Sitting of 27 March 2001

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

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Michael Fallon: When he next plans to meet the Zimbabwean high commissioner to discuss the rule of law in Zimbabwe. [154087]
    Mr. John Townend: What plans he has to visit Zimbabwe to discuss human rights; and if he will make a statement. [154089]
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [154094]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We deplore the escalating attacks on human rights in Zimbabwe. Of particular concern has been the enforced retirement of the Chief Justice following threats to his life; the destruction of the printing press of the only independent daily newspaper; the expulsion of foreign journalists for criticising the regime; and the continuing political intimidation, which has claimed more than 40 lives in the last 12 months.
    In view of the deteriorating standard of human rights, we have decided that Zimbabwe is no longer an appropriate base for the British military team that provides regional training in peacekeeping. It will have left by this weekend.
    We were successful in securing a statement from last week's meeting of Commonwealth Ministers recording our common concern at the intimidation of the judiciary and the media. The meeting agreed to send a ministerial delegation to Zimbabwe to convey our collective concerns and to prepare advice for Commonwealth Heads of Government.
    Britain will continue to take every responsible step, both bilaterally and through the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United Nations, to impress on the Government of Zimbabwe the fact that their behaviour
    798
    is unacceptable by modern standards and denies the people of Zimbabwe the freedom, the safety and the rights to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Fallon: Given that the Mugabe regime is now flagrantly abusing human rights, as the Foreign Secretary described, is it not time to admit that the policy of deploring and issuing statements—all the ethical posturing—has failed? Is it not time to put serious pressure on the regime by freezing the assets of the corrupt Government, banning travel by Mugabe's associates and getting tough with that regime?
    Mr. Cook: May I remind the House and the hon. Gentleman of what we have done in the past year? We have imposed an arms embargo on Zimbabwe; we have stopped the supply of Land Rovers to the Zimbabwean police; and we have cut the aid that we give to Zimbabwe and focused entirely on humanitarian aid, such as combating AIDS. We have used the Commonwealth to condemn what has been happening in Zimbabwe and to send observers to the elections; we now have dialogues with the European Union under the Cotonou agreement, which provides the possibility of restricting aid to Zimbabwe.
    That is a formidable list of action that has been taken. On the question of freezing assets, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Emergency Powers Act 1964 makes provision for us to freeze assets only where there is a threat to the welfare of the United Kingdom. It has been used only twice since 1964—once against Iraq and once against Argentina, and on both occasions we were at war with those countries. That is the very reason why the previous Conservative Government considered the question, but ruled out an assets freeze against General Abacha, when he was in power in Nigeria.
    Mr. Townend: This is not just a case of harassment of the opposition and the judiciary; we are talking about murder and torture. If the Government really have an ethical foreign policy, why are they not proposing that Zimbabwe be suspended from membership of the Commonwealth? Why are they not suspending unilaterally British economic aid? Why do they not declare Mugabe to be guilty of gross abuse of human rights and arrange for him to be arrested if, like Pinochet, he sets foot in the European Union or Britain? If the Foreign Secretary will not do that, is it not a sign of double standards? Will he accept that a large proportion of the Zimbabwean population are a lot worse off now than they were under Ian Smith?
    Mr. Cook: I welcome the first statement that I have heard from a Conservative Member in support of our action on General Pinochet; I note that that is another Conservative U-turn. We have unilaterally suspended economic aid to Zimbabwe, and now provide no aid to the Government themselves. We have pared aid by one third, and now provide it to those who are suffering from HIV, to try to combat AIDS and provide clean sanitation in the villages of Zimbabwe. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman imagines we would increase pressure on President Mugabe if we withdrew that support for the poor people of Zimbabwe.
    Mr. O'Brien: In the context of the Foreign Secretary's withered so-called ethical foreign policy, and in the light

    799
    of the terrifying and unjustified expulsion of the BBC correspondent, Joseph Winter—along with his wife Anne-Marie and their baby daughter Anenti—who reported that
    "the opposition MP, Job Sikhala and his pregnant wife, white farmers and suspected opposition sympathisers in remote areas with only a mud wall and straw roof to protect themselves, have been beaten, tortured and killed",
    does the Foreign Secretary accept that Mr. Mugabe is both responsible for and presides over a tyrannical regime?
    Mr. Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and fully endorse his description of the expulsion of the BBC journalist, about which we have protested vigorously, and shall continue to do so. The Harare declaration provides clear principles for the rule of law, freedom of speech and democratic principles. Plainly, but ironically, Zimbabwe itself is now in breach of that declaration.
    Mr. David Winnick: In condemning again the Mugabe regime's thuggery, murders, intimidation and its playing of the race card, does my right hon. Friend not agree that such condemnation best comes from those who have always attacked tyrannies—not the Opposition who, time and again, have defended previous tyrannies in South Africa and been apologists for Pinochet and his murderous regime? We need no lectures from Tory Members.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. To sharpen the point, the House and those on the Opposition Benches might wish to recall that it was the Conservative Government who presided over the government of Great Britain at the time of the Matabeleland massacres, which led to the killing of 10,000 people in Zimbabwe and took place over a period of two or three years, during which there was not a word of criticism from any Minister. There was no cut in overseas aid—on the contrary, Lady Thatcher increased aid by £10 million at the time of the massacres. No attempt was made to use the Commonwealth against Zimbabwe at the time. It is no wonder that President Mugabe let it be known that he was grateful for the British Government's restraint. In the light of their inactivity at the time, it is rich hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative Opposition to criticise us for not doing more.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that consistency requires that Zimbabwe should be treated the same as any other Commonwealth country that was found to be intimidating judges, expelling independent journalists and seeking to use intimidation and other weapons of repression against its political opponents? A Government adhering to the principles of the Harare declaration of 1991 would not have anything to hide. In those circumstances, does not the refusal of the Mugabe Government to receive a mission of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers tell us all that we need to know?
    Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend. We will not accept it the first time President Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe says no. I welcome the statement by the Secretary-General that he will continue to press for the delegation to be received. The reason that the Zimbabwe Government seek not to receive
    800
    it is that they know full well what a serious step it is for Commonwealth Foreign Ministers to agree to send a delegation. I hope that they will stop pretending that this is all a British conspiracy, when it was a decision taken unanimously—unanimously—by eight representatives of Commonwealth countries representing those members of the Commonwealth charged with keeping close tabs on violations of human rights. I believe that the delegation must be met. If not, that will send a strong signal to all the Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Francis Maude: I do not recall the Labour Opposition of the late 1980s fulminating much about Mr. Mugabe, either.
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Mugabe was presented with a massive propaganda coup when he was received in state recently by the Prime Minister of Belgium and the President of France? The Foreign Secretary has said that written advice was given to the Belgian Government. Will he publish that advice? Is he aware that Belgian MEPs are saying that not only did the British Government appear unconcerned about the visit, but that they were privately supportive of it? What does that shabby episode say about the Foreign Secretary's willingness to stand up for ethical values, and what does it say about his influence with our European partners?
    Mr. Cook: I have no problems with publishing the advice, which I will happily send to the right hon. Gentleman and place in the Library. It set out the scale of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. We have since been advised by the Foreign Minister of Belgium that in the course of the meeting the Prime Minister of Belgium pressed President Mugabe to end the occupation of the farms, to allow foreign journalists to return and to stop the intimidation of the Chief Justice. I am glad that I provided the advice. It was plainly useful in the exchanges.
    Mr. Maude: The effect of those visits was to give Mugabe a propaganda coup, and the Foreign Secretary should admit it. If the Commonwealth ministerial action group is prevented from undertaking its mission in Zimbabwe, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, without hesitation, he will press for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth? Will he urge the imposition of travel bans and criminal investigations of those of Mugabe's henchmen who sustain him in his murderous and repressive regime? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, yes, there is a case for quiet diplomacy, but that there is no case for supine inaction?
    Mr. Cook: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has been listening to the exchanges that have taken place so far, and I am quite clear that he wrote that last line before he heard them. I have retailed to the House exactly the action that we took, which provides clear, sharp contrast with the inaction of the Conservative Government during the Matabeleland massacres. In the event of President Mugabe persisting in his refusal to see the delegation from the Commonwealth ministerial action group, we will consider that with our colleagues. We are committed by the statement that we adopted last week to provide advice to the Heads of Government, and plainly that will have to be reflected in any advice that we offer.

    801
    On the issue of suspension from the Commonwealth, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to reflect carefully on that before repeating it. I believe that the most practical thing that we have done in Zimbabwe in the past year is the deployment of Commonwealth observers during last year's parliamentary elections. That was warmly welcomed by the democratic opposition, who said that it had curbed the worst excesses of the Mugabe regime. If we suspended Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, the net effect would be that we could not provide Commonwealth observers when President Mugabe comes up for re-election next year. I do not see how it would help anybody in Zimbabwe for us to be unable to provide observers, which would give Mugabe an even clearer run at re-election.

    Anglo-American Defence Co-operation
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on US-British co-operation on defence. [154088]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The United States is Britain's closest ally. We enjoy excellent co-operation across a wide range of defence and security issues. NATO provides the cornerstone of our relationship. Co-operation between Britain and the US has continued after the recent change of US Administration, not least because a close working relationship is the best way of advancing our mutual interests and safeguarding our collective security.
    Mr. Waterson: Will the Minister confirm that the Nice treaty refers to an autonomous capacity to take decisions and to independent intelligence and logistic capabilities? Will he now come clean and accept that the duplicate and parallel structures agreed at Nice can serve only to undermine the Atlantic alliance?
    Mr. Vaz: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not come to last Monday night's debate on European security, in which I explained in great detail that the reason for the problem in understanding what has happened on European defence is the activities of Opposition Members, and especially of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). I repeat that it is quite clear that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. That means working with NATO and consulting it at every single stage before a decision is taken.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern that is felt in a number of quarters about the US national missile defence proposals? That concern is felt not only by the Russians, the Chinese and our EU allies, but by local people who live close to the sites that would inevitably be involved—Menwith Hill and Fylingdales. Ministers rightly pride themselves on our very close relationship with the US, but will he assure the House that our anxiety to keep in with the Americans does not outweigh our ability to make a balanced judgment about the threat to world peace that this star wars proposal might cause? We do not want to allow the threat of an escalation in the arms race because we are frightened of falling out with the Americans.
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend has long held those views, but she will also know that America is our closest friend
    802
    and strongest ally. I refer her to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush at Camp David on 23 February this year. The Americans have promised the fullest co-operation and consultation with the United Kingdom and all its allies. Clearly, there is a threat, because our closest ally and strongest friend, the United States, believes that there is one. Of course it is important that we prevent the escalation and proliferation of nuclear weapons, and we will work with our allies to ensure that that threat is dealt with. I assure her that we will also work with them to ensure the fullest possible co-operation.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Having visited the United States recently and talked to many of the people there who know about the role played by Europe in the affections of the Government, what on earth leads the Minister to believe that their suspicion about weakening NATO arises from criticisms made by Opposition Members? Surely he has greater respect for the Americans whom he meets.
    Mr. Vaz: I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he feels strongly about these issues, but the facts are very clear. On 23 February this year, a joint communique was issued by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister. It made it clear that the United States Government support the European security and defence policy. They are relaxed about that policy because its bedrock is NATO. The right hon. Gentleman need only look at his right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) to know where the history of European security and defence began: the Maastricht treaty, which his right hon. Friend signed.
    That is where the framework began. It continued at Petersberg, where Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Lord Hurd both signed up to a European security and defence policy. The policy has been accepted by both sides for many years.
    Mr. John Cryer: Will my hon. Friend say whether there have been any discussions whatever on the national missile defence system? If such discussions take place in future, will he tell the Americans that the system will restart the cold war, and that many people here do not want to see our country turned into an unsinkable aircraft carrier?
    Mr. Vaz: I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work very closely with our strongest friend, the United States of America. No proposals are currently on the table. If there were, I assure my hon. Friend that he and the House would be aware of them, and the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence would be explaining them to the House; but there are no proposals. We told President Bush on 23 February that we would continue to work closely with the United States, and that remains the position.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Minister not understand that the real American concern about the ESDP is that it is located outside NATO. It is autonomous—separate from NATO.

    803
    Does the Minister recollect what the Prime Minister said recently? He said that
    "if we don't get involved in European defence, it will happen without Britain. Then those people who really may have an agenda to destroy NATO will have control of it."
    Was that not a pretty astonishing admission—and who does the Minister think the Prime Minister had in mind?
    Mr. Vaz: What is astonishing is the right hon. Gentleman's complete lack of understanding of what has been going on over the past 10 years. I find that particularly astonishing, because it was the right hon. Gentleman himself—St. Francis of Maastricht—who signed the Maastricht treaty, so he knows all about European defence.
    The United States of America fully supports European security and defence policy. That was agreed, and the communique was set out on 23 February. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot stomach is the fact that the Prime Minister and the President could issue the statement together.

    Kosovo
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: If he discussed matters relating to the UN administration of Kosovo when he last met his colleagues representing other member states of NATO. [154090]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed matters relating to Kosovo with his NATO counterparts at a North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting on 27 February. Hans Haekkerup, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo, briefed the North Atlantic Council on the work of UNMIK—the United Nations Mission in Kosovo—on 28 February.
    We fully support Mr. Haekkerup's efforts to ensure the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1244. We welcome the priorities that he has set, namely the establishment of a legal framework for provisional institutions for Kosovo, law and order and economic reconstruction. We also welcome his efforts to establish regular dialogue with the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on Macedonia at 3.30 pm.
    Dr. Godman: Maintaining law and order in Kosovo is an immensely difficult task: everyone knows that. Am I right in thinking that KFOR is largely a European force, and a highly trained one at that? By contrast, the UN's international police force is composed of officers from 66 countries, many of whom, regrettably, are poorly trained. When did the Minister last raise at the UN the problems caused by this ill—equipped police force? There are some first—class officers in Kosovo, but many officers are not up to it.
    Mr. Vaz: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. Having just visited the area, he knows the seriousness and the difficulties of the situation. We believe, however, that things are improving. We continue to raise these matters at the UN, and in every forum that we have at our
    804
    disposal, because we believe that to be the best way of ensuring that there is a lasting legal framework that people respect.
    Law and order is clearly a crucial issue. My hon. Friend will note that the murder rate has gone down dramatically over the last year The British Government make a contribution to both forces and will continue to do so, but ultimately it is about building confidence between the communities. Unless and until we do that, we will never obtain a lasting settlement of the problems in the Balkans.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I have just returned from a visit to Kosovo with the Select Committee on Defence, and I was immensely impressed by the work that our troops are doing there; but can the Minister give us any guidance on the Government's exit strategy for our troops deployed in Kosovo?
    Mr. Vaz: We will continue to be involved in trying to win the peace, as we have been throughout the past few years. The hon. Gentleman has just visited the area, and I would be keen to look at the report that he and his Committee will publish as a result of that visit. He knows that these are agonisingly difficult problems. The way to deal with the situation is, as I have just said, to build confidence between the communities. It would not be appropriate or right to talk about exit strategies. We are there to support the restoration of law and order, and to provide the necessary forces to ensure that there will be peace and security for the people of Kosovo.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: I, too, was in Kosovo last week with the Defence Committee. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the British forces—the 1st Battalion, the Duke of Wellington's Regiment and the other forces—that are doing such a vital job there? Is he aware that, unfortunately, a lot of their time is at present devoted to defending the lives .and protecting the religious property of the very few—only 300—Serbs remaining in Pristina? Is it not vital, given that that conflict was fought to preserve a multi-ethnic Kosovo and Serbia, to send the message firmly and clearly to Albania, to the groups in the Presevo valley and in Macedonia lind to the Kosovar Albanians, that the international community will not tolerate any moves towards single ethnicity in the Balkans?
    Mr. Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the British forces. I shall certainly pass them on to the Secretary of State for Defence. My hon. Friend's message is a powerful one, which we should heed, especially at these difficult times in tho Balkans. What has happened there is a tragedy. Our role is to do exactly as my hon. Friend has suggested: to ensure that the message of multi-ethnicity is one that every country in the Balkans understands. This is the best way in which the communities themselves can work together. We have a proud record in the Balkans. We will also maintain our proud record of trying to ensure that the communities work together, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.

    Pakistan
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on relations with Pakistan. [154091]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Relations between the UK and the people of Pakistan are warm and close. However, the people of Pakistan deserve better governance, and a democracy that can deliver stability, human development and international credibility. We continue to urge General Musharraf to produce a credible timetable for national and provincial elections by autumn 2002, in accordance with the ruling of Pakistan's supreme court.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister at least assure us that the Government will give their support and encouragement to the Government of Pakistan in coping with the enormous problem of refugees from Afghanistan? That problem has existed for years. Will the Minister also give some indication of roughly how many refugees there are in Pakistan at present, and whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing? Do the Government think that there might be a case for some kind of international effort to find a solution to one of the world's biggest refugee problems?
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Pakistan has a good record of taking refugees from the war in Afghanistan. We believe that about 1.2 million refugees have entered Pakistan from Afghanistan. The issue has been discussed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and support is available to help to cope with the influx of refugees. Of course, the best solution to all those problems would be an end to the fighting in Afghanistan, and that, above all, is what we would urge.
    Fiona Mactaggart: What action has the Minister taken to build on the opportunity created by India's ceasefire and Pakistan's policy of maximum restraint to make progress towards a just and peaceful future for Kashmir, based on respect for human rights and the will of the people of that region?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We very much welcome the reduction in conflict in Kashmir and we are using that opportunity both bilaterally and through the European Union and other international bodies to urge India and Pakistan to continue dialogue and to find a solution. A solution will be found only through such dialogue. We are also urging our Indian counterparts to allow greater access to. Kashmir, including for Amnesty International and the UN special rapporteurs, and I reiterate that it is important that human rights violations are investigated and that action is taken against the perpetrators. We welcome the two reports on incidents last year as a step towards such transparency. On all those fronts, we are urging dialogue and we are making it absolutely clear that nobody but India and Pakistan, through dialogue, can achieve a resolution to those problems.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Of course, the Minister will know that every friend of Pakistan in the House wants democratic elections to take place as ;speedily as possible, but one question bemuses most of us. Why is Pakistan suspended from the Commonwealth and not allowed to
    806
    take part in any Commonwealth deliberations even though Zimbabwe is still a full member? Is not some double standard at work here?
    Mr. Wilson: If I may make a fairly obvious point to the hon. Gentleman, he may have missed the fact that there was a military coup in Pakistan. Thereafter, the decision was taken by all the members of the Commonwealth.
    Conservative Members seem to be under the misapprehension that Britain has some unilateral power to speak for the Commonwealth, but what is needed is consensus within the Commonwealth. These are two separate cases and Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth because of the military coup. We want not bogus analogies such as that drawn by the hon. Gentleman, but progress towards democratic elections in Pakistan, which would pave the way for a return to democratic government.

    Illegal Drugs
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: If he will make a statement on recent initiatives to tackle the international trade in illegal drugs. [154092]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office(Mr. John Battle): The Government are at the forefront of international efforts to combat the illegal drugs trade. Our aim, as stated in the 10-year drugs strategy, is to halve the availability of those class A drugs that cause the greatest harm, particularly heroin and cocaine.
    Mr. Bailey: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 80 per cent. of the heroin sold in this country comes from Afghanistan? Furthermore, will he continue to work with states in the region to put pressure on the Taliban to eradicate heroin trafficking? In particular, will he continue the policy of positive engagement with Iran?
    Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend, who takes a serious interest in this crucial matter. I emphasise the fact that heroin and cocaine on the streets in Britain, be it in West Bromwich, West or in Leeds, West, usually come from either Colombia or Afghanistan. Our programme of counter—drugs assistance overseas is aimed at those key producer and transit countries. Through the multilateral agencies and the UN, we funded a drug crop survey in Afghanistan, and the results for 2001 suggest that opium poppy cultivation in the region is significantly lower than in 2000. That is encouraging. There is evidence that an edict by Mullah Omar in July 2000 banning cultivation is being enforced by the Taliban, but we are still worried that stockpiling and trafficking in opiates continue. We will maintain our high-level contacts to combat that activity until we tackle the problem of production.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Minister will be well aware that in many places that produce those drugs there is no alternative crop. For example, damage was done in Nepal by closing down drug cultivation without any alternative being provided, which enormously aided the arrival of the Maoist rebels.

    807
    Will he give us an assurance that he is working hard with the Department for International Development to find alternative ways of yielding an income to the peasants?
    Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman pinpoints an important problem: if local campesinos—peasants—produce drugs, they get greater value for such a crop. Replacing it with alternatives is always difficult. However, I do not want the hon. Gentleman to leave the House with the impression that nothing can be done, because an alternative crop strategy has worked to a large extent in Bolivia. We are working closely with the Colombian authorities to develop an alternative cultivation strategy in the Magdalena Medio region to ensure that campesinos do not depend on growing drugs for their livelihoods. We will work with the Department for International Development to ensure that those programmes are successful. Alternative economic development is the genuine answer.
    Mr. Frank Roy: My hon. Friend may be aware that on Sunday thousands of people will take to the streets of Glasgow to join the Daily Record's march against drugs. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Daily Record on its initiative, and tell those who will take part in the demonstration that the war against drugs will be waged not only in Glasgow and every other city in the United Kingdom, but against the international sources of drug supply?
    Mr. Battle: We welcome the demonstration and wish it every success. Sometimes, the impression is created that there are producer countries and consumer countries and that the problem is the latter, not the former. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that production and consumption occur in both. Even in Britain, forms of drugs that are almost artificial are being produced. We must tackle the problem internationally. That is the purpose of our programmes and why we join the UN, the EU and the G8 and take an active part in the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. We must knit together our response and fight the problem from every angle.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Bearing in mind the limited success of alternative crop strategies, does the Minister know that heroin and cocaine are cheaper on the streets of the United Kingdom now than in 1995? In his discussions with the Governments of drug-producing countries, will he ask them to redouble their efforts? Will he commend the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which does so much good work in the United Kingdom and overseas in disseminating information and intelligence? That is the key to the problem.
    Mr. Battle: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is vital in discovering and analysing what is happening.
    We know that the price of heroin and cocaine is falling in our neighbourhoods. That is part of a global drugs economy, which is linked to huge business. It is said that the drugs trade is now worth the value of the oil and gas industry, the car industry and the steel industry combined.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the Okinawa summit last July that we would convene a conference on the global drugs economy to tackle the underpinning market factor in the illegal drugs racket.
    808
    It will take place in June, and we hope that it will provide some genuine detailed analysis of the macro and micro markets so that we can tackle them properly.

    Ministerial Visits (Belgrade)
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Which members of the Government have visited Belgrade since October 2000. [1540931
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade visited Belgrade on 8 and 9 November. A visit by the Foreign Office is a high priority. The visit to Belgrade by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) participated, was also a success. Federal Foreign Minister Svilanovic was in London on 27 and 28 February.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister accept that that reply is unsatisfactory? He is responsible for the Balkan region but he has not visited it. He has not been to Belgrade, Pristina, Podgorica or Zagreb. Either there is a shortage of Foreign Ministers or the priorities are wrong. When is he going?
    Mr. Vaz: With such an invitation, I should be on the plane tomorrow with my right hon. Friend. I assure my hon. Friend that Foreign Office Ministers are fully engaged in bilateral visits. He may shake his head, but a few weeks ago he chided another colleague about a visit to Poland. We must set priorities, and we have done that. Several Foreign Ministers have visited London. We organised a Balkans taskforce conference last year and several other Foreign Ministers attended it. I know that my hon. Friend is cross. but I assure him that the Balkans are a high priority, ;and I hope to give him some welcome news in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) earlier, it is not so very many weeks since the man whom many regard as a dictator, a tyrant and a murderer was invited to Belgium and France. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. 9."] The Foreign Secretary has indicated that he intends to publish the advice that he offered the Belgian and French—
    Hon. Members: No. 9.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): If it is not too late, Mr. Speaker, I will answer questions 9, 13 and 14 together.

    President Mugabe
    Mr. Roger Gale: What plans he has to meet President Mugabe; and if he will make a statement. [1540951
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What plans he has to meet Morgan Tsvangerai to discuss the present situation in Zimbabwe. [154099]
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What contact he has had with the Governm4mts of Belgium and France and with the Commission of the European Union about the recent visit of President Mugabe of Zimbabwe to Brussels and Paris. [154100]
    Mr. Cook: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier.
    Mr. Gale: Having waited for that answer, I do not think that it was terribly wrong of me to proceed—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that when I called him I expected him to call out the number of the question on the Order Paper, and he should have done so. I therefore hope that his supplementary will be very brief.
    Mr. Gale: It is not so very long since a man whom many people regard as a dictator and a tyrant was invited to Belgium and France. The Foreign Secretary has indicated that he intends to publish the advice that he gave the French and the Belgians, and that is welcome. However, will he say whether at any time he indicated to either of our European allies—
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We have to provide the opposition as well.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Gale: Has the Foreign Secretary indicated to either of our European allies that this man ;should be treated as the pariah that he is, and not given the red carpet treatment that he received?
    Mr. Cook: I have repeatedly been urged in this House to use all possible channels of communication with President Mugabe to increase the pressure on him to improve the observance of human rights within Zimbabwe. We therefore communicated to Belgium and France that if they were to meet President Mugabe, it was important that they pressed him on human rights. As I have already spoken about the Belgian meeting, perhaps I can add, for completeness, that we understand that when President Chirac met President Mugabe, he insisted that there should be dialogue with the commercial farmers and respect for the rule of law, that the violence should be curbed and that President Mugabe should halt the expulsion of foreign journalists. I welcome that message to President Mugabe.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that what so many people in this country, myself included, find so offensive is the contrast between the Labour party's view on South Africa, when we were treated to frenetic indignation the whole time, and the Government's total lack of urgency as Zimbabwe, a once prosperous country, declines into penury, state-sponsored murder and chaos? Surely the Foreign Secretary is utterly inept to withdraw the one lever that the British Government had over the Government of Zimbabwe—the
    810
    military component operating out of Harare. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not now cancel that decision so that at least he would do something that the Opposition in Zimbabwe would like the British Government to do?
    Mr. Cook: As a matter of fact, for the sake of the completeness of the record, I was urged to withdraw that in April of last year by Conservative Front Benchers. It is a bit rich to do it and then to be condemned.
    As for the contrast with southern Africa, let me make it quite clear that no Labour Member resiles from one single word of criticism for apartheid. It is a bit rich for the party that opposed Commonwealth sanctions against apartheid now to demand more sanctions against Zimbabwe.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Did the European Commissioner and the leading figures of two important European Union member countries remind the President of Zimbabwe that there are in his country some 20,000 European Union citizens who hold British passports and who should be the common concern of our European Union partners and of Her Majesty's Government? Have not the Foreign Secretary and our European partners betrayed them in not making it clear that any question of taking away their dual nationality, dispossessing them of their farms and perhaps ejecting them from the country is against every tenet of human rights and decent international behaviour?
    Mr. Cook: Both the European figures—the Prime Minister of Belgium and the President of France—raised with President Mugabe the illegal and brutal occupation of the farmlands, and urged the use of dialogue to resolve that and bring it to an end.
    A number of countries do not recognise dual nationality, but I take the opportunity with which the hon. Gentleman has presented me to deplore the threatening language that has been used against those commercial farmers in Zimbabwe who may have another nationality. They provide the backbone of the Zimbabwean economy. They have made their lives in Zimbabwe and contributed to the present economic strength of the agricultural sector there, which is being undermined. If the Government of Zimbabwe continue to take action of a vindictive character, not only those British nationals but all the people of Zimbabwe will suffer because of the disastrous impact on the economy.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that on every possible occasion the British Government and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have made it clear to Zimbabwe and President Mugabe that this Government are extremely concerned at the erosion of democracy and the independent judicial system in that country? Is it not also a fact that within about 12 months the people of Zimbabwe will have the opportunity to elect a President? They may well choose to change President on that occasion.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's final point is important. It is important for all of us to use every channel to ensure that when that chance comes, the people of Zimbabwe have the opportunity of a free and fair election in which they can exercise their vote without any threat of intimidation. My hon. Friend is right. We have repeatedly

    811
    condemned what is happening in Zimbabwe. We have done so within the Commonwealth. the European Union and the United Nations. If the Opposition can come up with anywhere else that we have not done so, I will be happy to do so.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Commonwealth takes action against Mugabe if the present situation continues? Would he like to remind us about any protestations or official representations from previous British Governments at the time of the Matabeleland massacres in 1982–84?
    Mr. Cook: I have already made it clear to the House that we cannot discover any representations on the Matabeleland massacres. There was certainly no attempt to use the Commonwealth. We raised the situation in Zimbabwe with the Commonwealth last week. We were successful in securing unanimous agreement on the concerns, in particular the intimidation of the judiciary and the media. I am glad that there is agreement to send colleagues to Harare to express those concerns directly and to hear what answers there may be from the Zimbabwean Government. We will continue to press that Government to recognise that, as a member of the Commonwealth, they have a duty to receive the delegation from the Commonwealth.
    Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) introduced the question of consistency. Does my right hon. Friend recall, during the bloodthirsty, murderous and repressive regime in Chile under self—styled Senator Pinochet, much opposition and condemnation from the then British Government, who are now Her Majesty's Opposition? How consistent does he believe that is with their quickness to condemn what is happening in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Rather than issue an all-party declaration about what the right hon. Gentleman would like to happen in Zimbabwe, would he do something practical and invite the Government of South Africa—probably the only Government to whom the Zimbabwean Government will pay any attention at the moment—to apply pressure to the President of Zimbabwe to cease his activities with regard to the judiciary, the press and the rule of law? Surely that is the most practical and effective thing to do, and he could do it now.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point about the influence of the countries of the region on Zimbabwe. We have had regular dialogue with them ever since the Cairo European Union summit in the spring of last year. We will continue to raise the matter with them. Indeed, I spoke only yesterday with the Foreign Minister of Mozambique about our concerns about Zimbabwe and what the countries of the region can do to help. South Africa is by far the largest country in the region—it is by far the largest economy. It has a lead role in the region, which places certain responsibilities on it.

    International Criminal Court
    Caroline Flint: When he expects the UK to seek ratification of the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court. [154096]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office(Mr. John Battle): The UK will ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court as soon as the necessary legislation is in place. The International Criminal Court Bill is before the House and we hope that it will receive strong support on all sides. Our intention is to be among the first 60 states to ratify.
    Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Certainly, organisations and individuals in my constituency who have written to me on the issue will welcome the ratification of that important measure. That goes for groups such as Amnesty International and other human rights bodies that submitted their opinions on the draft Bill, followed by detailed scrutiny in the other place. Will my hon. Friend reassure me of the continued support of all parties in the House for a speedy resolution and ratification of the Bill, and that the all-party support still holds firm?
    Mr. Battle: The draft Bill was published last August; there were about 45 submissions giving detailed comments—mainly positive and supportive—from a range of non-governmental and professional organisations, lawyers, academics and interested parliamentarians. It will be a historic Bill, which I hope all parties in the House will continue to support That will send a signal to the world's tyrants that there is a clear consensus in Britain and in the international community that we are united in that determination to end impunity, because justice, wherever possible, is obviously the best foundation for long-term peace.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: For the record, both sides of the House support the aims of the International Criminal Court Bill to bring to justice those who commit crimes against humanity. However, the current Bill introduced by the Government has some fundamental flaws, which our military commanders have warned could lead to British troops being prosecuted for war crimes and being prevented from carrying out peacekeeping tasks . The French have protected their armed services through an opt-out. Will the Minister undertake to accept the Conservative amendments to the Bill tabled in another place that would safeguard our armed forces, or do our soldiers, sailors and airmen get less protection than the French?
    Mr. Battle: It must be jitters before the election—the hon. Lady is changing her position. On two occasions, she pressed us to get on with the measure: in July 1988—[HON. MEMBERS: " 1988?"] —she said she welcomed the Bill; in October 1999, I think that she said she would help Ministers in any way that she could. It does not sound like that now.
    The amendments tabled by Lord Lamont in the other place did not receive support. I notice that he opposes not only the International Criminal Court but the Yugoslav tribunal and other forms of international justice. I hope that is not the case for current Opposition Front Benchers;

    813
    I hope that they will stick by their original commitment. The Bill is vital to international justice—I hope that they still support it.

    Middle East
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the situation in the middle east. [154097]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Following a successful European Union Troika visit to the region, Heads of State and Government discussed the situation in the middle east at the European Council in Stockholm on 23 March. The Council reaffirmed the Union's determination to contribute to peace, stability and future prosperity in the middle east. To that end, it requested the EU High Representative Javier Solana to explore how the EU can play an enhanced role in promoting the resumption of the peace process.
    Although there has been an overall reduction in the level of violence in the past two weeks—notwithstanding the events of the past 24 hours—we remain deeply concerned at the continuing tensions and instability. We urge both parties to take immediate parallel steps to address the current crisis.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Palestinian terrorism—such as the mortar attack from a Palestinian police station in Gaza last week, the two bombs in Jerusalem today or the terribly tragic shooting of a 10-month-old Israeli baby girl yesterday—can no longer simply be attributed to Palestinian rejectionist groups, but is also the responsibility of the Palestine National Authority? Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that Mr. Arafat does whatever he can to try to stop that terrorism and violence from the Palestinians and so allow the peace process to be resumed?
    Mr. Wilson: We condemn such acts from whichever source they come. The problem is that if there is no atmosphere of dialogue—an atmosphere that appears to be leading to a just outcome to all the problems—it makes room for extremist elements to preach a doctrine of violence and to commit the acts to which my hon. Friend refers. Everything that we do and say is directed towards a resumption of the peace process with one aim—getting people around a table to discuss a solution, taking up where discussions were leading before the Israeli elections, and feeding into the process, bilaterally, through the European Union, in every way possible. Taking out isolated acts of terrorism and condemning them is perfectly legitimate, but it does not contribute to the wider solution. We condemn all violenee. We must have dialogue if there is to be peace.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: What are the objectives of the Government's policy towards Iran?
    Mr. Wilson: We are anxious to encourage reform within Iran. We are anxious to develop our relations, and to that end the Minister for the Cabinet Office recently made the first high-level visit to Iran in, I think, 20 years.
    814
    We shall take that process forward. Where there is progress towards democratic standards we will encourage that, and that is true in Iran.
    Ann Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that a senior Iraqi official has recently been in the UK, that he is a close friend of Saddam Hussein, that he has been given a multiple entry visa by our embassy in Jordan and that he is closely connected with an institute in Iraq that is involved in chemical and biological components? Why was he given a visa when visitors who wished to come here from Iraq and Syria—members of the Iraqi opposition—were refused visas this weekend? Has there been a change of policy on Iraq?
    Mr. Wilson: I do not think that this is really the forum in which to second-guess the visa process. However, I would say that the gentleman in question was admitted as the president of the Council of Technical Colleges in Iraq. He was not judged to be a senior figure in the Iraqi regime. He came here to access educational materials and, as my hon. Friend and the House well know, the policy of sanctions against Iraq is not directed against educational materials or humanitarian goods. In that spirit, it was consistent to grant the visa to that gentleman.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: With reference to my question 33, and echoing the words of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), does the Minister agree that the overriding priority at the moment, given the extreme fragility of the middle east peace initiative, must be to encourage an end to violence and a resumption of the dialogue and negotiations? Given that the European Union countries have presented the Palestinian authorities with a very favourable economic package, does the Minister agree that he and his counterparts in Europe must use all the influence that they have at this time to encourage Yasser Arafat to meet those twin overriding objectives?
    Mr. Wilson: There is a significant role for the European Union—and I think that everyone in the middle east believes that there is a role for the European Union in this process. Therefore, I am very pleased at the visit by the EU High Representative to explore how the EU can play an enhanced role. That step was strongly supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Stockholm at the weekend.
    What the hon. Gentleman says is correct. There is a role for the EU and I am sure that, in the discussions with Yasser Arafat and other representatives of the Palestinians, the points that the hon. Gentleman made can be pursued.

    Nice Treaty
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: When he plans to take steps to enable the UK to ratify the treaty of Nice. [154098]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Robin Cook): Last week's Command Paper contains the text of the treaty of Nice. We will bring the Bill necessary to ratify the treaty before the House as soon as possible.

