this particular group wish to pursue the matter—there are probably only a small number of them and it is impossible to say whether any of them will wish to pursue the matter—will they be allowed, as the ombudsman originally suggested, to have the onus of proof reversed in regard to any claim that they may make?
I am slightly surprised that in her opening remarks the Minister did not refer to the 5th report of the Public Accounts Committee on Draft Social Security Inherited SERPS Regulations 2001 dated 12th February. It is an important report and I expected the noble Baroness to refer to it.
The Public Accounts Committee raised a number of points which it may be helpful for us to consider and to which the noble Baroness may wish to respond. The committee rightly said, as we have, that it welcomes the proposals which, to a considerable extent, address earlier concerns. That is fair enough. The report then goes on to say at paragraph 6(ii):
"The proposals also provide some comfort to those approaching state pension age, who are likely to have less opportunity to make adjustments"—
and so on. It then goes on:
"Nevertheless, the success of the proposals will depend on the extent to which those within the taper"—
referred to by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks—
"are in practice able to secure appropriate top-up provision should they so wish, and without incurring disproportionate costs".
The PAC gives a specific example of someone who is four years away from retirement, stating that it would expect the department to assess the likely impact on those affected by this situation and (paragraph 17) whether they would be able,
"to obtain cover through life assurance to provide a guaranteed sum on death equivalent, to 20 per cent of their pension, and at what cost".
The committee states again (at paragraph 18) that it recognises that this will provide automatic protection in full or in part for a number of people, but that,
"the draft regulations do not provide details of the proposed compensation arrangements, and it will be essential for the Department to set clear criteria for eligibility for compensation",
and that the department should take into account various factors. The paragraph continues:
"We also expect the Department to continue to recognise that the onus of proof rests with them to demonstrate that an individual was not misled by their advice".
That is the point I was making a moment ago.
Perhaps I may refer to one other passage in the PAC's report. The committee points out that the department accepted its previous recommendation on

935
the importance of people being able to claim redress after most claims have been received, but that the committee remains,
"convinced that, to achieve equity and fairness for all those who may suffer loss as a result of misleading advice from the Department, people are not prevented from seeking compensation by an arbitrary cut-off date".
All these points are important. As I said, we have made considerable improvements in the situation, which, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, arose initially as a result of problems caused when the previous government did not publicise these matters as they should have done; indeed that was continued subsequently, as the Minister knows.
We are making a great deal of progress. However, it would be helpful, in the light of this instrument—which, as I understood it, sought to finalise in effect what the situation now is—if that could be clarified. A great deal of publicity will be necessary if people are not to find themselves in the same situation, which seems increasingly to happen at present, of under-spend on benefits which the Government say they will increase or provide, but which in the event are not taken up to the extent that they ought to be.
Earl Russell: My Lords, parliamentary success stories are not so common that we can afford to let one go by without celebration. This is clearly a parliamentary success story. The Minister has generously thanked other Members of this House for helping to bring it about. I think the Minister must consent to receive thanks as well as to give them. A good House tends to come with a good Minister, and that has certainly been true in this case.
The Minister has fought her corner. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, or I would dispute for a moment that she did so with great vigour. But never for one moment did she continue to defend the indefensible. Being able to do those things together is one of the marks of a good Minister.
The Government improved their offer in ways which are entirely welcome, and they did so as a result of arguments most of which I have heard the Minister advance in this Chamber in response to amendments moved by the noble Lord, Higgins, by me, or by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. I wonder whether the Minister has addressed those arguments to other people as well. I speculate no further, but she may possibly deserve a great deal more credit in this story than anyone will ever know in public.
I am also extremely pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his place. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, have made a long and distinguished contribution on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, took the matter up with a tenacity which has done a great deal to keep it on the agenda right through to the point of completion. We are all very much in his debt.
It is also vital to note that the criticism in this instance came first from the Cross Benches. This has never been properly regarded a party matter. The fact
936
that it came from the noble Lord, who has no party axe to grind, gave it a great deal of weight to which it was entitled but which it might not otherwise have received.
I should also like to acknowledge the contribution of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, whom I am understudying tonight, and of my honourable friends Mr Rendel and Professor Webb. My honourable friends, as well as my noble friends, are delighted by the way in which the matter has been concluded.
It was obvious from the beginning, first, that something was going to have to be done and, secondly, that deciding what should be done was a matter of appalling complexity. That complexity was usefully ventilated in our debates. While I do not think that either I or my honourable friends would want to claim that this solution offers the best of all possible worlds, it is probably the best that is possible in this world. A great deal of work has gone into making it so. All we should properly do now is to offer our thanks to all those concerned, and to welcome the results.
Lord Rix: My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for their warm-hearted remarks about the part that I have been able to play in these proceedings. In truth, it is one of the most rewarding roles that I have ever undertaken and I am glad that it will be appreciated by a huge audience of elderly people, who, I know, will not be getting in on concessions in this particular instance.
In answer to a Question that I asked on 13th April 1999 in relation to inherited SERPS, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said:
"I am not sure that the Labour Government ever expected to reverse the situation back to pre-1986".—[Official Report, 13/4/99; col. 618.]
The Government may not have been expecting, but the noble Baroness, together with her fellow Ministers in the Department of Social Security, aided by their admirable officials and urged on by all sides of your Lordships' House, went on to give birth to, if not exactly a clone of the pre-1986 legislation, then a plump and well-endowed sibling. Perhaps I may offer my congratulations on and sincere thanks for the outcome of such a joyous confinement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not absolutely sure about the noble Lord's final metaphor! However, let me not be churlish in responding to the very kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. None of us has tried to make party-political points, and that is the right way to approach the matter. I shall do my best to respond to the detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
First, the noble Lord asked why we were sending letters to people like him and expressed even greater surprise that one should be sent to his noble friend Lady Blatch. He was puzzled. I think he expected rather different criteria to apply to people who had not paid directly into SERPS. It is because we all have an underlying basic entitlement to SERPS: either people

937
pay into SERPS or the national insurance rebates are put into a private scheme in lieu of SERPS and must reach the minimum standard. A widow, for example, may well receive some SERPS pension, dependent on the inheritance rules of her husband's private pension. Mine is such a case. That is why we went for blanket coverage.
The noble Lord is correct. There is a problem in some cases as regards the accuracy of addresses. Some people have moved on, not necessarily thinking that they were entitled to payment. That may sometimes account for some of the delays.
The second and third points related to the comments of the ombudsman, and in particular to the burden of proof. The ombudsman's original comments were contained in the original proposals that we put forward. I remember vividly the noble Lord pressing me on whether we really thought that this was the global response that the ombudsman demanded.
However, I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware of the ombudsman's press release of 26th February, from which I quote:
"I am satisfied that the Government's proposals are capable of providing a global solution to the problem of making good the effects of past administration. They avoid the difficulty of identifying all those who might have been misled by the Department, and they fully protect the position of those who will already have reached pension age by the time the proposals come into force. They also give time to those approaching pension age to make any adjustments to their financial arrangements".
That is a very positive endorsement from the ombudsman about the scheme in general.
The ombudsman then goes on to talk about the burden of proof. In paragraph 16 of his report on 26th February 2001, the Parliamentary Commissioner said:
"I recognise and accept as in the changed circumstances reasonable that those claiming compensation will need to produce some evidence that they altered their circumstances to their financial detriment as a direct result of incorrect departmental advice and to that extent the burden of proof will fall to the applicant".
Perhaps I may just gloss that in terms of how the department is responding. Then, if the noble Lord wishes, I can enlarge upon my response.
Obviously, the need for documentary evidence to substantiate claims was the focus of much discussion, because we were concerned about telephone calls, people calling in at an office, what would count as such evidence, and so on. Originally, my assurances to the House were made in the context of the old scheme, which provided that the burden of proof was on the department. However, with the new scheme, the burden of proof has rather more fallen on the claimant. Each case is being looked at on its merits, with the circumstances that are particular to it being taken into consideration. We are considering the complete picture. Clearly, documentary evidence helps the decision maker, and provides an assurance that taxpayers' money is being properly disbursed.
However, even though the burden of proof now moves back to the claimant under the new scheme, the guidance recognises that there will be occasions when documentary evidence is not available—for example,
938
due to the passage of time, or the claimant not: recognising the importance of keeping a document that he or she has read. It is for those reasons that we do not insist on documentary evidence as a prerequisite for a successful claim. We do not do so in the normal departmental scheme, and we shall not do so with these cases. As I said, each one is examined on its merits.
Related to that was the follow-on point raised by the noble Lord as regards what would be the position for those who could show that they had been misled—or who believed that they had been misled—and, as a result, had acted to their financial detriment, if I may put it that way. According to the information that I have, if someone wishes to claim compensation under that scheme, he or she would have to come within the framework of the Guide to Financial Redress and Maladministration. The major points that decision makers will have to consider are as follows. First, the applicant must have been misled directly or indirectly by a government source; secondly, the applicant must have taken a decision, or failed to take a decision, as a result of that advice; and, thirdly, the applicant. or the spouse must be likely to suffer a loss as a result of the action, or inaction, taken.
In the light of that, we have so far received 138 claims for financial compensation for redress. We have worked with the Government Actuary's Department to advise on how, actuarially, compensation should be calculated when we accept that a claim is well founded. GAD has provided guidance and a table of factors for use in calculating compensation. The assumptions used to calculate compensation are broadly the same as those used for calculating contracted-out rebate rights, and for valuing SERPS rights on divorce. Such assumptions provide welcome consistency and comparability. We placed this guidance on compensation, the table of factors and an explanation of the matters that GAD are taking into consideration in the Library of the House on 31st January of this year. Therefore, I am happy to have this opportunity to make it clear that that is available for consultation.
So far, compensation to individuals has ranged between £3,000 and £10,000 following that guidance. Moreover, of the cases so far determined, about two-thirds have been successful. I hope that that meets the noble Lord's points in that respect. I give way.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the publicity given to the ombudsman's press release was not as great as it might have been. However, perhaps I may turn to the point of substance. We shall need to read most carefully what the Minister has just said. We recognise that we are dealing very much with the final small group of people who may still feel that they have lost as a result of what happened.
Can the Minister say whether I am right in thinking that the Government accept the point made by the Select Committee, which said that it would also expect the department to continue to recognise that the onus of proof rests with it to demonstrate that an individual was not misled by its advice? That issue been there all the way through the process. The amendment that we