    815
    The treaty of Nice increases Britain's vote in the European Union, removes the veto of other countries on British priorities such as tougher budget control, and provides the institutional reforms essential for enlargement. It is in Britain's interest to ratify as soon as possible.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progress that has been made towards enlargement can certainly lead to the avoidance of the mistakes of the last century, particularly those mistakes that led to wars, and does he agree that the Opposition have not necessarily learned the lessons of the last century? Will my hon. Friend elaborate on the early warning system and human rights?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is correct on his last point. There is provision for an early warning system that would enable the European Union to intervene in a helpful way if there were any departure from human rights, but the departure has to be serious and persistent before it is triggered. I agree absolutely with his other remarks. A dozen or more countries are now seeking to join the European Union. One day they will be in the Council Chamber as full members. It is in Britain's interest that they remember us as friends of their applications and as supporters of the treaty of Nice.
    I know from talking to the Governments of those countries that they are mystified that the Opposition continue to oppose the treaty of Nice. I have written several times in the past three months to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), asking him to say exactly what he believes needs to be renegotiated; he has never replied. There is just enough time for him to reply this afternoon, or to admit that he is not prepared to defend the Conservative party's policy because he knows that it has no credibility.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the failure at Nice to halt the continuing slide to political integration will damage successful enlargement? In that vein, the Belgian presidency is seeking tax harmonisation on all savings, on personal and company taxation and on energy, labour and capital. Why is he not fighting to reform the one policy that will really jeopardise enlargement—the common agricultural policy, where British leadership is so pathetically absent?
    Mr. Cook: There is not a single Government among the candidate nations who would agree with the hon. Gentleman that the treaty of Nice does not further enlargement. I ask him to reflect on the fact that if someone is the only one who holds a certain opinion, it is just possible that that person is wrong. The hon. Gentleman is probably wise to stick to his written text, rather than to try to answer my question, but the House will have noticed that he and the right hon. Member for Horsham cannot tell us what must be renegotiated in the treaty of Nice. If they cannot tell us, they might as well admit that their policy is wrong and lacking in credibility and that they have no intention of carrying it out.
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Speaker: We shall deal with question 24. I call Mr. Ben Bradshaw.

    Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: If he will make a statement on the situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [154111]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): On Sunday, the army of Macedonia launched an operation to retake the hills above Tetevo. The operation appears to have been a success and the armed extremists have abandoned their positions.
    I spoke to President Trajkovski on Sunday morning, when I urged on him the importance of keeping the operation proportionate to the threat and restrained from action that could cause civilian casualties. I am pleased to report that, on the information currently available to us, there have been no civilian deaths.
    I spoke this morning to Javier Solana in Skopje. We both agreed that the important priority now for the Government of Macedonia is to follow up the military action by taking the political initiative to meet the legitimate aspirations of the Albanian minority. Yesterday, the Greek Foreign Minister and I held a joint conversation with the Foreign Minister of Macedonia, in which we discussed the need for progress on such issues as local government reform and the new Albanian university in Tetevo. Macedonia must not allow the terrorists to succeed in destroying its multi-ethnic society.
    In the meantime. Britain will continue to take every practical measure to improve the situation on the ground. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that Britain would provide the major part of a new battle group within KFOR of 400 troops to help secure part of the Kosovo border with Macedonia. That commitment by Britain has been well received in Macedonia.
    Over the past two years, we have turned the tide against the nationalists who took to violence in pursuit of a Greater Serbia or a Greater Croatia. We must now be equally firm against the extremists who are using terror in pursuit of a Greater Albania. The period in which borders in the Balkans were redrawn in blood is over and will not be allowed to return.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that statement and warmly welcome the constructive role being played by Britain in securing the Macedonia-Kosovo border, but will he make it absolutely plain to all the protagonists in the region that nationalism and attempts to redraw borders will not be tolerated by the international community? Will he do all that he can, working with his partners, to ensure that there is a just and peaceful settlement in Macedonia?
    Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When the European Council met in Stockholm, it received President Trajkovski, who addressed us. In our conclusion in the declaration at the end of that meeting, the European Union affirmed its commitment to the sovereignty of Macedonia and to its territorial integrity. We want the countries of the Balkans to continue on their path towards greater association and integration with the European Union, but that can be done only under the principles of

    817
    the European Union, which involve respect for borders and an acceptance that borders can never be changed by force.
    Mr. Francis Maude: We welcome the decision to send an extra British contingent to the frontier. British troops are particularly well suited and well trained for such work, and it is essential that the border between Kosovo and Macedonia should be properly sealed to prevent terrorists from coming across. There must be resolute support for the Government of Macedonia, who are democratic, legitimate, include Albanian parties and have endeavoured to create a genuinely multi-ethnic society.
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should also be very clear that there can be no question of a Greater Kosovo or a Greater Albania? As he has just suggested, moving the borders would risk the whole structure of the western Balkans unravelling. However, should we not also be clear that there can be no question of Kosovo being denied the right of eventual self-determination? What is the Government's position on the final status of Kosovo?
    Of course, in return for a commitment to self-determination, the Kosovar Albanian leadership must do everything in its power to quell the terrorist activities of Albanian terrorists in Macedonia, but does the Foreign Secretary not agree that there is a connection between vacillation over Kosovo's long-term status and the recent terrorist activity? There has been a lamentable lack of clarity and long-term vision, and mixed messages from the west have contributed to today's crisis.
    When did the Macedonian Government approach the British Government about the lack of border control between Macedonia and Kosovo? What representations did the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence make to their NATO counterparts? Why was there not earlier decisive action to step up the border controls? Did not the vacillation over the buffer zones encourage the terrorists to believe that the west was not serious about supporting the Macedonian Government?
    Is not the key lesson that political leaders have to stay on the case after the television cameras have moved away? After the bombing in Kosovo was over and the victory laps were completed, there vas still a problem to be dealt with. Five years after the Dayton peace accord was signed, Bosnia-Herzegovina bears little resemblance to what Dayton envisaged. There are two states, two Governments, three armies and three police forces there. Is it surprising that Macedonian Albanians believe that the door to self-government is open when the west has vacillated over requiring the leaders of Republika Srpska to conform to Dayton?
    The message from the west should be utterly unequivocal: existing borders should be preserved; peace accords should be honoured and the west will not accept anything less. We should say what we mean, without vacillation or equivocation, and it should be understood that we mean what we say.
    Mr. Cook: I welcome the opening two sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and will convey to KFOR and the British troops his support for, and confidence in, their deployment to the border.
    818
    There are two vast contradictions in what the right hon. Gentleman just said. The first is that it is a bit rich for the Conservative spokesman to complain of vacillation when, for years in Bosnia, the Conservative Government appeased Milosevic and did not take resolute action.
    Mr. Maude: You agreed with the policy.
    Mr. Cook: I did not agree with the policy; I happen to remember because I was the Opposition spokesman at the time.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) must allow the Foreign Secretary to reply.
    Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman wants a contrast—
    Mr. Maude rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the right hon. Gentleman an instruction.
    Mr. Cook: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a contrast, it is the contrast between the vigorous and resolute action that we took in Kosovo to halt ethnic cleansing and the tolerance, under a Conservative Government, of ethnic cleansing for years in Bosnia.
    On support for the Macedonia Government, I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman. The Government of Macedonia are under pressure at present and they require our solidarity and support. That is why at Stockholm and since we have sent messages of solidarity and support to them. The last message that the Government of Macedonia want to hear at present is the call for the independence of Kosovo that has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman. If he really believes that that is welcome in Skopje, he has no comprehension whatever of Balkan politics.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are the rules of engagement under which British troops could open fire?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raised that question yesterday with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and asked him to place the document in the Library. The rules of engagement is a military document, and it is not customary to make it public. It is not helpful to British troops for others to know the point at which they will open fire and, therefore, the point up to which they can go before fire is opened. It is very much in the interests of British troops that we preserve the discretion of that document.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I offer my support to the Government in the policy outlined by the Foreign Secretary? In circumstances where all the gains so painfully achieved in the Balkans over the past 10 years have been put at risk, will he continue to impress on the Macedonian Government the need for their forces to exercise restraint and self-discipline, and not to fall into the pattern of revenge that we have so often seen in the Balkans during those 10 years?

    819
    Will the right hon. Gentleman say to the Macedonian Government that having apparently won a military victory, now is the time for them, from that position of strength, to launch a political initiative designed to ensure the recognition, both in theory and in practice, of the human rights of all Macedonian citizens? Finally, will he remind the Macedonian Government that those who aspire to membership of the European Union have to satisfy the EU that they have achieved the highest standards of recognition of human rights before their membership application stands any chance of success?
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a number of valid points. I entirely agree with him on the importance of the Macedonian army remaining disciplined, focused and proportionate in its response. I echo the welcome given by Lord Robertson in Skopje late last night for the fact that the recent action was firm and restrained. We should remember that 40 per cent. of the Macedonian army is Albanian.
    I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observation about the need now for a move from a position of strength. I can well understand the reluctance to take a political initiative if it is seen as a concession to terrorists, but after the success of this weekend's action and the retreat of the terrorists, the Macedonian Government can now take such steps from a position of strength and should do so. The terrorists want to undermine multi-ethnic Macedonia; we must make sure that they are defeated and that we defeat also their poisonous lie that Albanian and Slav cannot live together in the same country in peace.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: It is surely right and in our national interest to support the democratic Government of Macedonia, who have been a beacon in a highly difficult region. As my right hon. Friend said, there is the military track and the political track. What particular help is he prepared to give the Macedonian Government in addressing the legitimate grievances of the Albanian minority? What does he have in mind? Would it not be best if a Foreign Office Minister took our clear message to the Macedonian Government, who are now, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, in a position of strength?
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased to say that we are already heavily engaged in helping the Macedonian Government in practical ways. The United Kingdom has committed £500,000 to help to set up the new Albanian university in Tetevo, which should open for business this coming autumn. Obviously, we will look sympathetically at other projects.
    I was in touch only yesterday with the Foreign Minister of Macedonia. I met him last Friday, and I will continue to keep in close contact with him. The next major appointment will be in two weeks, when he and other representatives of the Government will come to Brussels to sign the stabilisation agreement with the European Union. We have invited the members of the Government to bring with them Albanian representatives from the Parliament and the Government to demonstrate our support for the multi-ethnic character of Macedonia.
    Sir David Madel: What help will the British Government give the Macedonian
    820
    Government in relation to the population census in that country, which is planned for next month? Will American troops be playing a greater role in policing the Kosovo-Macedonia border?
    Mr. Cook: Much of the border is in the American sector. The Americans are already involved in policing that border and our troops will work closely with the local US commander when they get there. We discussed the census at Stockholm and I put it to the Commission that we should be willing to provide European Union observers because the Albanian community is keen for it to have an international legitimacy.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: May I support everything that my right hon. Friend said today and in Stockholm? I also agree with his condemnation of the demand by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that we should show some support for the independence of Kosovo. It is a fragile state in which a small group of extremists on the border is trying to incite discontent among the minority population in Macedonia. The last thing they need to hear is that Members of this House have been talking about independence. There is a long way to go in Kosovo. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not know that his party involved others in helping to build a democracy there.
    Mr. Cook: It is very important that no one speaks as if the extremists who have carried out the insurgency in Macedonia have the backing of the wider Albanian community. Their action has been condemned by the Albanian political leaders in Macedonia, the Kosovo leaders in Pristina and the Albanian Government. They represent themselves, not the wider community.
    I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's comments on democracy in the region. We are pushing for the United Nations to hold Kosovo-wide elections to a constituent Assembly later this year. I hope that those will proceed and that we will be able to embark on a dialogue with legitimate elected leaders who have behind them the authority of the ballot box, not that of the bullet. It is wrong for any western politician to prejudge that dialogue.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I express the hope that the Foreign Secretary has studied the characteristically pungent remarks of David Lloyd George about the difficulty of influencing events in Macedonia and the experiences of the British Salonika expedition? Does he agree that the most cursory glance at the map shows that it would require tens of thousands of troops to close the Macedonian frontier to the countries that surround it? Will he also recognise that his remarks about the need to make further concessions to the Albanian minority in Macedonia will be badly received by the majority in that country who remember that almost identical language prefaced the British Government's decision to pursue policies that have replaced Serb rule with Albanian rule in Kosovo?
    Mr. Cook: I have to be candid and confess that I have not had time in the past week to consult David Lloyd George on the situation in Macedonia. I have been trying to address the problems of this century, not those of a century ago. However, I rebut what the hon. Gentleman said. We should

    821
    not regard a modern pluralist democracy in Macedonia as a concession. Indeed, better and stronger local government would benefit the people of both communities in that country.
    Mr. Bruce George: Will the Secretary of State have discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence to establish what resources, there are in both Departments to fly out as many Conservative Members as possible to the Balkans to enhance their understanding of the area? Perhaps on that visit, they could discover what the consequences of a referendum for self-determination—independence—would be for the region. If we think that we have had problems up to now, I suspect that independence for Kosovo in the foreseeable future would have catastrophic results.
    The Defence Committee visited the units that are being sent to police part of the border. Their professionalism and commitment are outstanding. Does my right hon. Friend agree that most hon. Members, at least on the Labour Benches and, I hope. on the Conservative Benches, realise that the insertion of British troops to prevent people travelling from Kosovo to cause mischief in Macedonia is helpful, not destructive, to security in that troubled part of the world?
    Mr. Cook: I absolutely endorse the last part of my right hon. Friend's observations. One of the strengths that our trained and equipped forces will bring to the border is a capacity for operating at night, which is the time when the terrorists try to move.
    I am strongly in favour of an educational expedition of the sort that my right hon. Friend outlined. However, in my many conversations with Macedonian Ministers over the past five days, none of them has put in a plea that we should send them more Tory MPs.
    Paddy Ashdown: Is it not as well to recognise that while it is a good thing that British forces should be helping to "seal" the Schar Planina range and the border between Kosovo and Albania, in reality that will be impossible? We have put 20,000 troops in Northern Ireland for 25 years, but we could not stop bombs being let off in London. We are talking of a border that is extremely difficult to police. We must do our best, but we should not promise that we can stop exfiltration of terrorism from Kosovo, not least because even if we could do a good job on that border, it would still be possible to pass through the Albanian border between the south of Kosovo and Lake Ochrid, which is already happening.
    Is it not a tragic paradox that no one throughout the history of the Macedonian state has done more to address the issue of Albanian minority rights than the Government of President Trajkovski? It would be of no difficulty to him to use what is, in my view, probably a fairly limited military victory as a position of strength from which to bargain to return to his policy of addressing Albanian rights, and therefore to turn from the gun to the political plain.
    Mr. Cook: First, may I correct the right hon. Gentleman? We do not use the term "seal" the border for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman has stated. We can do much more to secure the border, but we are not pretending that in a difficult terrain we shall be 100 per cent. effective. However, that does not undermine
    822
    the importance of doing what we can to prevent movements, as we have already, and we can do more. For instance, we can prevent the movement of heavy weaponry—that is certainly a feasible objective. We will enhance liaison with the Macedonian military intelligence to ensure that we co-operate as partners.
    The right hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about the Government of President Trajkovski. In my intervention at Stockholm, I said that one of the reasons for his having our support is the steps that he has taken towards providing a stable and secure multi-ethnic society in Macedonia. The support of Europe will continue to be strong so long as he continues in that direction.
    Mr. Jimmy Hood: I was in Kosovo last week, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee. I saw what was happening. I find it difficult to control my anger having heard the irresponsible utterances of the Opposition spokesman, who seeks to be in a Conservative Government. May I—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the matters for which the Foreign Secretary has responsibility.
    Mr. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend—the person who is in charge of the Foreign Office—that to give any sympathy to a campaign for independence in Kosovo is the quickest way to inflame another Balkan war. Those who give such sympathy are acting irresponsibly and threatening the lives of British soldiers who are keeping the peace. I hope that my right hon. Friend will condemn that approach, because I have heard support for terrorism in Kosovo from the spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend speaks from the experience of his visit. I have already condemned what I believe to be an unhelpful and irresponsible call for independence in Kosovo, but I am happy to do so again. My hon. Friend is right to remind us all that there are several thousand British troops in Kosovo who have to live with the consequences.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in facing the incredibly difficult ethnic mix, the tensions and the prospective explosive situation in the Balkans, an element that has not been mentioned is the amazingly high level of criminality? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be appropriate for the Government to do all that they can to assist all local Governments to have available to them the necessary mechanisms of law and order? There is a mix between ethnic nationalism and banditry and crime of every sort.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and important point. A high priority of our policy on Kosovo and the wider region is to work with our European partners to tackle the organised crime that threatens to disfigure the region. That is why, in the early days after the liberation of Kosovo, we sent in a police contingent to look particularly at criminal investigation. We shall continue to do all that we can to make sure that we tackle

    823
    crime. The tragedy is that organised crime in the region and the drugs trade have a close overlap with the terrorist extremists whom we have seen in action in the past week.
    Mr. John Smith: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon, especially his emphasis on seeking long-term stability in the region once we have dealt with the conflict in Macedonia. Will he express his view on the pending referendum in Montenegro, the fact that the Albanian minority will almost certainly vote for independence—but for the wrong reason—and the impact that that will have on the conflict in Macedonia? Does he agree that the secret is not the ridiculous suggestion from the Opposition, but the creation anchors of stability in Serbia and Albania, using Croatia as a model?
    Mr. Cook: We have repeatedly urged on President Djukanovic the importance of any new constitutional arrangement between Montenegro and Serbia being achieved by mutual agreement, dialogue and negotiation. We have also stressed that a narrow majority in a referendum for independence is not what is required for such a major constitutional change; that would require a settled consensus of the population.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: The Foreign Secretary is much better informed than the British public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He is a very wise man. Does he feel that the public may be a bit confused? Previously, the British Government went to war on behalf of Albanian self-determination in Kosovo-[Interruption.] No, it is true. Now, when another group of Albanians, admittedly rather nastier than the other lot, want to go to war for their own self-determination, they are condemned. Are the Government going to have a consistent policy and are they going to stand up for self-determination, wherever it occurs.
    Mr. Cook: I know that Conservative Members are given to collective amnesia about what happened before 1997, but that is a remarkable piece of amnesia about something that happened only two years ago. We did not go to war on self-determination. We went into the conflict in Kosovo to halt a major humanitarian catastrophe, triggered by the systematic and brutal ethnic cleansing by President Milosevic. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who did not support us at the time, still argues about whether we were right to do so.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon. Our forces, as well as our Royal Ulster Constabulary and Ministry of Defence police officers, are doing a marvellous job in Kosovo. However, is there any truth in the claim in The Scotsman this morning that
    "around 20 counter-insurgency specialists from the Royal Marines of the Arbroath-based 45 Commando will be sent to Macedonia"?
    If there is, is the specialists' function to train units of the Macedonian army? Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence give an assurance that they will be adequately equipped and have sufficient backing to do the job?
    Mr. Cook: It is the case that we have recently dispatched a 10-officer recce team to Macedonia to advise us on how we can best support the army of Macedonia
    824
    by providing advice, training and equipment. It has just submitted a report, which we are considering. We are not currently contemplating the dispatch of any further team, but if a case was made for a way in which we could be of assistance, it would be responsible of us to respond to that. Equally importantly, we should be responsible for safeguarding the security and safety of any troops whom we send.
    Mr. John Redwood: As political initiative and diplomacy will be required to resolve the conflict, the number of troops is understandably small and ambitions for them are limited. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us who is in charge? Is it NATO, the European Union or the British Government?
    Mr. Cook: The commander of KFOR is appointed by NATO and accountable to NATO. I do wish that, now and again, the right hon. Gentleman would address a serious issue under discussion, rather than trying to score his petty European points.
    Jane Griffiths: I was in Kosovo in January this year. One of the many things that I learned there was that the main food supplies, as well as aid and other goods, come into Kosovo through Macedonia. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those routes will remain open or, if that cannot be guaranteed, that contingency plans are in place to ensure food supplies?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the strategic routes. It follows from that that there would be great difficulty in providing any alternative route in. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we support the Government of Macedonia—not just because they are democratic and multi-ethnic, but because they have been of great support to KFOR in Kosovo. We have a debt of honour to them, and we should discharge it by making sure that we give Macedonia all the help that we can.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: On the same visit under the armed forces parliamentary scheme, many of us were surprised to learn that the Americans were not policing their own border. We were told that they did not have the type of troops that would normally go out on their own and be exposed in that way. Following America's announcement that it is taking troops out of its sector, can the Foreign Secretary tell us why we are sending British troops in? Is it because only British troops are willing to put their lives at risk? Are not some of the problems of overstretch of our forces caused by the fact that whenever there is a difficult issue to be dealt with, that must be done by British troops, rather than by our allies?
    Mr. Cook: On overstretch, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the 300 troops that we are supplying for the border are from our present contingent to KFOR. They are not coming from any additional deployment to KFOR, although we have not ruled that out, should it be required by the commanders on the ground. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the position, broadly, in KFOR would be much easier if other nations showed the same flexibility as we did and were also willing to accept orders from

    825
    ComFOR when he requires help in particular areas. Such a step by others would greatly enhance the capability, the achievements and the effectiveness of KFOR.
    Mr. David Heath: Does not the international community owe a great debt to Macedonia? Would it not send a valuable signal to the Government in Macedonia, who are trying to deal with infiltration through a border that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) described as very permeable, if we considered re-activating UNPREDEP, perhaps with a different mandate and perhaps extending its operation around Tetevo and Gostivar, and showing that we are committed to the integrity of the Macedonian border?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about our debt to Macedonia. I have already discussed that. At present, there is no active proposal in the United Nations for a restoration of UNPREDEP. That was ended following the Chinese veto after Macedonia recognised Taiwan, and there would be internal United Nations problems in restoring it. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all that we can to seal our
    826
    side of the border, and we are working with the Macedonian military to make sure that it can secure its side of the border.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Foreign Secretary will remember the warnings that he received in 1999 that, as a product of the Government's diplomatic and military strategy, NATO and British forces would in the end be involved in opposing an ethnic Albanian insurgency. Is that what has happened?
    Mr. Cook: At present we are making sure that the majority of the Albanian community in Kosovo can have the peaceful life that those people want, in their own society, free from the shadow of the terrorist, and free from the shadow of President Milosevic and the thugs with whom he was terrorising Kosovo two years ago. If the hon. Gentleman imagines that Macedonia would be any more stable now if we had allowed Macedonia to continue to be the host to half a million refugees from Kosovo, he has no grasp of reality. Macedonia is much more stable now than if we had not taken the action that we took to enable those people to go back to Kosovo.

Foot and Mouth
4.4 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about foot and mouth disease. I want to update hon. Members both on the latest position on the disease outbreak and on the range of actions that the Government have been taking since I last informed the House on Wednesday 21 March. I then want to outline what we know so far about the causes and spread of the outbreak, and to announce the measures that we propose to take as a result.
At 1 pm today, there had been 668 confirmed cases in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland. Forty-two cases were confirmed yesterday. Out of a total UK livestock population of more than 55 million, 697,500 animals have now been authorised for slaughter and 423,000 have already been slaughtered. Outside the United Kingdom, there is one case in the Republic of Ireland, and there are two cases in France and five cases in Holland.
I made public last week the epidemiological studies that I have received on the likely cause of the disease. They differed in their detail, but they were all clear that this is an unprecedented outbreak that has not yet reached its peak.
Our strategy remains focused on three key priorities. All animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on infected farms are to be culled within 24 hours of the infection report. All animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on contiguous farms are then to be culled within 48 hours. We are concentrating our efforts in northern Cumbria on clearing all animals identified for slaughter in Solway, and on creating a firebreak south of the worst affected area.
Last Wednesday, I explained to the House what actions the Government were taking to speed up our response to the disease. I believe that we have taken the right actions and I will spell out what effect they are already having. We have made full use of the resources of the Army. At my Ministry's request, 780 soldiers are now deployed and are helping with the logistic operations. They include 115 soldiers in Scotland and 50 in Wales, in addition to more than 600 in England, of whom 118 are in Cumbria and a further 72 in Devon. As well as the Army unit in our headquarters in London, there are Army headquarters in Exeter, Worcester, Carlisle and Dumfries. Military liaison officers will be joining all major disease control centres. The Army's role is to enhance command and control and to assist in the disposal process. Its presence allows us to free up vets to concentrate solely on veterinary matters.
Last week, I informed the House that we had put in place senior officials as directors of operations in Cumbria and Devon and were about to do so in Worcester. In addition to those three, we have since put in place further directors of operations in Stafford, Chelmsford, Gloucester, Leicester and Newcastle. These senior administrators have also taken over operational tasks from senior vets and allowed them to get on with their veterinary work.
We are also bringing more and more vets into the front line. The total number of vets in the state veterinary service who are tackling the disease is now 1,235, and we are looking to increase this number still further. We are
828
following up offers of assistance from the French and Spanish Governments. An appeal by the British Veterinary Association to its members has generated a large number of inquiries, which are being pursued. Enhanced rates of pay for temporary vets were announced last week.
Wherever possible, we have reduced the time between when a vet makes one inspection and when he or she can make the next one. Where the disease risk is minimal, the turnaround time has been reduced to 24 hours. We have simplified the valuation arrangements while at the same time safeguarding farmers' interests by introducing a generous standard tariff. More than 95 per cent. of confirmations now take place on clinical grounds; that is, without the need for laboratory tests. We have revised protocols to allow vets in the field to make on—site judgments and to initiate slaughter.
The key task is to reduce the time between the first report of the disease and the slaughter of the herd or flock. Our target remains that that should not exceed 24 hours. The epidemiological studies published last week confirmed that that is the crucial intervention that will enable us to get on top of the disease. We are achieving that in large parts of the country, including Devon in recent days. In Cumbria, the high density of infection and sheer number of cases has meant that we are not yet achieving that target, and work is in hand to address that.
Yesterday, I visited the two most affected areas of the country, Cumbria and Devon. I saw for myself the hard work that is being done by the state veterinary service, the Army and all the other parties involved. I also met farmers and their leaders.
There has been a good deal of speculation recently about the possible use of vaccination as an ingredient in our foot and mouth disease control strategy. Vaccination can be used in two quite different ways. One approach is to use a national policy of vaccination as the protection mechanism against foot and mouth disease. That is not a policy that is adopted or favoured by any member state or by the European Commission.
It is, however, accepted that emergency vaccination can play a role in controlling an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, either to establish zones of protection between infected areas and the rest of the country or to reduce the number of cases in disease hot spots. The Commission has already agreed to the possible temporary use of vaccination in such circumstances by the Dutch authorities.
Vaccination is no easy option. It would be expected to delay full return to international trade, at least for the region affected, and would be likely to require tight additional controls—again, at least in the area concerned. We would need to consider, with the Commission, whether it was necessary in due course to slaughter vaccinated animals—with compensation, of course—as part of a return to normal trading.
The Government are considering whether to use vaccination. I have therefore authorised my representative in the European Union Standing Veterinary Committee to seek a contingent decision permitting the use of vaccination during the present outbreak, so that it can be deployed immediately if we conclude that it is the right approach.
We have done a great deal to help farmers financially. Our help includes full compensation for animals slaughtered on disease grounds, the provision of

829
agrimonetary compensation and the preservation of common agricultural policy subsidy entitlements under EU rules on force majeure. In addition, last week I opened the livestock welfare disposal scheme as an outlet of last resort for livestock farmers whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of foot and mouth disease-related movement restrictions. The scheme provides for the removal and disposal of animals, for which Government will bear the costs. At 90 per cent. of pre-outbreak market value, the tariffs for the animals slaughtered under the scheme are generous. The detailed payment rates are being placed in the House Libraries today. The estimated value of that optional scheme to farmers obviously depends on take-up, but it is now likely to be in excess of £200 million.
Let me now turn to what we know about the possible causes of the current outbreak, the spread of infection and the differences between this and the 1967 outbreak. It is likely that the source farm, from which the outbreak subsequently spread, was the fourth infected premises to be discovered, at Heddon-on-the-Will. Hon. Members will be aware of speculation that the practice of feeding swill to pigs was a cause, or the cause, of the outbreak. The farm in question, at Heddon, was licensed to feed swill to pigs. Epidemiological and other investigations continue. I know that the House will understand if I do not comment on the specifics of the case.
The subsequent spread of infection is traceable to some extent. Virus from the source farm spread to seven other farms in Tyne and Wear. Sheep from, one of those farms were sent to Hexham market on 13 February; sheep from the 13 February market at Hexham were sent to markets at Longtown, and further dispersed from there during the period between 14 and 24 February. So within days, at a time when we were still unaware of the disease, infected sheep were criss-crossing the country in hundreds of separate movements, and coming into contact with other livestock.
From Longtown market, sheep were sent to markets at Carlisle on 16 February and at Welshpool on 19 February; to dealers at Highampton, Lockerbie in Dumfries and Galloway, Dearham in Cumbria and Nantwich in Cheshire; and, indirectly, to markets at Hatherleigh on 20 February, Hereford on 21 February, Northampton on 22 February and Ross-on-Wye on 23 February.
While tracing movements of pigs from the index farm has proved relatively straightforward. tracking movements of sheep has proved more difficult and in some cases impossible. That is partly due to unrecorded sales of sheep, which it seems took place around the edges of various livestock markets without passing through the markets' books.
Over the past four weeks, many comparisons have been drawn with the 1967 outbreak. The truth is, however, that the two outbreaks are very different The key differences between this outbreak and that of 1967 are the speed and geographical scale of the spread of infection—which result from a number of factors—and the species involved. Experts agree that the current outbreak is unprecedented internationally. First, time had elapsed before the infection at the probable source farm was disclosed. The suspicious lesions found on pigs at Heddon-on-the-Wall on 22 February suggest that the pigs had been incubating the disease for at least two, and possibly up to three, weeks. By 23 February, when infection was confirmed at Heddon-on-the-Wall, infected
830
animals had already spread through markets and dealers to Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, Devon, Cheshire, Herefordshire and Northamptonshire.
Linked to that, the second factor in the speed and scale of the spread was the larger scale of animal movements nowadays compared to 1967, aided by a much improved network of roads and motorways. A third factor was that the infection spread quickly to sheep. and then among sheep. The nature of sheep flocks and the way in which they are traded made the course of the infection more difficult to trace. The 1967 outbreak was mainly in pigs and cattle. The strain of the virus with which we are currently dealing does not manifest itself clearly in sheep, which makes detection difficult. Apparently healthy animals may be disease carriers.
I am announcing four actions in response to this assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The first measure relates to pigswill. I am today proposing a ban on the use of swill feeding in this country. I accept that the arguments in favour of and against allowing the practice are quite finely balanced. If the statutory conditions for feeding swill are complied with—heating at 100 deg C for one hour—it does not present a risk of transmitting foot and mouth disease and other similar pathogens.
Banning swill feeding will not necessarily prevent the risk of illegal feeding of swill and catering waste to pigs—possibly by the owners of small numbers of pigs, for example. However. I have concluded that the risk of swill feeding introducing disease to livestock farms on which swill is not used, and to the wider community, is now greater than the benefits to the relatively small number of premises that continue to adopt the practice. That is why I am proposing an early ban.
My Department is today issuing a public consultation document seeking the views of all interested parties on the principle and detailed application of such a ban. Meanwhile, let me remind the owners of all the pigs in the country, including pet pigs, to comply with the current law. It is illegal to feed untreated household waste or any other materials that may contain meat products.
I am also issuing a second consultation document today containing a proposal to introduce a 20-day standstill period, after movement, for sheep, goats and cattle. There are rules on the identification and movement of pigs, including a general requirement that no pigs should be moved off premises within 20 days of any pigs moving on to those premises. If a similar requirement had been in place, and observed, in relation to sheep in particular, it is likely that the spread of the foot and mouth virus would have been significantly slowed down, making tracing and control of the infection easier. I am minded, therefore, to introduce legislation to require a 20-day standstill period for sheep, goats and cattle, subject to the views of interested parties. That is why I am launching a full consultation exercise today.
Thirdly, we know that, somehow, infection has entered this country. One possible way is through illegal commercial imports of meat, in which contents have not been declared. There is clearly an issue in relation to carrier liability, to which the Government will give careful thought. Another possibility is that infected produce might have come in as a personal import. Rules already exist to control such imports, and they must be enforced effectively. I am co-ordinating action across government

831
to ensure that this happens. I shall also write to Commissioner Byrne to stress that a consistent and tough approach needs to be taken across the European Union.
Lastly, once we are beyond the current difficulties, my Department will consider a range of other issues relating to the operation of the livestock sector, to ascertain whether more can be done to minimise disease risks still further. This work will cover the operation of markets—in particular, out-of-ring sales—and the identification and tracing of pigs, sheep and goats. In all those matters, I shall act in close consultation with the devolved Administrations.
This has been a dreadful time for farmers and others directly affected by foot and mouth disease. I believe that our policy of containing the disease is the right one, and that the massive logistical exercise required to implement it is being reinforced. We will succeed in eradicating this disease. In addition, I believe that the measures I have announced today will ensure that we learn the lessons and minimise the risks of such a tragedy in the future.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for letting me have a copy of his statement about 20 minutes before he made it. I begin by again expressing our warm appreciation of the work of all those who are fighting to contain the outbreak.
As the number of confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease continues its remorseless rise, let no one forget that behind each deadly statistic lies a terrible human tragedy. A farmer—often a whole family—faces the prospect of months of emptiness and inactivity and, beyond that, a very uncertain future. In urging the Government to work harder to curb the spread of foot and mouth disease, I am thinking not only of the mounting economic damage that it is inflicting: my heart is with the men, women and children on farms who sit helplessly as the disease gets nearer day by day and finally strikes.
Let me repeat that the Opposition will continue to back the Government whenever they take timely, effective and appropriate steps, as we have at every stage in the crisis, even when the action proposed was unpopular. That was the case with the cull around Cumbria, which the Government announced 12 days ago. We gave immediate and unqualified support.
On the proposals made by the Minister today, we share the concern about the use of pigswill and the large number of perfectly legal sheep movements and transactions that appear to have occurred. We support in principle the steps that he proposes and we shall examine the details when they are published.
On the origin of the outbreak, I am interested in the Minister's view that Heddon-on-the-Wall was the original source. Does that mean that the Government are now certain that foot and mouth disease was not present elsewhere in Britain before the case in Northumberland? Will he publish all the relevant reports, which may shed light on the possible origins of the outbreak? Can he assure the House categorically that no one—not even officials in his Ministry, either in London or the regions—was aware of a possible foot and mouth disease outbreak before 19 February 2001?
I welcome the Minister's recognition that the weakness of Britain's import controls probably allowed infected produce to enter our country and cause the outbreak of
832
foot and mouth disease. He knows that the Conservative party has been calling for tougher enforcement of all rules relating to meat imports for a very long time and I hope that early action will be taken effectively.
Is the Minister aware of the surprise that many people express when they learn of the continued legal import of meat from countries where foot and mouth disease outbreaks have occurred in the recent past? Although measures to prevent foot and mouth from returning to Britain in future are important for the longer term, does he accept that none of the proposals on banning pigswill, a 20-day standstill period for livestock and carrier liability will do anything to deal with the immediate crisis or to slow down the relentless spread of foot and mouth disease across our countryside?
Does the Minister agree that vaccination is the very last resort and that if the Government decide that some form of vaccination is necessary, they will, in effect, be admitting that their other policies have failed? [Interruption.] Yes. Will he confirm that if Britain is to regain its status as a foot and mouth disease-free nation in a reasonable period, every single animal that is vaccinated would still have to be slaughtered eventually?
Does the Minister agree that the permanent loss of our foot and mouth disease-free status would have profound consequences that would go far wider than the livestock industry? Will he confirm that vaccinated animals cannot be slaughtered for human consumption?
Will the Minister confirm that the Government's chief scientific adviser said last Friday that, if the Government did not step up the scale of their measures to prevent the spread of the disease, in the worst-case analysis up to half Britain's livestock would be lost? Will he further confirm that one of the measures that the chief scientific officer described as essential was cutting to 24 hours the time between reporting a case and slaughtering the animal? Will he admit that in most areas the target is not being achieved?
The Minister stated this afternoon that 264,000 animals are awaiting slaughter. Will he confirm that, in the 24 hours that ended at 3 pm yesterday, only 31,000 animals were slaughtered? At the current rate of progress, it will take not 24 hours but more than eight days to clear the backlog of animals, even if no further cases are identified. In those eight days, thousands of animals run the risk of spreading the disease still further. Will the Minister confirm that the Government fell even further behind events because in the 24 hours to 3 pm yesterday, 48,000 more animals were identified as requiring slaughter, but only 31,000 were slaughtered? That means that 17,000 more remain on the waiting list.
Will the Minister confirm that the figures for carcases are scarcely better? Despite the excellent but belated work that the Army is now allowed to do in Cumbria, the total number of carcases awaiting disposal increased yesterday to 104,000. Does the Minister finally realise that the Government's failure to act promptly and adequately in response to the crisis has led directly to the scale of the emergency that now engulfs our nation?
Does the Minister accept that many of the actions that the Government are starting to take are the steps that I suggested at a much earlier date? If the Government had brought in the Army in a hands-on role, as I suggested on 11 March, instead of waiting two more weeks; started on-farm burial, as I suggested on 15 March, instead of

833
persisting with potentially harmful incineration and rendering methods; and authorised vets to order immediate slaughter, as I suggested on 13 March, the problem would be much less serious.
For the Prime Minister to suggest yesterday that the Conservative party had jumped on a bandwagon was deeply insulting to those whose suffering our timely proposals are designed to help, and a hideous distortion of the truth, which demeans his great office. Like other Ministers before him, the Prime Minister claims that foot and mouth disease is being brought under control when, plainly, it is not, and that his policies are succeeding before they have been fully implemented.
In the six days since the Prime Minister said that he was taking personal charge of the crisis, the number of animals awaiting slaughter has increased by two thirds. The dither and confusion in Government have continued and the actions that the Prime Minister's chief scientific adviser described last Friday as essential for curbing the spread of the disease have not been fully carried out.
Mr. Brown: The situation with which we are dealing is unprecedented. I shall not rise to the bait because a serious problem confronts our country and I honestly believe that the best way to approach it is in as bipartisan a spirit as possible.
I shall take one at a time the points that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) raised, but first I express my thanks for his appreciation of the hard work of uniformed personnel and civilians in the field. They are working incredibly long hours to eradicate the disease, and they have to deal with a rising profile of cases, especially in Cumbria and Devon. The rise is remorseless, and the hon. Gentleman was right to describe the situation as a human tragedy. I give this commitment on the Government's behalf—we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the farming community and the broader rural community and do what we can to make the uncertain future to which the hon. Gentleman referred more certain. We will stand in the farmers' corner, not just helping them through the disease outbreak but working with them on a recovery plan afterwards.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had stood by me even when I had to make unpopular decisions. If he can think of a popular decision that I can make in these circumstances, I would welcome his advice. There are some very hard choices to be made. There is not one recommendation that does not have a good argument against it, except this—doing nothing is not an option. Some very difficult questions must be addressed.
I met farmers yesterday in the hardest of circumstances in Cumbria, where the outbreak is most intense, and in Devon. I found the farming community very upset and distressed, quite naturally. I heard personal stories that were absolutely heartbreaking. However, the farmers were being brave enough to face up to the difficult decisions and discuss with me unpalatable alternative strategies—as I said, there are no palatable ones . It behoves all of us to do the same and to treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the consultation on pigswill. On the movement of sheep and cattle, alternatives are set out in the two consultation documents, particularly with regard to how far we should
834
restrict cattle movements. I welcome views on the proposals. There are no right and wrong answers, just alternative routes that the Government could follow.
We believe, and have done since the early stages, that Heddon-on-the-Wall was the original source of the outbreak. There is a whole series of urban legends about officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knowing that the disease was in the country earlier and concealing it for some inexplicable purpose of their own. That simply is not true. I cannot publish what does not exist. There is no report marked "Secret", saying that there is foot and mouth disease in the country but we believe that no one will notice. Such a proposition is plainly absurd.
I cannot publish what is not there, but I can publish what I was told, and when. I asked for a note to be drawn up setting everything out in that crucial week from the first suspicion of the disease being present in Essex to the controls being put in place the following Friday. I am willing to put that in the Library so that people can see what Ministers were told, when, and what actions were taken.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had warned of the weakness of controls over foreign imports. They are the same controls that were in place for 18 years of Conservative government. They have not deteriorated over time. I want a hard look at how they are being enforced. There are two routes. First, is the rule on importation for personal use being abused? If so, how is it being abused and how can we tighten up enforcement? The second, separate, issue is meat products that are imported on containers, either lawfully or unlawfully, being described as something other than what they are. We need to take a hard look at those questions across Government, and I am co-ordinating that work from my Ministry.
The hon. Gentleman asked, perfectly properly, about vaccination. There are two ways, as I said in my statement, in which we might consider the use of vaccination. It would be a very serious step. There are arguments against it, and I want to consult the devolved authorities.
It is not true that in all circumstances the use of vaccination will compromise the disease-free status of the whole of Great Britain. I am determined to restore that disease-free status for the whole of Great Britain. That is the right strategy for the Government to pursue. We should not allow it to be compromised, not even by vaccination, but it may be possible to apply a policy of vaccination on a regional basis, and have the region in which it is applied treated differently. It is not automatic that vaccinated animals would be slaughtered afterwards, but there is a presumption that the Government would pursue such a policy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our target of 24 hours from recognition of the disease to slaughter of the animals. That is by far the most important single intervention that we can make. We are achieving the target in most parts of the country, but we are still behind in Cumbria. We need to up our game to ensure that we achieve it. I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticisms, but it is a little like a back-seat driver saying, "You should have taken that left—hand turn half a mile back I now

835
realise," but also saying, "Get on with it." I do not need to be told to get on with it and nor do the officials on the ground.
Dr. Jack Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when this Government were elected, live pigs were being fed with the remains of dead pigs, with pig slaughterhouse waste and with the waste from pet food manufacture, and that it was this Government who took action more than two years ago to ban those practices, which the previous Administration had done nothing about? Does not it follow, therefore, that anyone feeding any mammalian waste to pigs today is acting unlawfully? I hope that the proper consequences will flow from that.
Will my right hon. Friend also recognise that even in the most dire circumstances in Cumbria he has the overwhelming support of farmers in taking the tough and often complex decisions that he is having to take? In that regard, will he assure me that he will spare no effort, but will use every resource and waste no time to take the steps necessary to isolate the outbreak at Seathwaite in the Cumbrian fells? If we are not able to do that, the consequences will be dire indeed.
Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the constraints on the feeding of mammalian meat to pigs, except in the special circumstances involving heat treatment that I described to the House. I met Cumbrian farmers yesterday and I was enormously impressed by their fortitude and resilience in the most appalling circumstances. I can promise my right hon. Friend that the Government will stand shoulder to shoulder with his constituents and their neighbours until the disease. is eradicated and a recovery programme is firmly in place.
Mr. Colin Breed: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his usual courtesy in providing an early copy. We, too, support in principle the measures contained in the statement. I have a few questions, however.
First, the chief scientific adviser a few days ago used words to the effect that this was a disaster waiting to happen. When did he come to that conclusion and, more important, when did he communicate that fact to the Government? Secondly, what arrangements are to be made for the disposal of the waste food that will not now go into swill? Will it be the subject of proper regulation and inspection?
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider permanently increasing the resources of the state veterinary service and, in effect, reversing the cuts that have taken place under the present Administration and under the previous Conservative Government?
Will there be additional port health inspectors to give real teeth to the inspection of imported food to ensure that this situation cannot happen again? Will the Minister also put more resources into the inspection of farms, in particular to enforce the 20-day restriction? It will be of little value if it is not rigidly controlled. Does he accept that vaccination might be a sensible precaution to protect special breeding flocks and cattle herds where valuable gene pools have to be preserved?
836
We still have not heard about a scheme to assist farmers with cattle over 30 months. That is becoming a real problem as more and more cattle fall into that category. Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to discuss with his colleagues a scheme to deal with that? Has he also considered the problems of healthy stock trapped within restricted areas? In some cases, they are now awaiting welfare disposal, rather than being moved for slaughter so that they go into the food chain. Is not that against basic common sense?
Is the Minister aware of a letter from a college in Germany that was passed to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)? It states:
"Much to our regret we have to cancel our stay at your college from 28 March to 12 April … because of the foot and mouth disease. The Ministry of Agriculture has given advice to the Ministry for Cultural Affairs—
that is in Germany—
"to stop all trips to England within the near future".
Perhaps that is somewhat at odds with the message that we understood we would be sending to Europe to ensure that such colleges maintain at least some business during the crisis.
Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should make it clear that the letter probably refers to the German regional Ministry of Agriculture and not my Ministry. I know of no reason why people cannot visit market towns and other parts of the countryside. I have been very consistent in my advice on that matter—all that people have to do is to stay away from farmed livestock and support the authorities in the necessary work that they are undertaking.
On the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper question about the over-30-months scheme, I am looking at what can be done to help farmers in these difficult circumstances. I cannot make an announcement today, but I am looking at the matter and I hope to be able to say something about it at some stage.
On vaccination, the hon. Gentleman is right: if we are to use vaccination as part of our disease control strategy, we must make absolutely certain that the consequences have been worked through and that we have a local management plan in the circumstances where we use that strategy. The hon. Gentleman is right that it could help in our desire to preserve rare breeds and animals that are particular to a region. That is one of the arguments in favour of using it. However, we need to be clear precisely how we would use it and why, and what the exit strategy will be.
On the 20-day standstill, yes, it will be inspected. There are other consequences; for example, looking at movement records for sheep, including the possibility of a recording system in the future that is similar to that currently used for cattle—so that the process is more transparent and more easily monitored.
The work of port health inspectors forms part of the work that I am taking forward within government.
I do not believe that the size of the state veterinary service has been substantially reduced since the Labour party came into government, but we shall clearly have to take a hard look at the ability of the service to respond to a rapidly changing situation when viral disease breaks out among animals.

837
If the chief scientist said that foot and mouth disease was a disaster waiting to happen, he was certainly behind the times; the disaster has already happened and we are trying to get on top of it. I did not hear him say that; he is advising the Government on the epidedemiology. That is useful work.
Mr. Derek Twigg: As we are now burying carcases, will that reduce the need to send them to rendering plants such as the one in my constituency? I am concerned that my right hon. Friend says that there seem to be some unrecorded movements of livestock. In his view, are there perhaps deliberate attempts to hide things for financial gain? There were some dodgy practices leading to BSE. A National Audit Office report on set-aside policy found more than 1,000 irregularities. Is there something wrong in the farming industry that we should know about?
Mr. Brown: I cannot comment on individual cases that may come before the courts. It is perfectly clear from the tracing work undertaken by MAFF officials that some anomalies still need to be reconciled; a possible explanation is the unrecorded movement of livestock.
Where on-farm burial can be used as a disposal route, it is used. There have been about 42 such disposals in Cumbria alone. However, there are also difficulties—the most obvious of which is the presence of the water table. It really is not a good idea to put a large number of dead and decomposing animals into the watercourse.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In Westminster Hall this morning, I raised the serious problem that farmers will shortly have to decide whether to turn their stock out from the cowsheds on to the pastures, because they will soon run out of fodder. When the stock are turned out on the pastures, that is likely to spread the disease more quickly and to a larger geographical area. Farmers will need clear advice from the Ministry as to whether they should turn their stock out. Will the Minister comment on that this afternoon?
Mr. Brown: Yes. One of the purposes of the proactive cull that I announced some 12 days ago is to make a pre-emptive strike on the disease, which mostly involves sheep but some pigs, so that the disease in sheep can be firmly contained before cattle let out on to summer pastures, because by and large we have managed to keep the disease out of cattle so far. I know that there are exceptions to that, especially in the hot spots, but this problem is predominantly associated with sheep, and the hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that we get on top of it now. It is also important that we give clear advice to those who are thinking of turning cattle out into pastures that have recently been vacated by sheep.
Mr. Doug Henderson: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that in my constituency, adjacent to Heddon-on-the-Wall, there is a clear understanding that the sole cause of the spread of the disease is its virulence?
However, there is confusion among the people on the question of vaccination—which I believe has been fuelled today. There is not an understanding of the distinction between vaccination as a way of preventing the entry of foot and mouth into a body of beasts or a country, and
838
vaccination as part of a programme of culling to rid a country, an area or a group of beasts of an existing foot and mouth infection. Clearly, it would be in relation to the latter that my right hon. Friend's officials have given consideration to the subject. I urge him to make it absolutely clear to the public that that is the case, that any vaccination policy would be, in effect, part of the culling policy, and that any beasts that were vaccinated should therefore be immediately slaughtered.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. It is in the second context that he describes that the Government are considering a vaccination policy, but we have not yet decided whether such a policy would help us with our disease eradication proposal. The Government have no intention whatever of generally vaccinating livestock in Great Britain. I cannot envisage our undertaking such a policy.
My understanding of the outbreak in Heddon-on-the-Wall and in my hon. Friend's constituency in Newcastle is the same as his: that his constituents were affected by the plume that rose from the intensively farmed pigs that had the disease, we now know, for two, perhaps three, weeks.
Mr. Owen Paterson: If the Minister is so convinced that the outbreak did not begin before 19 February, how come the sheep that left Great Britain on 31 January, shipped by Mr. Hugues Inizan, arrived in France and were tested positive by the French authorities?
Mr. Brown: It is perfectly possible that those sheep lay over in a lairage with, or after, sheep carrying the virus, or at least the antibodies, when they arrived in France. In other words, there are explanations as to the route by which the infectivity was brought there, other than the conspiracy theory that it was in our country before the beginning of February. I have looked quite hard at this question and I must tell the hon. Gentleman and others that there is not a shred of evidence that the first outbreak was the result of anything other than events at the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I strongly support my right hon. Friend's decision to appoint Brigadier Birtwhistle to take control of part of this exercise, in Cumbria. He is doing a first-class job, along with his 118 troops, and he is inspiring confidence in the population.
There is growing support for ring vaccination in Cumbria. Can my right hon. Friend ensure the future of the Herdwick sheep, the future of which worries us because they play such an important part in land management in the county?
Mr. Brown: I understand the very special points about Herdwick sheep, and I tried to refer to them, and the principles more generally, in an earlier answer. Yes, we will do what we can to preserve the Herdwick sheep, but that action must be compatible with the rest of the disease containment strategy. That is a reason, although I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is a subsidiary one, why we might consider a vaccination strategy in the localised circumstances in Cumbria, but I emphasise that we are not there yet and any decision will be made in discussion

839
not just with the NFU nationally, but with the territorial departments and farmers locally. I met local farmers on my visit yesterday, and I found them to be very brave, resilient and willing to face up to difficult decisions. I also found them very appreciative of the leadership of the armed forces and of the contribution that the armed forces are making to disease control.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister recall that the first revelation appears to have been in Essex, not in Northumberland, so there is something of a question mark about the extent to which sufficient analysis was done, by officials or others and/or by Northumberland county council, in respect of the Heddon incident? That matter needs to be properly investigated. No doubt the Minister is giving the best answers that he can on the basis of the best evidence that he has at the moment, but will he give a guarantee to the House that a public inquiry will be held in due course, so that everyone can be fully satisfied that the statements made so far can be verified?
Mr. Brown: There has already been an inquiry into the matter. The farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall was farm No. 4 in the order of infected premises. It was discovered as a suspect on a Thursday and confirmed on the Friday morning, when Parliament was in recess. In fact, I telephoned the Prime Minister that dayߞhe was in the United States—and we had the movement restrictions imposed, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, by 5.30 that afternoon, so we acted pretty promptly. The issue is that disease was incubating on those premises for a fortnight, perhaps three weeks. In other words, it had been present; it had not been reported to the Ministry; it had formed a plume and we now know that other animals had been infected, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and in that of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).
Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Carlisle yesterday, meeting the MAFF staff and seeing the excellent work that they have done, together with the vets and the Army. I understand that Brigadier Birtwhistle is due to retire in a week's time, so I hope that good offices will prevail and that he will be kept there for a little longer. There is dispute in Cumbria about vaccination, but people want clarity. Although we must take the right decision on vaccination, will my right hon. Friend try to take that decision as speedily as possible, so the options become available to Cumbrian farmers?
Mr. Brown: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I also promise to return to his constituency to discuss the issue personally with farmers' leaders before any decision is taken. It is an important decision; it affects the livelihoods of those in my hon. Friend's constituency, as well as those in neighbouring constituencies. I will return to Carlisle, and I will discuss the issue very carefully with farmers before any decision is made. I will also make it abundantly clear precisely what the decision is; in which circumstances, if at all, vaccination would be used; and what the exit strategy would be for the animals.
840
When I visited Cumbria, I found a yearning for clear-cut advice and to have the policies clearly stated and well understood.
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that the Minister will agree that one of the most important things for farmers is to have information. Much of my constituency is now in an exclusion zone. Pig farmers and other livestock farmers need to know when and if they can move their animals to slaughter, or whether there will be welfare slaughter schemes. In fairness, they are getting no information at all. They cannot get any information from MAFF. They asked the NFU, but the NFU local secretary tells me that he cannot get any information. When I have tabled parliamentary questions to Ministers on their behalf, I have received the reply
"I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible."
Somewhere, somehow, the Ministry must be able, through the NFU or others, to let farmers know what is happening. It is grossly unfair to keep all those who are desperately concerned in the dark and to deny them information.
Mr. Brown: We have been quite successful in getting a fair bit of the domestic livestock industry back to some form of movement. I accept that it is not taking place under normal conditions; the licensing requirements are tight, severe and bureaucratic. However—believe me—if unlicensed movements of livestock were taking place throughout the country. the chances of eliminating the disease would be dramatically diminished. I know that people find the licensing regime burdensome, but I assure the House that it is necessary.
There is a whole separate set of questions about the welfare disposal scheme which is designed to help farmers in circumstances in which the animals cannot move through the trade and cannot be managed locally. I agree that there have been teething troubles, but we are trying to resolve them. Potentially, the scheme will be very popular.
Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will know that we have a major outbreak in the Berkeley area of my constituency where seven farms have already been infected. We are now about to embark on the proactive cull. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend define what is meant exactly by contiguous holdings, because the issue is causing concern? Will he also tell us how the chain of information goes to such holdings, because there have been difficulties in the way in which that has taken place? Will he consider the issue of disposal, because we must get on top of that problem very quickly—and will he also consider the role of slaughterhouses in areas of infectivity, because they have a major influence on what animals can move and where?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his final point but, to some extent, that problem is unavoidable.
Infected premises will be slaughtered out within 24 hours; that is the target that we have set and, as I have said before, it is the single most important intervention that we can make. There is a target of 48 hours for the contiguous premises, but clearly veterinary resources have to be prioritised. Infected premises—including any that might exist in other parts of my hon. Friend's county—

841
are the priority but, when the infectivity is less dense, it is perfectly possible for a vet to take a slaughter team with him, identify the animals and slaughter can take place at once. Although I cannot promise that it will always happen, it is possible in some cases that the surrounding premises can then be visited and slaughter—I know it is hard, but it is necessary—can commence there as well.
My hon. Friend asked about the definition of contiguous premises. It covers those that border the infected farm holding, but it is possible to make a case in exceptional circumstance. However, the circumstances must be exceptional—the general rule is that the animals are to be culled out.
Mr. John Burnett: We now have the voluntary livestock. welfare disposal scheme, but I assure the Minister that it is not working. A pig farmer in my constituency—who I believe the Minister met yesterday—now has 3,000 more pigs on his farm than the buildings can accommodate. That is absolutely disastrous. Yesterday, the farmer was ready to move his pigs to the licensed abattoir at Hatherleigh, which was ready to receive them, and transport was laid on to start the process.
At 7 pm, an official from MAFF rang and cancelled everything. He stated that animals should be slaughtered on the farm. The Minister must concede that that would be dreadfully inhumane, a danger to public health and appalling for animal welfare purposes . I dare not dwell on the consequences of partial culls being handled on the farm, especially in pig buildings. I am told that the official who cancelled the arrangements was a Whitehall official, so will the Minister please resolve the chaos and confusion and issue instructions immediately that the scheme should proceed through the abattoir at once?
Mr. Brown: I will take a hard look at the individual case that the hon. Gentleman mentions. However, there may be countervailing reasons why the instruction was given—I do not know and I do not want to rush to judgment. The hon. Gentleman is right—I spoke to his constituent yesterday—and I assure him that I shall have a hard look at that case and get it resolved.
Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend's frank and detailed statement and the spirit with which he is trying to address the genuine concerns of Members of all parties. I remind him that we now have eight confirmed cases in my constituency and perhaps another two about to be confirmed. It looks as though the situation in the county of Durham is continuing to deteriorate. I welcome the evidence of the speed with which slaughter is already following identification. Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the rumours that the Army may come to the county are true?
Mr. Brown: There will be a military presence to help with the logistics in controlling the outbreak in Durham, in my right hon. Friend's constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. The response time from discovery to slaughter is vital in preventing the spread of the disease in County Durham.
Mr. Tim Collins: Is the Minister aware that I was contacted earlier this afternoon
842
by Mr. Colin Keron, a constituent of mine who is working as a temporary vet in Carlisle? He described the position in Carlisle as a continuing complete absence of management. When MAFF is scouring the world to find additional vets, I am told by Mr. Keron that vets in Carlisle are spending two to three hours at a time cooling their heels, waiting to be assigned, and when they do go out on assignment, it can take them up to an hour to get through to MAFF's phone line to get a new assignment. Mr. Keron describes the foot and mouth situation in the county as absolutely and completely out of control, and he joins the call of many others, including Members of all parties, for vaccination to be adopted immediately. The Minister will recall that I raised the case for vaccination with him six days ago. Can he please move beyond the consultation phase to action?
Mr. Brown: No, I cannot, because there are serious reasons why one might not want to use vaccination. That strategy is not to be rushed into just because some people call for it; others are bitterly opposed to it. It is important to explain carefully what we are doing, why we are doing it and what our exit strategy is, and it is vital that we explain ourselves properly to farmers and carry them with us. I did hear something of the complaints that the hon. Gentleman mentioned when I visited Carlisle yesterday, and I am taking action to make the best possible use of veterinarians' time.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the supportive remarks made by vets and farmers in Dover, Deal and other parts of east Kent. Will he consider the particular circumstances prevailing in east Kent, where two cases have been confirmed purely on observations, but all the blood and tissue tests have proved negative and local vets and certainly local farmers are convinced that there is not a foot and mouth outbreak? Yet we have the imposition of all the restrictions about which we have heard this afternoon, and tomorrow a massive cull is threatened of what I consider to be healthy cattle.
Mr. Brown: I said earlier that there is not a popular announcement that I could make. If I lifted the movement restrictions, as my hon. Friend asks me to do, and the disease spread throughout the southern parts of our country, I would be justly criticised. I am afraid that it is necessary to keep those restrictions in place for the time being and to work through the licensed movement system where we can. 1 know that that is hard news. I understand why people who believe that their animals are healthy resent it, but there is not an easy option and the right thing to do is to keep the restrictions in place. I apologise to my hon. Friend's constituents for that, but it is for the greater good.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whenever I speak to farmers they ask for two things: clarity of advice and co-ordination of operations? He heard what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about Brigadier Birtwhistle. Will he consider, as I asked him on Friday, appointing a senior military officer, to be directly answerable to him, to take charge of the operations nationwide, rather than merely having a series

843
of regional commanders? When will the Minister give Members of Parliament the briefing that he promised us last week?
Mr. Brown: The briefing is placed in the Library daily and should have been placed in the Opposition Whips Office. As for last Friday's presentation to journalists and Members of Parliament who could attend, I aim to repeat that exercise this week or at the beginning of next week at the latest. I shall try to hold it at a time that is convenient for hon. Members, which I understand is mid-week.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has my right hon. Friend or his ministerial colleagues had a moment to reflect on the proposal in New Scientist, which I sent to him, that napalm could be used to destroy carcases quickly? If there is a shortage of napalm in Britain, surely the Americans could help. [Interruption.]
Mr. Brown: I understand the question. It is not as frivolous as Opposition Members seem to think. We are considering a range of disposal routes, but napalm is not one of them—not even as a fuel, which is, I think, what my hon. Friend means.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Now that the epidemic has become a pandemic, I welcome the Minister's commitment at least to look at the possibility of using vaccines. How much vaccine is in the United Kingdom and how much might have to be imported? What contingency plans does he have to distribute the vaccine to vets?
Mr. Brown: Purely on a contingency basis, plans are quite far advanced. Some 500,000 shots are lined up for this strain of foot and mouth disease and I have access to an additional 5 million vaccinations, if they are needed. A vaccination strategy requires repeat vaccination. It is not an intervention that is carried out just once. We must also consider the time that it takes for the vaccine to have an effect. The shot that we have had made up is particularly vigorous and would have an impact on the animals between four days and a week.
Mr. Fabricant: What about distribution?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, asks about distribution. We can get our hands on it fairly quickly.
Ms Chris McCafferty: My right hon. Friend will he aware that Calderdale is part of a severely restricted blanket exclusion zone, but local farmers have complained to me that they are not being officially told that they are in such an area. They are finding that out through the NFU, through conversations with neighbours or when they apply for movement licences. A number of those farms are more than 17 km from the outbreak in neighbouring Queensbury and the NFU has made representations to the Ministry to get the restriction limited to the 10 km exclusion zone. Clearly, welfare problems are an issue for anyone in a restricted area and I am not pleading a special case. However, it appears that
844
a decision has been made to blanket an area when the normal restrictions might be more appropriate. Secondly—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: 0rder. The hon. Lady has one bite at the cherry.
Mr. Brown: I shall consider the control zones in my hon. Friend's constituency. However, they take into account local circumstances, are imposed on veterinary advice and are vital to prevent the spread of the disease.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister acknowledge that there are three crises in the countryside? First, that of the farmers who have foot and mouth on their holdings, with the tragedy that that entails; secondly, that of the farmers who are caught in the restricted areas, which are widely drawn from London without regional guidance and where enormous problems of animal welfare and of running a business are building up; and, thirdly, the difficulties experienced by hundreds of thousands of ordinary businesses because there are tourist attractions with no tourists, visitor attractions with no visitors and businesses with no customers. Will he deal with those issues?
In addition, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he cannot build a firebreak on the fells? If the disease gets on the Pennine uplands, it will sweep south like a brush fire. Vaccination might be necessary to stop that. Will he take that decision quickly? If he does vaccinate, will he ensure that he has got the vets to do the job? I am afraid that there is a history of a long interval between the Minister announcing policy intentions and their implementation.
Mr. Brown: It would not be necessary to have vets to pursue each individual vaccination. That can be done by others who are trained only to vaccinate the animals. For once, veterinary resources are not a constraint on policy. I have been as candid as I can be with the House. We have a vaccination strategy under consideration, which I am not announcing today. A contingency plan is being moved into place if we decide to go down that route. If we decide to stand it down, we shall stand it down.
We have tried to respond to the broader difficulties in the rural community, including those faced by the operators of tourist businesses and others. 1 have introduced the farm animal welfare scheme to deal with those who cannot in move their animals and cannot manage them in their local circumstances. The rates have been widely welcomed by the trade. They are as close to market conditions as we would dare get without disrupting the market. That has been done to try to help hard-pressed farmers Where the disease is found, we buy the animals on the basis of 100 per cent. compensation. I agree that that does not solve the problem, but it goes some way.
Mr. James Plaskitt: May I ask my right hon. Friend about abattoirs such as Farmers Fresh, which is a producer-owned and producer-led business in Warwickshire? I met some of its representatives last night. It is a high-standard abattoir and

845
it was making significant progress in securing export markets for British lamb. With the present low through-put, it is facing awkward difficulties.
As my right hon. Friend said, we need to think also about recovery. The Farmers Fresh abattoir will need to exist when, as is to be hoped, we arrive soon at recovery. What help is he thinking of giving such abattoirs in the intervening period?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to set out the difficulties that are faced by other parts of the food chain, including abattoirs. We are trying to get work moving where we safely can. We are trying to do other things to help the sector. He talks of a business being geared up for the export market. I do not know the circumstances in detail, but any recovery plan—we are working on such a plan with the industry—must take into account the fact that the export trade, especially for the sheep sector, is likely to be constrained for some time
Mr. John Greenway: Will the Minister consider urgently the practical issue of pedigree breeding flocks and breeding herds? Owners of such flocks—the sheep have genes that go back more than 100 years—are petrified that if the disease gets into them they will lose them for ever. I would like the right, hon. Gentleman to press that issue.
Will the Minister consider the question of price? It is welcome that cattle and sheep can now be moved to abattoirs, but the prices that are being paid, especially for sheep, are extremely low. There is a feeling that farmers are being ripped off by the trade. Will he look into that? Does he agree that one way to resolve the issue is to encourage both consumers and Government Departments to buy British?
Mr. Brown: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about buying British. I appeal to everyone: if we want to help the British livestock market in these difficult times, we should buy its product. It is clearly identified in retail outlets. Let us make a special effort to buy British. That would help to reinforce the supply chain and reinforce prices within it. I have appealed to everyone in these difficult circumstances to treat one another fairly, and I am happy to repeat the appeal today.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about rare breeds. I want to do what I can to save pedigree stock and rare breeds. He is right to say that a local vaccination strategy may help us to achieve that objective, either directly or indirectly.
Mr. John McFall: I commend my right hon. Friend and his Department for their approach to this terrible problem. I am aware that he has documentary evidence, supplied by Sky Television and others, of illegal activities. Does he agree that the real issue involves livestock dealers and markets? Will he consider what I feel is a reasonable suggestion made by Commissioner Byrne, which is the tagging of sheep ?
Mr. Brown: We are in close contact with the European Commission about all that. I have not yet received the evidence that Sky Television said that it would send me, but when I do, naturally I shall examine it very carefully indeed.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Having listened to the Minister and to the Market Bosworth branch of the
846
National Farmers Union earlier in the day, I have to tell him that he has no chance of meeting the 24-hour and 48-hour deadlines in west Leicestershire. He must bring the Army in if he expects to have an extended cull.
Why has MAFF got a block on the use of homeopathic borax, which has been used in previous outbreaks with great success? Does he remember that Nye Bevan said:
"Why read the crystal ball when he can read the book?"?
Will the Minister read the homeopathic medicine book, and understand that borax is well documented as being very effective in preventing foot and mouth?
Mr. Brown: Getting our response time down to 24 hours from discovery to slaughter is essential; all our endeavours drive in that direction. In response to a question on a previous statement, I promised the hon. Gentleman that I would have the issue examined. I have asked for that to be done, but I have not yet seen the response.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What progress has been made in identifying more carcase disposal sites in Devon?
Mr. Brown: A great deal of progress has been made. There are a number of possible sites and I know that there is a lot of interest in exactly which one will be used; all sorts of rumours are going round the community, as always happens on such occasions. I am not in a position to make a statement to the House today; in fact, I expect the announcement to be made locally. However, we are looking to open other disposal routes, and I understand that we are pretty close to getting those arrangements in hand and announced.
Mr. William Thompson: May I personally thank the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he and his Ministry offered at the meeting of the European Commission's Standing Veterinary Committee today, which agreed to give Northern Ireland regional export status? That was very good news for Northern Ireland. Given that the principle of regionalisation in the United Kingdom has now been accepted, will he consider opening up other areas on the mainland that do not have cases of foot and mouth so that they too can benefit from that development?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right: the Government want to pursue a regionalisation strategy where possible. I am pleased that we have got acceptance in principle for the strong and perfectly justified case made by Northern Ireland. As our efforts bear down on the disease and we confirm the disease-free status of the north of Scotland, western Wales and East Anglia, it may well be possible to make adjustments to localised movement controls and perhaps, in time, for trade more generally to resume. It is early days, but clearly we have that at the forefront of our minds.
Mr. Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend is right that British consumers who want to support British farmers can go out and buy British products. Does he agree that if British people want to support their tourism sector and the broader rural economy, they should go out and do so now? Will he prevail on Opposition Members and perhaps the media to desist from their unhelpful assertion that the countryside is closed?

847
Even in infected areas such as my constituency there are small family businesses, such as the hotel in Shifnal, which has lost 75 per cent. of its trade in March for no good reason, and the village pub that 1 visited on Saturday, which has lost 30 per cent. of its trade for no good reason. Does my right hon. Friend agree that careless talks costs livelihoods and jobs and will he seek to instil that point into Opposition Members?
Mr. Brown: We are facing a serious disease outbreak in animals; that is no reason to avoid the countryside. All people have to do is stay away from farmed livestock. There are many things in our market towns, heritage sites and so on that people can visit; they should just stay away from farmed livestock. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Sir Richard Body: As one who has an unforgettable memory of the outbreak in 1967, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the then Minister, Fred Peart, was advised not only that the slaughtered animals should be buried immediately, but that if the carcases were burned, there was a serious risk that the virus was so viable that it could be carried a considerable distance beyond the infected area?
Mr. Brown: I do not know what advice was given to Fred Peart in 1967—I was at school at the time—but I do know that the business about the virus being spread by on-farm burning is a myth. The risk of the virus being spread as a result of the fires destroying the animals is vanishingly small. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that on-farm burial should be considered as an option. Indeed, it is used as an option, but only where that is compatible with the water table and with other very necessary disease—I include prion disease—control measures.
Mr. Mark Todd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to movement controls? Clearly, we must be vigilant about authorising any movements, particularly within restricted areas. However, the experience reported by my constituents, of very long distances being travelled from areas as far as the north of Scotland into my constituency for slaughter under the licence to slaughter scheme, contrasts with the extraordinary bureaucratic process that must be followed to obtain an occupational licence, with a paper chase across two regional service centres, and a vet's authorisation as well.
Mr. Brown: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but he describes two quite separate operations. No matter how long it is, there is very little risk in the final journey of the livestock to the abattoir. Such journeys cannot be interrupted, and the animals are supposed to be certified clear of the disease, but even if it is incubating in them without having yet come to fruition, they are going to an abattoir, where they will be examined by a vet and killed. They will therefore cease to breathe out the virus. There is an enormous difference between that and animals that are moved for perfectly proper reasons but will live on and risk meeting other animals, which thereby risk contracting the disease.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: The Minister is aware that the number of cases in Northumberland and County
848
Durham is rising, and there is great concern about the length of time that it is taking to detect the disease and slaughter the animals . For example, in one of the last two cases discovered in my constituency, it took five days from detection to slaughter, and in the other case, the animal, which was identified on Saturday morning, had still not been slaughtered two or three hours ago. That is causing serious concern that the disease will spread. One answer would be to take responsibility for the region away from Carlisle, which is clearly overwhelmed, and set up an independent control centre in Newcastle, so that we could get the help of the Army and have a chance of beating the disease. Will the Minister also confirm that farmers selling directly to other farmers or to dealers is not illegal, and that that has more to do with saving auctioneer's commission than fiddling any EU subsidy?
Mr. Brown: I am no expert, but my understanding is that the hon. Gentleman is right about dealing outside the market. It does relate to the auctioneer's commission. If people can come to an arrangement among themselves, that in itself is not illegal. With regard to controlling the outbreak in Hexham we are setting up a localised control headquarters in Newcastle. I cannot say with certainty whether that would embrace all his constituency, but I will check for him and make sure that he is told. He is absolutely right: we must get our response times down to 24 hours. Bringing in localised control is an effort to do that.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Was my right hon. Friend told earlier of any recommendation to ban the use of pigswill? Does he agree that it is not sufficient for Governments to take scientific advice when a crisis occurs, but that Departments should have the means to seek out and respond appropriately to scientific advice that can anticipate problems, so that pre-emptive action can be taken before they arise? Will he ensure that his Department does so?
Mr. Brown: I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend sets out and I try to work to it when carrying out my ministerial responsibilities. I have taken particular note of the Phillips report recommendations, which are guiding me in our handling of the outbreak, even though we are dealing with an animal disease. She will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) told the House regarding advice about the recycling of mammalian meat. 1 confirm that that assurance is correct and that the Government were acting on scientific advice, even though it related to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies rather than to viral infections.
Mr. Michael Jack: Many farmers who are affected by this dreadful outbreak will be concerned about their position with regard to the payment of various moneys under Community livestock schemes. I understand that the Minister has had discussions about the matter with the European Commission. Will he report to the House on the progress that has been made? On the Seathwaite outbreak, can he give any indication about why the disease seems to have leapt a very long distance in a situation that he deems to be under control? Farmers in my part of Lancashire are now deeply worried that the disease can spread rapidly over long distances, and they are struggling to understand why.
Mr. Brown: I cannot give a complete answer to the right hon. Gentleman about the spread of the disease,