939
voted on and won, and which was reversed in the other place, clearly distinguished between whether people were misled and whether they had suffered loss. The view I have always taken is that they ought not to be obliged to prove the first point. I thought that that was the position of the Minister, which has not really been changed as a result of the new scheme.
There remains a small group of people who are still not covered by the new scheme. I accept that they would need to show that they had suffered loss, but both the Select Committee and I feel that the burden of proof should not be reversed so far as concerns the misleading advice point. I hope that the Government will go along with that view. As the Minister said, we are talking about a very small group of people. Nevertheless, we want to get the position right.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe this to be a grey area. It is question of judgment. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example that I believe was not apocryphal but actually took place. A 24 year-old man came in to the department to say that he was worried about his wife's inherited SERPS. When asked what he had done about it, he said that he had telephoned the local office; when asked which one, he said that he could not remember. However, he lived in Cheltenham and there is only one office in the area. Therefore, in that case, I should not have thought that the burden lay with the department to disprove the claim. It was not a credible case.
I was trying to establish the fact that we moved to the position of it being a balance of probabilities, which does not necessarily require documentary evidence, rather than it being a case of "beyond reasonable doubt". So the burden of proof rests with the claimant. He has to show that it was highly probable that what he is saying is the case; namely, that he was misled and that, as the noble Lord said, what followed as a consequence was financial loss.
The ombudsman's report made it very clear that he recognises—and, as I understand it, he is entirely happy with the position—that the burden of proof has changed as a result of the scheme changing. Look at the difference between the original scheme, and the press release on Volume 2 of his report on 26th February, in which he says:
"I recognise and accept as in the changed circumstances reasonable that those claiming compensation will need to produce some evidence that they altered their circumstances to their financial detriment as a direct result of incorrect departmental advice and that to that extent the burden of proof will fall on the applicant".
That is the department's position, as it is with all other cases; for example, people arguing that they were given misleading information as regards back-dating, and so on. We have now brought this scheme into line with the others produced by the department. I give way.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. However, as this is a matter of £12 billion, I am sure that we both agree that it should not be treated too lightly. The fact that a
940
change was made in that the original discredited scheme was replaced by the new scheme does not alter the issue of the burden of proof as regards those who still feel that they are entitled to compensation. If that is what the ombudsman is saying, I feel bound to comment that I believe he is mistaken.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure that we can take the matter much further. Under the new scheme we have a taper as regards the severity of the cut-off point. The problem with the original scheme was the severity of the cut-off point and the fact that people had no time to make alternative arrangements. The new scheme copes with both those aspects. There is the taper, as well as a period of up to 10 years, at the very least, during which people may make alternative arrangements.
Therefore, as I understand it, the ombudsman is now saying that he believes that the department's approach is a reasonable one; that we shall be looking on the balance of probabilities, rather than the department having to show beyond reasonable doubt that it misled someone; that the person involved suffered financial loss; and that, in those cases, we have responded according to the guidelines laid down by the Government Actuary's Department.
Clearly, as a former Treasury Minister, the noble Lord will recognise that we also have a duty of care to taxpayers whose moneys we are disbursing. The example I gave of the 24 year-old bluntly, so far as I could see, trying it on, is not one into which he could suggest we should bring our high-powered lawyers simply to say that the balance of probabilities is against him. It is not for us to say that that is fundamentally implausible. However, if the noble Lord feels that the department has been less than reasonable in its handling of any individual case, I am more than happy to look into it. That may have to be done on almost an ad hoc basis.
I do not think that I can go beyond the general guidelines I have now given, which conform to the Government's general compensation rules. However, as I say, if the noble Lord feels that the department is behaving unreasonably in any individual case, I should be happy to look into that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Additional Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2001
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have a long speech and a short speech. I shall read out the short speech and mention any points in the long speech if your Lordships wish. I shall speak to the two sets of regulations.
The regulations resulted from the Act passed last summer. As your Lordships will remember, the regulations concern appeals, not claims which remain unaffected. At the moment decisions can be appealed decades after they were made. A decision can be made in the 1950s and someone may appeal against it 40 years later. I believe that your Lordships agreed that it was absurd to have such a long potential period of time between the original claim and its contest and appeal. That is clearly not sensible. In future people will have to appeal against a decision closer to the time it was made so that the circumstances can be fully considered and one is not trying to second-guess decisions that were made 20 or 30 years ago in a very different medical climate.
The extension of appeal rights is intended to provide a clearer, more cohesive and consistent approach to decision-making by giving more war pensioners the opportunity to settle their dispute in a fair, just, impartial manner. A six-month appeal time limit—claims, however, can be made at any time—will ensure that appeals are prepared and heard closer to the time the decisions are made.
The regulations that are before the House set out the finer detail of the extent of those new rights for war pensioners and the grounds under which an appeal may be heard if it is received outside the new time limits. The proposals were taken forward working with the ex-service organisations and in consultation with the president of the Pensions Appeals Tribunal. The majority of our proposals have been welcomed by the war pensions community.
The changes are, of course, being communicated appropriately and widely. For example, we have provided that those war pensioners who received appealable decisions before the new arrangements come into effect on 9th April will have a longer 12 month lead-in period in which to appeal. The War Pensions Agency intends to send notifications to a number of war disablement pensioners and war widows whose decisions were made in the recent past to inform them of the transitional arrangements.
The regulations include, first, late appeals. The draft late appeals regulations before us today provide that a tribunal may prescribe the circumstance and allow an appeal to be brought no later than 12 months after the expiry of the uniform statutory appeal time limit. We provided a generous six month appeal time limit in preference to the one month time limit which appears elsewhere in social security. We have also provided in the regulations some transitional protection to decisions made before the new time limit is commenced next month. Except for those interim decisions that are subject to a three month time limit, claimants who receive a decision before 9th April this year will have a full year from the date of the notification in which to bring an appeal.
Regulation 4 of the late appeals regulations prescribes the situations under which a late appeal may be accepted by tribunals where the claimant was not able to bring the appeal within the time limit but the appeal was none the less brought as soon as was
942
reasonable and practical in the circumstances. For example, the delay could be due to death, a postal strike or exceptional circumstances. Essentially these provisions replace the previous reasonable excuse provisions.
Secondly, we come to the additional rights of appeal. These are intended to provide war pensioners with a right of appeal to the independent tribunals against the majority of war pensions decisions and includes for the first time something which has been widely welcomed; that is, most decisions on the supplementary allowances, which are the major source in some cases of the pension that is paid in addition to the basic war pension. The Government intend that they will be effective for all decisions notified on or after 9th April this year. It is intended that appeals rights will usually extend to war pensions where a decision has been made that refuses or stops an award; sets or changes the amount of an award or sets or varies the date from which the award has effect.
I believe that these regulations are balanced and generous. They have been drawn up in consultation with the organisations concerned. They have been out to extensive consultation with 17 or 18 different organisations. They do not all entirely agree on every point. However, I hope that with those assurances and given the fact that the regulations are benign in intent and are sensible and that we discussed the policy implications last summer your Lordships will feel able to accept the regulations tonight.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved—[8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are grateful for that explanation. I speak totally out of order but on the previous debate I believe that the noble Baroness did not respond to some points on the PAC. I hope that she will reply in writing. However, we very much welcome the regulations that we are discussing. One point arises with regard to waiting times for decisions which I believe can best be addressed as regards the following regulations on which I hope to speak briefly.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought that I was speaking to both sets of regulations. However, I shall move the second set of regulations formally.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, if the noble Baroness spoke to both sets of regulations I raise the question of the impact of the first set of regulations on the second set in as much as I gather that the delays at the moment are considerable although officials aim to reduce the waiting time to 14 weeks. I understand that in 1999–2000 the pensions appeal tribunals reported an average waiting time of 83.5 weeks. That seems a most extraordinary figure; it may be a misprint, in which

943
case the noble Baroness will correct me. What is the current waiting time? I believe that at present it is about 50 weeks.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the latest information I have indicates that it is about a year. We are trying to bring that down for all appeals tribunals.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Late Appeals) Regulations 2001
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved—[8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Defence Service (Choice in Very High Cost Cases) Regulations 2001
8.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach)The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I intend to speak to the three regulations in my name in one debate. I shall move the final two regulations formally.
The first of these regulations, the Criminal Defence Service (Choice in Very High Cost Cases) Regulations, is made under Section 15(5) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. These regulations apply to those criminal cases where a trial is likely to last 25 days or longer, or the defence costs are likely to amount to £150,000 or more. They provide for the selection of a new representative where a right to representation has been granted in a very high cost case and the Legal Services Commission or the current solicitors' firm do not propose to contract with one another.
Your Lordships will note that in Regulation 3(2)(b) the new representation order is to be made in accordance with the Criminal Defence Service (General) Regulations. These regulations have not yet been made because they are reliant, for that part of their vires in relation to advocacy assistance, on the amendments to the Access to Justice Act 1999, being brought in by the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill. We expect this Bill to receive Royal Assent before 2nd April. I repeat that the Government are grateful for the attitude taken by all sides of the House when that Bill was before it. The
944
general regulations can therefore be made so that they will also come into force at the same time as the regulations currently being debated.
Noble Lords may recall that in June last year the Lord Chancellor's Department issued a consultation paper on choice of representative. Following consultation, the proposals were refined. However, those revised proposals do not come under the scope of these regulations, so I do not intend to go into them now. The regulations that I am speaking to provide that if a representation order has been granted for a high cost case and the Legal Services Commission or the current solicitors' firm do not propose to enter into a contract with one another, the Legal Services Commission is no longer required to fund the current solicitors.
There will be two main types of case in which the Legal Services Commission or the solicitors' firm will not want to contract with each other. The first is if the solicitors' firm is not willing to accept the remuneration terms or any other terms on offer from the commission. The second is if the commission does not consider that the firm in question has the skills, experience or organisation to handle the case because of its size or complexity. In those circumstances, the individual who has been granted a representation order can choose another firm from among those who are particularly qualified to undertake the work.
I need say little about the Criminal Defence Service (Representation Order Appeals) Regulations—the second of the regulations before your Lordships' House—save that they safeguard an individual's rights by providing for an appeal process against refusal to grant representation orders. The regulations make provision for appeals against all refusals of applications for and withdrawals of representation orders. Those appeals, which are made by way of a renewed application, are to be made to the body that refused the application or withdrew the order, but will generally go to the next tier up. In a magistrates' court, a refusal by the justice's clerk will be dealt with by the district judge on appeal. There is no limit on the number of times that an individual can renew his application.
The last of the three orders required for the Criminal Defence Service is the code of conduct. Section 16 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 requires the Legal Services Commission to prepare a code of conduct to be observed by public defenders employed by the Legal Services Commission. The Act sets out clearly what must be included in the code. It covers duties to avoid discrimination and to protect the interests of the individual for whom services are provided, duties to the court, duties to avoid conflicts of interest and duties of confidentiality. There are also duties on employees who are members of a professional body to comply with the rules of that body.
In June last year the commission prepared a code, which was sent out for consultation. It included all the duties to which I have referred. Fourteen responses were received. In the light of those responses, the commission redrafted the code. The Bar Council and