849
except to say that it is highly unlikely to have been airborne, which narrows down the possibilities. With regard to livestock premiums, there are five separate premium schemes and I have the Commission's consent to the application of the force majeure rules. We have an agreement in principle, although one or two issues of detail still have to be sorted out in relation to inspections. However, the essential point is that the premiums will be paid and that the Commission is standing in our corner on the issue.
Mr. Simon Thomas: When the Minister considers vaccination, on which I welcome his comments, will he think about the positive effects that could be achieved for the tourism industry if it were introduced as a double-barrelled approach to the disease? For example, it could restore confidence in the northern part of my constituency. which has no foot and mouth cases, but is an infected area, and might allow tourism to return there. Finally, has MAFF made any assessment of the effect of census enumerators on the control of foot and mouth? I understand that their visits are due to occur at the end of April.
Mr. Brown: As I understand it, the census is not yet under way, but we are keeping the matter under review, as nothing should be done that would risk spreading the disease. That includes all inappropriate movements on and off farms. We have not announced a vaccination strategy, but as I said, we are actively considering it and contingency plans are being put into place. I assured my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that I would talk to his constituents—the people who would be most affected—before anything was done. I hope that we can restore visitors and tourist business to the countryside. People can visit all sorts of things without going near farmed livestock, so it is not vaccination itself that would turn the situation around. However, if it played a part by happenstance, that would be welcome.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The Minister spoke about a recovery programme for abattoirs. One step that he might care to take is to allow or encourage licensed abattoirs to participate in a welfare disposal scheme. As we heard from the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), no such encouragement is currently provided. We will need these abattoirs after the epidemic is brought under control. They have spent a lot of money on their equipment and they are under-used, and proper encouragement would ensure their survival. As the over-30-months scheme allows meat for human consumption and cull meat to be dealt with in the same abattoir, why does not he take that necessary step?
Mr. Brown: We are encouraging abattoirs to participate in such a scheme, but it must be compatible with the other necessary restrictions on products that are entering the food chain. It is not intended that animals that are dealt with in the welfare scheme should proceed into the food chain, so we need to ensure separation. Do I know of any human health reason why that should be so? I must candidly tell the House that I do not.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I use this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for taking up the issue that I raised yesterday in a point of order. Members'
850
briefings have now appeared in the Opposition Whips Office, but I should like to reiterate the request for an MPs' hotline to enable us to deal immediately with all the urgent matters that our constituents are raising. In addition, I asked two weeks ago whether emergency powers were needed to achieve the necessary speed in implementing the strategy that the Minister has introduced. We now read reports from No. 10 that there is an admission that Cumbrian farmers with healthy stock that needs to be culled cannot be compelled to allow that to happen and must give their consent. Will he review whether emergency powers are required? That also involves the question of vaccination as an option in the context of the contingency planning, which I welcome.
Finally, rather than just giving holding answers, will the Minister consider responding to my questions about when the inception of the disease in this country took place?
These are important issues. As I am sure the Minister agrees, they affect the epidemiology and, perhaps, the strategy that is used in treating the on-going epidemic.
Mr. Brown: I think that I answered the hon. Gentleman's last question in my statement. As for the daily report to Members, it has always been available in the Library. I had intended that Members should be able to obtain it through their party Whips Offices; I am sorry if there has been a breakdown in the process, but if there has, it results from no act of mine.
We are considering establishing a Members' hotline through the Cabinet Office communication network. I hope that an announcement can be made about that in a few days.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Cheshire is one of the top three cattle counties in the United Kingdom. Between 9 am and 1 pm today, 240 cattle belonging to my constituent Anthony Dale were shot on Shirdfold farm in Adlington. They were shot before the existence of foot and mouth disease had been confirmed: indeed, it still has not been confirmed. This was a pre-emptive cull, very much along the lines advocated by the Minister.
My farmers are experiencing problems in dealing with MAFF and the MAFF vet at Stafford—in getting hold of people, and in being given decisions. Following the shooting of 240 cattle, the immediate problem is disposal. Those on the farm want to bury them there, and people and equipment are available to enable that to be done. Will the Minister ensure that those responsible have the ability to make a decision?
Mr. Brown: Those responsible do have that ability. I will ensure that the individual case raised by the hon. Gentleman is examined as a matter of urgency. There is no ideological reason not to allow on-farm burial, but there may be other reasons that I do not know about. The most obvious is the water table; I do not know what the position is in that regard.
It is because there may be reasons that I do not know about that we have Environment Agency officials in our control centres—there is a new one in Stafford, as the hon. Gentleman said—looking into the issue. In the case of cattle aged over 30 months, there is also the question

851
of BSE prions. A range of matters must be taken into account. This is not just bureaucratic delay; we have to worry about all those matters.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that farmers genuinely want to co-operate with culls, but are enormously frustrated by, on occasion, not being part of the consultation loop for local cull plans? Will he commit himself to reviewing the procedures, in order to help farmers—including those in mid-Wales - to be as co-operative as they can?
Will the Minister also address himself to the specific issue of the Rogers pig farm, which has 2,000 head of pigs? That means the infectivity equivalent of 6 million cattle, in the heart of an infected area. I fear that it represents a time bomb for mid-Wales, and also for the west midlands. Will the Minister please ask his staff to review the issue, and to proceed with a cull as soon as possible—preferably tomorrow?
Mr. Brown: These are incredibly difficult issues. Enormous risks are associated with intensive pig farming. I think that a farm in Wales would fall within the competence of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Secretary in the Welsh Assembly; I expect to talk to him on the telephone later, and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's question to his attention.
As for communications, representatives of the National Farmers Union are working with officials from my Ministry in Carlisle and Devon, which helps. There are also regular meetings with representatives of local farmers, a practice that I would like to see replicated more generally.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Minister has rightly expressed concern about infection caused by illegally imported meat. According to the chairman of the East Anglian branch of the National Pig Association, the Minister was informed in a letter dated 20 May last year from Mr. Clive Lawrence of Ciel Logistics that gross abuses were involved in illegal imports of meat for personal use from African countries through Heathrow. There were, apparently, examples of baggage leaking, and of rotting deer and monkey carcases. What did the Minister do about that, when he was informed? Have there been further such incidents? What checks can put in place to reassure the House?
Mr. Brown: I think that the material to which the right hon. Lady referred was seized by the authorities—in this case, Customs and Excise. However, I shall look at the specific complaint that she has raised.
The right hon. Lady is right that there are more general issues that relate to the importation of surprisingly large quantities of meat for personal use and to the use of container transportation to bring meat that is not always accurately described into the country. Both those matters need to be looked at, with regard not only to the effectiveness of the law—I do not think that that is the problem—but to the effectiveness of the inspection regime. We must ensure that the intervention powers are adequate in the current circumstances, and they may well
852
not be. If they are not, I shall come back to the House, and I expect that I should get all-party support in dealing with the problem.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has announced a consultation on the 20-day standstill. That might be a very sensible thing to do. Will he however, approach the consultation with a genuinely open mind? He will appreciate that he does not have to come to an immediate conclusion on the 20-day standstill. He will also appreciate that the advice that he is receiving on the matter comes from a fairly narrow source. I make no criticism of that, but the source is narrow. He will appreciate further that such a proposal would interfere with legitimate business. Finally, is he aware that it might constitute a barrier to the free trade in goods that is an EU requirement?
Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point was a fair one. They were all fair points, but the last one was particularly so. On that point, I want to assert the disease control imperative over the more general rule of the free movement of goods and services. After all, the 20-day standstill rule would apply to everyone; it would not be discriminatory. I shall approach the consultation with an open mind, and when he examines the consultation document, he will see that—certainly as far as cattle are concerned—because of the traceability scheme in this country, there are options. I genuinely welcome views on all the options.
Mr. Michael Howard: May I turn the Minister's attention to the suspect cases at Uffington referred to by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser)? Is the Minister aware that a number of my constituents have animals—lambing ewes and cattle approaching the 30-month threshold—on land in the vicinity of Uffington ? Will he at least tell local vets and farmers who believe that those suspect cases were not confirmed whether they are right in that belief? If they are right, will he explain to them why licences previously granted to them have been revoked, and why they cannot now move their animals?
Mr. Brown: I do not want to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an answer here and now, because I do not have sufficient Knowledge of the case. I shall write to him setting out my formal response, and I promise to examine the letter personally before it is sent to him.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has been answering questions for more than an hour. I think that we must now move on.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Previous Speakers, when faced with a difficult situation such as this, involving many hon. Members trying to speak, have said that either they or their secretary would very kindly keep a list of those who failed to get in, so that next time there was a statement,

853
they might be given priority. Several hon. Members have been trying for some time to ask questions without being called.
Mr. Speaker: That goes without saying. In fact, the hon. Gentleman might have noticed that in the early stages I called hon. Members who were not called at the previous statement, some of whom are still present.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I request that those of us who were not called on the previous three occasions could call for an Adjournment debate at the earliest convenience?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady can apply; I do not make any promises.

BILLS PRESENTED
  LOCAL ELECTIONS (FREE DELIVERY OF ELECTION ADDRESSES)
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Eric Illsley, presented a Bill to provide for the free delivery of one election address to each household from each candidate in the local government elections to be held in May 2001: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 72].
  REPRESENTATION OF GIBRALTAR AT WESTMINSTER AND IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, presented a Bill to provide for representation of Gibraltar by a Member of Parliament, subject to limitations, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; for the inclusion of Gibraltar in a European parliamentary constituency; for the right of the chief minister to petition the House of Commons at the bar of the House; and for related 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 73].
  PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Tony Benn and Mr. Eric Illsley. presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; 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 74].

European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) (No. 2)
5.40 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Committee of Inquiry into the implications of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union.
It is no secret that while I have concluded that Britain's best interests would be served by withdrawing from the European Union, I have to point out that that is neither the position nor the policy of the party that I represent in Parliament. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, is on record as saying that he would never take Britain out of the EU and the official policy of the Conservative party is still that we remain in Europe, but not run by Europe.
There are undoubtedly other parliamentarians who would, were they free agents, support my wish to leave the EU and, it has to be said, millions of our fellow countrymen would applaud such a move, so surely the time has come to strike a balance—to ascertain as nearly as is humanly possible exactly where the balance of advantage lies. That is the purpose of the Bill. It would establish a committee of inquiry that would impartially investigate the pros and cons of our membership of the EU and report back to the House its findings so that we might be in a position to consider the full implications and ramifications of withdrawal.
Just over 12 months ago, I embarrassed my shadow Cabinet colleagues by asking them individually to let me know what they perceived to be the benefits of Britain's membership of the EU. They decided that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), then shadow Foreign Secretary, should be deputed to respond. I have his letter of 18 November 1999 in front of me.
Right hon. and hon. Members who follow the European debate will not be surprised that my hon. Friend's response relied not so much on fact as on assertion—for example, that membership of the EU has
"been of great benefit to the UK"
and that it
"is vital for British trade".
Furthermore, he stated:
"The internal market has been of real value for British business and for foreign direct investment in the UK."
He went on to say that, as a consequence of our EU membership,
"Britons are able to live or work anywhere they like in the EU, with practically no restrictions."
He also said that, in terms of world trade liberalisation, our membership
"gives us collectively far greater bargaining power".
My hon. Friend, who is also a former shadow Secretary of State for Defence, further asserted that one should not ignore the EU's contribution to European security—an aspect of our membership that has an increasingly hollow ring to it as our so-called European partners do their best to undermine the transatlantic alliance and to establish an EU defence organisation in competition with NATO, which has so successfully kept the peace in Europe since 1949.

855
In responding to me on behalf of all his shadow Cabinet colleagues, my hon. Friend relied heavily on assertion, and one should not be surprised by that. The whole debate thus far has been conducted on the basis of unsubstantiated assertion. It has indeed been a fact-free zone. The advocates of European integration have consistently advanced their cause by making a series of unproven assertions and, what is more, they have learned to make those assertions in forums where, as often as not, they cannot be challenged.
However, if there is a party represented in Parliament that should understand better than any other the hazard of making major political decisions based on assertions rather than fact, it is the Conservative party. In October 1990, based on the glib but unquantifiable assertions that interest rates would be lower, unemployment would be reduced and economic growth rates would improve, the Conservative Government took Britain into the exchange rate mechanism. The result, as hon. Members will recall, was that the United Kingdom was forced to abandon the ERM 23 months later because interest rates had risen to record levels—15 per cent. on the afternoon of Black Wednesday—unemployment had soared from 1.67 million in 1990 to 2.85 million in 1992 and, far from experiencing economic growth, thousands lost their businesses and even more had their homes repossessed.
For the Conservative party, it has been downhill in the opinion polls ever since, all because we accepted at face value the bogus assertions that continue to dominate the debate. On 17 April 2000, at column 733 in Hansard, I challenged my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is a staunch advocate of economic and monetary union and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He clearly did not know that, behind the assertion that EU membership is "vital for Britain's trade" lay the fact that our trade with Europe represents less than 11 per cent. of gross domestic product. I have the figures to prove it, and as I come from a business background, I stress that it is advisable and customary to carry out a cost benefit analysis before embarking on any project. However, successive Governments have failed to do precisely that. Indeed, when requested to do so, they have refused point blank.
The purpose of the Bill is to remedy that position and seek the approval of Parliament for the establishment of a committee of inquiry, which would be charged with presenting a properly considered and costed report that dealt exclusively with the implications of withdrawal from the EU.
That exercise has already been carried out in at least one other country. I refer specifically to a recent study entitled "The Impact on the US Economy of including the
856
UK in a Free Trade Arrangement with the USA, Canada and Mexico". It concluded that the UK's balance of trade will worsen at the rate to of $1 billion per annum in the EU, whereas it would actually improve by a hefty $5 billion per annum outside it.
Let me make it clear that the committee of inquiry would be charged with considering not only the economic but also the constitutional and practical implications of withdrawal. One accepts that it is difficult to put a price upon the value of self-governance, but clearly it is an important part of the overall consideration.
The committee of inquiry might do worse than seek the opinions of those in any one of the 50 or more dominions, colonies and overseas possessions of the former British empire, to which Parliament has, in the past 70 years, granted full independence. It seems probable that, regardless of size and notwithstanding the poverty of some countries, and the political trials and tribulations of others, there would be little or no demand for a return to rule by London. The committee might also consider the experience of those parts of the former empire where federal Governments were established and the reasons for their fairly peremptory demise.
Hon. Members will be aware of the many calls in recent years for a proper debate about our future relationship with the EU. The Bill would enable that debate to be conducted on the basis of fact rather than assertion. Making available factual information, free from political bias and Government spin, would be inestimably valuable to the general public. They have every right to demand the facts, not least because, in the final analysis, they will pay the price, not only literally through their taxes, but with their historic right to live in a self-governing nation under laws made by people whom they elect to their British Parliament here in Westminster.
I trust that the House will accept the logic of my case and allow the Bill to progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Christopher Gill, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. William Thompson, Mr. John Townend, and Mr. Charles Wardle

European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) (No. 2)
  EUROPEAN UNION (IMPLICATIONS OF WITHDRAWAL) (No. 2)
  Mr. Christopher Gill accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Committee of Inquiry into the implications of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed [Bill 75].
Orders of the Day

  Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.50 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill marks a further step in our drive to tackle fraud and error as part of our wider reforms of the welfare state. As the House will know, we inherited a social security system in which spending had doubled between 1979 and 1997, but at the same time, child poverty had trebled and the number of households with children with no one in work was the highest in Europe. Spending had doubled because of economic failure. It is now under control for the first time in three decades. That is because we are getting more people into work but also as a result of tighter gateways to the benefit system
  We also inherited a benefit system that was losing more in fraud and error than it cost to run the entire Department of Social Security. That is the legacy of 18 years of Conservative Government. They did not even attempt to measure fraud for the first 15 years and they did precious little to stop it for their entire 18 years in office. No business would put up with that, and neither should we.
  Stopping fraud and error is essential. For example, we have already saved £1 billion during this Parliament by halving the number of income support claims paid out with insufficient evidence. We are prosecuting and sanctioning more people than ever before. Last year, the figure was 22,000, which is 60 per cent. up on the previous year. Those sanctions cost people 100 per cent. of the benefit that they wrongly take plus an additional 30 per cent. That's the price that they pay for doing so.
  Fraud not only takes money away from where it is needed most—money that would be far better spent on schools and hospitals or invested in transport—but, crucially, the presence of fraud in the system undermines public support for the social security system. If people see others cheating and getting away with it, they lose confidence in the system. That is one of the reasons for our determination to put a stop to benefit fraud and bear down on error in the system. The Bill is a further step towards doing just that.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the latest benefit fraud review measuring the level of fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance shows that the level of confirmed fraud is higher this year than last year?
  Mr. Darling: It shows that there has been the first ever significant fall in fraud in the payment of income support and JSA. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was never able to say that during the previous Parliament in all his time as Secretary of State for Social Security. As I have made it clear to the House on many occasions, I do not say that we have beaten fraud and error in the system. We have not, but we have begun to turn the corner. The 6.4 per cent. reduction
  858
  in fraud in JSA and income support is the first significant fall that we have ever seen in those two benefits in the social security system. That is a significant achievement. and we need to build on it as we move towards meeting our target of halving the amount of fraud and error in the system in the next five to six years.
  Mr. Lilley: I have just checked the Secretary of State's claim. The Library confirms that the level of confirmed fraud has not fallen. It is only by including errors that the right hon. Gentleman is able to claim a decline. Will he now set the record straight and confirm that when he said "fraud", he was mistaken. He meant that "fraud plus errors" has gone down; the incidence of fraud alone has gone up.
  Mr. Darling: When asked about these matters, I repeatedly use the term "fraud and error". [Interruption.] I do. The right hon. Gentleman will see, if he looks back at what I have said over the past few years about fraud and error, that I have given equal importance to stopping both of them. I mentioned, for example—the right hon. Gentleman will be interested in this as he was Secretary of State for Social Security for the whole of the last Parliament—that when we came into office, two out of every five income support cases were being paid without sufficient evidence to justify them. We have halved that figure, saving £1 billion. That figure was almost certainly all due to error in the system.
  We have also seen reductions in fraud. The reduction of fraud and error in the system, particularly in JSA and income support, is statistically significant. It is the first time that it has ever happened. The right hon. Gentleman could never have announced such a reduction when he was Secretary of State for Social Security, during the whole of the previous Parliament.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will give way later on.
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Mr. Darling: I am happy to stay here all night, or however long modernisation allows us to stay these days.
  Two years ago, we set ourselves the target of reducing fraud and error in JSA and income support by 10 per cent. All the evidence is that we are already on target to do that and that we will go beyond it in our drive to reduce fraud and error in the system—particularly fraud in income support and JSA.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden when I have finished my point, if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) does not mind.
  I am happy to say again and again that we attach significant importance to the reduction of fraud and error. We are achieving it—something that the right hon. Gentleman could never say during his time as Secretary of State for Social Security.
  Mr. Lilley: The Secretary of State has now admitted that he was wrong when he said that fraud had declined—

  859
  it is fraud plus error. He then went on to say that the reduction was statistically significant. The Library research document says that the small fall in confirmed fraud and error is not statistically significant. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement?
  Mr. Darling: I certainly will not. The fall is statistically significant, and I attach considerable importance to it. I say again to the right hon. Gentleman that during his entire time as Secretary of State for Social Security, for the whole of the previous Parliament, he could never, ever point to a single success in reducing fraud and error in JSA, income support or, indeed, anything else. As he well knows, because I think that he sometimes had to struggle with his colleagues in the Department, it was not until 1995—halfway through his stewardship as Secretary of State—that he started to measure fraud in the system. I note that he acknowledges that. As we know, that was 15 years after the Tory Government had been elected.
  Despite everything that the Tories said and despite all the right hon. Gentleman's conference speeches—the more ludicrous of which we remember—he did not even start to measure fraud in the system until 1995. It was not until 1997 that real, concrete measures were taken to cut fraud and error in the system. We have seen the first significant fall in fraud and error in the jobseeker's allowance and income support, which the right hon. Gentleman never achieved during his time as Secretary of State.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, I suppose so.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, even though he is in a particularly irascible mood today. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the regulations on loss of benefit covered in clause 11 on pages 15 and 16 will be subject to the negative procedure and will not, therefore, be able to be debated on the Floor of the House? If that is so, and given the importance of getting those regulations right, will the Secretary of State undertake to provide a draft of the regulations before the Bill completes its passage?
  Mr. Darling: It is always open to the House to debate regulations. The arrangements for doing so are made through the usual channels, either upstairs or on the Floor of the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham that it is important to ensure that regulations, no matter what they are for, are correct. If he has concerns about that, the scope of the regulations can no doubt be debated at length during tonight's debate or in Committee.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: Is it on that point?
  Mr. Webb: It is on the previous point.
  Mr. Darling: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Webb: The Secretary of State was talking about the Government's record on tackling fraud. I certainly
  860
  accept that the previous Government did little until late in the day. However, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the Audit Commission's finding that between the second and third years of his term in office the amount of housing benefit fraud detected by local authorities fell? Why did he allow that to happen?
  Mr. Darling: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the business of measuring and detecting housing benefit fraud has been a concern to successive Governments. About two years ago, we changed the way in which we rewarded local authorities. The situation that we inherited from the Conservative Government was that local authorities were rewarded for the fraud that they found. As the National Audit Office identified. authorities tended almost to let fraud come into the system, then detected it and claimed the reward.
  Two years ago, we changed the system so that the emphasis was put on preventing fraud from coming into the system in the first place. The approach was different—indeed, it is an approach that the NAO endorsed and it is far better. Of course, it is important to deal with fraud once it is detected, but the emphasis in the Government's strategy—it should be local authority strategy on housing benefit too—is to prevent fraud from coming into the system.
  The problem that we inherited was one of wrong incentives—the incentive almost to allow fraud in. We have replaced it With measures that are designed to prevent it from getting into the system in the first place. The National Audit office has endorsed that approach and said so in the subsequent report to the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  We are beginning to see the results of the reforms that we have made. There is a clear choice: we either continue with the drive against fraud and error, or we return to the previous situation in the Department, with cuts in investment and staffing that helped fraud and error to enter the system in the first place. Indeed, in the past four years, we have put in place many reforms that were needed to tighten the benefit system across the board: tighter rules and greater conditionality in the system and tighter gateways, but all backed by investment to enable the job to be done.
  That investment is critical. We have invested in front-line staff to check and keep claims right. That investment would be under threat if the Conservatives were returned to power because the £16 billion in cuts to which they remain committed and the policy of freezing civil service recruitment would in one year cost more than 5,000 front-line jobs in the Benefits Agency. If anyone is in any doubt, it is those front-line staff who make the difference when it comes to the amount of fraud and error in the system. They check the claims and the facts. Year after year when the Conservatives were in power, the staff were able to spend less and less time checking benefit claims due to staff outs. As I said in a reply to the former Secretary of State, one reason why we have reduced the error rate in income support is that we have more staff on the front line and fewer posts in Whitehall, so we are able to check claims far more efficiently.
  Secondly, we ire investing in computers and information technology, which is also important. It is something to which the NAO has repeatedly drawn attention. We inherited a system in which some of the

  861
  computers on which staff were expected to work were more than 30 years old. Sometimes, our staff go home to find their children working on systems that are more efficient and up to date than some of those that the Conservatives left and expected them to work on. After years of underinvestment, following the spending review last year, we now have the money to replace all of the Department's ageing IT equipment so that our staff have the tools to do the job.
  The Bill will enable us to make better use of that technology. Again, that is investment in staff and IT, which the Conservatives oppose. It would all be at risk if they were returned to power because they cannot say that they are going to spend £16 billion—or more—less than Labour, but at the same time pretend that they would maintain our levels of investment in the system. That investment is essential if the system is to be tighter and more robust against fraud and error.
  We are also investing in tighter gateways to benefit. The new working age agency will introduce regular interviews for all claimants of working age, helping people to get into work. There will be new rights and responsibilities, but the whole time we will be checking that the right benefit is paid to the right person.
  We are also investing to tackle organised fraud. The fight against such fraud is now controlled centrally, which did not happen before, and a new national intelligence unit will ensure that resources are far better targeted than they were.
  No doubt tonight we will be told by the Conservatives that they want to set up another national organisation. They claim that by setting up a national benefits squad, they will somehow save £1 billion, just like that. There is no independent evidence to support the claim. If ever there was a fraudulent claim, that is it. I read in The Independent at Christmas, under the heading, "How I will cut public spending to provide money for lower taxes", an article by the shadow Chancellor, who wrote:
  "For instance, we're going to set up a single benefits investigation squad … Common sense measures like these will yield at least £1 billion in savings".
  He says that by setting up one benefits squad he will save £1 billion. Presumably, if he set up two, he would save £2 billion.
  I will be interested to find out in the debate if the present Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), can give us one concrete example of how by simply setting up a national investigation squad, the shadow Chancellor can save £1 billion just like that. The Conservatives did not do it in 18 years and I will be interested to hear how they think that they can claim all that money just like that. It is important to them because they have already spent the £1 billion. If they cannot find it, the consequences will be dire.
  Mr. John Butterfill: rose—
  Mr. Darling: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman from the Back Benches can tell us how the Conservatives will save all that money.
  Mr. Butterfill: The right hon. Gentleman talks about unsubstantiated assertions. I remind him that in a letter to me of 28 November he said that the new IT systems would save more than £1 billion by 2005. That claim is
  862
  unsubstantiated too. How does he substantiate that figure? I have no doubt that he will make some savings, but how he substantiates his claim I am not clear.
  Mr. Darling: The point about IT is simple. The systems that we inherited from the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported are ageing and will not last much longer. It is not an option simply not to replace them. It is not good enough for an organisation such as the Department of Social Security, which pays out more than £100 billion a year, to rely on IT systems that are 20 or 30 years old. The system needs to be replaced. If we do not do so, there will certainly be more errors in the system and it will be more and more difficult to track fraud.
  One of the advantages of the new equipment will be, for example, that if someone claims a benefit in one office and then tries to do so in another office, the information will immediately be cross-matched. The clerk will know that someone has done so. The present system does not allow that.
  My argument is straightforward. Replacing the IT systems in the DSS is essential. The NAO has drawn attention to the need to do so for about 12 years. It qualified the accounts of the Benefits Agency for years under the Conservative Government and one reason was that the IT system for keeping track of the amount of money paid out was not up to scratch. We have the money to replace the system. If the Tories were elected again, their guarantee of £16 billion in cuts would mean that the money would not be there to replace the system.
  Mr. Butterfill: I entirely agree that it is desirable—indeed essential—to install that equipment. That was not my point. I was merely saying that the right hon. Gentleman had not substantiated the figure that he gave me. I have no doubt that he will make savings, but he said that the shadow Chancellor had not substantiated his figures and I was saying that he makes similar claims without any basis for doing so.
  Mr. Darling: I said that the Government will reach the target that they set for a 50 per cent. reduction in fraud and error in JSA and income support. That will be done through a variety of means: tighter gateways to the system, more investment in IT, and ensuring that we have the staff on the front line to check claims. The approach involves a variety of measures, all of which will bear down on fraud.
  I repeat that we have, for the first time, seen a significant reduction in fraud and error in income support and the jobseeker's allowance. The Conservatives could never claim that during their time in office. Again, I repeat that they did not even begin to measure fraud and error in the system until 15 years after they were elected. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friends. As has been pointed out from the Opposition Front Bench, we have all night—or at least several hours—and I am happy to stay in the Chamber talking about fraud and error for the whole time.

  863
  I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Havant. He, too, will have plenty of time for his speech; if necessary, I shall persuade my colleagues to sit tight until he has explained how, simply by setting up a national benefits squad, the Tories will save £1 billion that they have already spent. That is their claim; that is their promise. They say that they will save £1 billion, yet they have already spent it—several times in fact. It will be interesting to hear how they intend to magic up £1 billion—just like that.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; I have no intention of keeping him here well into the night. On more than one occasion, he has visited Warbreck house—the disability living allowance unit headquarters—in Blackpool, in my constituency. During his visits, did he see the computer pilot project that is under way? It is already paying dividends—to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Decision—making DLA staff already find that the new computers in the pilot enable them to operate much more efficiently. Those staff are dealing with many more cases; they are looking forward to the installation in the autumn of more computers throughout the building, so that they can offer the efficient service to which my right hon. Friend refers.
  Mr. Darling: I confirm that, as and when new IT is delivered throughout the Department, quality of service improves. Anyone who visited a Benefits Agency office—or indeed Warbreck house—was struck by the quantity of paperwork. Comparison with banks or other financial institutions, which are often paper free, will show just how far we have had to travel. It is a testament to the neglect of the Tories that, during their 18 years in office, they did nothing to replace the tools with which staff were meant to do their job.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am extremely lucky locally, because officials in the local offices of the Benefits Agency treat claimants with commendable civility. What resources and training are to be given to local officials charged with the responsibility of recovering payments made in error? I hope that we shall move beyond the usual letter sent to claimants. Will my right hon. Friend look afresh at how such persons are treated when they have received overpayments due to errors made by local staff?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The quality of the letters sent out by the antique computer systems leaves much to be desired. Some of those letters were insensitive and inappropriate; for example, we are changing the letters sent to people who have recently been bereaved.
  If the Department makes a mistake, it should put its hand up and admit it. Equally, where an individual has made a mistake or, in some cases, has been downright untruthful, that individual has to accept the consequences. I shall explain some of the measures that will help in such cases. Staff try to behave appropriately, according to the circumstances.
  864
  We are implementing a further measure that will make a difference in dealing with fraud. In two years, we shall increasingly pay benefits directly into bank accounts as the normal method of payment. That will save about £100 million a year on losses through order book and giro fraud. The Conservatives did nothing much about that during their time in office although they did come up with the benefit card—as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden would no doubt have jumped up to tell me if I had not pointed it out. That was, of course, another Tory disaster. It did not work; it was behind time; there was a cost overrun and it had to be scrapped. Despite that, the Conservatives are against our plans to pay money directly into people's bank accounts; at least that is my understanding—it is not always easy to make out exactly where they stand. When one considers their strategy, one is struck by the fact that they do not have one credible policy that would work and deliver savings.
  We are making progress. We have a strategy that is beginning to bear fruit, but we need to do more to meet our targets. The Bill is the next stage of our reforms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I know that the Conservatives do not like to hear about their shortcomings—about all the things that they failed to do during their time in office. However, when people come to make a choice as to who is best equipped to keep social security spending under control, they will contrast the Conservative party, which allowed that spending to double over 18 years—despite the rhetoric and the conference speeches—with the Labour Government who have kept social security spending growth at its lowest since the second world war. At the same time. we can spend more on families, pensioners and children because we are not spending so much on waste and failure. We are spending on our priorities.
  The Bill builds on some of the recommendations made by Lord Grabiner in the report that we commissioned in 1999. We have already implemented many of his recommendations; for example, we have extended nationwide the tighter procedure for the issue of national insurance numbers that we successfully piloted in an area of London. The tighter procedures in that pilot area resulted in more than 300 arrests and the refusal of more than 4,500 applications that might well have been granted if the procedures that we inherited had still been in force. Tightening up on the issuing of NI numbers—also something that the previous Conservative Government failed to do—is central to ensuring that we cut that fraud.
  The Grabiner report recommended measures in two further areas that will need the new powers set out in the Bill. First, the Benefits Agency and local authorities need new powers to obtain information from third parties in cases of suspected fraud. Those measures are set out in clauses 1 and 2—I shall return to them shortly.
  Secondly, we need to send a clear signal to the hard core of people who carry on cheating the system even when they have been caught. That will not be tolerated. Those who are convicted twice of fraud will lose their benefit—as is set out in clauses 7 to 13. Clause 15 introduces new penalties to crack down on those employers who col ude with their employees to commit benefit fraud. Those penalties will offer an alternative to the sometimes more costly court proceedings.
  We also need to combat transnational benefit fraud, whereby people fraudulently claim benefit in more than one country or use foreign identities to claim benefit in

  865
  this country. A more routine exchange of information will help to identify such crimes more quickly. Clause 5 will allow benefits agencies to supply information to other countries in cases where adequate safeguards exist.
  Clause 16 will toughen the offence of failure to report a change of circumstances while claiming benefit. That is one of the biggest sources of fraud in the system.
  The Bill has, of course, been scrutinised in another place. Today, I shall concentrate on three main aspects: the power to check the facts where fraud is suspected; the "two strikes and you're out" policy; and the penalties in relation to collusive employers.
  First, I shall deal with the measures to provide access to independent information about a claimant's circumstances. The problem is that for far too long the system has had to deal with people who, when it came to the crunch, knew full well that the Department could not check what they had told it. That will change. If we are to succeed in rooting fraud out of the system, we need to be able to cross—check the information that people give us. It is in everybody's interest—individuals and businesses—to ensure that people will be found out when they cheat the system or do not tell the truth.
  Almost half of the fraud in two key benefits—the JSA and income support—is due to people failing to tell the truth about their incomes, earnings or capital. The Benefits Agency must have the ability to check where it suspects fraud; and, where it is faced with someone who refuses to cooperate, it needs to require banks or other financial institutions to provide the facts necessary to enable it to discover the true position. The powers for the Benefits Agency and for councils to get information from specified organisations are set out in the Bill.
  The use of these powers will be tightly controlled. There will be a limited number of authorised and named officers who can use these powers; I propose to authorise 175 initially, but that figure will rise to 300 officers at 14 principal units across the country.
  Clause 3 introduces a statutory code of practice, which sets out for all to see the way in which the powers will be used. We shall consult on that code and it will be laid before Parliament. A draft of the code is available to Members in the Library. The powers will allow only authorised officers to obtain records relevant to a suspected fraud. These powers will also help with housing benefit fraud where a landlord or a tenant claims benefit for someone who is living somewhere else.
  Mr. Bercow: In order to maximise the efficacy and the equity of the information-gathering process, what practical cognisance has the right hon. Gentleman taken of the Taxes Management Act 1970?
  Mr. Darling: That Act can be of some help, but, in so far as our proposals are concerned, we are giving authorised officers, where they suspect fraud, the power to get information from credit reference agencies or banks to find out whether someone has a bank account and, where the circumstances justify it, what payments might have been made in respect of it.
  The DSS and its respective agencies already have powers in specified circumstances to exchange information with, and to get information from, the Inland Revenue because increasingly, and for obvious reasons, the DSS deals with people who have contact with both
  866
  the Revenue and the Department; but all the time these matters are regulated. They are specified, because it is important to balance giving the Department the additional powers that it needs with the rights of individuals generally, and individuals in particular, to ensure that their individual rights are not impinged on.
  A person's right to privacy is very important indeed, but the Department is entitled to set that aside where it has reasonable grounds for suspecting fraud. There are safeguards. I want to ensure that the officers who are entitled to obtain this information are identified. They will be supervised, and there will be many checks to ensure that there is no abuse of the system, and that the information is not wrongly used. But the hon. Member for Buckingham is right to say that, increasingly, the DSS and its agencies and the Inland Revenue need to work together. The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 is one measure that allows them to do so; I am sorry that some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who served on the Committee considering that legislation opposed it so strongly.
  Mr. Butterfill: I gather that some bodies have suggested that there could be problems with the Data Protection Act 1998. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is now entirely satisfied that there will be no problem with that Act?
  Mr. Darling: I certainly can. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have to sign a certificate under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, as is stated on the front of the Bill, but I can also tell the House that the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for these matters, recently wrote to me to say that her concerns have been addressed. I believe it is important to balance the rights of the individual with the rights of the public as a whole, to ensure that the system is not abused. I think that we have achieved that balance. There is the code of practice, which the hon. Gentleman may have had the opportunity to read. It is in the Library, and its authority is on the face of the Bill. That is very important.
  Mr. David Willetts: Will the Secretary of State place in the Library a copy of the letter that he has received from the Data Protection Commissioner?
  Mr. Darling: Yes. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not have referred to the letter had I not been confident of what it said, and that I am more than happy to send it to him. The Information Commissioner did have concerns when the Bill was at an early stage, and she wrote several times. I had a useful meeting with her, her staff met DSS staff and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. My understanding is that, as the letter says, the commissioner is now satisfied that we have addressed her concerns, but I am more than happy to make the letter available to the hon. Gentleman and, as he has raised it, to place a copy in the Library.
  I should like to talk briefly about the second strand that I referred to—that of removing benefit where people are convicted twice of benefit fraud. It is important that two things happen. First, more effort must be put into

  867
  changing people's attitudes to benefit fraud. Too often, we meet people who say that benefit fraud does not really matter.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not think so.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman may not meet people like that, but I think that most of us do. I sometimes wonder who the hon. Gentleman does meet when he is outside the House. He and I would probably agree that we are probably very unlike each other. I certainly do come across people who say that benefit fraud is not really a problem—just as, some 20 or 30 years ago, people did not think that drinking and driving was really a crime. It was not uncommon, 20 or 30 years ago—although, I may say, I was quite young at the time—to find people who would think nothing of offering a drink to someone whom they knew would be driving afterwards. I believe that the same cultural change is necessary for benefit fraud.
  I know that the Opposition have complained about the advertising campaign that is currently being run on television, but Governments need to focus on getting people to think about benefit fraud and its consequences, because every penny that is lost in benefit fraud could be better spent elsewhere.
  It is necessary to go further and to make it clear to people that, if they abuse their responsibilities, they cannot expect to go back on benefit as though nothing had happened; so in the Bill we propose to implement the policy, first raised in Lord Grabiner's report, of "two strikes and you're out". If people are convicted of benefit fraud twice within three years, they will lose their benefit. That policy may be tough, but it is necessary to deal with persistent offenders.
  People do have choices. They do not have to fiddle the system; the vast majority of people do not. As I have said before, there is no unconditional right to benefit. There are rights and there are responsibilities. I believe that this policy is justified and will build on policies that we have already implemented with regard to the new deal.
  The hon. Member for Havant asked me about the Information Commissioner. I detected a suggestion that I might have said something that might not have represented the whole position. I am grateful to the Minister of State, who has given me the letter from the Information Commissioner. I shall quote part of it, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he may have all of it.
  The commissioner wrote to me on 20 March. She said:
  "I have now had the opportunity to consider the government amendments which your officials kindly sent to"
  one of her officials. She continued:
  "1 am pleased that they seem successfully to address the concerns which I expressed to you in the course of our meeting."
  She went on to say that the official previously named
  "has now written to"
  one of our departmental officials
  "to this effect."
  The letter is fairly short and fairly straightforward, but I shall certainly send it to the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to receiving his acknowledgment of receipt, so that there is no doubt about it.
  868
  I shall say a brief word on collusive employers. My predecessor as Secretary of State shared my frustration that sometimes the court system has not been as efficient or as enthusiastic as we might like in dealing robustly with people who have been guilty of benefit fraud. The Bill therefore gives us powers to impose penalties for the less serious cases, where a penalty of between £1,000 and £5,000 can be imposed on employers who are guilty of collusion in relation to benefits. The use of these civil penalties will make it easier and far more efficient to send a clear message to people who are fiddling the system.
  All the new powers that we have taken in the Bill are necessary because they add to the materials that we have at our disposal to continue to bear down on fraud in the system and to cut down on error.
  We have changed the social security system to bring in more choices, mote help and more support than ever before, but that is matched by a responsibility on individuals to help themselves and, crucially, to deal honestly with the system. The measures that we have introduced will build on what we have already achieved and will help to stop fraud in future, so we have made a start. We have set clear targets, which the Conservatives never did. We have imposed tighter gateways, which the Conservatives never did. We have seen the first significant fall in fraud and error. As always, I accept that there is a lot more to do, but we shall stop fraud and error only if we continue to invest in front-line staff and in information technology.
  The Conservative party is pledged to cut more than £16 billion of public expenditure, so if it were returned to office, those front-line jobs would go, the investment in IT would be cut and, as a result, more fraud and more error would pour back into the system, just as happened during the 18 years when it was in power. The Bill will take our reforms a step further. It will ensure that staff have the powers that they need to check the information needed to stop fraud and to send a clear signal to those who persistently cheat the system that doing so is unacceptable.
  Mr. Webb: As the Secretary of State usually leaves the Chamber before I make my speech, I want to raise an issue with him before he does so. Retirement pension is not included in the list of sanctionable benefits because, according to Baroness Hollis, retirement pensioners tend not to commit fraud, but war pensions are included. Is not that an insult to war pensioners?
  Mr. Darling: No, it is not. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants us to include pensions, but the figures simply do not justify doing so. That is why I do not propose to include them. He is right on one point: I do not normally remain to hear what he has to say because of circumstances beyond my control, and I am sorry to tell him that tonight will be no exception. For reasons that I understand, earlier business in the House has meant that this debate started a lot later than I thought it would, and many people are awaiting my presence at some stage. However, if the hon. Gentleman is called to speak early enough—or even late enough—I dare say that I shall hear him speak, but I am sure that he will take it on the chin and not get too upset if I do not.
  I have no doubt that many other hon. Members will wish to catch your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I want to conclude by making one important point.