945
Law Society were further consulted and subsequent revisions were made. On 12th March, the Government's conclusions following consultations were published.
The code of conduct demonstrates our intention that the highest ethical standards should apply and be seen to apply to lawyers employed by the commission. It is most important that the commission should uphold the highest standards of the legal profession. Defendants are entitled to expect no less. It is certainly no part of our plans for the public defender service to provide a second-rate service. On the contrary, we believe that public defenders will provide a benchmark of quality and cost against which other defence lawyers can be judged.
The Government are grateful to those who responded to the consultation paper before we prepared the final version of the code. We are particularly grateful to the Bar Council and the Law Society for their valuable contributions. They have been consulted twice. The Law Society wanted one minor amendment included. The Bar Council made no further submissions after receiving the final draft. Both bodies would have liked more time to consider the code, but as far as we know they are both satisfied with the content.
I shall not deal with every clause in the code, but I shall refer to the more important ones and some of the amendments that we have made following consultation. The introduction and definitions describe who should observe the code. The definitions have been expanded to clarify that the code covers not just public defenders, but all employees of the commission or of any other body established by the commission who are employed at an office that provides services as part of the Criminal Defence Service—in other words, at a public defender office. Those who have read the code will see that "employee" and "professional employee" are defined in the introduction, because it is a code for all those employed in public defender offices, whether lawyers or not. Parts of the code apply to them in turn.
Several respondents to the consultation raised the applicability of the code to people who are not members of the Bar or the Law Society but are employed by the commission and may have to give advice. The suggestion has been accepted and the definition of "professional employee" has been extended to include any person employed by the commission who may give legal advice directly to clients. That is important, because, for example, a clerk may on occasions attend a police station and have to give immediate advice to clients. Of course people will be under the supervision of qualified employers, but we intend to make it clear that the duties set out in the code apply to them.
Paragraph 1, on the relationship with other professional codes of conduct, has been added specifically to deal with the concerns raised about the code's relationship with other professional codes. It requires the commission to appoint a head of the professional service whose task is to interpret and
946
provide guidance on the code. We envisage that in the longer term the head of the professional service will be a full-time appointment, though for the period of the pilots the commission member who will undertake that role will be a part-time appointment.
The new paragraph makes it clear that the code does not override existing professional codes of practice, but expressly requires that, where applicable, they are followed. The code also requires that it is interpreted compatibly with other professional codes as far as possible. When an issue of interpretation between two codes arises, the code provides that the professional head of service should resolve it.
Paragraph 2 deals with the duty to protect the interests of the client as far as that is consistent with any duties to the court and any other rules of professional conduct. Paragraph 2.2 says:
"A professional employee shall not put a client under pressure to plead guilty".
That should be taken as meaning that undue or inappropriate pressure should not be used. Public defenders may well have a duty in individual cases to give strong and robust advice to their client, just as anyone who has practised in the criminal courts as a solicitor or barrister has given robust and strong advice to their clients from time to time. The code takes effect when that becomes undue or inappropriate pressure. That is the experience of those in private practice.
Paragraph 5 deals expressly with the duty of confidentiality between the employee and the client and the circumstances in which that duty can be overridden, such as when any statutory provision or court order so provides. In response to a concern, this section has been amended so that a duty of confidentiality now expressly applies throughout the public defender service. All employees are caught by the clause.
Paragraph 12 is headed, "Public interest disclosure". A criminal lawyer might say that it was not what he or she would understand by public interest disclosure, but this is a code for employees of the public defender service. Public interest disclosure is exactly what the clause is about. It could be called the whistleblowing clause. It sets out the employee's duty to report if he believes that he is being required to act in a way which is, for example, illegal or unethical or is otherwise inconsistent with this code or the commission's staff code of conduct.
Paragraph 12.1 has been amended to make clear that the trigger for these provisions is an act by the commission rather than by the client. The reporting mechanism has been amended in response to concerns raised on consultation. The professional head of service is now required to carry out an investigation and make a report to the commission.
I deal finally with paragraph 13. Excessive caseload has featured in many of our debates in relation to a salaried defender service and it is covered by this clause. I can repeat that, for our part, we have no interest in underfunding this service. However, it is right that the issue should be addressed in the code.

947
The new paragraph reflects concerns about excessive caseloads and includes a positive duty not to accept additional cases beyond reasonable capacity to deal with them. The reporting requirements have been strengthened.
That is all that I want to say in speaking about these three instruments. I commend the first set of regulations to the House and hope that they will be accepted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
9 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, with regard to the first set of regulations—the Criminal Defence Service (Choice in Very High Cost Cases) Regulations—a word of explanation would be helpful. Whereas there does not appear to be anything that causes difficulty in the regulations in themselves, do they conceal the fact that there is a problem in changing representation where the Criminal Defence Service is employed, save in very high cost cases? In other words, is there no choice unless a case comes within the definition of a very high cost case? I should be grateful for the assistance of the Minister on that point.
So far as concerns the second set of regulations, the provision of appeals is, of course, to be welcomed, and I have no further comment to make.
On the other hand, the code of conduct seems to be fundamentally flawed. It does no service whatever to the concept of the Criminal Defence Service—something against which I have spoken on many occasions. However, I do not want to weary your Lordships further with my objections in principle to the Criminal Defence Service.
In introducing the code, the noble Lord said that it was necessary for the Legal Services Commission to prepare a code of conduct,
"to be observed by public defenders".
He said that the purpose was for the defence service to ensure the highest ethical standards by lawyers employed by the commission. That I understand and fully appreciate.
He then went on to tell us that, following consultation, the code had been expanded to cover all employees. Once that is done, the drafting of the code contains many nonsensical parts. The definition of "employee" has been expanded to include anyone who is employed at an office from which advice, assistance and representation is provided to clients as part of the Criminal Defence Service. That includes, of course, the receptionist, the man who guards the door, the typist, and so on.
It seems to be quite wrong in principle that a code which is intended to uphold the highest standards for lawyers in the Criminal Defence Service should be mixed up with a series of rules which are designed for every employee, however lowly, within that service. It
948
causes problems. When one considers the definition of "professional employee", which means any person, whether or not qualified as a solicitor or barrister or otherwise, one must ask what on earth is meant by the words "or otherwise". Why use the words "professional employee" if that means a person who is not qualified professionally, as is a solicitor or barrister? It strikes me that that confuses the issue seriously.
Drafting errors appear throughout. The second sentence of paragraph 2.1, for example, states:
"Subject to this, a professional employee shall do his or her utmost to promote and work for the best interests of the client".
What is meant by "this"? Does it mean the primary duty of a professional employee or should it read "these", referring to the,
"duties owed to the court and any other rules of professional conduct"?
Paragraph 3.2 simply states that:
"A professional has a duty to maintain his or her professional independence".
Presumably that refers to a professional employee. Why should paragraph 3.1 refer to an "employee" and paragraph 3.2 to a "professional employee"? That is an example of the way in which those duties are mixed up as a result of the expansion of the code.
So far as concerns Clause 4, a fundamental error of principle appears in paragraph 4.1. I do not propose to expand upon it because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is aware of the criticisms that have been made from these Benches in relation to that. I am sure that steps will be taken to deal with it.
The duty of confidentiality, referred to in Clause 5, applies to an employee. It applies to the typist and the receptionist, and so on. In the whole history of the legal profession, there has never been a need to include the typist and the receptionist, and so on, within the professional codes which pertain to qualified lawyers.
Paragraph 6.1 states that:
"An employee shall never deceive or recklessly or knowingly mislead the court".
One wonders how on earth a person who is employed at the lower end of the Criminal Defence Service can be in a position to mislead the court, because there will, in any event, be no rights of representation by that person in the court.
I shall take one or two further points—paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4—together. Paragraph 7.3 is subject to paragraph 7.4 and provides that a professional employee must not have a conflict of interest between the interests of a particular client and any other client of the salaried service. However, paragraph 7.4 states:
"If the conflict arises between two or more clients the professional employee may continue to act for one client provided the salaried service is not in possession of relevant confidential information obtained whilst acting for the other client or clients".
One can envisage a very common situation of two or more people charged within a single indictment and both being represented, at least initially, by the Criminal Defence Service. There may be a cut-throat defence between them. The CDS will clearly have confidential information for both clients, who are in

949
conflict. The proposal will permit the CDS to act for one of those clients, and the other would be cast into what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would regard as the outer darkness of the profession, which normally supplies services for such people.
Paragraph 7.5 states:
"If a professional employee ceases to act for a client due to a conflict of interest, then he or she has a duty to refer the client to another representative".
Does that mean a parliamentary or a legal representative? What is meant by that word? It is simply bad drafting.
Paragraph 10.1 refers to a client wishing to change "legal representative". Surely the last word should be, "representation".
Paragraph 11.1 states:
"A professional employee shall cease to act for a client where …continuing to act would cause him or her to be professionally embarrassed within the meaning of the applicable professional code of conduct".
What does that mean? If "a professional employee" includes somebody who is not professionally qualified, what professional code of conduct would apply to him? It is a nonsense.
Paragraph 12 is entitled, "Public Interest Disclosure". I heard the Minister's explanation of that heading. The code of conduct has clearly not been drafted by a lawyer. Perhaps the first thing that the CDS should do is to employ a lawyer in order to draft it properly. We all know what "public interest disclosure" is in the criminal law; it has a very clear meaning. But it is used entirely wrongly in this context. "Disclosure in the public interest", if a whistle-blowing operation is involved, might be a way of curing the problem.
Paragraph 12.3 states:
"This provision does not override the rules of professional privilege".
The correct expression should be, "legal professional privilege".
I have many other criticisms of the code's drafting. For example, paragraph 15.2, refers to:
"A complaint against a professional employee may be dealt with under the procedure laid down by his or her professional body, as well as under the procedure in paragraph 15/".
What does that mean? It suggests that a professional lawyer employed by the defence service will be disciplined by his own profession and by the defence service itself. Is that really the intention behind that provision?
I respectfully suggest to the Minister that if the CDS is to have any credibility whatsoever, this dreadfully badly drafted document, which would not pass muster in the first six months of a pupillage, should be taken back and done properly.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Minister said, when he introduced the code of conduct, that it had been
950
seen by the Bar Council and that the council had declared itself satisfied with the text. That is not my understanding.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I said that that was my understanding. I was very careful to say that that was my understanding. I hope that the noble Lord will quote me correctly if he is going to quote me.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am much obliged for that clarification.
I understand that the Bar Council responded to the noble Lord's department on 22nd February and that it was given no more than three days' notice of having to do so. I have what I understand to be a copy of the comments of the Bar Council before me. I shall quote from the second half of the first paragraph of that document. It states:
"In our view, the existing draft contains such substantial defects that it needs major work to improve it so that it properly reflects the existing duties of advocates and ensures that clients of the CDS are not likely to suffer from a second class service with advocates under lesser duties than their competitors in private practice"—
Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord agrees that the draft that the Bar Council is referring to is not the code of conduct that we are considering tonight. There have been meetings since the note that he mentioned. It is important to make it clear that the document refers to a different draft from that which is before the House tonight.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to finish the quotation. The document goes on,
"and avoids confusion between the duties of lawyers to the CDS and to their professional body".
The Minister said that the draft has been improved since then. In view of the Bar Council's comments, it would have had to have been dramatically transformed to satisfy the criticism that was laid down by it. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the improvement of the text by the noble Lord's department since 22nd February is nothing other than marginal.
I should like to add two comments to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said. May I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 1 of the code of conduct entitled "The Relationship with other Professional Codes of Conduct"? In paragraph 1.1 we find the following expression:
"An employee who is a member of a professional body shall comply with the rules of conduct of and have regard to any guidance issued by that body."
The first sentence of paragraph 1.3 reads:
"This Code applies in addition to any professional 01 staff code that binds an employee".
The final sentence of paragraph 1.3 reads:
"So far as it is possible to do so, this Code must be interpreted in a way which is compatible with other professional codes".

951
Perhaps I may ask the Minister what he thinks should happen if it were not possible to make the code of conduct compatible with the professional code of either the Bar or the Law Society. In those circumstances which set of rules would prevail? Would it be the professional rules or the rules laid down in the code of conduct?
My other observations concern remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the definition of professional employee. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, part of the code applies to employees and part only to professional employees. For example, paragraph 2.1, which concerns the primary duty to the client, applies only to professional employees. In the definition section of the code, a professional employee is,
"any person, whether or not qualified as a solicitor or barrister or otherwise, who is employed by the Commission or a body established by the Commission under S.13(2)(d) and S.14(2)(d) of the Act to provide advice, assistance or representation to clients".
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out that on the face of it the interpretation of this definition is ambiguous because the expression "or otherwise" might apply either to other professionally qualified individuals or to non-professionally qualified individuals.
In either case, that expression will not apply to individuals who come within the code of conduct of the Bar or the code of conduct of the Law Society. In those circumstances, individuals who are neither barristers nor solicitors but who are employed by the Criminal Defence Service will be giving advice to clients on the basis of a different code from the advice given to clients by professionals in the private sector. I regard that as a serious matter because, in my judgment, the code of conduct that your Lordships have before you tonight is neither as precisely drafted as the professional codes of the respective professions to which I have referred nor does it set standards as high as two codes.
I hear the Minister saying, off stage, "Yes, it does". The Minister has listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said. I do not intend to repeat his speech; it would be impertinent of me to do so. I feel that if the Minister thinks the code meets the Bar Council code he ought to go away, having withdrawn the code from the House, and have something drafted in a great deal more detail.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for commenting on the code. But I can hardly accuse either of them of showing great generosity towards it. It may be that their distaste for the principle of the public defender slightly clouds their judgment about this code—though they will probably deny that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, that is a grossly unworthy remark of the Minister. Is he not ashamed of this code?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not the slightest bit ashamed of the code. As I said, it may be that the noble
952
Lords' judgment is clouded to some extent by their dislike of the public defender service, which was set up as the result of an Act of Parliament passed some years ago and which is now coming into force. Using their considerable speaking skills honed in the courts—nothing wrong with that—they sought to destroy this code in what I consider to be a grossly unfair way.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. There have been a number of occasions on which your Lordships' House has had to consider matters connected with the Criminal Defence Service since the passage of the Access to Justice Act. It would be fair to say, were the Minister to look back at the speeches made on those occasions, that noble Lords from both these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches always stated, first, that they were opposed to the principle, but then went on to deal with the measure before them on its merits.
That is the basis upon which I approached this measure tonight. I made no peroration at the beginning of my intervention about being opposed to the Criminal Defence Service. I approached the regulations as they arrived in front of me. I hope the Minister will accept that and withdraw his opening comments.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I certainly accept what the noble Lord said. I do not withdraw anything that I said at the start of my reply and I do not feel that I should. No doubt some criticisms of this code can be well made. But to hear the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, effectively point out dots and commas does not do him much credit.
Let me deal with some of the issues raised. First, in relation to the question on high cost cases, which seems on the face of it to be a fairly uncontroversial order, it is not some sort of hidden band wagon to suggest that all ability to change representation has disappeared. Regulations are being prepared on that subject and there will continue to be a choice in various circumstances; for example, where there is substantial compelling reason or a breakdown in professional relationships. It will always be up to the court to decide whether or not to grant a change. I hope that gives the noble Lord some comfort.
As to the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the code sets a lower standard, I emphasise that this code does not displace the professional codes; they still apply. This code supplements them. There are no lower standards. Some of the criticisms made have been because we included some matters in this code to deal with some of the criticisms levelled against the whole idea of a public defender service. That is exactly why they were included in this measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked what would happen if it were not possible to maintain some compatability with the professional codes in a specific instance. The professional head of service is required to adjudicate and interpret the code in a way which is compatible with other professional codes. He can also consult the relevant professional bodies in accordance

953
with paragraph 1.3 of the code. That is something he would do if he was faced with this position. It would then be for him to decide in the specific case which of the two codes should prevail. We do not believe that will happen. This code was carefully drawn up with the professional. codes in mind and, indeed, in some instances—including one which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, criticised—it follows almost word for word the Bar conduct code which is something he has followed for many years in his practice.
The code is criticised for including "employee" as well as "professional employee". We believe that we were right to change the code to include both. Criticism has been made of the fact that a public defender service may be in cahoots with the Crown Prosecution Service and that any information coming to a public defender service office would somehow find its way to the Crown Prosecution Service. Those criticisms have been made in this House and elsewhere at other times. In order to meet those criticisms, we have made it abundantly clear in this code that employees of the criminal defence service shall be subject to various duties, one of which is the important duty of confidentiality. Let us briefly consider the clauses that cover all employees. All employees are covered in Clause 3.1, which states:
"An employee shall act with honesty and integrity in carrying out his or her duties on behalf of the salaried service. He or she must never knowingly or recklessly give false or misleading information".
Is criticism seriously made of the inclusion of that clause in the code of conduct for employees of the Criminal Defence Service?
Clause 4.1, which deals with the duty to act impartially and to avoid discrimination, covers all employees.
Clause 5 1 deals with the duty of confidentiality—a matter of great importance, in the light of the criticisms that have been made of this proposed service. I believe that we were absolutely right to make it clear, both from the employees' point of view and from their clients' point of view, that the operation of a public defender service would be no different from that provided by private solicitors' offices around the country. I therefore reject that criticism out of hand.
Perhaps the most amazing criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is that of Clause 7.4, which deals with a conflict arising between two or more clients:
"the professional employee may continue to act for one client provided the salaried service is not in possession of relevant confidential information obtained whilst acting for the other client or clients".
That is precisely what happens in private solicitors' practices. Of course, if one solicitor has two clients at an early stage and it becomes clear that a cut-throat defence is likely to develop between them, he has a duty to get rid of both clients if he has information on either of them which may be used in the other's defence. That is exactly what will apply to a public defender.
954
It may be that no confidential information will be available to a public defender, who may have picked up his clients at the police station on the night of the alleged offence, as private solicitors do, and will therefore have two clients for the time being. But his duty is clear. At the point at which he realises that there is a conflict between the two, it is his duty to give up the case if he has any relevant confidential information. I therefore believe that the noble Lord's criticism of Clause 7.4 is misplaced.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am interested in the Minister's reply. Since I am presently involved in a 12-handed case, let us assume that one person is represented by the Criminal Defence Service. Does the Minister's reply mean that the other 11 cannot be, or does it mean that one can be represented by one office of the Criminal Defence Service and that another can be represented by somebody from a different office?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I read paragraph 7(4), the office in question is relevant. However, I shall have to consider the matter and write to the noble Lord about it. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said from her seated position and I am surprised that with her experience she speaks like that in the House. But that is a matter for her.
The answer is that, as with a private solicitor's firm, it will be the duty of the salaried defence office to get rid of one of the clients if there is a conflict of interest, but to get rid of both of them if he has confidential information, in exactly the same way as a private solicitor would have to. As there is likely to be one public defender's office in a particular town, it would appear that if he had 12 he would have to give up all but one, but if he had confidential information on any of them he would have to give them all up.
The point I seek to make is that that is exactly in line with what has happened in private practice for years and years. It is because we want to follow that system that we have adopted it in this way.
I referred to Clause 12, the whistle-blowing clause, which was criticised from a lawyer's point of view. I want to make it absolutely clear that although there are in the code phrases which should not appear—phrases which the printers have not taken out—they will not appear when the code is given to the employees of the Criminal Defence Service. However, the law says that once the code is laid it must stay as it is. I take the minor drafting points that have been made.
However, I reject whole-heartedly the suggestion that the code is unfit for the emergence of the Criminal Defence Service. The code has been consulted on widely and I understand that both the Law Society and the Bar Council, although no doubt like noble Lords opposite they have reservations about the principle of a public defence service—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, has the Minister received comments from those professional bodies since he expanded the code to include what is

955
essentially a staff code within its provisions? We now have a staff code and a professional code mixed up together. That is my basic criticism of it.
Lord Bach: My Lords, in my view, it is a very unfair and misplaced criticism. The code is for all employees of the Criminal Defence Service. We have sent out final drafts and we have had no response. I do not want to put it higher than that. We have had no response, so my understanding is that there is no severe criticism of the code from either of those two bodies. If I am wrong about that, I shall immediately make that clear.
Therefore, I was surprised to hear such criticism levelled at the code by noble Lords on the Opposition Benches. I was surprised in one sense but not in another. I repeat what I said at the beginning: it is the Government's view that the code is being criticised mainly because there is disapproval of the idea behind it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the Minister completes his comments, perhaps I may assure him that if we are to have a Criminal Defence Service, and we have been through all that, it must reach the highest professional standards. In the 12-handed case to which I referred, it would be wrong for different standards to apply to the first defendant as apply to the other 11. My criticisms are directed to suggesting to the Minister that he produces a professional code for the Criminal Defence Service which is worthy of that service.
I assure the Minister that I do not come from the standpoint of being totally opposed to the Criminal Defence Service in any way. If we have to have the service—and I made my criticisms about it—for heaven's sake, make it work.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that we can make it work, and that is what the professional code does. This professional code will deal with situations that those who work for public defenders will meet. Criticism that it does not do so is unfair and misplaced.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Defence Service (Representation Order Appeals) Regulations 2001
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Conduct for Employees of the Legal Services Commission who provide services as part of the Criminal Defence Service
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the code of conduct laid before the House on 6th March be approved.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the code of conduct laid before the House on 6th March be approved.—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Amendment of Schedule 18) (England) Order 2001
9.36 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion perhaps I may first draw to your Lordships' attention a typographical error in the draft order. Under the heading "Transitional provisions", paragraph 6(3)" should read "8(3)". This does not affect the meaning of the draft order. A corrigendum was placed in the Printed Paper Office on Monday. I apologise for that error.
The proposals before the House seek to amend Schedule 18 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Section 67 of, and Schedule 18 to, the Act govern appeals against exclusion of pupils. Paragraph 18 of the schedule empowers my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to amend the schedule if necessary. Your Lordships will be aware that schools can permanently exclude pupils when serious indiscipline occurs. The 1998 Act contains safeguards for schools, children and parents. Under the Act, the process of exclusion begins with the head teacher's decision, which must then be reviewed by the school governors. Where the governors uphold the exclusion but the parent remains unhappy, the final safeguard is an independent appeal. All these steps are governed by a statutory timetable that is designed to ensure rapid decisions.
This amendment concerns exceptional cases where there is good reason to delay the decision process. The circumstance we most want to provide for is where the excluded pupil is also subject to criminal proceedings. The amendment itself is quite straightforward. Paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 18 currently provides that parents of permanently excluded pupils, or excluded pupils themselves if they are aged 18 or over, may ask the local education authority to set a date for the hearing of their appeal that is later than the statutory latest date, which is 15 school days after the appeal is lodged. We propose to repeal this narrow provision and replace it with a broader one through new paragraph 10(3), which will give the panel itself a