  869
  There is a lot of talk and rhetoric about fraud and error in the social security system, but the difference between this Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition is that we have a strategy that is working; they do not have a strategy that works. They do not have a single credible proposal that would save a single pound in tackling benefit fraud. They have no strategy whatever. We are beginning to turn the corner. We are beginning to see the results. We are cutting fraud; they could not because they do not have the measures to do so. I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: The Bill has, of course, been thoroughly debated and heavily revised in another place in response to constructive suggestions from my right hon. Friends and others. I shall quote the final remark in the final day's debate in the other place. The Minister said:
  "I am delighted that the Bill has gone through without Division, though with substantive change. I hope that it is treated in the same conciliatory and positive way in the other place." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 340.]
  I am afraid that, instead of the Secretary of State following the advice of his colleague, we had a taste of what the hustings might be like on a wet Wednesday in Edinburgh, Central. Instead of an attempt to explain in any detail exactly how the Government believe they can use the Bill to tackle welfare fraud effectively, we heard a rather feeble attempt at a warm-up speech for the election campaign.
  Let me make it clear to the Secretary of State that we believe that the Bill is better than nothing, especially now that it has been revised and significantly improved in another place. We believe that it is a step in the right direction, so we shall not divide the House on Second Reading.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): A ringing endorsement.
  Mr. Willetts: The Opposition certainly want social security fraud to be reduced, and, especially with the amendments that have been made to it, the Bill represents a useful step in that direction.
  While we are in a mood of positive endorsements, perhaps I can make a personal comment about the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), as this may be our final debate on social security before the House rises to fight the election—although I know that oral questions will take place next week. The Minister of State is retiring from the House, so in case this is his last full outing in a debate in the Chamber, perhaps I can say that the Opposition have always appreciated the opportunity to debate with him. He has made a significant contribution to pensions policy. He arrived from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so he was able to introduce genetically modified group personal pensions—stakeholder pensions—and we appreciated the way in which he drew on that experience in his work on pensions. Many Opposition Members think that the right hon. Gentleman was the best Chief Whip that Labour never had, and I wish him well as he retires from the House.
  870
  This modest and sensible Bill has been introduced after four years of not much activity among Ministers. Certainly, the level of activity has been pathetic compared with the arguments and observations made about the size of social security fraud. Back in July 1998, the original Government publication, "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business" state that:
  "a conservative estimate of fraud is £2 billion … the figure could be much higher, around £7 billion if all suspicions of fraud were well founded."
  One of the ways in which Labour Ministers have tried to show that they are making progress in tackling fraud is by reducing the size of their estimate of fraud. We do not hear so much about £7 billion now, but they were happy to talk about £7 billion then. The Minister of State famously answered a parliamentary question by specifying that there could be total of £7 billion of "definite", "probably" and "possible" social security fraud.
  I should be interested to know whether Ministers still believe that there is £7 billion of fraud. I should also be interested to know whether Ministers agree with the proposition in their own manifesto, on which the Secretary of State and his colleagues fought the last election, in which they said:
  "We will start with a clampdown on Housing Benefit fraud, estimated to cost £2 billion a year".
  I wonder whether they still believe the estimate that housing benefit fraud costs £2 billion a year, because such figures put their record on social security fraud into perspective. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said so effectively, the only way in which the Government can claim any progress at all is by combining fraud and error.
  I recognise that in a complicated social security system, error can slip into fraud; it is not always possible to make an easy distinction between the two. It is perfectly possible for someone initially to make a genuine mistake in filling in a claim form. By and large, if the mistake or error leads to an underpayment, people are more likely to go back to their benefit office and challenge it than if the error leads to an overpayment. Those who consciously accept an overpayment are on the slippery slope that leads to deliberate fraud. I recognise that links exist between fraud and error, so I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise, that one of the best ways to tackle fraud is by reducing the complexity of the social security system. Fraud and error breed in a system that is far too complicated to administer.
  The Public Accounts Committee got it absolutely right in a report last year, when it stated that
  "without simplification"—
  of the rules on income support—
  "10 per cent. of payments would always be wrong."
  That represents a warning about the consequences of an overcomplicated social security system. Our criticism of the Government is that, far from making it simpler, they are perpetually making yet more complicated. That is why there is so much fraud and error. The Government can get at the root of the problem only through genuine simplification.
  The Secretary of State claims the credit for setting up a system properly to measure fraud and error, but, of course, that system was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, a previous

  871
  Secretary of State. The Government are ignoring the problem with tax credits, which represent another complicated new system that is wide open to fraud. We hear dismissive answers from Ministers, who deny that an easy way to measure fraud exists. At the moment, they refuse to offer any estimates whatever of fraud and error in tax credits, but we know that they are a significant problem.
  The providers of child care are directly affected. They have brought to our attention the scandal of people claiming the tax credit for child care, providing invoices and estimates for child care that they have not used and pocketing the cash. That is a classic example of the way in which tax credits are exploited because they are wide open to fraud and abuse, yet Ministers have discontinued the estimation of fraud for inwork benefits that we introduced when we were in office in an attempt to deal with the problem of fraud in family credit, as it then was.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the move towards credits adversely affects the cash flow of many small businesses, without any apparent compensation for the difficulties that they face?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is correct. We have many criticisms of tax credits and I know that it is sometimes with a sense of relief that Ministers in the Department of Social Security say that such credits are now a matter for the Treasury. However, the administration of tax credits is an increasing scandal in the tax and benefits system. In my surgery, I have to deal with more problems involving the working families tax credit—WFTC—than I do with problems involving the Child Support Agency.
  The problems that people face with the WFTC, and the fraud and error involved, are significant. That is why I regret the fact that the provisions in the Bill explicitly exclude tax credits. It is a great pity that tax credits are not included within its scope.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly said that the Bill was modest, and that is in stark contrast to the bloated rhetoric of the Secretary of State's speech, which was wholly out of proportion to the limited accomplishments that the right hon. Gentleman has to his credit. Would my hon. Friend care to say something about the recent plaudits that Wandsworth council has earned for its excellent and robust policy in prosecuting fraudsters? Will he also comment on the appalling incompetence of Labour councils in failing to bring fraudsters to book and on the two-fifths of local authorities that have no formal prosecution policy for fraud?
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. As I was listening to the Secretary of State, I recalled the definition of absurdity as using a great force to lift a light object. I am afraid that that is what we heard from the Secretary of State. I shall come to my hon. Friend's point about local government shortly, but the mixed record of local authorities in tackling welfare fraud is another scandal that the Bill does far too little to address.
  The problem of tax credits was outlined very well by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in a speech just under a year ago to a forum on fraud organised
  872
  by the credit industry fraud avoidance system. I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong, but the press release that was issued on that occasion said:
  "The Inland Revenue have indicated to the Social Security Select Committee that the security arrangements are similar to those for the WFTC's predecessor Family Credit. The Benefit Review of fraud in Family Credit was cancelled following Frank Field's departure from office. There is particular concern over fraud involving nursery schools and collusion with employers over wages."
  That is the account of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made last year, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Given the evidence of fraud in tax credits, their deliberate and explicit omission from clause 7(8) of the current Bill is a serious matter that should be addressed.
  There are other reasons why the Government have not been able to tackle fraud as effectively as we would have liked. It is not just that they have been a soft touch when it comes to tax credits. For example, I was struck by the evidence of the way in which the new deal has diverted people's efforts away from effectively tackling fraud. The 32nd report of the Public Accounts Committee, which was published last July, stated:
  "As regards Jobseeker's Allowance, Mr. Mathison noted that the main contributory factor"—
  to the level of fraud and error—
  "had been the impact of the New Deal and various other Welfare to Work initiatives. involving the Employment Service. Experienced staff had been diverted on to these projects, leaving new and inexperienced people to deal with the administration of Jobseeker's Allowance"
  That was Mr. Mathison's explanation of the unacceptable level of error and fraud in the system. The Government will not be able to get away with some of the claims that we have just heard from the Secretary of State, given that their own officials hive said that the new deal has diverted people away from effectively and accurately delivering benefits to unemployed people.
  What we have had from the Government—typically, of course—is a large number of press releases and a large amount of expensive advertising. We have counted 45 separate press releases during their period in office. They have averaged about one a month, and all have claimed that the Government are taking bold new initiatives to tackle fraud, whereas, in practice, they have done precious little about it.
  The current advertising campaign has been received with widespread bafflement. I do not know how many millions of pounds the Government are paying for the press and television advertisements, but let us consider the effect of saying
  "'It's only a few quid, who notices that?' Do you find this acceptable?"
  It is extremely doubtful whether such remarks, together with the many quotes apparently justifying welfare fraud, are having any effect in putting people off committing welfare fraud.
  Unlike the advertisements that were produced when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was Secretary of State, these advertisements do not provide a telephone number that people can contact to shop a benefit cheat. They offer no means by which people can act. There is simply the slogan "Targeting Fraud", with no suggestion of the practical action that can be taken.
  Mr. Webb: It is a post-modern advertisement.
  Mr. Willetts: It will certainly soon be post-Labour.

  873
  We know from evaluation of trials in the north-west that that approach was ineffective, but Ministers continued to spend all that money on the advertisements. The Secretary of State placed the evaluation report in the Library in response to a question that I tabled, and I appreciate that. The report states:
  "One negative impact that may be the result of the campaign was that respondents within the test area perceived benefit fraud as easier to commit."
  It was hardly a brilliantly successful anti-fraud advertising campaign. In fact, rather ruefully, the report added:
  "However, it is difficult to make people aware that benefit fraud is widespread without increasing their perception of how easy it is to commit at the same time"
  The following page of the report continued:
  "In terms of likelihood of reporting someone via the NBFH"—that is the hotline—
  "results in the test area do not really show much difference to the country as a whole—demonstrating once again how entrenched opinions are on this topic."
  The evaluation showed that, in the north-west, one of the effects of the advertisements was to make people think that benefit fraud was easier to get away with. There was no evidence whatever of an increase in the number of people reporting fraudsters to the hotline. None the less, despite the evidence from the north-west that the pilots were not getting the message across, Ministers went ahead with spending millions of pounds on a national advertising campaign. That is why the Department of Social Security's advertising budget is spinning out of control.
  We see another example of the way in which spin has gone ahead of substance when we investigate the "two strikes and you're out" policy. The policy gets headlines for the Secretary of State, but how many people will be penalised by it? I tabled a parliamentary question simply to establish how many people had been successfully prosecuted twice for welfare fraud. The fact is that not many people are prosecuted successfully once. The figure is about 10,000 a year. The Minister of State replied:
  "Our research suggests that approximately 5 per cent. of prosecutions involve a person with a previous conviction for benefit fraud."
  According to the Minister's figures, about 500 people are second-time offenders. That is 500 too many, and of course we must be tough on them, but it is rather surprising that Ministers make such play of that provision and give it such a high profile when. as the Minister of State went on to say, they are
  "putting in place mechanisms to identify second and further convictions." —[0fficial Report, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360,c. 576W.]
  The Government did not even have the evidence on the number of people who had twice been successfully prosecuted for welfare fraud before they decided on the policy. Their estimate that there are perhaps 500 such people does not justify all the hype and headlines.
  What more could be done? One of several possibilities is to implement the Scampion report on organised benefit fraud. I very much regret the way in which the Secretary of State smuggled out that report last January, and he has still not implemented all its recommendations. It is not simply a matter of setting up a single national agency, although that is one of Scampion's proposals that we have endorsed but the Secretary of State has not implemented
  874
  The underlying point in the report is that the problem is not merely an absence of legal powers. Indeed, it is doubtful to what extent it is a legal problem at all. It is an organisational problem, and a point about Ministers' commitment to tackling fraud. Passing laws or changing legal powers is the easy bit. The difficult bit is changing the culture of an organisation so that there is genuinely effective work on fraud.
  We were all shocked when, on 23 January 2000, after his departure from the Government, the former Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said:
  "My first big shock in Government was the realisation of the political reluctance to bear down on the welfare cheats."
  Political will and organisational discipline are at least as important as legal powers.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will accept that the last time that he launched into this theme, in The Times, John Scampion was quoted as saying that he was quite happy with what we were doing and that it in no way undermined what he was doing. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how setting up a national organised benefits squad would save £1 billion in itself, as the shadow Chancellor keeps claiming?
  Mr. Willetts: That is one of the measures that we would take, which together would ensure that we saved £1 billion. Tackling organised benefit fraud, which is a significant part of the problem, through the measures identified in the Scampion report would make a significant contribution to that target, but that is not all that we would do.
  Mr. Darling: How does the hon. Gentleman know that he would save £1 billion, given that the Conservative Government did not do so in 18 years? He must know that the shadow Chancellor has already spent the money over and over, so he must know that he has it.
  Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State and his colleagues have said that they estimate that there is £7 billion of welfare fraud. In the manifesto on which he fought the last election, he even said that there was £2 billion of housing benefit fraud alone. [Interruption.] It is no good the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), saying that there is £2 billion of fraud in total. Four years ago, she fought the election on the manifesto claim that there was £2 billion of housing benefit fraud alone, and I presume that she does not think that there is zero fraud everywhere else in the social security system.
  If there is £7 billion of social security fraud, we believe that we can take measures that will, between them, ensure that an extra seventh of that sum—£1 billion—can be saved. One of the ways of doing that is to tackle organised welfare fraud by fully implementing the proposals in the Scampion report. That is not merely a question of legal powers, although as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill is a useful step forward in that respect. It is a question of tackling organisational matters and bringing together the disparate responsibilities in different parts of the Department.
  Mr. Darling: I have never claimed that there is £7 billion of fraud in the system. Interestingly, when the

  875
  right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is here tonight, was Secretary of State for Social Security, it was suggested to him that there was £7 billion of benefit fraud, and he rightly rubbished the suggestion—as I do, because there is not.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) appears to be arguing that because there is fraud in the system, he would be able to save £1 billion just by setting up an organised benefits squad. He is flying by the seat of his pants. Given that the Tories did not manage to cut any fraud during their time in office, how can he say that he knows that he would save £1 billion, especially bearing in mind the fact that the money has already been spent? All he has is an IOU. What evidence does he have that suggests that he could possibly save £1 billion?
  Mr. Willetts: I remind the Secretary of State of what I said a few moments ago, when I quoted from the Government report, "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business", which contains an estimate of social security fraud. It says that
  "a conservative estimate of fraud is £2 billion a year; but the figure could be much higher, around £7 billion, if all suspicions of fraud were well founded."
  It is no good the right hon. Gentleman now saying that he does not recognise or use that figure. He cannot deny that his Department's main document on social security fraud, published in July 1998, since he came into office, contains the figure.
  Mr. Butterfill: It is perhaps worth quoting the Minister of State, who said in a written answer:
  "Previous estimates have shown that £2 billion a year has definitely been lost through fraud. A further £3 billion may have been lost in cases where fraud is strongly suspected and a further £2 billion where there is some suspicion of fraud."—[Official Report, 20 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 323W.]
  That seems to add up to £7 billion, so perhaps that is where the Government got the figure from.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is correct. It is no good the Secretary of State now trying to escape from figures, which the Government have happily endorsed in the past, that add up to £7 billion.
  In tackling £7 billion of welfare fraud, we would not rely entirely on Scampion's proposals, but tackling organised benefit fraud would make an important contribution to our £1 billion of savings. Local authorities are another area in which much more could be done, and are another example of the Secretary of State talking tough but failing to deliver.
  For my sins, I receive a regular supply of the Secretary of State's press releases. One, dated 6 March 2000 says, "Darling Gets Tough with Councils failing to tackle Housing Benefit Fraud." In it, the right hon. Gentleman says:
  "I want to make it abundantly clear that where investigations by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reveal weakness I will expect authorities to act immediately to remedy them".
  He continues:
  "Where the BFI identify persistent service failings by councils I will use my powers to direct standards and timescales for improved performance."
  876
  What has the right hon. Gentleman done in the year since that announcement, in which he talked so tough?
  The Secretary of State has received many reports from the benefit fraud inspectorate. Since January 2000, he has had seven reports that were favourable to councils, but he has had 40 critical reports, saying that councils are not effectively tackling welfare fraud. I have them here because we follow these matters carefully. On only one occasion—I think wretched Northampton was the victim—has he done as he threatened and used his powers to direct standards and impose time scales for improved performance. After all that huffing and puffing and 40 critical reports, only one case has led to a ministerial direction.
  That is one reason why the figures for housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud are so bad. In the last year for which we have reliable figures, there were 160,000 cases of established fraud, 1,900 cases referred for prosecution and 800 successful prosecutions. That is a strike rate of 0.5 per cent., which is simply not good enough when we are trying to tackle fraud in local authorities. That is why we have said that when local authorities are clearly not up to the administration of housing benefit, that responsibility should go to the Benefits Agency. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary asks how we would decide which local authorities were not up to the job. I am pleased she asks, because I would like to ask Ministers a question in return. They clearly do not trust some local authorities with the powers to secure private financial information of the sort for which they are providing in the Bill.
  Proposed new section 110AA(5) allows the Government to determine that only some local authorities are able to exercise the powers. The Secretary of State decides whether a local authority can exercise the powers. The Under-Secretary has a view about the local authorities that she would trust with them. That is based, presumably, on information that she has about which local authorities are effectively and competently pursuing fraud and which she does not trust to use such information competently or to keep it confidential. We would act on similar information to decide which local authorities are capable of properly administering housing benefit. We would also take into account information from reports by the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office.
  The clear implication buried in the Bill is that Ministers do not trust some local authorities to use the powers to tackle fraud. I suspect that they are right. The Government should use their powers in that way. We pursue that policy to its logical conclusion. If Ministers cannot trust a local authority with information that will be secured to tackle fraud, why are they sitting there and allowing that authority to administer housing benefit when the level of fraud is so high? On a selective basis and in those circumstances, we believe that the Benefits Agency should administer housing benefit.
  The Government can do something about national insurance numbers, to which the Secretary of State briefly referred. Since they took office, more than 4 million national insurance numbers have been added to the Department of Social Security register and only 300,000 have been removed. Britain now has 81 million national insurance numbers for 60 million people. At first we were told that that was because of people who are entitled to contributory benefits from a deceased spouse. That might

  877
  explain a few million extra numbers, but it does not explain why there are 25 million more numbers than there are people in the United Kingdom.
  The Secretary of State struck a different note today. He no longer complacently defended the 81 million national insurance numbers. Instead, he claimed that the Government would tackle the fraudulent national insurance numbers.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. There are two reasons why national insurance numbers rose dramatically in the past 10 years. First, in 1990–91, the Conservative Government understandably decided that married women who did not have national insurance numbers should get them, so they issued 3 million. Secondly, in 1992–93, they issued 13 million numbers for children. The hon. Gentleman should remember those policies because I think he was a Minister at the time. The fact that we have a much larger number of national insurance numbers than people of working age is substantially because 10 years ago the Tory Government issued an awful lot of them.
  There are 47 million national insurance numbers for UK residents over the age of 16. That is think, an Office for National Statistics figure. About 12.5 million national insurance numbers are for children who are coming into the system. They are called child reference numbers. Each year, 700,000 national insurance numbers are added because a number is issued every time a child is born.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly recognises, some national insurance numbers have to be kept in existence. There are two reasons for that. First, the spouse of someone who dies might have rights that accrue from that person's contributions, so the number has to be retained. Secondly, people who come to this country to work get a national insurance number and might then leave or, in the case of expatriates, return. That is why there is an excess. I accept that we need regularly to cleanse the numbers, we are doing that. The figures show that we have removed rather more numbers than the Tories ever did.
  Mr. Willetts: That was a lengthy intervention to tell us what we already know. We recognise that the previous Government correctly decided to make child benefit numbers proto-NI numbers. Indeed, every member of the population should have a child benefit number as a step towards receiving a national insurance number. As the Secretary of State is in intervening mood, does he think that all the 81 million national insurance numbers are valid, or have some people falsely obtained them?
  Mr. Darling: I said that we are introducing tighter checks on the granting of national insurance numbers. When we tried out the new procedures in south London, there were 361 arrests and a number of deportations. Some 4,600 applications were refused which would otherwise have been accepted. Many measures are at the disposal of the Government to tackle fraud and system errors. The difference between this Government and the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member is that we are implementing them and beginning to turn the corner in our fight against rising fraud and system
  878
  error. National insurance numbers are no exception. The reason for my long intervention is that the hon. Gentleman was talking nonsense—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I appreciate that the issue is complicated, but the Secretary of State's interventions are verging on speeches.
  Mr. Willetts: The Government are not implementing those measures; they are merely talking about it. That is why there are 45 press releases and a statistically insignificant change in the amount fraud. There is a great deal of talk, but not much action.
  Mr. Butterfill: I checked the numbers with the House of Commons Library. There are 82 million national insurance numbers and 48 million people of employable age.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is correct. It is important that we have effective data cleaning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden initiated such a project when he was Secretary of State in 1995. It was a good example of how the problem should be tackled.
  Let me move on from national insurance numbers— [Interruption.] I warn the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), that I will respond to his challenge and talk at even greater length about them. I do not believe that issuing 4,061,512 national insurance numbers between 1997 and 2000 was effective control of the problem. The figure is too large and suggests that the controls are not tight enough.
  I am concerned about the effectiveness of the proposals. We must consider whether we can be comfortable that the powers to secure data from private sources will be safe not just from a challenge by the Data Protection Commissioner—I look forward to seeing her letter, which the Secretary of State has generously agreed to provide—but from a challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998. The other place debated that at length, but did not reach a conclusion.
  When the assistant commissioner spoke at a conference of the British Bankers Association last week, he outlined the difficulties that the office of the Data Protection Commissioner has with the Bill. There is a widespread anxiety that the powers might not be secure if they are challenged under human rights legislation. It would be a frustrating but all too typical example of the way in which the Government behave if powers that are taken with a flurry to demonstrate their effectiveness in tackling welfare fraud result only in a challenge in the courts and cannot be used as originally intended. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is offering me the commissioner's letter and I look forward to studying it.
  We need an assurance not just that the Data Protection Commissioner is content with the Bill, but that the Secretary of State believes that he can stand by his judgment on the front of the Bill that its provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, which is incorporated in UK law. We still need further information on that point.
  When the Minister of State replies to the debate, I would like to hear his estimate of the burden on business that will result from the enactment and implementation of the proposed legislation. Very few of those working in

  879
  the financial services industry believe Ministers' estimates of the cost of compliance, which range from £2.3 million to £7 million. One bank alone believes that 38 additional staff will be needed to comply with the Bill's provisions. We know from Ministers that they are expecting 900,000 inquiries a year when the Bill is enacted. The idea that those inquiries can be dealt with by private sector banks and financial institutions at a maximum cost of £7 million is one that is difficult to believe. I hope that we shall hear more from the Minister of State about the real burdens on business.
  I hope also that we shall hear more about the way in which the Department will be organised to discharge the powers that it will have when the Bill is enacted. I do not know whether what the Secretary of State said was new. I suspect it was a new and lower estimate of the number of officials in his Department who in the first instance would have powers as designated officers to pursue information, using the provisions set out in the Bill.
  Another concern has focused on the number of people who will be so empowered and how well they will be trained. There is the problem of spoofing. Bogus inquiries will be made to banks by people claiming to be working for the Benefits Agency. The Secretary of State should know about that. We have had a great deal of spoofing by the Government over the past four years. There is a need also to have single and reliable points of contact.
  It seems that we are reaching the stage where there will be only 14 area benefit offices, with relatively few staff. They will be expected to discharge their powers under the Bill. We shall listen with great interest to anything that the Minister of State can say about what that means for the organisation of the Benefits Agency.
  We will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. The measure has been heavily revised and improved in another place. It is a modest step in the right direction. We do not believe that it will deliver what the Secretary of State and his ministerial team claim for it. That will require energetic ministerial intervention and organisational change within the Department, and that will have to wait for another Government.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) began his brief contribution to the debate by commenting that this evening may be the last occasion on which we shall hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of State speak from the Government Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman also began with comments about my right hon. Friend, and I hope to conclude my equally brief contribution with comments about him too.
  I hope also that there are those who can make a distinction between this being perhaps the last speech that we shall hear in this place from my right hon. Friend, but not the last speech that he makes in Parliament. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Havant and others will contain themselves, I will suggest why Parliament would be strengthened if my right hon. Friend's speech this evening were not his last.
  Much has been made about the extent of social security fraud. Most of us will conclude that it is too large and that it may be growing. The Government have introduced the Bill because they wish new powers to be more
  880
  effective than those that Governments have had in the past to safeguard taxpayers' money. It is fair game to cite and to criticise the figures in "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: Securing the Future", but I must declare an interest. For about three months, I was the Minister responsible for counter-fraud, and during that time the document was produced. Though the figures did not come down from Mount Sinai, they did go through No. 10. If there is a wish to query them, people should know that they have that stamp of approval.
  In the spirit of give and take, I shall suggest four modest but important ways in which the Bill could be improved. As in the other place, I hope that the Government will be open to suggestions. The first involves working families tax credit. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State, who is as anxious as anyone to bear down on fraud, would willingly exclude WFTC from the Bill.
  When we consider the Bill in Committee and on Report and table amendments to include working families tax credit, I hope that my right hon. Friend will invite those of his colleagues who have opposed WFTC being part of the Bill to defend their action, and not leave him to defend an omission that I am sure he was anxious not to agree initially.
  There is resistance to serious consideration of possible fraud problems with the WFTC. It was not only when the ministerial team first met after the general election that I suggested that if the WFTC was to be part of our programme, we should undertake a benefit review of family credit. During my 13 or so weeks as a Minister, I asked for that review to take place. I am not surprised that those papers no longer exist. I have no doubt that most of them will disappear down a black hole, as did so many of the papers relating to other activities at that time.
  From talking before the general election, let alone since, to counter-fraud officers who deal with the WFTC, it would be necessary to be simple beyond words to believe that there was not a major issue. As the Green Paper stated, when new benefits are being designed, we should try to design out the obvious ways in which fraud is being committed on current benefits. It stood to reason that we should have had a benefit review of the WFTC. We did not, but that is water under the bridge. None of us has the power to shift the bridge further downstream so that the water can pass under it again. However, we can ensure that the WFTC comes within the ambit of the Bill. That is my first suggestion.
  My second suggestion is to strengthen the proposed penalties. I hope that we shall move to two strikes and out. That should be our policy, with no qualifications and no changes. However, we should not kid ourselves that that will deal with the more serious crimes against taxpayers in respect of social security fraud.
  On reading the Bill, it is interesting to ascertain where the Government think that the main fraud is located. It is in that area that they are proposing penalties. There are the individuals who might suffer the two strokes and out, and employers. I know that my right hon. Friend has spoken to those in the credit industry who are concerned about countering fraud, and about the people who they see practising fraud against them and the taxpayer. They have an image of well-organised firms undertaking such activity, and some of them are prepared to use guns.

  881
  The thought that a two strikes and out policy, or an up to £5,000 fine for employers, could deter that group suggests to me that we will welcome an opportunity to consider penalties again and further to strengthen the armoury that taxpayers have to protect their hard-earned income.
  That leads me to my third suggestion, which relates to national insurance numbers. There was horror in the Department when, as a Minister, I suggested that we should consider the probity, the record and the background of those who issue national insurance numbers. It said that staff would be up in arms. I have never taken that view; with identity cards, all those who have nothing to hide would have no worries about such changes.
  We should encourage the Government now to make a move on looking at people's backgrounds to ensure that staff are who they say are when they apply for jobs, especially those who are in charge of issuing national insurance numbers. If one goes back to the gangs—which, after all, are attacking taxpayers' biggest budget and the image that the credit, banking, finance and insurance industries present about these people—it is inconceivable that those highly organised groups have not placed some of their people on the inside so that they know which of those excess national insurance numbers can be used safely for the creation not just of the odd identity, but mass identities. When we come to consider the Bill in Committee and on Report, I suggest that we strengthen the Government's hand on safe guarding national insurance numbers.
  Mr. Webb: I wonder whether I can make a link between what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about infiltration of the Department of Social Security and the powers in the Bill to have a good nose around people's bank accounts. Does the conjunction of the two concern him?
  Mr. Field: I hope that I will be here when the hon. Gentleman speaks. It is not that I have important meetings to go to, but I have a personal one to attend, so I may not hear his contribution. I am not quite sure of the connection that he is making.
  There are civil liberty issues that relate to this issue and other aspects of the Bill, and it is proper for people to be concerned that the weight in our society is against civil liberties and in favour of protecting the majority. I do not share that view, but I respect the fact that others hold it. I do not think that we have got the balance right, and the Bill moves in an important direction to strengthen the hand of taxpayers collectively to look after their hard-earned income, as against the possible infringement of certain people's individual rights, although most of that group are undertaking activities that are not in the interests of decent taxpayers—[Interruption] Perhaps I shall pick that point up later. Although there is a conflict, I come down firmly on the Government's side.
  My final point is about what the Bill calls data sharing, although the industry calls it data raiding. Later in the Bill's proceedings, I hope that we can suggest that it becomes genuine data sharing. One useful amendment would be to give the Government power to join CIFAS, the credit industry fraud avoidance system. From a comment made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, it appeared that there was a legal bar against the
  882
  Government joining that organisation. Merging the Government's information on trying to counter benefit fraud with the information that the industry has on its way of trying to counter fraud would help us as consumers to pay lower premiums and, I am sure, pay huge dividends for taxpayers. That is only one move in what I hope will be a whole series of moves on data sharing that would shift the balance towards decent citizens, and against our comrades who so often put two fingers up to us and run amok locally and nationally.
  Those are my suggested reforms, which, I hope, we can add to the Bill before we enter the election fray. I said at the beginning of my speech that I wanted to conclude by picking up the theme of the hon. Member for Havant in respect of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have been in the House for 22 years, and my right hon. Friend was a Member of Parliament when I arrived. I first met him when I worked for the Low Pay Unit and, in its early days, came with another member of the unit—who is now my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) —to speak to a group of Labour Back Benchers. I hope that by raising that I do not harm my hon. Friend's career in any way.
  As an ordinary worker in the Low Pay Unit, my hon. Friend raised the question of indexing allowance. Two people in the room were taking copious notes; my right hon. Friend and my friend Audrey Wise who, until recently, was the Member for Preston. I was surprised because, not only did they take notes and table the relevant amendments but, when the then Government were on a knife edge, with almost no majority at all, they both stood their ground and made reforms for which many people continue to be grateful to them.
  The first characteristic of my right hon. Friend of which I was aware was his bravery under fire, as they say. During the long years of opposition, I also learned that if he thought that something was right, he would say so in the Chamber. We have heard this evening that a lot of people out there need to be convinced that fraud is bad, but I have not met any of them. However, he and I faced quite a few Members in the Chamber who did not think that countering fraud was important. The fact that all three parties now have a united front on countering fraud owes not a little to the stance that he was prepared to take in opposition, when his own side was still wandering around the garden of Eden suggesting that it was not a problem at all.
  The fact that we now have a much more determined fight against fraud and that the Government are adding to their powers in the Bill is one small testament to the effect that my right hon. Friend has had on debates in this place. As I said, I hope that this is not the last time that Parliament hears from him.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: May I pick up where the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) left off and perhaps make the Minister of State feel even older? As a child living in Great Barr, just down the road from his Perry Barr constituency, I used to read the Birmingham Evening Mail every night and see his face there; I thought that when I grew up, I wanted to be just like him—[Interruption.] I am not sure that it ever came to that.
  As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, Members on both sides of the House are united in the view that fraud is a serious issue that costs a considerable