957
general power to adjourn. The effect would be that in all cases the local education authority would have to convene an exclusion appeal hearing within 15 school days of the parent lodging an appeal. However, in certain circumstances the panel may decide to adjourn the hearing to a later date.
One example of a possible adjournment is where a parent requests a delay in exceptional circumstances—a situation for which paragraph 8(3) currently provides. At present, the local education authority can agree to give the parent more time. Under the new provision, the panel could agree to allow the parent more time by adjourning. The effect here will be essentially exactly the same as now: parents will still be able to ask for more time if there is good reason. They may need more time to prepare a more effective case; they may be waiting for new evidence, such as a medical report; there may be domestic reasons, such as illness or bereavement; or perhaps a witness cannot attend the hearing.
However, the principal reason for the proposed change is the situation, which unfortunately occurs from time to time, where the excluded pupil is also facing criminal proceedings arising from the same incident as led to the exclusion. I am talking about an incident in school where the head teacher has good reason to exclude but where at the same time or later the police are called in to investigate the incident. In some cases the police investigation may be inconclusive or may lead to the pupil being cautioned. But in other cases the police may decide that there is enough evidence to prosecute.
In these cases a difficulty can arise—as happened in a case last year—that the statutory timetable for the review of the exclusion by the discipline committee and then by the appeal panel moves faster than the timescale in which the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts resolve the matter.
A permanent exclusion case takes about 45 school days to reach the appeal stage, but the time needed for the police to investigate, for charges to be brought and for the courts to rule is sometimes longer than that. In that situation, which is exceptional, we want panels to have the option of adjourning to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings. It will depend on the circumstances of each case whether an adjournment is appropriate and for how long. But panels will want to reduce the risk, not only of prejudice to the criminal proceedings but of their decision turning out to be inconsistent with the outcome of those proceedings.
We shall need to give schools and local education authorities guidance on the circumstances in which the panel might appropriately use the power to adjourn. Where panels adjourn, local authorities continue to have a duty to provide suitable education outside school—which must be full-time by 2002—for any child excluded for 15 days or more. Within 15 days of the head teacher excluding a child, the governors' discipline committee must meet to decide whether to uphold the exclusion. If it decides to confirm the exclusion, the local authority must immediately arrange to assess the pupil's needs and how to meet
958
them, irrespective of any subsequent appeal or adjournment. So, while the order will allow adjournment of the appeal against exclusion, it will not allow authorities to delay making alternative education provision for the child.
If the House does not approve the order, we shall be left in the present unsatisfactory situation that the only means whereby an appeal panel can adjourn is by inviting the parent to ask for an adjournment. That may work in some cases, but the panel is put in a difficult position if the parent insists on the appeal going ahead whatever the circumstances, including those circumstances where court proceedings are known to be pending. The draft order before the House is a positive measure which will improve the legislation governing school exclusion. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out an explanation of the order. The order, which amends Schedule 18 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, allows the appeals panel to adjourn an appeal hearing for the parents of a permanently excluded child. The proposal replaces the right of parents and, in some cases, pupils to request an adjournment.
The reasons given by the Minister are persuasive and the case for flexibility is well made. Nevertheless, there are some residual areas of concern. First, for example, there will be delays in court proceedings, during which temporary arrangements will have to be made for the pupil. Secondly, tension may be caused where a parent may oppose a first, second or subsequent adjournment.
The Minister in another place suggested that a parent could invoke tribunal proceedings. Is that sensible? There could be three procedures in play: the appeal which stands adjourned, the court proceedings and a tribunal. If such a situation were to come about, would the best interests of the child really be served?
Thirdly, why is there no limit on the length of adjournment? I accept that attempts are being made to speed up the youth justice system; nevertheless, cases can run on for many months and decisions on the future of a pupil should be made in a reasonable time-scale.
Fourthly, the independence of a decision taken by the appeals panel to do what is in the interests of the school and the pupil is paramount, irrespective of any outcome from the court proceedings. I should like an assurance from the Minister that that will be the case. Finally, why is there no time limit on that time which elapses following conclusive court proceedings?
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches thank the Minister for setting out so clearly the case for the order. By and large, I welcome the order. It seems to be a fairly

959
sensible move. However, I want to raise two points which to some extent reiterate the points already made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
First, is there any limit to the number of adjournments that may be called? Can an appeal be put off time and time again? That would not be in the interests of the child. Secondly, where an appeal is adjourned, we have real concerns about the kind of education that the pupil will be receiving. The noble Lord has given us some assurance that after 2003 it will be a full-time education. I hope that that will be so. One comes across too many cases where the local authority is providing just two or three hours of education a week, particularly when cases are pending. That is not good enough if it goes on for a long period of time.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I think that it is common ground that the time when pupils are either suspended or excluded from school is one at which many criminal careers start. Those unfortunate pupils go on from bad to worse. I was therefore glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, say that there would be no delay in the provision of alternative education. However, it may be that that will not be fully available throughout England and Wales until 2003. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify that point. Will he also welcome the partnerships between statutory and voluntary organisations which are already proving their worth, to my knowledge, in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast? Is that perhaps the right way to go about making full provision for these excluded and suspended children in England and Wales?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the broad welcome given to the order and shall do my best to answer the questions that have been appropriately asked. I take entirely the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp. It is of the greatest importance that the education of the child should reach the highest possible standard during the period of time when the child is excluded from school. I mentioned the date of 2002 when we expect to have full-time provision instead of what we all know has in the past been inadequate part-time provision for excluded students. That is an important principle behind the concept of fairness and the obligation on the local authority to meet the educational needs of the student irrespective of the fact that the institution in which he or she has been educated may not be appropriate, either in the short term or more permanently, as a result of decisions on exclusion. Thus, on the issue of schools and the interests of pupils—I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stressed the matter in those terms—education must be kept very much to the fore with regard to this process.
As regards the more detailed questions put to me, it is the case that the provision would allow multiple adjournments to be called. In doing that, the panel would not know in every case the end date to which it
960
should adjourn. For that reason, it would adjourn for what it regarded as a reasonable time, but then perhaps discover that, for reasons outside its control, the original reason for the adjournment had not yet been resolved. For that reason, within the framework of the order, the power is in place for the panel to call multiple adjournments.
However, each adjournment must pass the test of reasonableness. In taking the decision to adjourn, the panel will be expected to be reasonable in its decision. We expect this power to be exercised well and we do not expect the panels involved here to do anything except to consider the interests both of the school and of the child.
Parents will have the right to make their representations to the panel before it decides to adjourn. If a repetition of adjournment arises, on each occasion the test of reasonableness will come into play. Furthermore, if the child concerned is a person of 18 or over, he will be able to ascertain for himself whether that test has been met.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about the number of judgments which may be pending and the number of education authorities which may have outstanding appeals panels and court proceedings. I should imagine that only in exceptional circumstances—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that would be inevitable. If an appeals panel were standing adjourned, and if a court proceeding were in place and the parent objected to the delay, then the Minister in another place pointed out that the resort for the parent would be to a tribunal. Thus one could have a tribunal, a court proceeding and an appeals panel standing adjourned.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in such a case, one would envisage that the decision of the tribunal would turn on whether the adjournment effected by the panel was in fact reasonable. It would focus on that decision rather than on the final decision with regard to the case.
I see that I have not entirely satisfied the noble Baroness on that point, for which I apologise. Perhaps I may clarify the situation further in writing. However, that is how I understand the position.
Perhaps I may assure all noble Lords that the policy within which this order fits is one where we are seeking to ensure that the number of exclusions is reduced. I am happy to report that that is presently the case: the numbers being excluded are in decline. Nevertheless a certain number of cases will always arise. The point of this order is to ensure that, as far as possible, the system which deals with the process of exclusion is as fair and appropriate as possible. Perhaps I may reiterate the assurance I gave in my opening remarks; it is intended that the education of the young person concerned should be sustained at the highest possible level during the period that the difficulties are being worked through.