  883
  sum. However big the figures— £2 billion or £7 billion—they are hard to grasp. Whatever the amount, it is enormous and could be used better than by being spent on fraudulent benefit claims. Clearly, we all want more action on fraud. Later, I shall come on to the fact that I am not convinced that the Government are using their existing powers to tackle fraud effectively.
  We have had a knockabout, but I want to look at the Bill itself. It is called the Social Security Fraud Bill, and it sounds as though it must be a good thing, because we are all against fraud. However, we must always ask whether its measures for tackling fraud are appropriate: do they go too far? I want to focus on that question.
  I want to raise a number of concerns—especially the business about delving into people's bank accounts and credit reference agencies—that are raised by clause 1. When I have done so, I hope that the Minister will respond to them in his reply, unless he has a better engagement, but I am sure that he will be here until the bitter end.
  First, I turn to the scale of intrusion. In the other place, Baroness Hollis gave an assurance that there would be no fishing trips, yet the regulatory impact assessment states that there will be 800,000 inquiries every year, many of them into bank accounts, credit reference agencies, utilities, telecommunications and so on. Some are unexceptionable. There is nothing wrong with asking a utility company whether any gas or electricity has been used at a house, and if it becomes apparent that no fuel has been used in the house, it is appropriate to wonder about paying someone housing benefit for occupancy of it.
  However, hundreds of thousands of inquiries to banks and building societies are mentioned. There is a contrast between that number, which was not used by the Secretary of State—he hardly touched on the Bill until quite late in his speech—and the impression that the Government are trying to give that the process will be measured, carefully scrutinised and carried out under controlled circumstances. The two things seem to be at odds. It is hard to see how hundreds of thousands of inquiries into people's bank details are consistent with a carefully controlled examination of only the information that needs to be examined.
  My first worry is that the scale of the exercise will make it difficult to control. In another place, the Government stressed that there would be safeguards, that there would not be fishing trips and that checks would be made, but the scale that is envisaged makes me wonder whether that is practical. I have my doubts.
  The second concern is whether those activities will be subject to independent scrutiny. An analogy has been drawn with the tax commissioners in the case of the Inland Revenue, who have an independent status, whereas the activity envisaged by the Bill will be subject to what are called management checks. Much of the scrutiny to determine whether the powers are being used properly will be internal.
  In years to come, I can imagine constituents complaining to us that the DSS has been getting copies of their bank statements and finding out about their personal details. People will be shocked that the Department can do that, particularly when they are proven to be entirely innocent, and we will feel that we should have made sure
  884
  that there were more safeguards in place—independent safeguards, not just someone else in the Department saying, "Yes, it is all right."
  I am aware that there is a code of practice, and I am grateful to the Department for making it available to us. I know that only part of the code of practice was available to another place when the Bill was considered there. The code of practice is helpful, but its contents do not form part of the Bill. It is referred to in the Bill, but breaching the code of practice is not, in itself, an offence. Critically, the code of practice can be amended without reference to the House—I believe that I am right in saying that. At a later stage, we may wish to explore the conditions under which it can be amended. If that is the safeguard—if the Minister's response to our concerns is, "There is a code of practice, which is publicly available"—we need to be reassured that it cannot be changed, thereby possibly undermining people's protection, without proper scrutiny in this place.
  A further source of concern is the seniority of the staff involved in examining people's bank accounts. In other cases in which those powers exist, the prying into people's personal circumstances is done by more senior staff than envisaged by the Bill.
  Mr. Butterfill: If someone applies to a building society for a mortgage, is it unreasonable for the building society to ask to check the person's status with his bank? Is that an intrusion into his privacy? Is there not an analogy with someone asking for state benefits and being asked whether a check can be carried out with his bank? Is that really such an erosion of people's private rights?
  Mr. Webb: When one applies for a mortgage, the information that is requested is limited, specific and relevant. On the occasions when I have applied for a mortgage, I do not remember being asked for copies of my bank statements. I might have been asked to state what my salary was and I might have been asked to produce mortgage statements from other lenders, but not for all sorts of extraneous information. One of my concerns about the powers in the Bill is that the temptation to do a bit of fishing is considerable.
  First, there will be the question about whether there is an account, and perhaps a question about the balance, then the investigating officer might think, "Maybe we should look a little further. We might find something else." That must be a huge temptation. There is no cost to the civil servant concerned. By pursuing the matter as far as possible, he might turn something up and get a pat on the head for finding something, even if that does not happen nine times out of 10.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way again. Perhaps there is something wrong with the way in which disclosure is dealt with at present. He may not be aware that whenever he asks for any form of credit—for example, from a building society, or for a loan to buy a new car—he will sign a form that entitles the lender to make all sorts of inquiries about him, including his status with his bank.
  Mr. Webb: There is a difference between my status with my bank, and copies of my bank statements for the past six months. The question is how far it is legitimate

  885
  for the state to go in pursuing suspected fraud. How strong does the suspicion need to be? It is the lack of scrutiny that worries me.
  We will not oppose Second Reading—I shall not keep the House in suspense any longer—and we think that it is legitimate for the state, in tightly controlled circumstances, to check some of the information that it might need to corroborate, but we want to be sure that there is independent scrutiny, that the investigation is not carried out on such a massive scale that scrutiny is impossible and that the information requested is specific and limited, not just general fishing.
  Until the Bill went through another place, there was a clause stating that the people who would be scrutinised would include those in a category more likely than others to commit fraud. The fact that the Government even thought of writing that in is extremely worrying. I do not know whether they had in mind people who looked a bit shifty or people with funny accents.
  I am not sure what the criteria were to be, but the fact that the Government thought of including a clause that would allow them to examine the bank accounts and so on of people who seemed more likely than others or who were statistically more likely than others to commit fraud suggests the sweeping ambitions that the Government had. I am delighted that in another place the Government responded to criticism and reined in those ambitions, but I am concerned that the ambitions existed in the first place.
  Mr. Willetts: The best that Ministers could come up with was the suggestion that the measure would attack window cleaners. Perhaps, with an election looming, they were so worried about losing the window cleaner vote that they abandoned the idea. However, that was the only explanation that the Government could come up with when challenged on the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly makes.
  Mr. Webb: That suggests entirely new angles on laundering, I suspect.
  We are anxious that the powers should be independently scrutinised by senior staff and should not be on such a large scale that they get out of hand. I spent a riveting time this afternoon reading the code of practice. It is not just civil service staff but subcontractors who will potentially have those powers, so the powers could be exercised at one more remove. That a further source of concern to us.
  I have already asked what assurance there was that the information requested would be the minimum that was needed. The incentives are all wrong. The incentive for the member of staff must be to ask for as much as possible, because in one case out of 10, 100 or 1,000, something extra will be detected. How much intrusion should be balanced against that? We are worried that there are not sufficient controls to prevent such fishing expeditions.
  There are questions about who will bear the cost. Often, the actions of central Government incur costs for local government, and local government never gets reimbursed. Under the Bill, local authorities will have to supply information. Will that be just another burden on local authorities, or will the Government meet the cost?
  Have the Government considered a possible side-effect of the Bill? As a result of the power of the state to gain access to people's bank accounts on a much larger scale
  886
  than ever before, people may stop having bank accounts. Have the Government assessed the likelihood of that? Given that one of the Government's strategies is to create a universal bank and to get more people to have accounts, is there a danger that if people think that their financial affairs are not private and their transactions are not secure in a bank account, fewer will have bank accounts? I should be grateful for the Minister's response.
  I mentioned earlier my concern that the Government are not using their existing powers to crack down on housing benefit fraud. In an intervention, I asked the Secretary of State what he thought of the fact that housing benefit fraud detected by local authorities had gone down between the second and third years of his Government. He said that the Government were trying to do more to stop fraud in the first place, but I was not convinced that that explained why local authorities were finding less fraud.
  My reading of the situation is, first, that local authorities have not been supported enough in their anti-fraud work, and, secondly, that the Government have not used the powers that they have to make sure that local authorities are doing more. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned, rightly, that the Government's existing powers have been used only once, against Northampton council. That local authority detects 1 per cent. of benefit expenditure in fraud. The most successful local authorities detect 5 or 6 per cent. of expenditure in fraud. If the worst performing authorities could be brought to the average of the best, the Government could save £400 million or £500 million. That seems a credible goal for a two or three-year period. The key question is why the Government have not used those powers more. The Secretary of State did not answer when the hon. Member for Havant asked about the matter, but I hope that the Minister of State will do so. Of course, there are huge variations in local authority anti-fraud activity. Detected fraud has fallen, but there is not much evidence to suggest that the Government are using existing powers before they ask the House for more.
  I should like to refer to one further aspect of the Bill about which the Liberal Democrats are perhaps especially concerned—the effect of the benefit sanctions. I spoke about war pensions in a slightly hurried intervention on the Secretary of State. I wanted him to deal with the issue before he finished his speech. Bizarrely, a "Two strikes and you're out" approach is applied to fraud in respect of war pensions, but not to fraud on retirement pensions. When Baroness Hollis was asked why retirement pensions were not included in the Bill, she gave the reason that there was virtually no fraud in respect of such pensions.
  Does the Minister of State believe that serious fraud exists in connection with war pensions? It would be helpful for an answer to be put on record. If no serious fraud is committed and it is accepted that Britain's war pensioners are decent, law-abiding people who should be getting the money, the inclusion of war pensions in the Bill is insulting. If he is considering tabling amendments, he should be aware that knocking war pensions out of the Bill could remove a potential source of offence at no cost to the Government. War pensions should not be included in the Bill.
  What of the people who are sanctioned? Few of us will have any sympathy for such people, as they will have attempted twice to defraud the benefits system. However, we must consider the appropriate punishment for such

  887
  people. For example, is it appropriate to punish their dependants, who are likely to be children? The Minister of State will say "We're not touching the child rates; only the personal allowances", but that still reduces the total amount that is coming into the household. Anybody who has tried to live on income support for any period will know that income will already be at a minimum. The Bill can take somebody who has committed two offences below income support levels, along with the rest of the household.
  In another place, the Government were challenged by my noble Friend Earl Russell about research evidence in that respect. What research have they undertaken into the effect of the benefit sanctions on those who are sanctioned? What does the Bill do to such people and to their dependants? The short answer is that the Government do not have a clue. In fact, they do not care. Whenever they are asked such questions in the House, they say that people should not commit fraud anyway.
  We must consider the appropriateness and proportionality of any punishment. As I have previously reminded the House, when people are convicted of murder, we still feed them, clothe them and put a roof over their head. The Bill requires people who have committed benefit fraud twice to live below the poverty line for a sustained period of punishment. How can it be appropriate that although somebody who has committed a severe crime is guaranteed the human rights of food, clothing and shelter, somebody who has done something far less serious can be denied those basic rights?
  The Government talk a lot about rights and responsibilities. I do not want to take away from anyone the basic human rights of food, shelter and clothing, especially when he or she has committed a crime that is far less serious than those for which imprisonment is the usual punishment. There is a serious danger, however, that that is what the cumulative effect of the Government's benefits sanctions will mean. The 40 per cent. sanction mentioned in the Bill can be applied on top of another 40 per cent. sanction. That may happen in only a few cases, but such measures are getting out of control. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should not introduce any further benefits sanctions until they have commissioned proper research into the effects on those who are sanctioned.
  We are concerned about the Bill, but we will not stand in its way, as we share the commitment to tackling fraud. However, the response to fraud must be proportionate, independently verified and properly controlled, and we have yet to be convinced that those conditions will be satisfied.
  7.44 pm
  Kali Mountford: I have been a little surprised by this evening's debate. There seems to be so much conciliation that Member's are acting as though there is no opposition outside the House to arguments about the need to deal with fraud, but that is not my experience. In a recent debate outside the House, I was alarmed to find that a large group of people believe that those who commit fraud have some excuse for doing so. Often, the defrauders themselves believe that they have an excuse. That is why it is worth taking a moment or
  888
  two to reflect on the social effect of fraud within the system, and to consider why it should be dealt with by the Bill. If we failed to introduce such a measure, we would be failing to deal with the arguments that are advanced outside the House to try to justify benefit fraud.
  One of the first obvious facts is that social security fraud is a misappropriation of public funds. Such an abuse must always be wrong, although people sometimes try the excuse that life is rough for those on benefit. However, such arguments do not recognise that life can be tough on all those who receive benefit, most of whom do not commit fraud. I it accept that people sometimes make mistakes. Indeed, I often met such people in my previous career and in my work in the voluntary sector, but I know that not all those who commit fraud will be in that position.
  Recently, I visited the ONE centre in my constituency with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley). I was impressed by the way in which the centre deals with benefit and saw how its methods can prevent some of the mistakes that are made. I also saw how well information technology was used and how successfully staff related to their clients. I noticed that clients were very responsive to the information, help and support that was given by ONE. Such help can go some way towards dealing with so-called mistakes. If we get the information right in the first place, we might help the whole process. I am pleased to have seen at first hand the benefits that can be provided to all concerned.
  However, such schemes do not deal with the offenders—I call them offenders—who are persistently ripping everybody off. I think that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned the advertising campaign that has been conducted. I have seen people such as those depicted in the advertising campaigns in my constituency. Indeed I, I have received complaints about them and the effects of their actions. There is a far louder cry from those who deplore their behaviour than from those who support it, but I believe that we must nevertheless deal with the arguments of those who try excuse themselves or others from responsibility for such actions.
  In the late 1970s, the early 1980s and towards the 1990s, when I was working in the Department, I often thought people on benefit had a very hard time. Jobs were hard to find and things were tough. When 3 million people were unemployed benefit was inaccessible and circumstances were more difficult, one could feel a little sympathy for people who were guilty of social security fraud. Even at that time, however, I would have said, "Look, there are hundreds and thousands of others in the same town or region as you. They, too, may have lost their job in the steelworks, in mining or in their local factory, but they are not doing the same thing." Such actions are not excusable, even in such tough circumstances, but there might at least have been some compassion when times were hard.
  In 1997, at the beginning of my time in the House, the unemployment rate was 4.9 per cent. It is now down to 2.5 per cent. It was low in 1997, but it is now very low indeed, and it is continuing to fall. What excuse can a

  889
  person in my constituency have for benefit fraud? There are more jobs, so why are such people finding it difficult to find work?
  Mr. Butterfill: I am listening attentively to what the hon. Lady is saying, and I agree with a great deal of it. Does she accept that people who commit fraud against the benefit system can rip off not only their fellow citizens, but charities too? A number of charities rely on an almonry process, and many of them rely on eligibility for state benefits to decide whom they should help. I am a trustee of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, which does exactly that; it gives fret veterinary care to people who are in receipt of state benefits. People who fraudulently claim benefit often fraudulently obtain the free veterinary care that we provide. Many other charities operate on the same basis, which means that benefit fraud can be a rip-off of the whole of society.
  Kali Mountford: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a domino effect when people start to commit fraud. My experience is that somebody will often start with a simple mistake, which is why the ONE project is so important. Many people make that one simple mistake, find that they get away with it and then move on to commit more serious breaches. The collusion with others to rip us off in such a manner is outrageous. In that respect, I should like to cite the "Kilroy" programme, although I hope that this is the first and last time I do so. Only a week ago, it featured a debate —which I saw—in which people defended such action on the grounds that they might want to buy Adidas shoes, for instance. They suggested that it was all right for them to act in that way, given the pressure to maintain a certain standard of living in today's society.
  I would say to those people that we do not necessarily have a right to own goods of a particular brand. I think we all agree that there is a right to be decently clothed, fed and housed, but it seems that some of us have gone beyond that. It is regrettable that these to whom I refer were willing to act in such a way, and then to defend their actions.
  I thought it worth pointing out tonight that fraud is wrong, and describing its effects, but I also want to say something about the employers who collude in such fraud. A measure of discontent has been expressed to me by employers who fear being involved in more red tape and bureaucracy, and having to deal with the Department more than they would wish to. I understand that—I have never encountered an employer who wanted to deal with any Department if he could avoid it—but I hear another view from employers in my area.
  Let me cite two types of employer in particular, involved in industry and services respectively: those in construction and allied trades, and those working in private taxi hire companies. Both tell me that they know what is happening in another company further down the road, or in the next valley—the information is never specific enough to enable me to deal with the problem. I am told that certain people are picked up in the morning to be taken to work. Apparently, all the neighbours know about this—certainly those who art in the pub or the supermarket, or outside the post office
  The employers I have mentioned are upset about such people, because they are trying to operate their businesses
  890
  on a level playing field. They are making national insurance contributions for their work force, and dealing properly with tax, health and safety regulations and all the other Government arrangements. They are working in a fair marketplace, in which they must price their services and goods appropriately. Meanwhile, unscrupulous employers are colluding in benefit fraud. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, there is a domino effect: not just charities but the whole economy could be ripped off by such behaviour.
  That brings me to another part of the Bill that I consider important—that on "two strikes", and how we are to deal with persistent offenders. I think that more support is available now than there used to be: there are more opportunities in an economic context, and advice is more available in the system than I have known it to be in my 22 years of dealing with benefits. I do not consider that mistakes that can have that domino effect on behaviour are as excusable as they seem to have been in the past.
  Where does this take us? People to whom a mistake may have been pointed out in the first instance may have to repay overpaid benefit; if it is found that a clerk in the benefits office, or elsewhere, did not spot the mistake, those people may not even be asked to repay the amount. On a future occasion, some other mistake may occur. Again, information may be given outside a public house, or in a post office or supermarket. Those are the places where people seem to be given advice on benefits. I urge such people not to take advice anywhere but in the office with which they are dealing.
  I meet people who say, "I was told by Fred Bloggs that if I worked only a certain number of hours a week, or earned only a certain amount, I would not have to declare the amount. I made an honest mistake." I tell them that, under the system as it is now, that excuse is not credible. Those in regard to whom we might want to apply a "two strikes and out" arrangement will have had quite enough connection with the system as a whole to know that their behaviour is wrong. By that time, they must have received sufficient advice to be aware that their actions would result in certain consequences.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked whether the "two strikes" provision was over-harsh. I agree with him that the benefits system contains a number of sanctions, intended both to deter and to punish; but another form of punishment is imprisonment, which is also available in the system. Surely it is better for the family of an offender for the offender not to be removed but—if he or she is working and continuing to claim—to formalise the arrangement, and find a proper job.
  In all our debates the hon. Gentleman has shown himself to be a compassionate man, and I have some sympathy with his view, but I am worried about the problem affecting families. In generations of families, reliance on the so-called alternative economy has become the norm. We must break that cycle, and if we impose no sanctions of any kind—or if the alternative sanction is imprisonment—I am not sure that we will do families any more good than we would by imposing the sanction of reduced benefit. I think that 13 weeks is the standard period involved in such sanctions. It has proved to be of some value for a number of years, and I think it appropriate.

  891
  Conservative Members, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), have expressed criticisms, suggesting that sanctions and controls could be taken further—into the area of organised crime. The Bill is not designed to deal with organised crime, but I welcome the work that has been done with regard to fraud overseas. When I worked in the benefits system, I dealt with reciprocal arrangements involving people coming here from overseas and clients going overseas, either for a holiday or, ostensibly, to look for work and to review their arrangements.
  It is remarkably difficult to keep track of such people, and to know exactly what is happening. I have received reports of people setting up tents and caravans while ostensibly searching for work, having already found work that they are not declaring. I am pleased that the Bill contains provisions to deal with that. I have some sympathy with the idea of extending the provisions to international crime—the sort of fraud mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead—and to the same kind of crime in this country. I have heard of examples, and I think we have no excuse for not dealing with such matters now.
  I welcome the Bill and the present spirit of conciliation throughout the House, although at times I felt we were almost on gladiatorial terms. I also thank the hon. Member for Havant, if I thank him for nothing else today, for reminding me that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), will soon be leaving us. I can hardly believe that. I experienced a Freudian moment in which I did not want to remember it, and I was rather surprised to be reminded of it today.
  I have not been in the House for long; I have been here for barely four years. In that time, however, I have had several opportunities to work with my right hon. Friend, and I admire him greatly. I do not want to make him blush any more than he has already, for he is a modest man and is probably sick of our going on about this, but having received the reminder, I do not want to miss the opportunity of telling him what a pleasure it has been to work with him, how much I have learned from him and what a remarkable parliamentarian I think he has been—not just in my four years here. Like the hon. Member for Northavon, I knew who was and was not worth watching when I was not here, and my right hon. Friend was always the man to watch.
  8 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: There is a danger that this debate may develop into a eulogy to the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but I would like to add my personal congratulations to him on his parliamentary career, because this may be the last opportunity that I shall have to do so in a debate. What he has done in his present Department has been quite outstanding.
  More particularly, I remember the right hon. Gentleman in his role on housing, a period when he and I crossed swords on more than one occasion. The contribution that he has made to the development of housing policy—in particular, to the maturity with which the Labour party
  892
  now approaches the issue of the private rented sector, and to the recognition of the contribution that it can make—has been extremely valuable. 1 should like to take this opportunity to thank him, and to congratulate him on behalf of us all on that element of his work.
  It is always difficult to speak after the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I am sorry that he is no longer in his place. He and I tend to agree on many of the issues on which we jointly speak: on pensions, for example, and other matters. It is particularly difficult for me to speak after him this evening, because he said just about everything that I wanted to say in my own speech. I should like to pick up some of the points that he made, particularly the emphasis that he placed on the pernicious influence of organised fraud on social security benefits.
  According to the raw statistics on national insurance numbers, which were discussed earlier, there are some 82 million national insurance numbers, but only 48 million people of employable age. That leaves a difference of 34 million. It is difficult to believe that that difference could be entirely due to factors such as the national insurance numbers given to people under employment age for various reasons; the national insurance numbers that are continued in respect of deceased persons for certain reasons; and the national insurance numbers that are given to temporary foreign workers.
  That last factor relates to a legitimate activity. In my constituency in Bournemouth, there are a large number of language schools. In the summer, a great many students come over to attend the schools, mainly from other parts of the EU. Many of them want to work part-time while they are here, as they are perfectly entitled to, as citizens of the European Union. They get a national insurance number, they retain it and it remains on the system. That is perfectly appropriate. However, it is difficult to believe that those rather limited examples, which may explain some of the difference, could amount to a difference of 34 million national insurance numbers. This is a serious problem, and it needs to be addressed.
  The Bill goes some way towards addressing those issues and helping to reduce the clear element of fraud demonstrated by those numbers, and to that extent I welcome it. There has been some dispute about the level of fraud, but most people seem to agree that it is worth about £7 billion a year, although it is difficult to quantify exactly. These are huge numbers, and the burden that that fraud places on ordinary, decent, hard-working people is colossal. That is unfair on the many people who pay their taxes.
  Many of my constituents are elderly, and a large proportion of them are retired. Many of them continue to pay tax, but in doing so they are often supporting people who are deliberately defrauding the system: the people about whom we are concerned. We are not so concerned about those who make innocent errors, or who find the system extremely complex. Most of us have had people come to our constituency surgeries and say, "I just didn't understand. It was all too complicated, and I made an error when I filled in the form. I didn't know I was supposed to let them know when certain events occurred and I failed to do it."
  Many of my elderly constituents are confused about the system and they make innocent errors. They are not the people about whom we are concerned. Indeed, the Bill

  893
  proposes ways of mitigating the effect for those who make innocent errors, even more than once. We are, however, concerned about those who deliberately set out to defraud the system and their fellow citizens. Given the scale of the fraud, the effect that it has on everyone else, and the way in which it denies us the opportunity to spend public money on other things that we all consider desirable—health, education or whatever—there is an urgent need to tackle the problem.
  I therefore welcome the additional powers in the Bill to obtain information. I also welcome the ability to use electronic access to data, although I shall say a little more about that later. There are some concerns about those additional powers, especially about how they will operate with those who will be providing a co-operative system with the Government.
  We know from the responses of organisations such as the British Bankers Association and the Council of Mortgage Lenders and from the telecoms companies and others that they are worried that they will have to bear an irrecoverable financial cost as a result of the information that they provide. They also feel that it is a little unfair that they operate systems now at considerable expense, and that, by co-operating with the Government, they will get no benefit in return.
  The suggestion by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that we should participate in organisations such as the credit industry fraud avoidance system is a good one. That would make it much more palatable for those who are co-operating in this way. Let us make no mistake: extremely sophisticated systems are now available that can reduce fraud dramatically. The telecoms companies have now put in place very sophisticated computer-based systems that can detect up to 80 per cent. of fraud. It would be a great advantage to everyone if we could get close to even half that percentage in relation to social security fraud through the use of those systems. The Government will need to look carefully at the way in which the agencies are reimbursed for the costs that they will undoubtedly bear in co-operating.
  Similarly, I welcome the ability to co-operate, albeit limited, with overseas authorities. There is no doubt that much of the organised fraud is transnational. Gangs of people are being brought into this country, and they are defrauding the system. Organised criminals are bringing in so-called asylum seekers, and exploiting them and the benefit system. I want those people dealt with.
  I do not like the idea that people operate middleman agencies to place genuine—or possibly genuine—asylum seekers on behalf of one authority in another. In Bournemouth, a lot of people are placed in hotels and guest houses on behalf of London and Kent local authorities through a middleman agency based in Eastbourne. It takes a cut of the money that the Government and the taxpayer provide to support those people, but we did not institute such support payments for the unfortunate people who may be genuine asylum seekers in order for some middleman company to take a cut on the way. I hope that that is one of the first problems that we will start to eliminate by making the whole process illegal; and if the Government can amend the Bill to achieve it, they will do a service to the whole community.
  894
  Although I welcome the Bill, I have to say that it is too little, too late. The Secretary of State referred to the ancient computer systems that the Government inherited when they took over in 1997. There is no doubt that some were pretty old, but the problem is that systems age very quickly. Those that we bought for ourselves or our children only three or four years ago look terribly out of date today and no doubt the ones that we are buying this year will look even more out of date a year from now. The whole industry is moving at an incredible rate. We must therefore continually update systems with the best possible technology that we can afford—but I am not sure that the Government have done that.
  Before Christmas, I visited my local Department of Social Security office, following which I wrote to the Secretary of State. I had the courtesy of a reply from his colleague, the Under-Secretary. It is worth pointing out the difficulties under which such offices labour and about which 1 wrote to the Secretary of State in November. The breakdown of the national computer system caused enormous difficulties and obviously contributed to making fraud easier.
  Furthermore, inadequate information technology systems are in place. The Benefits Agency has the following: an income support system, a personal details system, a jobseeker's allowance system, a pensions system, an incapacity benefit system, a departmental central index and a repayment depository. With the exception of the personal details system, none is capable of interfacing with any other. I accept that that was the case when the Government came to office four years ago. but it is still the case today and four years is a long time, particularly in respect of updating IT systems. The Government have been slow to deal with a problem that was getting progressively worse.
  The filing system that may be needed to combat fraud is even more worrying. To this day, the one in my local office is paper based. Furthermore, only a limited number of records are held in Bournemouth; the rest are sent off to remote storage in Devon. If people need access to the system to check records, papers have to be transported from Devon to Bournemouth.
  How long would any private financial services company survive with systems and filing systems of such antiquity? We know the answer: it would not survive at all. As custodians of the public purse, the House and, in particular, the Government have a duty to ensure that the systems are such that they protect the financial interests of our citizens, but they do not do so at the moment.
  The Under-Secretary's letter to me said that
  "the Chancellor announced that £1.87 billion over the next three years"
  would be spent
  "in modernising the Social Security system, including the replacement of Information Technology systems."
  So over the next three years, part of that £1.87 billion may be spent to update IT systems. She continued:
  "The new IT will help reduce the cost of benefit fraud and error"—
  we must not forget error—
  "by over —1 billion a year by 2005/2006."
  The money is unlikely to achieve any savings, nor will it be spent during this Government's first four years. It will not even be spent in their first six years, but we may be

  895
  there by the seventh and we may realise some benefits by 2005 or 2006. There is a broad cross-party consensus here, but the Government have to bear some responsibility for the fact that it will be 2005 or 2006, on their own admission, before any improvement in IT systems helps us to prevent benefit fraud.
  The problems of organised crime described by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead occur in my own constituency. In my letter to the Secretary of State, I pointed out that areas such as mine, which have an unusually large transient population, are particularly prone to such difficulties. Some people move to the holiday areas in winter, when accommodation is available, and then move on. Others are attracted there in summer by casual work in the tourism industry. There is a high turnover of people and that, of itself, allows for fraud and organised fraud.
  Believe it or not, there are those who organise transient workers. In areas such as mine, where that tends to be a problem, we need to apply more resources. Such areas also contain large numbers of asylum seekers and there is no doubt in my mind that in many cases organised gangs bring people in and then "employ" them. We have seen examples of that reported in the national press—it is a pernicious activity, because they are organised into crime, prostitution or sweated labour that pays poor wages, yet the maximum benefit possible is claimed for them by people who can only be described as gangmasters.
  For all those reasons, we must concentrate resources where such activity occurs, but the Bill will not achieve that. Although there is a national problem, there are particular local difficulties in certain towns and cities in the United Kingdom. We must achieve a determination to target resource where it is most likely to bear fruit, but there is no clear evidence that that is what the Government intend. I welcome the Bill and the degree to which it will contribute to solving the problem, but we must consider a lot of other measures for the elimination or substantial reduction of benefit fraud.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Paul Goggins: If I fail to pay a compliment to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at this point in the debate, he and other hon. Members may believe that I am snubbing him. His most outstanding characteristic, which he has displayed over many years in the House, most recently in government, is his ability to keep his head connected to his heart. That has been immensely valuable to his constituents and to the country.
  I shall make only a short contribution, but I want to convey the view that my constituents have expressed to me over the past four years. They say that they are fed up with having approximately £6 million a year stolen from them. If we accept the reasonable assessment of £4 billion of fraud annually, £6 million would constitute the share that they were paying. That is enough to give every child in my constituency an annual grant of £200, with plenty left over to support a range of other activities. The amount is therefore substantial, and my constituents feel strongly about it. Most of them play fair most of the time, and they earn their cash the hard way. They are fed up with the few who cheat.
  896
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) referred to an old argument, which sought to justify working on the side. In the mid-1980s, unemployment pushed 4 million at times, it was impossible in many parts of the country to find a job, benefits were inadequate and many people were forced to live below the poverty line. It could be argued that it was okay then for people to work a fiddle to feed their families and keep their heads above water.
  In all honesty, I am pleased that I never had to make that choice. I would not have been at ease in choosing to work a fiddle for two reasons. First, I am old fashioned enough to believe that it is wrong to take something that does not belong to me. Secondly, I am perhaps enough of a politician to believe that if the system is wrong, we should try to change it rather than cheat it.
  I have never supported the old argument that I outlined, but even if it were justifiable sometimes, it does not apply today. Unemployment is less than 1 million, and there are more job vacancies than people who are registered unemployed and claiming benefit. We have a new deal for young people, older workers, lone parents and disabled people. There is new investment in training and a range of other actions that are intended to make work pay. They include the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the 10p starting rate of tax. The Government have made it possible to work, and they have made it pay to work It is therefore right to deal with those who cheat the system.
  In his report entitled "The Informal Economy", Lord Grabiner estimates that at any one time approximately 120,000 people work and claim benefit. In every case, somebody—a neighbour, a relative or colleague—knows about it. We must therefore change the culture. Earlier, Conservative Members commented on the advertising campaign, but together we must try to find methods of encouraging people to feel sufficiently confident to articulate what they know to be true: it is not acceptable to turn a blind eye, pretend not to know and try to justify such actions. It is equally unjustifiable to pay people to do foreigners and avoid paying VAT. That also constitutes unacceptable fraud.
  Like other hon. Members, I hear a steady stream of tales from people in my constituency about those who are apparently too ill to work but happen to be fit enough to climb a ladder and paint the house. Such people are blatantly working and claiming at the same time. Lord Grabiner estimates that 40 per cent. of income support and jobseeker's allowance fraud arises from undeclared earnings. The Bill is important because it serves notice that such practices must become a thing of the past.
  The Bill has another important purpose: restoring confidence in and respect for the welfare system, which most people want to support. However, they want the proceeds to be used honestly. The measure introduces new powers and there has been some consensus about exchanging information with banks and agencies in other countries, sharing information with those who administer housing benefit and council tax benefit, allowing electronic access and, of course, tackling unscrupulous employers.
  Another crucial aspect of the Bill is that it will penalise those who are caught fiddling twice in three years. Clause 9 is important because it protects the dependants of those who are caught out; there is no reason for them to suffer. However, those who flout the rules should suffer.

  897
  There is much talk inside and outside the House about the cost of fraud to the taxpayer and the savings that can be made. The Government are taking action against fraud, and I take slight exception to the n marks of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who referred to the number of sanctions against benefit fraud. He said that the current average was 10,000 a year. However, he failed to include the 10,000 more people who receive cautions and penalties as an alternative to prosecution. Their fraudulent behaviour is also tackled. The figure is therefore 20,000 a year, not 10,000.
  Like all social security measures, some of the provisions are complicated. I am sure that the Standing Committee will have an interesting time debating the Bill's detail. However, all hon. Members should support the Bill because it is a standard bearer for honesty, which we should all try to protect.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I join other speakers in paying tribute to the Minister of State. He is one of the rare Members who leave behind them an eponymous provision; in this case, the Rooker-Wise-Lawson amendment, for which the right hon. Gentleman was famous. He has made his mark through a combination of pugnacity and conviction. He has been willing to stand up to his party when he believed that it was wrong, and he was one of the few in the Labour party who had the wisdom to perceive the virtue of selling council houses. However, he was unable to persuade his party of it. That left us a clear run, and I am therefore grateful to him for failing to convince his party, much as I am impressed by his foresight.
  The Minister of State is also unusual because the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) used to say that he wanted to resemble him when he grew up. When he grows up, he may well resemble the right hon. Gentleman. I am not being rude to the hon. Member For Northavon, who has the great advantage of looking eternally young.
  I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is no longer in the Chamber. He always plays a distinguished part in debates on this subject, and had the courage to say things about the importance of tackling fraud and abuse that were unpopular with his party, and when it was not fashionable to do so.
  The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) brought to this debate, as he brings to all debates, a combination of compassion and conviction. He has sufficient integrity to recognise that it is important to distinguish between those who deserve benefits and should receive them and those who are fraudulently abusing the system. Although the hon. Gentleman and I approach the problem with different practical remedies, we both want the money to go to the people who need it and have a right to it. We are conscious that every penny taken in fraud means a penny less to help those in need.
  I am afraid that I cannot extend my general paean of praise to the Secretary of State for Social Security, whose speech I found, frankly, disappoiniing. It might have passed muster as a contribution from a first-time Labour candidate in a hopeless seat, reading out a misleading brief from Walworth road, but it did not really rise much above that standard.
  I want to put the Bill in context. It is a small contribution to the important subject of tackling fraud—a major aspect of welfare reform that is centre stage in most
  898
  developed countries, and rightly so. Social security is the biggest thing that modern Governments provide. In this country, spending on social security has, over 50 years, grown twice as fast, year in, year out, as national income. It has been taking a rising share of our national income and has been the main factor in driving up the burden of taxes and charges on those in employment.
  The previous Government introduced a series of reforms that, for the first time, put social security spending as a share of national income on a downward path over the medium and longer term, giving scope to reduce taxes and increase expenditure on other matters. I fear that much of the momentum of those reforms has been lost under this Government. They have maintained some semblance of a downward movement in the share of national income going to social security only by redefining a lot of things previously counted as social security as negative taxation, in the shape of credits, or by taking them off the budget, as in the back to work programmes.
  If we are to tackle the problem of growth in the social security budget, we must understand the source of the growth. It is not primarily because of increased generosity in the level of benefits over the years. Instead, it is due, very largely, to the increasing number of people claiming benefit and staying on benefit for an increasingly long time.
  There are a variety of reasons why more people are claiming benefits, and claiming them for longer. Many of them are legitimate; some are the direct and intended result of Government policy. We are proud, as a party, to have extended the eligibility to disability benefits to a category of people previously not entitled to them. That inevitably brings them into the welfare system. I have always thought that if there is one group of people whom we should be proud and pleased to help through the social security system it is those who are, through disability, unable to share in the general prosperity of the marketplace.
  We must recognise that one reason for the growing number of claimants is a growing culture of fraud and abuse. It has happened gradually, over the decades, almost without perception. It certainly was not the deliberate intention of any Government.
  It seemed to me, having reached that stage in the analysis, that the previous Government could tackle the problem of fraud and abuse only by measuring it effectively. The Secretary of State repeatedly said, in a tone of disdain, that we did not even start to measure the level of fraud until 1995. That is like saying that the inventor of the jet engine in 1945 did not use jets before he had invented them. No one else had invented them either. It is like saying that the inventor of the wheel had not used the wheel before he had invented it.
  I imagine that, like me, all my predecessors asked their officials how much fraud there was in the system and were told, "How can we possibly tell you that?" Fraud is a victimless crime—at least, it is a crime without an individual victim, so it is not reported. It is a crime that, by its very nature, is concealed. How can anyone know how much fraud is in the system? No Government in this or any other country, I was told, have ever been able to measure the level of fraud.
  Indirect estimates have been made of the level of fraud. Similar estimates of the size of the black economy, for example, take into account the number of bank notes in

  899
  circulation. No direct measure of fraud had ever been made, which I found extremely unsatisfactory. It just so happened that in one of my previous careers—when, as my mother put it, I had a proper job—I was involved in market research, so I was familiar with the idea of surveys. It also happened—again by chance—that I found a reference in a Dutch journal on social affairs to a blanket attack that had been made on all benefit claimants in one part of a small Dutch town. Everyone had simply been hauled in to be assessed for their entitlement to benefit because it was thought that fraud was so rife in the area. I cannot remember the results, but I thought that if we could take a statistically representative sample of claimants and investigate their conditions in great detail, we could establish the level of fraud.
  Initially, there was great resistance to the idea, including from the then Labour Opposition, who thought it would involve summoning innocent people—sending in a friendly local benefit fraud investigator to treat them as though they were potential fraudsters to establish whether they were.
  When we introduced the system, we were worried that it would produce a negative and hostile reaction. I am happy to say that it did not. When we set up the panels of 1,000 or more claimants on each benefit, established all the details that we held on them internally and then visited them, often unannounced, they were only too happy to help in the vast majority of cases. The innocent people were happy to help. If they inquired why they were being singled out and what was going on, they were told that it was part of a measure to establish the level of fraud and abuse. They were keen to help because they recognised that if other people were abusing the system, it was their money that was being taken—it was society's money that was being misused. There was virtually no resistance to the area benefit reviews, as they became known when we set them up.
  The reviews were extremely helpful and enabled us to establish the aggregate amount of fraud by benefit, by type of fraud and by characteristics of the claimant. Above all, they gave us a benchmark of the level of fraud for each. Once we had set up the system, we could measure the success or failure of Government measures to reduce the growth of fraud and, we hope, to reverse it and bring about a decline in fraud.
  This Government have by and large continued those reviews. Apparently, they stopped them for family credit on the assumption that there would be no fraud in the working families tax credit—a ludicrous assumption, since the equivalent tax credit in Canada abandoned because it was found to be so prone to fraud. The Canadians have reverted to the equivalent of family credit. In other areas, the Government have continued regular assessments of the level of fraud—they could scarcely do otherwise. The results have not been flattering.
  In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State—hoping that he could bamboozle us—claimed that the level of fraud had gone down. In fact, the figures show that in the past two benefit reviews the level of confirmed fraud in income support and jobseeker's allowance has risen. He was able to claim a fall only by including errors. He is the first person who has pleaded errors to excuse fraud, or the failure to reduce it.
  900
  Undeterred, the right hon. Gentleman then claimed—he is nothing if not brazen—that the fall in fraud and errors was significant. However, the House of Commons Library has produced a report in which it explicitly says that the fall is not significant. The Public Accounts Committee considered the matter and noted that even if the rate is—as the Government claim—edging down, it is not doing so to a significant extent.
  The Secretary of State was mistaken on that front, too. It is sad that he is not man enough to admit his error and acknowledge to the House that benefits surveys confirm that fraud has risen. Any fall in fraud and errors combined is not statistically significant. Indeed, although the estimated total of fraud and error for income support and jobseeker's allowance is £993 million, the Government say that the figure is really somewhere between £892 million and £1.096 billion. That is a wide range, so to suggest that a fall of about 6 per cent. is statistically significant is not to use that term as it is normally understood.
  If the Government had failed only in that respect, it would be serious enough, they have also missed their targets for identifying and detecting fraud during most of their years in office—indeed, in every year. I think they may have met their recent targets—probably by making them less stringent. They have also abolished, or abandoned, several measures that we introduced to raise the profile and change the culture of abuse.
  The Government abandoned the spotlight on fraud campaign, whereby all the agencies in an area combined, in a highly publicised way, to identify and attack fraud to bring home to everyone that we were serious about tackling it. That has gone by the board.
  The Secretary of State has downplayed the beat-a-cheat hotline on which people could report evidence of fraud to the Department. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out, the DSS no longer even includes the hotline number on the ill-designed advertisements that supposedly highlight its willingness to tackle fraud. Indeed it was not until I tabled questions on the rate of response to the hotline that the Government were prodded into reviving some publicity for it, to try to increase the rate.
  Overall, the Government show clearly that they are soft on fraud, which is why fraud is rising again. However, because they are above all a Government of spin doctors, they know that they must convince the electorate that they are serious about these measures. That is why they have introduced the Bill just ahead of the election. Some symbolism is required to demonstrate their concern to stop social security fraud. That is also why they are spending a great deal of taxpayers' money on a rather ineffectual—even by their own measures—advertising campaign; it is being mounted for electoral rather than operational purposes. Indeed, I am surprised that it got past the Cabinet Secretary—the head of the civil service—who polices such matters and who would, I am sure, have had words with us if we had proposed heavy expenditure on such dubious advertising just before an election. However, perhaps he knows that an election will not be called, so thac is all right.
  By contrast, when we were in power, we systematically set about making changes to try to get on top of the problem of fraud. I appointed a senior official who—for the first time—had sole and exclusive responsibility for

  901
  tackling fraud in the Benefits Agency. A specific Minister in the Department also had such responsibility. I set up, by law, an inspectorate with powers to advise local authorities and Departments on best practice in tackling fraud. We laid out a coherent strategy—from one end of the benefit pipeline to the other—to secure the process of delivering benefit against fraud.
  We were conscious that it would take a long time to redesign the whole process to make it more secure, but we began that programme. We raised the profile by introducing programmes such as beat—a—cheat and the spotlight programme, by setting targets and, of course, by planning the introduction of the benefit card, to which I shall return.
  I want to focus now on the measures in the Bill. In some ways it follows on from the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, which I introduced, but there is a difference between that measure and this. My Act covered information that was already in the hands of different parts of the Government. It removed unintended barriers to the use of that information and to cross-checking it between, for example, the tax authorities and benefit authorities. It did not require individuals or companies to make available any additional information over and above that which they were already required to provide to different Government Departments.
  The 1997 Act placed no extra burden on business and did not involve any extra intrusions into people's privacy. I did not go that far because I was apprehensive about going any further. I did not rule it out, but I wanted to see first whether the measures that I had introduced were effective, and whether the gains from them were of a magnitude and nature to suggest that we might extend the powers to allow us to obtain information from the private sector as well. I did not go that far initially because I am always reluctant, unless it cannot possibly be avoided, to impose extra burdens on business and individuals or to intrude further into the privacy of individuals and give the state more knowledge about them than it already has.
  I shall ask the Secretary of State, who I am glad to see in his place, some questions about his Bill. In calculating the burden that the Bill will place on the private sector, he estimates that the costs could be up to £7 million. That is in some ways quite a modest sum but I want to know a little more about how the figure was calculated. I understand from the hon. Member for Northavon that it assumed that 800,000 inquiries would be made, and the report says that savings totalling about £180 million will arise from it. That assumes that each inquiry costs about £9 to make and yields £225 of benefit savings. I am open to rectification if my arithmetic is wrong—without a calculator, arithmetic is not my strongest suit. I am okay with algebra, but I sometimes make mistakes in arithmetic.
  Is the Secretary of State saying that 800,000 investigations will be made, each of which will find, on average, £225 of fraud? If so, the measure is expected to be extremely fruitful and I should like to know the basis for that expectation and calculation. Is it based at all on any analysis of how the 1997 Act has worked?
  I should like to know whether any attempt was made to establish how effective the 1997 Act has been. It seemed sensible, and the whole House agreed that it was reasonable to enable the authorities to cross-check, for example, whether people were declaring income for the
  902
  purposes of income tax but telling the Benefits Agency that they had no income, or whether they were declaring VAT while they were claiming that they were unemployed rather than, in some cases, actually in business and making a VAT claim. Now that we have had three or four years' experience, we should really know how effective the Act has been. Have the inquiries made under it led to savings of the suggested magnitude? I hope that the Government have considered that matter, rather than simply rushing off, plucking a number out of thin air and saying that it represents the savings that will be made under the Bill.
  Under the Bill, will it be possible to carry out trawls? Will it be possible to cross-check a category of claimants' information against the information from one of the external sources to which the Government gain access, or will that happen case by case, individual by individual? Do the Government think that, each year, there will be inquiries about 800,000 people, about whom they can make individual inquiries to the banks or credit card agencies, and so on, to establish the reality?
  The main use that we expected to make of the 1997 Act was precisely in data matching and in cross-checking categories of claimants who produce information on their income tax and VAT returns and on their social security benefit claims, and in finding out how the figures reconciled. It seems that the Government have said in the other place that they would be very limited in their use of any power to trawl, but I may have misinterpreted what has been said, and I should be happy to give way now. If no Minister wants to intervene, I hope that when they have found out what they promised to do about that, they will inform the House in the winding-up speech.
  Without trawls—by which I mean the cross-matching of data—the measures that the Government propose will probably be of only limited use. I very much doubt whether they will achieve the savings that the Government claim in the documents associated with the Bill. The Government certainly seem far more willing to intrude into the private financial affairs of individuals and to make use of such information in the public sector domain than they ever were about the information that they possessed on the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), when information about his financial affairs fell into the hands of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There seems to be a disparity between the way in which they treat their own kind and the way in which they intend to treat benefit claimants, the vast majority of whom are as innocent as the day is long and are entitled to the benefits that they receive, but who, none the less, may be subject to investigation under the Bill.
  How can the Bill be reconciled with the Human Rights Act 1998? I am not a great supporter of that Act. This place should establish the balance between different rights. All rights have to be balanced against one another, but it should not be left to judges to interpret, largely subjectively, a document that is, inevitably, somewhat arbitrary, and the implications of which may not have been foreseen.
  Liberty, which has lobbied us, refers to a Swedish case that casts doubt on whether the Bill will be fully

  903
  compatible with the Human Rights Act. It states that in the judgment in the case of MS v. Sweden, made in August 1997,
  "the Court held that there was an interference with the applicant's rights under article 8 where details of her medical records were passed by a state-run medical centre to a government department investigating her claim for a workplace injury."
  That seems rather similar to what is proposed under the Bill.
  I understand that the Court may have subsequently concluded that it was permissible to invade people's human rights in that way because of the criminal and civil sanctions incurred if any of the safeguards on the use of that data were breached. I am not certain that that would necessarily be the case in any parallel use of the powers in the Bill; nor can we be certain that the courts will not interpret such matters more onerously as time goes by. The very nature of the human rights legislation means that it is left to the judges to develop and create their own law according to the philosophies that pervade the courts at any moment. Therefore, we might find that the Bill falls foul of the Human Rights Act. If it does, we can respond as we think fit and say that the Government have been hoist by their own petard.
  Another element in the Bill deserves comment. The "two strikes and you're out" proposal seems to be a severe punishment for someone guilty of a modest element of abuse of the system. He might be entitled to social security benefit, but he might have failed to report the very small sums that he has earned on the side. If he loses his benefit, he will suffer greatly. However, the more serious fraudster——[Interruption.] This is not a debating point; I am talking about people who might face great hardship because the only resource that they can rely on is hardship benefit.
  If a serious, professional fraudster, who robs the system of large sums of money by claiming a benefit to which he is not entitled even though he has a job and income of his own, loses his benefit, he will ask, "So what?" He will not lose substantially; it is not a serious punishment for him. The punishment sounds tough and draconian, but it falls harshly only on the least serious offenders.
  Will the Minister tell me whether my interpretation is correct? The punishment will not have a serious impact on the professional, multiple claimant fraudster, but it will bear heavily on the small guy, who twice in three years, fails to mention that he did a "bob-a-job" for someone around the corner. I may be wrong because the sanction may apply only to those with a criminal conviction and who have been taken to court for such an offence. In that case, the provision will be limited, because the vast majority of people who are guilty of social security fraud are not taken to court.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is making an important point. One of the "frauds" that I often hear about in my surgery occurs when someone carries out a short piece of work that, if declared, would remove him from benefit for six months. That seems to invite the type of fraud that my right hon. Friend has mentioned.
  Mr. Lilley: Let me make it absolutely clear that my hon. Friend and I would not suggest that even small frauds
  904
  can be excused or exonerated. They are wrong and we should use strong measures to ensure that they are eliminated. We should try to change the culture and take steps to prevent and detect such frauds. Those who defraud the system in that way must pay either through an administrative or criminal process, but the punishment should reflect the severity of the offence and should not be designed to attract good headlines or be imposed simply at the behest of spin doctors rather than those who know how best to run the system.
  Several other issues have been raised in the debate. One is the old faithful of national insurance numbers. I have some sympathy for Ministers when they are faced with the apparently alarming disparity between the 82 million national insurance numbers that have been issued and the 48 million people of working age and the 56 million in the total population. At first sight, it implies that there are 26 million criminals or, at least, 26 million identities claimed by criminals. However, the very size of the discrepancy indicates that that is not the case; it means that the causes must be major. As I recall, one cause is the fact that we keep people on the computer system after they have died because their widows and other surviving relatives may be entitled to benefits. There are also millions of people who have worked in this country for a time and then gone abroad, and their numbers remain on the computer.
  If there were a small discrepancy between the number issued and the number of people at work, that would be much more worrying because it might be attributable to the crime that we fear may be prevalent. Obviously, there is an element of national insurance number fraud and cases of people creating false identities. I began a process of tightening up the national insurance system to make fraud more difficult, and I am pretty sure that the Government have continued the process with the officials who have worked throughout that time. I hope that fraud is becoming more and more difficult. By no stretch of the imagination can we suppose that there are 26 million false numbers created by criminals.
  I understand why people raise the issue, and I hope that Ministers will publish the reconciliation between the number of people in the population and the number of national insurance numbers. The Secretary of State gave the wrong explanation for that discrepancy. It is not because of the extension of national insurance numbers to women and children because they are part of the population, although that seems to have escaped him. It is because of other factors, principally those that I mentioned.
  There is misunderstanding also about organised fraud. It is a serious problem, which often involves large sums, and it is important that we tackle it. We now have specialist units homing in on it. However, it is important to recognise, as I am, sure my right hon. and hon. Friends will, that it does not account for the major part of benefit fraud, which is committed on a small scale by individuals who are working and claiming, living together and claiming separately, not declaring assets or committing order book and giro fraud and theft.
  That brings me to the benefit payment card. The Secretary of State said that it was a great disaster that the Government had inherited, but in fact it was a disaster that they seemed to allow to develop over a couple of years. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who as the Minister responsible for the Post Office was

  905
  responsible for reporting to the Trade and Industry Committee on the matter, repeatedly told the Committee that the development of the benefit payment card was going well and would be completed on time, if not entirely within budget.
  The process clearly did get behind during that period, which was probably because of bad management and lack of ministerial involvement. The Government were more interested in giving complacent reports to the Committees—the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) got rapped over the knuckles for trying to pull the wool over its eyes—than in jumping up and down on officials to establish what was going on and to make sure that the project was brought to a successful conclusion. The Secretaries of State for Social Security and for Trade and Industry had both teen Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and the Treasury had never liked the project, so they closed it down summarily. We have lost it, at least for as long as the Government remain in power.
  That is sad not only because the benefit payment card would have been an effective way of restricting fraud, by eliminating theft and the use of the order book and giro system, but because a related part of the system was the customer automatic payment programme, which set up an individual account for each claimant, so that all the benefits that they might receive could be dealt with together. That was going well. It was more or less on time and on budget. However, it seems to have lapsed. If that is not the case, I would be happy for Ministers to set me right. The programme had a great deal of potential and was an intrinsic part of creating a secure benefits system from start to finish for the process of allocating benefits.
  The Bill at best makes a small contribution to a major problem. When I was in Slovakia, I went to see the little Tatra mountains. The tourist literature said, "Come to the little Tatra mountains, the biggest small mountains in the world." The Bill is the biggest small contribution that the Government can make to the elimination of fraud. However, any contribution is welcome, especially from such a source. I shall not oppose it, but I hope that after the general election my hon. Friend the Member for Havant will be in charge of the Department. He will give renewed momentum to the battle against fraud and to the reform of the welfare system, as he is singularly well equipped to do.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who spoke with such knowledge and ability. It is a great shame for the country that he was not able to carry on beyond 1997 the good work that he started in the previous Government. It is clear from his contribution that we would have got on top of the problems with his common-sense approach.
  I understand that the debate is a farewell show for the Minister of State. I, too, pay tribute to him. We spent many long productive hours discussing local authority legislation. Above all, he will be remembered for bluntly telling the Prime Minister and the Labour party that they were wrong about the dome. He had the courage of his convictions, saying that he would never visit it because it should have been in Birmingham.
  Since the Government came to power, we have fast become a nation of rip-off merchants. The Bill is another attempt to tweak the system by dealing with trivial
  906
  matters, but fraud is rife. We heard today that the foot and mouth outbreak is thought to have started because of the illegal import of meat. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) recently spoke in the House about the fact that the illegal importation of immigrants and asylum seekers has reached epidemic proportions. We know that the illegal import of tobacco, alcohol, fuel and drugs is higher than ever.
  The Bill addresses the problem of £7 billion of social security fraud. It is important to tackle that, but why have the Government allowed fraud to develop elsewhere? I have spoken before about tobacco fraud. Once people get into the business of being able to defraud the taxpayer, they also feel free to defraud the social security system. They become fraudsters. It is amazing that in the Government's first year, the yield from tobacco tax was about £8.4 billion. This year, it is £7.4 billion despite the fact that smoking has increased and the tax on cigarettes has risen by a third.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to speak for a few minutes on such matters, but he must now confine his remarks to the Bill.
  Mr. Chope: I am trying to illustrate my argument by referring to other issues with which the Government have or have not dealt. Social security fraud is a substantial problem, but the Government's policies are making it worse. They are encouraging many people to become fraudsters because it is a way to make sufficient money.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has some justification for his line of argument. I live in Kent. and it is well known that vans cross the channel two or three times a day. They are driven by people who have nothing else to do. I have no doubt that many of those people are claiming benefit because the activity in which they are engaged is one that they cannot conceivably declare to the authorities. They therefore have to pretend that they are unemployed.
  Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for making that point. The issues of tobacco fraud and the smuggling of immigrants, alcohol and fuel are inextricably linked with the lawlessness that the Government have encouraged through their taxation policies.
  The Government say that they will be able to make savings by reducing social security fraud, but the evidence suggests that the savings will be nothing like those that could be made if the Government had a more realistic policy on tobacco fraud. It is estimated that that fraud is costing £3 billion a year. In a written question that was answered today, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets he has set for the reduction of smuggling of tobacco, alcohol and fuel—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have reminded the hon. Gentleman once—this is the second time—that he must confine his remarks to social security fraud. He has given the example of tobacco fraud. He must now restrict his comments to social security fraud.
  Mr. Chope: I shall do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

  907
  The Government talk about joined-up government. We are debating the Bill on Second Reading. It is not a Third Reading debate and we are not considering the Bill on Report. We are discussing the Government's priorities, and the Government are putting enormous emphasis on the Bill. They are putting too much emphasis on it while neglecting other issues.
  I shall finish the point that I was making. In answer to my question to the Chancellor about the targets that he had set—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already asked the hon. Gentleman to restrict his comments to the content of the Bill. We are, indeed, considering it on Second Reading, but it is about social security fraud.
  Mr. Chope: I accept that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden touched on infringements of civil liberties. The Bill contains amazing and draconian powers to deal with supposed social security fraudsters. I fear that the Bill, as with so much other Government legislation, will have unintended consequences. I suspect that many more people will rely on cash transactions, avoiding anything going through the bank so that they cannot be the subject of a record that social security investigators can require to be produced.
  The House will be pleased to know that we are law-abiding in Christchurch, but that does not mean that there are not instances of social security and other fraud. However, those instances pale into insignificance when compared with the number of cases of maladministration. I should like the Government to put much more emphasis on ensuring that their administrative procedures for social security are in order before seeking more powers to require the private sector to provide information. If the Government had concentrated on improving the administration of their existing benefits system, they would have won much more support than the present Bill will guarantee them.
  I have a doctor in my constituency who retired and applied for a pension. When it was not paid. he complained and has now been told that his application was never received, although he has had correspondence suggesting that it must have been. That is just one example; I raised that matter in the House before Christmas, and still have not received a satisfactory response. There are many instances in which, we know, people have not yet been paid the money to which they are entitled under the Government's measures on winter fuel payments. The administration of such matters is just not working.
  Conservative ideas about having one simple system are the answer to the problem, and I welcome the proposal to set up a single benefits investigation squad. One national body would have responsibility for investigating all forms of welfare fraud, and would be administered by the Benefits Agency. When the Conservative Government take over, I hope that they will put a lot more emphasis on improving the quality of administration. The social security system should protect the innocent and look after those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Too often, those people fall foul of the system
  908
  and too much emphasis is put on dealing with those—possibly a large number——who are guilty of fraud, which, given the amount of money taken from the taxpayer, is trivial, compared with the real villains, who are making millions of pounds from systematic housing benefit and social security fraud
  The powers in the Bill do not give the impression that they will be well targeted. If there are going to be 900,000 inquiries in a year, that suggests a scatter-gun approach. If we concentrated those extra draconian powers on identifying the top 1,000 fraudsters, we might get somewhere. I fear I that the Government have got their priorities wrong. Considering that they have been advised to get a grip on national insurance numbers, I was surprised to learn of evidence that they do not seem to have done so yet. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made the point that there is a long-standing discrepancy between the number of national insurance numbers and the number of people living and working in this country. However, that does not mean that there should not be a system whereby all new national insurance numbers issued coincide with the number of people coming into the workplace. There is plenty of evidence that people can pick up extra national insurance numbers and identities without too many problems.
  When the Minister of State makes his winding-up speech, I hope that he will tell us why a national identity card is not the answer. If everybody had such a card, there would be no need for multiple identities and it would be much easier to deal with fraud systematically. The Bill sounds tough and draconian, but I fear that it will deal only with the fringes. It will probably result in some people who are caught up in the lower levels of fraud being brought before the courts and suffering benefit penalties, but I fear that it will not deal with the substantial issue. That is why, although I will not oppose it, I find it rather a disappointing measure.
  9.19 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: When one hears the sums involved in social security fraud— £7 billion has been mentioned—and realises how many people may need some form of financial assistance, one could easily get the impression that just about half the households in the country are involved in benefit fraud. It is a massive problem, as everyone acknowledges.
  Ever since I can remember, people in my circle would say that if one takes care of the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us what he is doing to encourage people at local level who know that fraud is going on to participate in bringing the problem under control? I want him to take note of two anecdotes from my constituency.
  A member of the Conservative party who happened to work in the local pharmacy knew of a number of young women who came in regularly to claim prescriptions for which they did not have to pay, because they were on social security benefits. 'That young woman lives in the neighbourhood and brought to my attention the number of households in the neighbourhood that were apparently headed by single individuals. When we checked on the electoral roll at election time, we found that to be true.
  There were streets where perhaps three quarters of the households were headed by single women. However, when we went canvassing in the evening, the door was

  909
  invariably opened by a young man, who had obviously come home at the end of his day's work. Usually, because it was a hot summer, he was dressed in nothing much above the waist. He was relaxed and obviously in a family situation. When we asked a young man whose work van was outside the house whether he was the householder—knowing, of course, that he was not—or whether he was on the electoral roll, he said, "No, I'm the baby-sitter" or some other such flippant remark. What could we do about that? He had no intention of being on the electoral roll.
  The combination of information from that young woman who worked in the local pharmacy and of our canvassing returns gave us a comprehensive view of what was going on in those neighbourhoods. The young woman, who thought that it was her public duty, with a little encouragement, to produce quite a lot of evidence to back up her story, submitted it first through one of those telephone lines, and subsequently in writing to the Department, to be investigated. She got—I have seen the letter—the standard reply thanking her and so on.
  All that took place just after the last general election. She is still waiting for something to be done. There she was, a responsible citizen doing what she thought was the right thing to do. Now she is demoralised and thinks that the whole thing is a joke, and that it is not worth while sticking her head above the parapet. After all, if those people knew that she had made such comments to the Department, her life could be made very difficult for her. It is difficult to do what she did and, effectively, shop people. The small savings that we could make would have a profound effect on the morale of the people in such neighbourhoods who are working for a living and are often getting along on not very much money, yet they see those situations being allowed to continue.
  I shall give the Minister another example. A nurse came to see me about a situation that she had discovered from a patient who was in hospital for some minor injury. He had confided to her that he had been on holiday in Cyprus and had gone paragliding. The nurse had reason to know that the man was on social security benefits, and she came to me to ask what she should do about the matter. I said that she should report it, which she did. Again, we are waiting for the follow-up. 1 can quote chapter and verse.
  As it happened, the very same man came to my surgery on two crutches. He staggered through the door, which his wife opened for him, and sat down and told me a sad story about the curtailment of his benefits. I asked him in all innocence why that was happening. It was clear that he remained on some form of benefit, but he told me that some dreadful nurse—he knew who she was and would get her one day—had reported him to the authorities. He had been on holiday in Cyprus—of course, his son had paid for the holiday, as he could not afford it——and had happened to admit to the nurse that his son had taken him paragliding as a birthday treat. His injuries and health problems were apparently so serious that he had previously been on full benefits, which included one of those wonderful yellow car stickers that allow one to park here, there and everywhere without having to pay fines or even fees.
  Hon. Members are told many similar anecdotes in their surgeries and we encourage people to take action on them, but I would love to know from the Minister of State how such matters are followed up. Many people in the same neighbourhoods buy things from catalogue houses, but do not always pay their bills. The private sector employs an
  910
  army of people to go round, sort such people out and collect the money. 1 am not sure of their status, but I suppose that they are the equivalent of bailiffs or official debt collectors. I suggest that such a system might be a better way not only of administering benefits, but of checking whether they are abused.
  Indeed, the insurance industry uses such a system. If one makes an insurance claim, the company does not merely hand over the money; it sends somebody round to inspect what the claim is about and to double check—this is especially important for injuries claims—that the person in question is not merely faking his or her misfortune. We read in the newspapers occasionally about people who have been photographed when they are engaged in activities that run contrary to the claims that they are making.
  In my constituency, a case arose in which a man who was claiming invalidity benefits turned out to be running his wife's carpet cleaning business on the side. His work—he was, incidentally, a policeman—involved moving very large carpet cleaning machines. He was caught because he had made insurance claims, but had been monitored. Somebody had obtained the correct information by double checking.
  I realise that an awful lot of people would need to be employed to double check on all benefit claims. However, in a neighbourhood where such activities occur on a grand scale, a little checking and inspection would make a huge impression on the morale of people who are trying to do their best to assist the community at large in preventing benefit fraud. As the Bill proceeds through the House, I hope that the Government will tell us how they will make use of the checking system. It is all very well setting up a new department within the Department and appointing a tsar who will invent more schemes, but I put it to the Minister that he will achieve a great deal more at ground level if he takes more note of what citizens are doing to assist in dealing with benefit fraud.
  Of course, benefit fraud is universal. The Conservative Government had to deal with it when we were in power, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made a tremendous effort to do something about it. It is not an easy problem, but we could make serious in-roads if only we could persuade the Government to insist that the Department follows up discrepancies when honest citizens make complaints through the normal channels, as they are requested to do. If they do so, the Minister will also have to tell us what will happen to such people when they are not on benefits and find that they must manage, like other people, by finding jobs and going out to work. They currently have no incentive to do that. Of course, there is also the problem of how to pin down people who are living openly with working partners—their partners might also be misrepresenting their position—and claiming falsely. The Minister must tackle those problems if he wants to improve people's morale in relation to benefit fraud.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I want to approach the subject from a slightly different angle. What emerges primarily from my experience in my surgeries and elsewhere is that there are too many disincentives to honesty. I consider that to be as big an issue as that of incentives to dishonesty.

  911
  Let us consider the individual who is desperate to get back to work, who may well be over 50, and who is finding it extraordinarily difficult to secure employment. He is on benefit, he has a wife and—perhaps—children to support. He—it is usually a man—is then given the opportunity to try his hand at some employment for two or three weeks. He has been applying for work for months, and has never even been granted an interview; now he has the chance of doing a little work. He then finds that if he declares that he has done the work, he will be denied benefit for several months.
  That is bad news. How can it encourage such people to find their way back into work? How can it encourage them to play the system fairly? This is, I think, an enormously important question.
  Things are too difficult for people who are trying to set up in business for themselves. The Secretary of State had the goodness to respond with alacrity to information about a case that I encountered, and I am grateful to him for that. I was, however, outraged when a couple who came to my most recent surgery told me what had happened to them. They had been together for 11 years, and had their six-week-old baby with them. The man was trying to set up in business for himself, and was therefore not available for work in the strict sense of the term. He was putting together the equipment that he needed, with assistance from his brother-in-law and other members of his family, and was trying to find premises.
  As we all know, the early stages of setting up in business are hugely taxing. The wife was not allowed to go back to work: she was a fitness instructor, her baby had been born only six weeks earlier, and according to the rules of her profession she was not even entitled to take tests to establish whether she was fit to return to work for eight weeks. The Secretary of State now tells me that she was misdirected. The fact remains, however, that the couple were told that they were not entitled to benefit because the man was not available for work. Moreover, one of the kind women at the Benefits Agency told his wife, "You would be a lot better off, dear, if you shed him." What a thing for a woman to say to her partner of 11 years, the father of her firstborn child. I think that such disincentives to truthfulness and honesty lead to much of the fraud about which we are so anxious.
  There is another problem, in regard to which I have great sympathy with the Government. In areas such as mine, where unemployment is fairly low, finding appropriate staff is enormously difficult. I realise that the Minister has heard all this so often that he is not the slightest bit interested in what I am saying, but I will continue none the less.
  It is often difficult to find staff who are capable of doing the job, given the salaries that social security departments can offer. One consequence of that is that someone who writes three letters in three weeks may find that a different member of staff replies to each one. That leaves the person concerned with no confidence that his case is understood, or that there is any continuity in the arrangements.
  Thanks to the reforms of the Child Support Agency, we encounter far fewer CSA-related cases in our constituency surgeries. One case we frequently encounter, however, is that of the spouse who, while claiming to have no income,
  912
  is living the life of Riley, while the—usually—abandoned wife is unable to persuade the CSA either to investigate the situation or to do anything about it. Although it is clear that a man who is running two cars and living in a comfortable house on a substantial income is perfectly capable of maintaining his child, the CSA will not investigate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that it is the refusal to follow up manifest cases of blatant dishonesty that demoralises the honest citizen who is trying to make the system work.
  9.35 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: 1 would like to begin by commending the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), because this is possibly the last time they will contribute in the Chamber. They have, as ever, made characteristic speeches, as they have been notable for doing all through their parliamentary lives. They have taken up subjects tonight that are characteristic of all the causes that they have espoused over the years. I thank them very much for their contributions and wish them well.
  Having wished two of my colleagues well, it would be churlish of me not to try to make the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), blush, as almost every other hon. Member has done, by thanking him for his contributions over the years. We shall probably have the pleasure of Question Time on Monday, so this may not be his last outing. Indeed, we may well go into Committee on Tuesday—
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Absolutely.
  Mrs. Lait: I am glad to hear that we are not dissolving Parliament on Monday, and I look forward to the Standing Committee. Over the past few years, the right hon. Gentleman and I have jousted with each other often enough, and I certainly appreciate his tremendous contribution to the House.
  We started this debate—on a Bill that no one has said they will not support—with a half-hour speech by the Secretary of State, which was characterised by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) as a speech that the right hon. Gentleman would be likely to deliver on a wet Wednesday night during the election campaign in Edinburgh, Central. Edinburgh, Central is a constituency with which I am familiar, because my husband fought the two 1974 elections there against the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in the latter's first campaigns before he did his chicken run to Livingston.
  I have some sympathy with the tone of the Secretary of State's speech, but it was not terribly constructive, especially as the Bill has come from the House of Lords amended by my noble Friends Lords Higgins and Astor in a way that has made it a much better Bill. It was unfortunate that the Secretary of State chose to attack our contribution to eliminating fraud, and I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) not only set the record straight on that, but did so in such a way as to blow apart the Secretary of State's attack on our record on fraud.

  913
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, we shall abstain in the vote on the Bill hope that, when we come to write the legislation in the new Parliament, it will be more understandable than this Bill. Lord Brightman sent up the writing of the Bill on Third Reading and said that he hoped that the Government would listen to his requests for easier reading. Anyone who has tried to read the Bill will have had great difficulty in so doing. That apart, some questions remain that we wish to have answered, and many hon. Members have picked up on them.
  I shall begin by talking about the code of practice. I was under the impression, as was the Vote Office, that the only code of practice in existence was the draft one produced in the Lords. I was not aware that the amalgamated one referring to local authorities and the Department of Social Security was available in the Library. Furthermore, it is most interesting that the Data Protection Commissioner, who was particularly concerned when she first read the Bill, has written about her many points of disagreement with it. I shall not go through them all—some were dealt with by amendments tabled in the other place—but the Secretary of State's assertion that she has written what appears to be a one-sentence letter saying that all her concerns have been met worries me greatly, because those points were matters of principle. I should be most grateful if he told us, either tonight or before the Bill is considered in Committee, precisely what exchanges took place between the commissioner, Ministers and officials to make her happy with the measure. I accept that she is happy with it; I just want to know why.
  Time and again, the right to privacy has been raised. It is of great concern because information—perhaps inadvertently; perhaps not—could be made much more widely available than one would wish. I hope that we receive in Committee an acknowledgement of the worries of organisations such as the British Bankers Association about the information that will be available. Like many other bodies, it wants reassurance not only that the authorised officers will be properly trained, but that there will be a system whereby the list of authorised officers, which will be made available to private organisations such as the banks, will be kept up to date.
  We heard some interesting figures from the Secretary of State. In the other place, Baroness Hollis said that she expected 500 DSS staff and 1,000 local authority staff to be authorised officers. The Secretary of State said that the figure for the DSS or the Benefits Agency is going down to 300, and one would like to assume that the figure for local authorities will be only 600. An enormous number of people will be involved; and allowing for even a normal turnover, it will be difficult to keep the list up to date. It is possible that the private organisations—
  Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Lait: I am very sorry. I would dearly love to give my hon. Friend the opportunity to intervene, but I am trying to get through my speech quite quickly.
  How will the list of authorised officers be kept up to date, and how will the private bodies be notified of changes?
  There is also concern about management responsibility for authorised officers. My noble Friend Lord Astor said that, as far as he is concerned, an executive officer is
  914
  equivalent to a second lieutenant. Having been in the civil service, I understand exactly what he means. When private sector organisations are dealing with civil servants, they must know that they are working with people who have sufficient management authority to deal properly with the information.
  A number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), referred to the cost of the Bill to the private sector. The mere fact that there is a difference of about £5 million between the estimates in the regulatory impact assessment allows people to ask serious questions.
  We hope to make further improvements in Committee and I have raised a number of issues about which we are concerned. We want the Bill to be passed, as it represents a further step towards tightening up the defences against fraud and eliminating fraud from the system.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I shall do my best in the time available to answer as many questions as possible. I am deeply humbled by many hon. Members' comments. I can guarantee that the speech will not be my last from the Dispatch Box, although perhaps it could be. [Interruption.] If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I shall move the programme motion, the terms of which are a little more restricted.
  I am deeply grateful for hon. Members' remarks, which I reciprocate to others who will not return after the next election. Every day in the House in the past 27 years has been like the first, but all good things come to an end. I hate the word "retirement", and I am not going to prune roses, but I have no plans, though no one believes me.
  Some unfortunate phrases have been used about Department staff, although I appreciate that they were not intended maliciously. However, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) mentioned the seniority and probity of staff who issue national insurance numbers; investigating officers were also mentioned. In the past few years, the number of people who are qualified and eligible to issue national insurance numbers has decreased from approximately 1,500 to about 500. The officers who will be authorised under the Bill are the same officers who, day in, day out, visit businesses, contact companies, and ask managers about their employees. In the past 20 months since I have been at the Department, I have not received a single complaint from private sector companies about the way in which they were approached by executive officers.
  The Bill will authorise officers by name. We will begin with 175 officers, although I ask not to be tied down to a specific figure. We do not envisage more than 300 such officers. They will be qualified under the professionalism in security—PINS—training programme. When visiting benefits agencies and listening to our fraud staff, I have picked up the point that nowadays Inland Revenue and national health service trust advertisements for investigatory officers state: "PINS training preferred". They prefer the Department of Social Security system. However, the ultimate accolade is that the private sector is now advertising for PINS trained staff. Last summer, a big bank, which was formerly a building society, stated in its advertisement for fraud and investigation audit officers for its headquarters that PINS training was preferred. It was basically trawling for former DSS employees.