961
Although the change envisaged in the order is technical, it is nevertheless important. I am grateful for the indications of support from all parts of the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he can clarify one point. If a case was taking too long, would an appeals panel be free to come to a final conclusion on the case, irrespective of whether the case was continuing?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the answer to that is affirmative. However, I think we all recognise that the purpose behind the order is to obviate the very difficult circumstances where a judgment, taken in all honesty and appropriately by the panel, is athwart a subsequent judgment by a court, leading to very obvious difficulties.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2001
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be agreed.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Haslar Prison
9.55 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what were their reasons for deciding not to renew the appointments of three members of the board of visitors at Haslar Prison in the triennial review on 31st December 2000.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords and to the Minister, who have stayed until this late hour to deal with a very important question—one which affects not only Haslar but has implications for the management and support of boards of visitors as a whole.
Let me start by acknowledging that there was a breakdown in relations between the governor, Mr McAlley, and the board of visitors at Haslar. Matters came to a head in May last year, three months after his arrival at the prison, when the board decided unanimously to conduct a race relations survey at Haslar on the lines of NACRO's prisons and race survey. The idea was approved by the Minister when he met the chair, Katheryn Harrison, on 23rd May.
However, when she tried to see the governor to discuss the arrangements with him, he was too busy. She therefore dealt with his deputy. The governor,
962
however, was violently opposed to the idea and wrote to Ms Harrison, on 8th June, saying that he viewed her conduct as,
"underhand, subversive and a blatant attempt to undermine my authority as governor".
He concluded:
"You will not, under any circumstances"—
which was underlined—
"conduct a survey of the detainees at Haslar".
Ms Harrison replied that the board had every right to carry out the survey, and the Minister also intervened, causing Mr McAlley to back off, two days before the survey, when he wrote to Ms Harrison asking how she wished to proceed on the Sunday and what he could do to help. Almost immediately afterwards he wrote to all members of the board, reverting to the stand he had taken before and insinuating that the operation was being undertaken without the Minister's knowledge or approval.
On 23rd June, when the survey was published, the governor wrote to the board urging them to withdraw it, and threatening that if they did not he would signal to the Secretary of State that,
"I find your continued presence in my establishment intolerable".
He accused the authors of lying; and he insinuated that they had padded the survey with extra forms which had not been completed by or on behalf of inmates. Two members of the board then resigned, cowed by the governor's threats and wild insinuations.
On 4th July, one of the members made a formal complaint against Mr McAlley's behaviour over the survey, saying that he had interfered with the board's statutory responsibilities. Here I should like to ask the Minister to state unequivocally that the plain meaning of the rules is that boards of visitors may conduct surveys of this kind.
The complaint also stated that members of the Haslar board had been subjected to bullying and intimidation by the governor and that the governor had made libellous statements about one member of the board.
Four other complaints of bullying and intimidation were made against Mr McAlley during his short tenure of the governorship of Haslar. One investigation found that officers,
"have been caused stress, embarrassment, humiliation and discomfort"—
Further, that the governor,
"failed to effectively undertake these critical duties—
those were the duties specified in Combating Harassment and Discrimination—
"all the more of a failing given his position as a Governing Governor".
The inquiry recommended that Mr McAlley be posted to a job where he could receive closer managerial supervision than is provided to a governing governor—in other words, he should not be appointed to such a position and, in the meanwhile, he should receive,
"support, guidance and training in order to overcome his perceived shortcomings in Personnel Management".
Did any of this get through to Mr Paul Boateng at the triennial review; and was he made aware of the unique circumstances in which the governor had been simultaneously under investigation following complaints by the chairman of the POA, senior management and a member of the board of visitors?
Afterwards, in October, Mr McAlley was transferred to another position and the staff have since been informed that Mr Bennetts, the Governor of Shepton Mallett, is to take his place. Will the Minister tell the House when Mr Bennetts will take up this appointment, bearing in mind the frequent warnings of the Chief Inspector against leaving establishments without a governing governor?
I believe that the Minister received an incomplete and tendentious account of events at the prison from the board of visitors secretariat, and that this was the real reason for the decision not to reappoint the three members. The briefing drew heavily on the inquiry into the complaint made by one of the three—an investigation which, as I shall show, was flawed by irregularity and unlawfulness.
In the first place, the chair of another board was appointed to the inquiry panel, the first and only time that it has ever happened in such an investigation, clearly showing that an ulterior purpose not mentioned in the official terms of reference was in mind. Will the Minister tell the House at whose instigation that happened? Who nominated Mr Foster, and was he on the database of trained investigators maintained by the investigation coordination unit?
Secondly, it became apparent from a list of 78 questions notified to the Haslar chair by the lead investigating officer, Governor Max Morrison, that it was the intention to probe the conduct of the board members, and not that of Mr McAlley. Any such inquiry ought properly to have been conducted under DC4/99, the document setting out the procedure for dealing with complaints about the conduct of a member of a board of visitors. That contains a number of procedural safeguards which were circumvented by dealing with the complaints under the pretence of inquiring into a complaint against the governor. The area manager herself mentioned DC4/99 in a letter to the Haslar chair, so she was well aware of the distinction.
Thirdly, PSO 1300—the instruction dealing with the conduct of "all types of investigation" other than those concerning boards of visitors, and in particular, as in this case, ostensibly into serious allegations against a senior member of staff—states that,
"persons identified and criticised … must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond … the senior Investigation Officer should himself forewarn individuals of likely criticism and provide them with opportunities to respond … Any material that is to be disclosed which criticises any individual must be brought to the attention of that individual in writing with a specified deadline for response … The interviewee must be informed of the purpose of the investigation and issued with written advice about the use that may be made of their evidence in any subsequent disciplinary hearing or court".
The first three of those requirements were contravened; so was the spirit of the fourth; so was the requirement that the commissioning authority must consider any reasonable complaints about the procedures and respond to them. The chair wrote to the commissioning authority to complain that the 78 questions she was supposed to answer appeared to be a witch-hunt against the board. The CA replied to the letter without addressing the point. The irrelevance of the questions to the original terms of reference was also drawn to the attention of the board of visitors secretariat and to the attention of the Minister.
In the past three years, only 11 members of boards of visitors have not been re-appointed at their triennial review. Apart from the three cases that we are considering today, two members were not re-appointed at Holloway in 1999 and two were not re-appointed at Standford Hill, although they were never formally notified of the Minister's decision. Those two members at Standford Hill have been in limbo for the past 15 months. When can they expect to be told what their status is?
After the Holloway episode, an inquiry ordered by the then Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, recommended that,
"The triennial review system should be overhauled to make it more transparent and fair".
Can the Minister tell us what was done about that advice? If it has been ignored, Ministers are culpable of perpetuating what was described by Rhona McMeekin in an article in the AM Bo V Quarterly as "institutionalised injustice". The problem is still that the triennial review is used as a means of getting rid of members by the secretariat, acting in concert with the Prison Service, and carrying out its wishes in order to avoid the procedural safeguards that would otherwise have applied. The secretariat reports to Ken Sutton, the Director of Regimes, and, through him, to Phil Wheatley, who is Deputy Director General of the Prison Service. Your Lordships may think it unsatisfactory that boards of visitors, which are meant to be the independent eyes and ears of the Secretary of State, are nevertheless treated as part of the very system that they are supposed to monitor.
It is extremely difficult to get good members or, indeed, to get any members to serve on boards of visitors. Almost all boards are short of their proper numbers. They are short of the statutory complement of JPs; they are short of working people; and they are short of younger people. In view of what has happened at Haslar, as well as at Holloway and Standford Hill, it will be even more difficult to get anyone with a mind of his or her own to volunteer. The danger is that boards will be not independent watchdogs but the poodles of the Prison Service.
I very much hope that the review that is being conducted by the honourable Member for Gosport, which is about to report, will recommend, as I do now, that the secretariat be divorced entirely from the Prison Service. That change cannot occur too soon.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Avebury for giving us this opportunity to debate Haslar Prison, and matters relating to its board of visitors. The events at Haslar must concern us all, and it is not difficult to see why. We are discussing this prison because it has a population of immigration detainees. As I have repeatedly pointed out in various debates, we are worried about the detention of asylum seekers, especially those who have exhausted their legal remedies to remain here prior to their removal.
It must be a matter of serious concern to hold immigration detainees when Ministers have stated repeatedly that there are not the appropriate places for them. Yet we pride ourselves on creating more places in our prisons for them. If we had a system that was free of backlog and dealt with applications much quicker, the problem about immigration detainees would certainly diminish to an extent. I am well aware that we are talking about the position of the members of the board of visitors at this particular prison. But, obviously, there is relevance in much of what I have said so far.
Many of the present policies relating to our asylum seekers are very muddled. We are concerned that the automatic bail appearance provisions in the 1999 Act may never be brought into effect. Why has it taken so long? When do we expect that to happen? Limited information from the Home Office stated that this provision would be implemented by May 2000. We were then told that the computer system was not ready, after which the date slipped to October of last year and then to spring of this year. I suspect—and this is confirmed by many who are involved in dealing with asylum matters—that there is likely to be even further delay. No wonder the detention population is rising. At the root of this confusion is the basic principle that all immigrant detainees should be brought before magistrates within eight days and, if still detained, after a further 36 days to question whether detention should continue.
The Minister would not find it difficult to refer to Section 44 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. After all, this was the Government's flagship designed to remove the chaotic conditions faced by entrants to this country. Why this delay? The Secretary of State does have discretion by order to amend the circumstances in which a person may be granted bail, which already applies to those in respect of whom directions for their removal from the United Kingdom are in force.
The problems at Haslar have their origins in the breakdown of relationships between the governor and the board of visitors. I am probably one of the few Members, if any, of your Lordships' House who has served as a member of a board of visitors. I did so for over a decade. The Prison Act 1898 officially introduced boards of visitors. Their duties were to inspect, hear applications—most of which were complaints and queries from prisoners—and to deal with adjudications relating to breach of prison
966
discipline. Needless to say the 1952 Prison Act required board members to be Home Secretary appointed.
It is worth pointing out that prisons are very oppressive institutions. Until the introduction of boards of visitors there was no access to outsiders within our prisons. To a great extent board members perform a useful task. They reflect a balance of people within the community between magistrates and non-magistrates and between the sexes. They constitute a mix of ages and occupations. That task is often resented by prison officers and, from time to time, by governors.
The main role of the board of visitors is that of an informed watchdog for the Secretary of State independent of the management of the prisons in which the prisoners are held. This is where conflict is bound to arise. The prison governors who manage our prisons often find board of visitor members obstructive because management decisions are often questioned. It is a healthy sign that such a tension should prevail. Inmates may lose many of their rights when sentenced but there always remain residual rights. It is for board members to ensure that those are never denied to those whom we imprison. Take away boards of visitors and we shall find ourselves back in the Victorian ways of managing our prisons.
I have been associated with many prisons in this country. More importantly, I chair NACRO, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. We have undertaken many major activities in prisons. We undertook a prison and race survey with the full co-operation of the Prison Service. The Director General, Marlin Narey, to his credit, accepted our findings and introduced a number of changes affecting race relations in prisons. That we have welcomed.
It was not surprising, therefore, that the Haslar board also wished to carry out a race survey which seems to be one of the causes of the breakdown of relations between the board of visitors and the governor. I need not elaborate on that point as my noble friend Lord Avebury has sketched the history of the events there.
The board of visitors in Haslar should be congratulated on the way it went about its task. Almost all agencies working with the Prison Service welcomed the findings of the board of visitors In fact, the situation in Haslar was even worse than the one NACRO found in other prisons. Overall there was a higher level of dissatisfaction among Haslar detainees. The uncertainties in a holding centre no doubt played an important part in that. But there was also a positive side to the survey. Haslar detainees were more satisfied with access to education and with the library stock than were prisoners in the NACRO survey. However, there were other matters of concern. Asian detainees were much less satisfied than other detainees with religious services, food, access to work, education, counselling and legal advice.

967
It is important to identify shortcomings in our prisons. It is important to put right what is wrong in our prisons. More importantly, surveys of this nature identify particular areas needing attention which can affect one group in an establishment more than others.
Let us not forget that here we are talking not of criminals, not of those who have committed any crime but of those who have sought asylum in this country. But herein lies the root cause of the problem at Haslar. I shall not repeat the public perception of the three dismissed members of the board of visitors at Haslar. No amount of gloss on the part of the Minister can convince me that the reason for the non-renewal is to enable the changing of boards gradually over the years. This was an unprecedented decision and comes at a time when the Government have announced their initiative to persuade the public to perform voluntary service. Ministers must have reasons. It is important that these are openly stated. If that is not done, people are entitled to make up their own minds.
Of course, there are bound to be occasions when members of boards of visitors do not fit in and then I see nothing wrong in their removal. If, however, standards in public life are to be maintained, not only should we appoint members who are well qualified but also we should reject those who are not. Unless that is done openly, suspicions are bound to arise.
As my noble friend Lord Avebury has just said, the Minister explicitly agreed at Brighton to allow the board of visitors to conduct the Haslar race survey. Will he confirm that board members allege that they were subjected to bullying and intimidation by the governor? Has an investigation been carried out? Have the allegations been substantiated? It is no good complaining about the speed with which the survey was carried out. The board of visitors rightly said that it wasted no time in reporting the issues of serious concern reflected in the survey. I repeat, a named catering officer, when asked about catering arrangements for Jews, replied, "We have gas ovens, don't we? What more do they want?". I am simply quoting from the report. If such attitudes persist and are identified, those people should not work in our prisons.
The Haslar board was keen to carry out the race survey, which took place before the Commission for Racial Equality announced an investigation into racism in the Prison Service, because it had received only two applications from the immigration detainees at Haslar in the previous two years. The board had serious doubts about its own effectiveness and saw the publication of NACRO's Race and Prisons report as a vehicle for objectively evaluating its own performance. We at NACRO were approached and agreed not only to allow the board to use our questionnaire as a template in Haslar, but to review the draft report before publication. The governor was vehemently opposed to the proposed survey. As my noble friend Lord Avebury said, his reaction was:
"I view your conduct in this matter to be underhand, subversive and a blatant attempt to undermine my authority as Governor".
968
We still do not know how he reached such a view and on what basis he made that statement.
The facts about the survey are not in dispute. One can only conclude that three members of the Haslar board resigned during that period as a direct result of the governor's hostility to the board carrying out its lawful duties. If that is not so, we should know what the other reasons were. Intense pressure was put on the board to suppress the report.
The Home Office will have to make up its mind whether it wants boards of visitors to be the eyes, ears and conscience of the community. Unfortunately, the confidence of local BoVs is often eroded by their treatment by the Home Office. Haslar has shown how the Home Office can negate much of the good work that has been done. The message is, "If you want to remain a member of the board, stop causing problems".
I am also on the council of the Howard League for Penal Reform. We all strive for effective and valued boards of visitors. The Howard League feels that the image of BoVs is not of an independent group of people representing the community and ensuring that prisons operate humanely and effectively. Far too frequently, they have been portrayed as lapdogs or screws in suits instead of watchdogs, which is their acknowledged role. That perception is supported by many of our observations of board members. We have witnessed boards of visitors clustering around wing offices near staff instead of interacting with prisoners and investigating issues that are important to them. Some board members have even admitted that they are fearful or uncertain about talking to prisoners.
Board members require a clear job description so that they know the parameters of their function, including the limits of their role. Haslar remains a shameful chapter in the history of boards of visitors. The governor, the Prison Service and the Home Office reflect the unacceptable face of our prison policies.
10.19 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who is such a tireless campaigner for human rights. I have met members of human rights organisations in many parts of the world. If I mention the House of Lords, they say, "Do you know Lord Avebury?". "Yes," I answer, "I am proud to say that I do". This debate is one in a long line that he has initiated on important issues.
The boards of visitors system in England and Wales is one of which, overall, we can be very proud. I have been involved with boards of visitors for many years and have contributed to training events and meetings. I have always come away thinking that it is a great strength that people of such high calibre choose to become involved with prisons. They carry out work that most of their neighbours—the other people in their street—would regard as abnormal, or even bizarre. The work that they do is very practical and has implications for the everyday life and the everyday happiness or misery of prisoners. It is public service at

969
its most unglamorous and most unrecognised. This debate provides an opportunity for this House to say that.
I am sure that noble Lords would agree that there must be independent, external oversight of prisons. Even in the best prison system in the world, things go wrong. Staff are tempted to cut corners and abuse creeps in. There must be community involvement in prisons. There is an important role for those who bring to the operation of a prison—a closed institution—the eyes and the sensibility of the ordinary citizen. They can bring in the values of the outside world and say, "This is how we expect our fellow citizens to be treated". The boards of visitors system combines both those elements and, as such, it is a model for the rest of the world.
The new government in the Republic of Georgia have just passed a law to institute a boards of visitors system which is closely modelled on our own. People from Georgia visited us here last week to learn from us and to hear from our boards of visitors about what they do.
Similarly, following a crisis in the prisons there, a committee was set up in France. The members of that committee came to London to look at our system of control and oversight. They met people from boards of visitors and were deeply impressed by their level of commitment and the fact that people from many walks of life chose to do the task for no money. When they went home, they recommended a new model for France based very much on what they had learnt about our system. Therefore, the importance of what we do extends beyond this country. It is worth taking seriously when it goes right and when it goes wrong.
One element of our boards of visitors system interests people from abroad greatly. It is the question of independence. Those from abroad ask how boards of visitors can be independent when the Minister responsible for prisons appoints them but can also remove them. The answer is that, in spite of the appointments system, they are independent because everyone in the system respects their independence. No one would ever try to get rid of them because of what they say or because of the points that they raise with the Home Secretary or with the governor of their prison, provided that they do so in a responsible manner.
That principle is very important. From what I have read and from what I have heard this evening, I fear that it may have been breached in the case of the board at Haslar. I do not want to comment at length on the events; previous speakers have done so. However, whatever the specific details, I want to ask the Minister whether he agrees that proper procedures must be put in place to deal with difficulties such as those. Does he agree that it is not appropriate to deal with them while pretending to do something else?
I should also like to ask the Minister whether the Home Office has reflected recently on the structure within which boards of visitors operate and on the role of the boards of visitors secretariat in the Home Office.
970
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the review under Sir Peter Lloyd. I hope that it will look again at a recommendation frequently made: that the regulation of boards of visitors should be removed from the Home Office and vested in an independent body under a president who would have powers to deal with problems highlighted here in a way which leads to a satisfactory resolution but which also safeguards that precious independence that is such a great strength. I should be grateful to know the view of the Minister if such a suggestion were made by the Lloyd review.
Finally, I should like to touch on the question that my noble friend Lord Dholakia raised about those incarcerated in Haslar Prison, who are not convicted criminals but immigration detainees, asylum seekers, people who have fled here for a multitude of reasons. I understand—I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm this—that immigration detainees held in such a detention centre are not subject to provisions of the Prison Service such as mandatory drug testing. I understand that immigration detainees held in wings of normal prisons are subject to mandatory drug testing. Can the Minister confirm this and, if it is the case, tell the House why this is done and under what powers?
10.26 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Avebury for introducing this debate. I believe that my noble friend follows the very great tradition of reformers who have brought such honour upon this country—people who devoted themselves, their lives and energy to the protection of the most disadvantaged in our society, whose only reward is to have bettered the lives of some of their fellow human beings. I am more than honoured to share membership of the same party with my noble friend.
I begin where the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, ended: by asking one or two questions specifically about Haslar and the treatment of detainees there. That issue is the primary task to which the board of visitors devoted itself. On 22nd January I received a letter from one of those detainees, Mr Gabriel Nkwelle. Mr Nkwelle comes from the Cameroons, a businessman who has served professionally in his country. He is one of the leading human rights campaigners in that country. He fell foul of the authorities. If ever there was an example of the kind of person for whom most of us would use the term "genuine" asylum seeker, Mr Nkwelle falls into that category.
I asked about him before I took great notice of what he said. I shall tell the House something of what he said in a moment. I asked innocently enough of the Haslar board of visitors. I felt that its members would probably know detainees in Haslar rather well. It was very innocent of me because by that time—22nd January—most of the Haslar board of visitors had already been told that they were not going to be reappointed. One of them—whom I shall not name because I do not wish to see him dismissed as well—

971
wrote to me recently about Mr Nkwelle saying that he believed him to be a brave and honest man. That particular visitor had spent some time with him.
Mr Nkwelle had written to a number of organisations, including the Home Office, Amnesty International and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to complain about some of the things going on in Haslar. In particular he complained about the use of racist language; the use of expired food in the kitchen; the fact that there were no doors and curtains in the cubicles where the detainees were living, and the fact that at least two detainees—let us not forget that people are meant to be detained only in the latter stages when they are due for deportation—had been there respectively for 15 and 20 months, each of them men who had undergone serious operations.
Mr Nkwelle stuck to his guns. He sent the letter to all and sundry, making no pretence about what he was saying. Not surprisingly, on 2nd February—just eight days after he wrote the letter—he was sent to Belmarsh high security prison in south London. There were indications in the race relations survey, details of which my noble friend Lord Avebury has given to the House, that one of the things that was sometimes said to detainees was that they might be "shipped away" if they made too many complaints and caused too much trouble. That was not a reference to violent trouble, to leading insurrections or carrying drugs and alcohol into the detention centre; it was a reference to simply complaining about some of the circumstances in which their fellow detainees were kept.
However, Mr Nkwelle was not a man to be silenced and he wrote again, this time from Belmarsh. He pointed out that in Belmarsh asylum seekers who had committed no crime were being held in the same wing as convicted criminals. He pointed out that they were sharing cells with convicted criminals. He pointed out that they remained locked up when convicted criminals were allowed out for exercise and when convicted criminals were allowed out to watch television. In short, non-sentenced asylum seekers, against whom no charge of any crime was alleged, were being kept in considerably harsher conditions than those who had been convicted of committing serious crime, and no one goes to Belmarsh unless he has committed a serious crime.
Given the immigration and nationality service rules, perhaps I should add that those asylum seekers were allowed precisely five minutes a day for a phone call and only one phone call per day, and they were not permitted to receive telephone calls or faxes from their solicitors. That appears to me to be a direct breach of what I understand to be the safeguards under the Human Rights Convention which we in this Parliament passed, agreed to and believed Ministers would enforce.
I turn back to that same board of visitors—the people charged with responsibility for upholding standards at Haslar, a job it did excellently. The members took on board the complaints of Mr Boateng, the Minister for prisons. The Minister had
972
said, as had the much respected head of the Prison Service, Mr. Narey, that they were concerned that boards of visitors so often appeared to be non-reactive; that they allowed themselves to continue in formal office but not to draw attention to some of the things happening in the institutions for which they were responsible in the way that Ministers, the head of the Prison Service and others believed they should. It was against that background that the Haslar board of visitors decided to mount a race relations survey in the prison based upon the template of NACRO.
We know already from my noble friend Lord Avebury that every possible measure was taken by the governor at the time to stop the board of visitors from conducting that survey, including threats that all the members would lose their positions on the board if they proceeded with it. To their great credit they proceeded with the survey and at the end of the day it was the governor who was suspended and recognised eventually as not fit to be an active governor.
The board of visitors' report was praised by an astonishing range of people. It was praised by the Inspector of Prisons, by the head of NACRO, by the Race Relations Board. Indeed, it received praise which, if I had time, I would recite because in every single case that race relations survey was regarded as an outstanding piece of work and as being extremely helpful to those responsible for running our prisons. However, it does not appear to have stood the board of visitors in good stead to have received praise from all quarters, including senior officials charged with the responsibility for the Prison Service and the Chief Inspector of Prisons. Indeed, it seems to have done them nothing but damage.
At the triennial review three of the most active members of the board of visitors were told that their appointments would not be renewed. As my noble friend said, when in a triennial review precisely 11 members of boards of visitors in one third of all the prisons in England and Wales are told that they are no longer required, it is astonishing that three of the 11 should be among the most active members of this board of visitors which acted in a way that was so widely praised. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia said in his powerful speech, it is impossible to believe that they were not reappointed for any good reason.
One of them was relatively young. One of them was a JP. There is a requirement under the rules that at least two members of boards of visitors should be JPs; there are now no JPs on the board of visitors for Haslar. The chairman was a young woman committed to the welfare of the detainees under her care. It is extraordinary that they all went. I ask the Minister what reason was given by Mr Boateng, who had specifically authorised and encouraged the survey which appears to have caused so much trouble, for upholding these dismissals.
I turn to the situation of detainees, especially asylum-seeker detainees, in our prisons. I am deeply troubled by the fact that we, an honourable and decent country, are locking up in large numbers men and women some of whose crimes relate almost entirely to

973
acts of conscience of a kind that we should applaud and uphold. Much is going wrong in our detention centres. At Oakington there are allegations, which have not been thoroughly investigated, of trafficking of young women by Chinese gangs. We are already aware of the situation in Haslar. At Her Majesty's Prison, Rochester, we have found that the detainees who protest or complain seem to find their way rather frequently to Belmarsh.
I conclude by saying that any decent, democratic society depends on the courage of its whistle-blowers, of those who speak out and say what is going wrong. It is in the interests of the Home Office, the Prison Service and all those related to it that acts of injustice, cruelty and brutality should not be permitted to occur within its ranks. I was once a prison Minister. I have great admiration for many in the Prison Service. Many prison officers and prison governors are dedicated to their jobs. Many members of the Prison Service, including its present head, have done everything possible to root out bad behaviour and injustice. They are being let down by those who dismiss the whistle-blowers for their courage and for having spoken out. We are all in their debt.
I again ask the Minister to request his colleague Mr Boateng to consider carefully whether, in view of the fact that the brave members of the Haslar board of visitors were doing exactly what he had twice asked them to do, this decision should be reversed.
10.40 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating the debate. Once again, a small number of speakers in your Lordships' House bring an astonishing breadth of first-hand experience to the subject in hand.
This is a classic case of a bad relationship developing between two sets of individuals; in this case, the board of visitors at Haslar and the then governor. Undoubtedly, there was bad blood. There is a clear record of bullying of the visitors and obstruction of their inquiries, particularly when they instituted their inquiry on racism at the prison—so the relationship got off to a bad start.
There are always two sides to an argument and it is fair to assume that the prison management was rubbed up the wrong way by the board of visitors, who were, I understand, not always in agreement among themselves. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, the board of visitors produced a report on racism which received very favourable comments from the Prison Reform Trust and, significantly, the Prisons Ombudsman and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.
The non-reappointment of three members of the board has shown up some radical weaknesses in the appointments structure for boards of visitors. That theme has run through the debate in the House today. The Minister was of course within his rights using the triennial review procedure where he was able not to reappoint the three members of the board without giving reasons.
974
Whether or not that was intended, it certainly gave the impression to interested outsiders that it had the effect of circumventing the provision of Rules 75(3) and (4) of the Prison Rules 1999 and certainly was not in accord with the fairness rules of the code of conduct for boards of visitors, which states that members must:
"be told in writing of the complaint against them in advance of any interview; be provided with copies of any written evidence (including witness statements) forming the basis for the complaints; be given the opportunity to state their case and challenge any evidence before any decision is made".
The Minister's actions were certainly capable of the interpretation that this device had been used to get rid of troublemakers or those trying to rock the boat. It also must be said that, whatever the merits of the case, the odds are stacked against the individual members of a board of visitors when he or she is in conflict with the establishment. For instance, an aggrieved member would be wary of embarking on an application for judicial review because he would face an award against him of all the costs if the Minister were found to have been within his rights.
The Minister is to be commended on his initiative in appointing my right honourable friend Sir Peter Lloyd to chair a committee composed of well qualified experts to advise on the appointments of boards of visitors. The committee has yet to report, but I hope that it will recommend some kind of independent body to manage appointments of boards of visitors.
I am not referring to the case under debate here but to the role in general played by the boards of visitors secretariat. That body has a valuable role to play in looking after the individual boards of visitors and I surmise that the relationship between individual boards of visitors and the secretariat is one of trust and mutual confidence. It is therefore not right that the secretariat also has a disciplinary role. The combination of the roles may be appropriate in the case of a family, but in the public service it can be far more problematic.
If, as we hope, the Lloyd committee recommends some kind of independent body, that body will indeed have powers of appointment and dismissal. It should be taken out of the Prison Service administration and placed in the hands of a body which is truly independent, such as the Prisons Ombudsman's office.
Some of the decisions as to whether or not to reappoint or to dismiss will be relatively straightforward, such as in cases of misconduct. There will however be cases where it is for any reason inappropriate to give reasons for non-appointment. For instance, a member of the board of visitors may have a bad manner or, for instance, not be sufficiently unbiased, or possibly just simply stale and increasingly ineffective. No member should ever be able to gain the impression that he was part of the furnishings, provided only that he keeps out of trouble. Any such authority must have the powers to remove or not to reappoint members for sustained inadequate performance; otherwise it is a recipe for mediocrity and inefficiency. I hope that Sir Peter Lloyd's committee will also address the question of an appeals procedure and possibly a maximum length of service.

975
I believe that prison visiting has a tradition which goes back to the 2nd century AD. It certainly engaged the attention of Elizabeth Fry and William Allen in the 18th and 19th centuries. Let us not forget that here we are dealing with a particularly British institution which has counterparts in very few other countries; namely, an individual who is engaged in unpaid public service. In particular, I associate with that tradition the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke most eloquently.
I speak with no experience of boards of visitors, but I am well aware that at least two noble Lords who have spoken have acted in that capacity. I am sure that what is required of a good member of a board of visitors is experience, judgment, commitment, integrity and compassion, to name but a few of the qualities which he or she will need to bring to bear. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that the board of visitors at Haslar was well under establishment. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has provided graphic details of the work which the visitors will need to address in that prison in future.
The board of visitors is an absolutely crucial part of the penal system in England and Wales. Whatever the difficulties, it has performed a valuable service at Haslar in particular in the race review. A few weeks ago I took part in the debate on the problems at Blantyre House in Kent. There the reports of the board of visitors were particularly significant in the context of the removal of the governor and the raid on that prison by the Prison Service which aroused such disquiet in your Lordships' House. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, spoke to that point as a former member of a board of visitors.
The treatment of boards of visitors as regards their period of service must be fair, and be seen to be fair and (to use a current, overworked expression) transparent. I am confident that Sir Peter Lloyd and his committee will address these issues. I await his report with interest and am sure that the Minister will take careful note of it.
10.48 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing this debate. I am equally grateful to him for agreeing to postpone it from the rather infelicitous hour of one o'clock this morning. Unfortunately, that decision led to one casualty: the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth. I know that he intended to make a characteristically constructive contribution. I place on record my regret that he is unable to join in the debate this evening, but I shall make myself available to listen to his representations which I know will be helpful in dealing with what we all recognise is an issue of great importance.
I also appreciated the contribution by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who helped to put the debate into context. He is right that we need to look forward to the findings of Sir Peter Lloyd who is due
976
to report in the very near future. He will have a range of recommendations to make on issues that have caused concern to every noble Lord who has participated in the debate this evening. I expect that some of those issues will be addressed accurately in the report. In the course of my contribution I shall seek to answer as many detailed questions as I can, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not succeed in replying to all of them. I shall write to noble Lords in areas where there is a deficiency.
What is outstanding about all the contributions so well expressed this evening is noble Lords' respect for the board of visitors and the role that it plays in our system. Therefore, there is the inevitable regret and anxiety which develops when matters have gone wrong. No one can begin to approach the issue with regard to the Haslar holding centre without recognising that a number of mistakes have been made and difficulties have occurred. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in his opening remarks, identified the matter very accurately when he said that there had been clashes of personality and difficulties which were not resolved in the way we would ordinarily expect them to be resolved.
This evening we have had a very accurate definition of the ideal role which the Board of Visitors should play. We must strive towards that ideal as best we can. As noble Lords have identified, we have few people willing and able to come forward. Perhaps, as a society, we should be more solicitous about the need for people to come forward for this role. We defined it as essential. The people who come forward make an enormous contribution to the operation of our prison system. We owe them a very great debt of gratitude. However, from time to time difficulties will develop, as they clearly have in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who originated the debate, had a number of specific questions to which he rightly expects replies. Let me preface my remarks by a slight note of regret. The noble Lord referred to his meeting with my right honourable friend Paul Boating, the Minister of State. I had hoped that that meeting would have led to many of the anxieties which the noble Lord has expressed this evening being allayed.
There is a sense that, in some respects, the process has been back to front. The meeting with the Minister has taken place before we have had a general airing of the issues. It is often more constructive to deal with the Minister after the broad issues have been opened up in debate, either in this House or in the other place. I recognise that there were specific questions which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wanted answered which I had hoped would have been answered. But I shall do my best to answer them.
The noble Lord is quite right in his supposition that the board of visitors is quite within its rights to interview prisoners out of the sight and hearing of officers. It has the right to carry out a survey. Such a survey is best effected—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I am sorry to intervene when he has passed

977
the remarks he was making about the interview that I had with his right honourable friend. Can I make it clear—I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge this—that when I went to see Mr Boateng our discussions centred on the role of a board of visitors and the changes which might occur as a result of the review that was mentioned by the right honourable member for Gosport and Fareham? Mr Boateng made it clear that he did not wish to discuss, for particular reasons, what had happened at Haslar.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I accept that as an accurate reflection of the nature of the meeting. I merely report that it came as a surprise that the issues were being advanced on the basis of a debate in your Lordships' House. It was thought that a fruitful dialogue had emerged that would lead to an improvement in the situation as a result of the noble Lord's meeting with my right honourable friend the Minister.
Let us pass that matter. I can reassure the noble Lord that he is right when he says that the board of visitors was acting within its rights to seek to carry out a survey. It was suggested in a number of contributions that the survey was greatly respected and was the fruit of a significant piece of work on the part of the board of visitors. But it is the case that there were dissenting voices about the report among the board of visitors. It is not the case, as may have been portrayed earlier, that there was a clear position of the board of visitors on what was appropriate at Haslar and that conflicts came with the governor and senior staff. That is not the case. There was also dissension and difficulties within the board. We need to put these matters in context when we look at how some of the problems emerged.
I hasten also to assure the noble Lord—he was probably able to gauge this from his meeting with the Minister—that the Minister was fully apprised of all the facts before he reached his decision with regard to the non-reappointment of the three members of the board of visitors. Part of the difficulty we are all facing is that, because relatively small numbers of people are coming forward, some members of boards serve for long periods. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, himself identified that problem. He said that he served on a board of visitors for a very considerable period. I am not gainsaying the advantage of long experience, but it is probably advantageous if we are able to bring on new people and get fresh perspectives on boards of visitors.
Part of the problem may have occurred in relation to the Haslar Board of Visitors because a substantial number of them had been there for a very considerable period. The leading personalities had certainly had a very long association indeed. That gives them the enormous benefit of experience. But there is also the danger that they stray from their particular responsibilities, which were accurately defined in terms of eyes, ears and conscience. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, expressed graphically the role of the board of visitors. Someone who had played a senior role as chairman or vice-chairman of the board of
978
visitors over a long period and had perhaps seen several governors come and go might be in danger of thinking that he or she had rather greater executive authority in relation to the institution than is identified in terms of the proper role of the board of visitors as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have been following his argument. He has put up the best defence that is possible in the circumstances. However, in the light of his recent remarks., with which all of us would agree, that someone may become too long in the tooth, too dependent on experience and so on, does he not agree that that is a rather puzzling description of, for example, the chairman of the board of visitors at Haslar, who was a 34-year old mother, a professional woman, and someone who had recently come on to the board of visitors and had done an outstanding job, which was recognised by all the people mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman? It is a little puzzling to fit her, for one, into that framework.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recognise that I am not in the business of identifying particular individuals. I hear exactly what she says in that context, but she knows that the board of visitors comprised others who did not fit into that pattern. The noble Baroness is right that we need to see greater numbers of younger people becoming members of boards of visitors and a greater representation of ethnic minorities. The imbalance between the sexes is also shown on so many boards of visitors.
I seek to make the point that we have not been able to recruit as effectively as we would like and to bring into the general framework of boards of visitors as many of our fellow citizens as we would wish. Part of the difficulties at Haslar reflected some of those features.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put a number of other questions to me. I can tell him that the new governor will take up his position in the very near future. A decision on that is imminent. I hope that I have been able to reassure him on that point.
The noble Lord also mentioned the position as regards the board of visitors at Holloway. It has put forward its views on the triennial review system. I do not think that there is any doubt that the Holloway report, following the inquiry, made some helpful recommendations on procedures to be followed in the triennial review process. The suggestions contained in that report may be substantiated in the report from Sir Peter Lloyd, which we look forward to receiving in due course. At the point we expect to take the next significant step forward in the development of this system.
Perhaps I may refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who raised an issue regarding people at Haslar who have not been found guilty of any offence. She stated that they are treated on exactly the same basis as convicted prisoners. I can reassure the noble Baroness that different treatment is offered appropriate to the

979
needs of unconvicted people at Haslar. Two regimes operate and reflect the needs of the different groups. The noble Baroness mentioned in particular the mandatory drugs test. I can tell her that the test which is mandatory for prisoners is not for people being held on a different basis in the holding centre.
I have listened to the representations made this evening with great interest. I am aware that we have here an issue which reflects a difficult set of circumstances. It is clear that relationships broke down. Furthermore, it is obvious that the board of visitors, the probation staff and the governor had reached a point where effective operations could not be sustained. That led to the former governor leaving his post. It has also led to a reconstitution of the board of visitors which, I am happy to relate, appears to be working extremely well. It has given cause for celebration, in that improvements are now being effected in relationships. The scene is being set for a constructive relationship with the new governor.
I appreciate the fact that this debate has come about as a result of very real anxieties about a breakdown in the system, from which we need to learn lessons. I hope that I have succeeded in allaying some of the concerns which have been expressed and that I have responded to the particular questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in introducing the debate.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, a number of other issues were raised. Perhaps I
980
may return to two of them. First, very damaging comments were made by serving staff as regards the race relations survey that was carried out. I cited one example. What has been done about those comments and what has happened to the individuals who made them?
Secondly, the Minister has still not told the House why those people were not reappointed. It would be helpful, for the sake of openness, if the Minister could write and explain the real reasons for the non-appointment of the visitors.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that I have put in context the reason: that the difficulties which emerged at Haslar required the element of a fresh start. There is no question of impugning the integrity of the people who acted in that role. In fact, at least one member of the board of visitors at Haslar has been appointed to a similar position on the board of visitors of another prison. There is no question of impugning the integrity, the capacity or the abilities of the people concerned.
In circumstances where relationships had deteriorated to the pitch where there was a whole range of charge and counter-charge, suspicion and dissent, which led to great difficulties in the operation of Haslar holding centre, changes needed to be made, and they have properly been made.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Millennium Dome: Site Value
  Millennium Dome: Site Value
  Millennium Dome Sale
  Millennium Dome Sale
  Genetically Modified Salmon: US Proposal
  Genetically Modified Salmon: US Proposal
  National Insurance Numbers
  National Insurance Numbers
  Community Equipment Services: Modernisation
  Community Equipment Services: Modernisation
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Regulations
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Regulations
  Gulf War Veterans: Blood Donation
  Gulf War Veterans: Blood Donation
  Contaminated German Beef
  Contaminated German Beef
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body: Reappointments
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body: Reappointments
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body: Aircrew Retention
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body: Aircrew Retention
  Single Currency and Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Single Currency and Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Lawyer Numbers
  Lawyer Numbers
  Tribunal Chairmen: Salaries
  Tribunal Chairmen: Salaries