  915
  Those officers will be the authorised officers under the Bill. If they are good enough to be recruited by the private sector and currently good enough to make inquiries and undertake normal investigations of the private sector, they are good enough to carry out the duties for which the Bill provides.
  The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that the Bill was thoroughly debated in another place. I would never say that the other place conducted line-by-line scrutiny in the same way as the House of Commons, but, in conventional terms, the Bill was given a good going-over and we made several modifications to it there.
  We never intended any individual fishing expeditions to be conducted under the Bill. A paragraph of a subsection included a sentence that contained the words, "likely" or "connected to". We used the example of window cleaners. That was a little unfortunate for window cleaners, but we could have used other examples. We could have referred to families of known fraudsters as a discrete group. We took out the original reference because it implied an element of fishing—we do not intend any fishing for named individuals to occur. That is clear in the Bill. I am referring not to the code of practice, but to the Bill. No inquiries can even be made
  "unless it appears to that officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the identified person to whom it relates is … a person who has committed, is committing or intends to commit a benefit offence; or … a person who … is a member of the family of a person falling within paragraph (a) above."
  That family member, such as a spouse, is the only person who could affect a housing benefit claim. It could not be a brother, sister or grandparent who lived there but had nothing to do with the benefit claim. They would not be caught under the legislation. There is no intention to go on any fishing expeditions. The only area in which that statement would be qualified is in the bulk transfer of information from the utility companies. However, we will not go fishing when it comes to individuals.
  We will seek the bulk transfer of information from the utility companies—gas, electricity and water—only when specific properties have abnormally high or low usage. They will not give us the names of any individuals. It will be up to us in the Department of Social Security to data-match that information against our benefit claimants. That is the purpose of the bulk transfer of information—it will not be used for tracing individuals. People must have good grounds for requesting it.
  We will not simply trawl the banks. First, officers must believe that something is wrong on the application form or that someone has lied. Alternatively, there could be an allegation. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) shopped a whole street—probably because she is not standing for re-election. That case, which was a clear case of fraud, as the hon. Lady said, has come to my attention since I came to the Department in July 1999. However, we can never report back to the hon. Lady's constituent who sent us specific names and addresses, all of which we examined. We are never in a position to report back to a third party—it is simply not possible. We cannot even report back to the Member concerned.
  People sometimes believe that the problem is being ignored. I have looked at these cases; I have gone around the country and discussed them. I can assure the House
  916
  that, to the best of my knowledge, we check the allegations and set up inquiries. We also do more risk analysis than in the past so that we do not waste resources in checking areas where we think that the allegation cannot be justified. We know that there is a high risk with some groups of benefit claimants, and risk analysis enables us to make the best use of our resources.
  We will not trawl the banks. If we think that someone is lying to us when he says that he has no bank account, no money and no capital, we will not send out a billet-doux to all the banks asking whether they have any information on that person. That is not our intention. We have never said that we would do that, and we have made it quite clear that we will not. We will not even approach the banks to start with.
  If we suspect that someone has an undisclosed bank account, we may first approach a credit reference agency, which we should be able to do electronically. That will tell us who has searched that person's credit files recently as well as giving information on existing credit agreements and credit cards. We would know, because searchers leave footprints on the computers. I have seen it myself when visiting banks and insurance companies. We may see that a bank has searched the file and we may then approach the bunk to see whether the person had an account at the bank. In other words, we need a reason to approach a specific bank. If not, we can approach a lender or a credit card company to find out what they know about the person. They might have the details of the person's bank account that he had provided when applying for the credit facility, or they may know how he makes repayments. If those avenues are not fruitful, we might approach a utility company to find out how the person pays his bills, because it might be by direct debit. If all those avenues fail to lead to details of a bank account, we will accept that and rely on other evidence. That is an example of how we might go through the system. We will not take a scattergun approach to the banking system.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned NINOs—national insurance numbers. I think that the issue is worth a debate; it is worth more publication. I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), for taking a more responsive, moderate view as he waded through his history of successes at the Department of Social Security as evidence to support Ministers, and his belief that we manage the NINO numbering system.
  That system is not static. It is not simply a list of numbers on a computer. It is an actively managed system. Staff manage the numbers going on to the system, the activity associated with them and those coming off.
  Everyone is appalled by the figures, but they are due to the nature of the population. We were asked about the 4 million numbers added since 1997. We estimate that 2.8 million are children, 800,000 are foreign nationals and about 120,000 are asylum seekers, which adds up to about 3.7 million. We do not know about British nationals who have come back from abroad.
  There is a problem. At the moment, we pay pensions to 1 million pensioners abroad. That is not counting people who are working abroad. There are millions of people who have been in this country and left. Millions of ordinary United Kingdom residents have gone abroad. There may be millions more who have come here to do three weeks of fruit picking in Scotland or in parts of East

  917
  Anglia where the gangmasters work. They collect a NINO and then they never return to this county, but the NINO remains on the system.
  About 12.5 million people on the NINO system are deceased, but we need to keep the records. It is true that we cleanse the system. I do not have the figures to hand, although they are in my folder somewhere, but I think that last year we cleansed more NINO numbers from the system than were cleared in the last 10 years of the previous Administration. We are actively searching and managing the NINO system. It is not always the easiest matter to explain.
  Children are on the system these days, for obvious reasons. The child's national insurance number is automatically generated when he or she is 16 because it was locked in when the first claim for child benefit was made. It is an important part of the process.
  There are other aspects of NINO management. For the simple reason that children are being born but dead people are not taken off the system, there will be an inexorable increase in the numbers. Everyone will realise what will happen in another 20 years, given that we have reached 80—odd million numbers since 1948. There are huge numbers on the system, so we have to flag them. Suspect numbers—those where we think that there is an abuse—are flagged. If they are used, an inquiry is automatically triggered.
  The credit industry fraud avoidance system has been mentioned. I regret that we are not, and cannot be, members of CIFAS, as that would help with reciprocity in the transfer of information. I point out to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that the Bill is part of the price that the country must pay for not having an identity card system. We are virtually unique in western Europe in not having such a system. Other countries do not need this sort of legislation.
  In so far as we can be, we are satisfied that the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights. We have the best legal advice and the best legal brains in Whitehall. They do not always get it right, but in this case we have put them through the mill since lost summer. I must tell the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) that we have no outstanding inquiries from the Information Commissioner—formerly the Data Protection Commissioner. To that extent, I hope that we can satisfy hon. Members. The Bill will cause a degree of intrusion, but only for people we think have lied to us about a benefit claim.
  Finally, I want to reassure the House that there will have to be good, reasonable and legally tested grounds for making claims about people's bank accounts. There will be no fishing expeditions. All the officers will be trained and qualified under the professionalism in security training system. They will be ordinary executive officers, who are dealing with industry day in and day out in a highly professional manner. I think that we will have 13 or 14 sites throughout the country from which the inquiries will be made. It will not be a case of all the fraud investigators being in the Benefits Agency; they will be a select and elite corps. I think that we can trust in them. They will be properly trained to do an effective job.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords] (Programme)
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Rooker: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords]:
  I have not moved a programme motion before, so I was briefed to the gunwales; we have a brilliant civil service—it is excellent. I was sent several speeches made on previous motions and I wrote back with a little billet-doux pointing out that, by the way, I am a Member of Parliament and I attend the House even when it is not DSS time. I have listened to at least five programme motion debates—the full 45 minutes—although, looking around the Chamber, it seems that the usual suspects are not present. However, I know almost all the points that they would make.
  I take the matter seriously. I shall not tell the House that we shall consider no amendments—I shall not say that. I shall not tell the House that we want to rush the measure through. Although the Bill has been debated in the other place, I thought that the original dates proposed for its proceedings here were a bit unreasonable, so—considering the dates on which Easter falls—I took the view that Maundy Thursday—[Interruption.] Maundy Thursday is on 12 April, so presumably the House is sitting; if it is not we shall make arrangements for it to do so. Maundy Thursday counts as a non-qualifying day in the election timetable—as we all know. It is one of those non-days, but it could still be a sitting day in this place.
  So, on the reasonable assumption that we shall begin the Committee stage next Tuesday at 10.30 am—I am looking forward to that—we can probably knock the Bill off in eight sittings. We shall be able to deal with many

  919
  of the detailed points made today; I am not denigrating them by suggesting that they were Committee points. We can hold useful debates during the period allocated.
  Given the scale of the Bill, the number of sittings is justified. Many hon. Members say that it is a small Bill; some have said that we are taking draconian powers. We certainly accept that the Bill has been given a fair wind. On behalf of my colleagues and those people who have worked on the measure, I am extremely grateful for the general good will in response to it. We have to make it work. That is true. It is an extra weapon in the armoury for the fight against social security fraud. It certainly deserves full scrutiny by the House—this is where I dig myself in—if, of course, the House allows that. I ask the House to support the motion.
  10.2 pm
  Mrs. Lait: Like the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I, too, have listened to many programme motion debates. It is unfortunate for him that this will be his first and last—or perhaps penultimate—such appearance.
  The Opposition are thoroughly against the whole system of programme motions. In many cases, the inability of the House to consider legislation thoroughly because of this new system will create a constitutional problem that will be extremely difficult to deal with; that will come home to roost and the country will be the poorer for it.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill is broadly welcomed on both sides of the House, but it might not go far enough; we want to consider many issues, as was clear from many of the Second Reading speeches. However, the motion highlights the absurdity inherent in the new system.
  Like me, the Minister sat through the proceedings on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000; the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), sat through the proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 as well as the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act; the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) sat through the proceedings on both of those Acts; and although the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) will, unfortunately, not be joining us this time, he was also in attendance during the proceedings on those Acts and played a useful role. The cast of characters for the Bill's Standing Committee will, I suspect, be similar to that for all those Acts—
  Mr. Willetts: The old lags.
  Mrs. Lait: Indeed. I should have thought that the old lags would realise that we have always worked well together in deciding the end dates for Committees and in ensuring that we stick to our agreements. The Minister will remember the help that we gave when there was a bit of an upset during the passage of the Bill that became the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, so I find it sad and absurd that we have to have a programme motion on this Bill.
  The motion provides for four days in Committee—eight sittings. We shall either fill those sittings without difficulty or not sit at all. The apparent generosity of the
  920
  motion leads me to three different conclusions about what the Government have decided. They may be planning to table a lot of Government amendments, which will take a long time to debate. They may intend to encourage their Back Benchers to contribute in a way that we have not seen in the past. Or, may I suggest a cynical calculation on the election date and that we shall not even go into Committee? That, I am afraid, is the only conclusion that I can draw from the mere fact that a programme motion has to be tabled on a Bill of this nature, which is largely uncontroversial, when we have in the past always agreed happily to end dates and other issues regarding the management of a Bill.
  We will, as we promised, table amendments to satisfy ourselves that these issues have been thought through. The Minister says that the Information Commissioner has no concerns. I accept that the commissioner has no concerns, but I should like to Know why she now has none, when originally she had many.
  The Opposition find it absurd and sad that a Bill like this, which was amended satisfactorily in the House of Lords, should be subjected to a programme motion, as is the usual draconian behaviour of the Government. It is completely unacceptable.
  Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend think that there is now a grave danger that it would take longer to see the Bill through because there is a guillotine; and has she noticed that, ever since the Government tried to modernise, we have gone home later in the evening than we used to before modernisation? Does not that show that the Government are totally incompetent even at reforming the House of Commons?
  Mrs. Lait: What else could I do but agree with my right hon. Friend? I do not think that any Bill in whose scrutiny I take part lasts any longer then it needs to, because I do not believe in extending debate any longer than necessary, but 1 think it is very sad that when we have established a good working relationship, this draconian measure should be imposed on us. In the long run, that Government will come to recognise as much as we do the damage that they have done to the constitution.
  10.7 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) seems to be assuming that the House will be dissolved shortly. Of course, I do not make any such assumption. It could be not 12 days but 12 months before there is a Dissolution, so I shall not make the assumption apparently made by the hon. Lady and other Member including my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), that we have heard the swan song of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I hope that we have not. If we have, though, perhaps I may take the opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution that he has made to the House in many capacities.
  I had the pleasure of shadowing the right hon. Gentleman when he was with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I have the greatest respect for his parliamentary talents. I thought that he introduced the programme motion with consummate modesty and characteristic glee because it looked as though it would

  921
  not be necessary, so there may be something in the timetable to which the hon. Member for Beckenham referred.
  I will not make the assumption that this programme motion is purely academic. Its detail does not present a great problem for us, whether or not the timetable is as supposed. However, on the principle of the way in which these programme motions are still coming before the House, I share the views of many other Members present that these motions are total nonsense, even when they are acceptable in their detail.
  I shall let the House into a secret. Tomorrow afternoon I shall attend the meeting of the Committee of Selection, at which we shall decide which Members of the House are to sit on this Committee. Some would think that other people should take that decision, but it will be taken by that Committee.
  I can tell the House that more hon. Members will be appointed to the Standing Committee than have attended most of the debate on Second Reading, because I was here and saw it. In the middle of that debate, nine Members were present, and because I was one of them and I will certainly not appoint myself to the Committee, only eight could be eligible to serve on it. It goes without saying that the hon. Members who spoke this afternoon were not necessarily those who will take part in the Committee.
  It also goes without saying that the hon. Members who must surely take ownership of the way in which the Committee undertakes its business and those who will decide how best to consider the detail, to which many references were made in the debate on Second Reading, are the members of that Committee. Therefore, for the programme motion to be tabled even before those Members have been appointed to the Committee is obviously absurd.
  I can also tell the House, without revealing any great secret between the usual channels or breaking Select Committee confidences, that the Modernisation Committee will consider programme motions tomorrow. I think that that is probably widely known. Given the speech made by the hon. Member for Beckenham from the Conservative Front Bench, I hope that her colleagues on that Committee will support sensible moves to get the proposal back on track.
  I hope that the hon. Lady, who said that the motion was draconian, will recall that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who I regret is not in his usual place, made the original suggestion that such programme motions should be introduced. He is the godfather of programme motions. The fact that the godchild has gone somewhat astray in recent months should not blind those on the Conservative Front Bench to the fact that, in the original idea, there was a very good principle at stake. It was simply that the Government of the day. assuming that they could command a majority in Me House, had a right to expect Committees to deal with legislation in good time and to set the end date.
  Mr. James Gray: Says who?
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the previous Parliament, so he has no experience of Conservative Governments, but I can assure him that they made exactly the same assumption. They assumed that, if they had a majority in the House, they had a right to
  922
  expect that their Bills would reach the statute book. That is parliamentary democracy. However, it has become increasingly obvious that the management of the individual issues of importance are properly discussed with the Opposition parties.
  The Opposition parties have a perfect right to decide what are the principal concerns that they believe should be addressed in the debate and by Division. It is also true that Back Benchers on both sides have a right to expect that that scrutiny will take place in a managed and sensible way. That was the original principle of programme motions, as suggested by the right hon. Member for East Devon in his previous capacity of Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that we shall make some progress. We could be here for another 12 months. I do not say that that is likely, but it is possible, and we certainly cannot continue with programme motions in their current form.
  The Minister, in winding up the debate on Second Reading and in moving the programme motion, said that there is widespread support in the House, throughout all parties, for the objectives in the Bill, but he also said, very fairly, that much of its detail will require careful consideration to get right. The problem that we face is clearly gigantic. In that context and, I hope, with the support of the House, this programme motion may not be objectionable, but I still believe that it is completely ludicrous in principle that we should decide how a Committee should conduct its business even before it is appointed. I hope very much that, before many days are out, we shall improve the procedure.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say before deciding whether to speak in the debate, but something that he said made it important for me to do so. If I heard him correctly, he said that eight sittings ought to be enough "to knock off' the Bill. The assumption that we are here only to knock things off for the Minister's convenience and that what we might think, say or do really does not matter shows almost breathtaking arrogance and a contempt for democracy. With that slip of the tongue, the right hon. Gentleman showed that, although this is the first time that he has introduced a programme motion, he instinctively understands the nature of the beast. When he reflects in the morning on the attitude that he has taken, I hope that he will feel ashamed of himself.
  When the Minister said that the civil servants had briefed him, he explained to the House that he did not need a briefing because he was a Member of Parliament. If he were a real parliamentarian who believed in the House and all that it stands for, and if he were a democrat who believed in the democracy that this country enjoys, he would have kept out of this debate on the programme motion. He should not be proud of the fact that it is the first time that he has introduced such a motion; had he been a real parliamentarian, he would have retired from the House never having moved one. He would have said to himself, "This is an affront to Parliament and the way in which we run our democracy."
  The right hon. Gentleman faces a problem even though he boasted to us that he had heard it all before. He said that he had been told what to expect. Unfortunately, however good his civil servants are, they did not brief him

  923
  about what I might say. They will not have found a speech from me on a programme motion. There is a always a surprise in store—even at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary career.
  The Minister may have thought that he would get off lightly tonight. He looked around and said something about the usual suspects. It should not be a case of the usual suspects; all 659 Members of the House should be affronted by programme motions. Everyone who believes in democracy should be one of the usual suspects.
  Mr. Redwood: Is my hon. Friend surprised that Ministers show such contempt for the House by introducing programme motions, given that they are led by a Prime Minister who hardly ever votes in the House and who has the worst voting record by a long way of any Prime Minister that any of us can remember? Does not such complete contempt for the parliamentary and democratic process come from the top?
  Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend is correct. I am sure that the Minister has read the briefings that he has been given and he will have seen that many Members consider the Prime Minister's treatment of us and of parliamentary democracy to be a disgrace. The Minister will have read that, and I hope that he has taken that point to heart. I suspect that,if he were being frank, he would say that he agreed, because in many respects he is a genuine parliamentarian who believes in this place—or, at least, he did until he took the Queen's shilling and came here to spout out such undemocratic nonsense.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the programme motion? Will he confine his remarks to that?
  Mr. Wilshire: Yes, of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. By way of introduction, I was responding to the Minister's comments. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was talking about the motion or about other things, but I accept what you say and I shall move on.
  The Minister said that, as far as he could see, the Committee might want to sit on Maundy Thursday. I do not think that it will, but it is possible that the Prime Minister might put the country and not his party interest first and deal with the things that matter. Even if he did that, we would probably still not be here on Maundy Thursday, given the way in which the House has organised its business in the past. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister could tell us what he proposes to do replace the sitting that could take place on 12 April—or does he expect members of the Committee to attend even though the House is in recess? We should know.
  I accept that, in some respects, in providing eight sittings for a Bill such as this, the motion is not as mean and nasty as some previous programme motions have been. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, one has to ask why. If the Bill can be knocked off quickly because it has been considered in the other place and is relatively non-controversial, why do we need eight sittings?
  Why do we need a programme motion? What has happened to the principle that if one wants to be generous and reasonable, in the first instance one discusses the
  924
  matter through the usual channels to see whether common sense will prevail? As I understand it, common sense would have prevailed in this case and there would have been no need for a programme motion. However, we have now got to the stage where the Government could not care less whether there is any common sense to be had from Conservative Members. They just go in with their boots on without even bothering to find out whether there could be agreement. That tells us a great deal about their approach to the House.
  We must ask ourselves why, if the Bill is not controversial, we have been given eight sittings. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said that it did not matter, and the Government could have given us 800 sittings because after next week we will not be here to worry about it. That is probably the explanation, but I guess that the Minister knows no more than we do because the Prime Minister runs these matters in a dictatorial fashion and probably will not consult him. Nevertheless, it is possible that we will be here after next week—a Government who cared about the nation might see their term through.
  Let us assume for the moment that we will be here after next week. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is absolutely right and the Government have something up their sleeves. If we cannot work out why eight sittings are necessary, perhaps the Government are concealing something from us and at the very last minute they will table a large number of amendments. When I was listening to my hon. Friend's explanation, it crossed my mind that several Labour Back Benchers may have worked out which of their Front—Bench colleagues will shortly lose their sears and want to use the Committee to make a bid for an Opposition spokesman's job. That might explain why the Minister of State moved the programme motion—it is a chance for him to strut the stage and to point out that, in opposition, he could do a useful job.
  Another possibility that occurred to me is that by setting a limit, even a generous one of eight sittings, the Government are saying that they will look only for as much fraud as they can fit into a convenient time before they treat Parliament as a rubber stamp. It does not matter how many good suggestions are made, how many reasonable amendments are tabled or how many people think up new ways of bringing even more fraudsters to book if those factors cannot be tackled in the number of sittings suggested by the Minister. They could not care less about fraud if it does not fit.
  The Minister explained why having eight sittings was a particularly good idea, but he did not even mention Report. If I understand the Order Paper correctly, it suggests that the Report stage will be brought to an end at 9 o'clock on the day on which it starts. Presumably, if we do not have the general election that the Labour party seems to want for its own selfish ends—[Laughter.] The laughter tells us a great deal. Labour Members will be laughing on the other side of their face after they have called an election—I will tell you that for free, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  If we get to the Report stage, it is likely to be in mid-April, although it is difficult to say because we have not been given a date We will have a maximum of five hours for it, but if my guess about the date is correct, the shambolic way in which the Government have failed to tackle foot and mouth disease means that we will have

  925
  another interminable statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or perhaps the Prime Minister will grace us with his presence because, by then, he will have lost confidence in all his Ministers and will have to do everything himself.
  Let us assume that we have another statement on the day on which the Report stage is taken. I noticed this afternoon that we were still wending our weary way through statements after 5 o'clock. That means that it does not matter how many amendments or new clauses are tabled on Report, because by the time the Minister has opened the debate and waffled on for ages, about an hour will have gone by, which will leave Back Benchers about an hour in which to say something before the winding-up speeches. That would be an undemocratic Report stage. It is pointless for hon. Members to give any thought to it if it can run for just three hours and Front-Bench spokesmen want to take time over it.
  This is the Minister's first outing in a programme motion debate and he should be ashamed. It is a pity that he has not been given the opportunity to leave the House without getting his hands mucky in an undemocratic and unreasonable process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, the right hon. Gentleman could have gone home earlier had it not been for his Government colleagues.
  Programme motions are part of the great modernisation process to allow hon. Members to go home earlier, because if they stayed too long they might have to take this place seriously. The Government have bungled that process. Not only does the Minister have to come here and dirty his hands, but he has to suffer the Government's incompetence. Instead of modernising, they make matters worse. I am sorry for the Minister, who could have left Parliament at the election without joining in an undemocratic procedure and adding his four pennyworth to this incompetent Government, whom we shall shortly remove.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Lilley: Like the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), this is my maiden speech in a programme motion debate. I am puzzled about why a motion has been tabled to end the Committee stage by Maundy Thursday. If the Prime Minister intends to have an election, there is no reason to table such an insulting idea. He could at least pretend that that is not the case by giving us ample time to consider the Bill. However, instead of letting us have holy week off and completing our deliberations after Easter, he has decided to insult us. Perhaps he is not going ahead with the election but has still decided that the Committee must finish by Maundy Thursday without saying why.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not the Government's difficulty compounded by the fact that yesterday's timetable motion on the Adoption and Children Bill gave an exit date of 12 June?
  Mr. Lilley: Indeed. The Government compound absurdity with absurdity. Why must the Committee conclude by Maundy Thursday? Will that give us time to get the answers to the unanswered questions that my hon. Friends and I raised in detail? In an otherwise admirable summing up, the Minister, in what is possibly his swansong
  926
  in a Second Reading debate, did not answer my question about whether a study has been conducted of the savings that were made from the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, which I introduced. That was the precursor to this Bill and gave data-matching powers for data within government. Only when we have that information can we decide whether the detailed measures in the Bill are likely to bring about similar savings.
  The Bill might not be worth the candle and we might have to re-tailor the provisions to make the savings that the Government have suggested. They assume that there will be 800,000 inquiries. It is estimated that each will cost about £9 and will result in benefit savings of an average of £225. The Committee will want those figures explained, and the Government need time in which to work that out.
  Mr. Redwood: Given my right hon. Friend's great experience of trying to combat social security fraud, does he think it likely that many amendments will be needed to the Bill from the Government, to try to make the measure work practically in all the detail that he is describing? Until we know how many amendments will be tabled, is it feasible to know how long it might take to discuss them?
  Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and one that undermines the concept of programme motions. Unless and until we know the sort of changes that will be needed in the course of considering a Bill, we cannot allocate time.
  We know that the Bill required changes even in the other place, a less contentious place than this place. It was changed quite significantly as it passed through the House of Lords, and it is likely to be changed even more in Committee—if we are given time to make changes, and if we are given time for the Government to answer the questions that we raise, which they have not answered today.
  I raised the crucial issue of why fraud is increasing under the Government, despite their claim, in opening the debate, that it is falling. Why did they not subsequently apologise for misleading the House? We know that they try to justify the statement by saying that if errors are allowed as well as fraud, there is a slight fall in fraud. That is not a significant fall, although they were telling us that it was. They have not explained why they made that claim, even though it was not valid.
  In Committee, we shall want to consider whether the Bill's provisions will bear down on fraud or on what the Government call errors. That might take some time.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: From the right hon. Gentleman's experience and from his knowledge of the Bill, will there be time to consider not only fraudulent claims by those seeking benefit, but the actions of those within the Department, who are mostly honest people? I am thinking of one of my constituents who was recently convicted and fined for £250,000-worth of fraud from the inside?
  Mr. Lilley: I do not think that we shall have time to consider that activity or to amend the Bill to cover it. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that that is serious

  927
  and important fraud—and the numbers to which he refers suggest that it is—we should be able to amend the Bill to take account of it.
  I was raising the distinction that the Government draw between fraud and error. They say that if errors are thrown in, they are succeeding in their task. I have not noticed that.
  Mr. Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we should be able to reach consideration of clause 16 in Committee? It might then be possible to introduce a presumption of fraud where someone forgets to declare £200,000 of income?
  Mr. Lilley: I can guess what my hon. Friend is referring to. Usually, the sort of error that we are discussing does not include forgetting £200,000 of one's income. The average benefit claimant does not forget that, but I gather that it is quite normal on the Government Benches to forget that sort of amount. We should know whether that will be classified as error or fraud, and we will want to consider that at length.
  When on that subject, we shall want to consider whether to amend the Bill to give power to the Government or social security officers to obtain information that has been uncovered by DTI inquiries. If they can obtain information from banks and credit card owners, why cannot they get information about people who have been examined in the course of DTI inquiries, especially if there is provision, as there is on the statute book—despite what the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says—for releasing such information to a designated body that is fulfilling a public function?
  It would be possible to take such matters into account in Committee if only there were time. I suspect that the Government want to rush through consideration in Committee because they do not want that sort of embarrassing discussion shortly before a general election. That is why they are trying to curtail discussion by means of a draconian programme motion. They want consideration to be completed by Maundy Thursday. They do not want to allow us the sort of discussion that we shall need to give the Bill the inquisition that it deserves.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would like to make a few remarks on the programme motion. Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I should like to ask why there is a need for the motion at all? Did the Government try to come to an informal agreement through the usual channels?
  We shall spend three quarters of an hour debating the motion, plus the vote, making one hour. The Programming Sub-Committee will perhaps take an hour or two; there will be another half-hour debate on the programme in Committee and a vote, making three quarters of an hour. That may take the time up to three and three quarter hours. This motion makes provision for a programme motion to be introduced on Report and Third Reading, making another three quarters of an hour, together with a vote, bringing the total to an hour. So a total of four and three quarter hours could be spent on
  928
  debating the timetable for the Bill to get through the House and the other place, which is the equivalent of a half-day debate in the House.
  Before introducing the programme motion in the House, it would have been much more sensible of the Government to try to see whether a voluntary agreement could be reached. Had the Government introduced sensible proposals, I am certain that a voluntary programme could have been entered into; more than four hours could have been usefully devoted to debating the Bill at greater length or debate could have been foreshortened. I am not sure why, under paragraph 3 of the motion, the Government want to complete the Committee stage of the Bill by Maundy Thursday. Unless a general election on 3 May is a racing certainty, it seems that the Government will run out of legislation to introduce. What on earth will we do if the election is delayed until October? Will there be another Queen's Speech? What will happen? We will be scratching around for motions to debate in the House.
  The Government are wasting our time because it is practically a racing certainty that we will have an election. However, assuming that we do not, we must deal with the Bill's timetable. I have dealt with one or two timetables before, and there are a couple of things that could be usefully incorporated in future. Why, for example, does the final sitting of the Committee have to be brought to a conclusion at 9 o'clock on a Tuesday or 6 o'clock on a Thursday? I have some Committee experience and, very often, the Committee suddenly gets into a panic towards the end of its consideration of the Bill and an awful lot is discussed on the last day. Given my experience of serving on Committees with timetables, it would make eminent good sense—if one has to have a timetable—to conclude proceedings at midnight. That is not unreasonable.
  The worst thing in the timetable motion is paragraph 7, which makes provision for a timetable for messages from the Lords, and states:
  "the question … shall be put forthwith."
  If ever there was an abrogation of the democratic tradition of debate in the House, that is it. Whatever amendments the Lords make to the Bill, whatever messages they send to us, we shall have no time whatever to debate them. That is totally undemocratic.
  Mr. Redwood: Does that not imply that the reform and modernisation of the other place has backfired on the Government, like the rest of their modernisation? Does it not imply that, in advance, the Government are not prepared to trust their Lordships to come up with decent amendments and wish to vote them down forthwith, whatever they say? Does that not show that the Labour peers who were put in to pack the other place cannot even be bothered to turn up to do the job properly?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: As usual, my right hon. Friend's logic is impeccable. He is right: the Government are so incompetent that they cannot organise the other place properly to get the answer that they want. Not satisfied with having a proper democratic debate in the other place, they are determined to use undemocratic means to reverse anything from the other place that they do not like. If that is democracy, the Government will go down in history as one of the most undemocratic ever seen in this country.
  Mr. Hogg: The proposal is not only discourteous to the other place, but to the House, as it excludes the possibility of discussing messages from the other place. The House has a right to discuss those messages .
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend makes my point for me. Of course the House, which is the bastion of democracy and the oldest democracy in the world, is being denied by this undemocratic Government the chance to debate any changes arising from the other place that the Government do not like. The way in which the Government are behaving is unbelievable. Some time, the British people will wake up and realise that the rights that they have had for centuries, vested in the Members of Parliament whom they send as their representatives in Parliament, have been taken away as a result of those very representatives not looking after their rights.
  Once the people cotton on to that, as they undoubtedly will, they will say that the representatives who did not look after their rights should be kicked out and replaced by others who can.
  Mr. Rooker rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I happily give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Rooker: Has the hon. gentleman finished speaking?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: No. I thought that the Minister wanted to intervene. He looks more and more annoyed at what I am saying. That means that I must be hitting the target 100 per cent. true—the bull's eye. He knows that what I am saying is absolutely correct.
  I see that time is getting on. In view of what has been said tonight, it is right that the Minister should have a chance to reply. I have a great deal of respect for him personally. Whatever he has done at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in his present job, he has done with integrity. I hope that he will reply, as he knows that the democratic rights of Parliament are being taken away by the timetable motion that he is proposing.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Rooker: I do not think that Parliament's rights are being taken away. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the other place, the Government have 29 per cent. of the votes. The Bill has been through the other place, and there was not a single Division during its passage. The argument that there could be issues of substance coming back from the other place beggars belief.
  I did not have a chance to reply to one of the issues raised by the former Secretary of state, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). He obviously feels upset about the matter, but the Library brief is wrong. The baseline that we use is September 1998. The Library has taken 1999, so the figures used are not comparable. I have put that on the record, as it answers one of the questions that was raised. I shall answer the rest in Committee in due course.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he agree that if the Government put eight Committee sittings aside for, say,
  930
  a 13-clause Bill, they consider eight sittings enough? If new clauses are introduced, should not more sittings be allowed?
  Mr. Rooker: That is always an argument. However, it would be arrogant of me to present a programme motion to the House and say that the Government have no plans for any amendments, or that the Government have huge plans for amendments. That would be wrong. We have just passed the Second Reading. We are planning a Committee stage and if that starts on Tuesday, the Government amendments would obviously be published before that. In the normal course of events—
  Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Rooker: No. The Bill could be knocked off in eight sittings of mature, adult consideration of the issues in it, as we have debated them today, if that consideration is not sullied by time-wasting speeches such as we have heard.
  Question put: —
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Lord): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 269, Noes 149.

  Division No. 166]

  [10.43 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clelland, David

  Austin, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coaker, Vernon

  Banks, Tony

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bames, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Coleman, Iain

  Battle, John

  Colman, Tony

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cox, Tom

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Crausby, David

  Benton, Joe

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer. John (Homchurch)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dalyell, Tam

  Borrow, David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Buck, Ms Karen

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

  Burden, Richard

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Cann, Jamie

  Doran, Frank

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dowd, Jim

  Caton, Martin

  Drew, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  931

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lock, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Flint, Caroline

  Flynn, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McDonnell, John

  Foulkes, George

  McFall, John

  Galloway, George

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gapes, Mike

  Mclsaac, Shona

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McNulty, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Goggins, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martlew, Eric

  Grogan, John

  Maxton, John

  Hain, Peter

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Meale, Alan

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hanson, David

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Healey, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mountford, Kali

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hill, Keith

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Olner, Bill

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pearson, Ian

  Hope, Phil

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Plaskitt, James

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pond, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Pope, Greg

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Illsley, Eric

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jenkins, Brian

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Joyce, Eric

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworfh)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roy, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Salmond, Alex

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Salter, Martin

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Laxton, Bob

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Leslie, Christopher

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Levitt, Tom

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Snape, Peter

  932

  Soley, Clive

  Truswell, Paul

  Spellar, John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tynan, Bill

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Watts, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart Ms Gisela

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Todd, Mark

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gray, James

  Amess, David

  Green, Damian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Greenway, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Baldry, Tony

  Hammond, Philip

  Beggs, Roy

  Harvey, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Heald, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brady, Graham

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Key, Robert

  Burnett, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Butterfill, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Leigh, Edward

  Cash, William

  Letwin, Oliver

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Chidgey, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Livsey, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Loughton, Tim

  Cran, James

  Luff, Peter

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Hatemprice)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Day, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Madel, Sir David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maginnis, Ken

  Evans, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maples, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fraser, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Paterson, Owen

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Pickles, Eric

  933

  Prior, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Rendel, David

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ty)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ruffley, David

  Wallace, Rt Hon James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Walter, Robert

  Sanders, Adrian

  Waterson Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Webb, Steve

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Whittingdale, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Spring, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Streeter, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Stunell, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  and

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. John Randall

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords]:

  Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords] (Programme)

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
    3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12th April 2001.

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

    Lords messages
    7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
    3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12th April 2001.

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

    Lords messages
    7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

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

    (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for or in connection with the carrying out of his functions under that Act; and

    (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

    Question agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together motions 8 to 11.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 28 March, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 13 and 14.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    Question agreed to.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES
      That the draft General Commissioners of Income Tax (Costs) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.
      JUSTICES OF THE PEACE
      That the draft Justices and Justices' Clerks (Costs) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.
      FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS
      That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

      PARTNERSHIPS
      That the Limited Liability Partnerships (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 969) dated 14th March 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      That the draft Local Authorities (Alternative Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 78), on the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (HC 335), which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      That the draft Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

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

    PETITION

      Religious Broadcasting Licences
      11 pm
      Mr. John Burnett: This petition is from a number of my constituents in Torridge and West Devon and others. There are, I believe, some 1,365 signatories to it. The petition requests that provision be made to remove discrimination against religious bodies in obtaining properly regulated broadcasting licences.
      The prayer in the petition states:
      Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.
      To lie upon the table.

    Walsgrave Hospital
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    11.2 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: On the occasion of this Adjournment debate, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the lack of confidence in the chief executive of Walsgrave hospital, which serves the whole of Coventry, including, of course, my own constituency.
    A most unhappy situation, lasting some 19 months, led to my initiating the debate. The staff unions are opposing the consultants and the chief executive himself thinks that the current unrest could lead to problems arising over the new private finance initiative hospital for Coventry. I am led to believe from articles in today's edition of the Coventry Evening Telegraph that the surgeons are split on the matter.
    I have to tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who will reply to the debate, that one senior surgeon even thinks that there could be political manoeuvrings against the professional class of surgeons by her Department, but I am anxious to assure her that I do not share that view; nor is it widely shared by the surgeons at Walsgrave.
    It is not my intention to apportion any blame for the unhappy situation with which we in Coventry are confronted. I believe that the management has a lot to answer for and I also believe that management, with one simple step that I shall deal with shortly, could put an end to this great unhappiness and great lack of certainty. The purpose of raising the matter on the Adjournment is to urge that the situation be brought to a close, to outline the simple step that could bring it to a speedy resolution and to say frankly that, after 19 months, it has gone on for far too long.
    The problems of today started back in September 1999 with a whistleblowing incident. Members of the House will be aware of the whistleblowing legislation that was introduced by the Government in 1998. In 1999, three surgeons at Coventry blew the whistle on surgeons in the colorectal department because of the peri-operative mortality rate. One of the whistleblowers was Mr. Alban Barros D'Sa, who remains suspended. The immediate reaction to the whistleblowing was to suspend one of the whistleblowers; 18 months later, he remains suspended. His position should be resolved to bring order to the current disorder.
    The whistleblowing incident has reached a satisfactory conclusion for one of the surgeons on whom the whistle was blown. The professional advisory panel that reported to the hospital in December 1999, only three months after the incident, made three recommendations. All have been acted upon. The surgeon has been moved from colorectal work, and a new specialist will be recruited for the work. The third recommendation was that a performance audit of the department's work in the previous four years should be undertaken. A performance audit of only two years was carried out, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider one aspect of it.
    One of the reasons for blowing the whistle was the peri-operative mortality rate of operations conducted by one of the surgeons in the colorectal department. I choose
    938
    not to name him tonight because I believe that he is competent in other areas, but that he should not undertake colorectal work. While he had a pen-operative mortality rate of 20 per cent. over two years, the specialist had a rate of only 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. The national target is 5 per cent.
    The statistics for reviewing performance are calculated on P values. Why do the figures show no significant difference between those surgeons' work? If we are generally applying P values, and drawing comparative conclusions, how can we claim that there is no difference in performance that poses a problem for patients when, in a two-year period, one surgeon has a 20 per cent. Peri-operative mortality rate and another has one of only 5 per cent.? The various statistics that we use, and the way in which we use them, currently lead us to that conclusion.
    I revert to the position of Mr. Barros D'Sa. He was a whistleblower who was subsequently suspended on four counts. All were considered, and except for a part of one of them, he was found not to be at fault. It is important to stress that Mr. D'Sa's professional competence has not been questioned. No one claims that he is anything other than a good surgeon. When we are so desperately short of cancer surgeons and others—colorectal work is associated with cancer problems—how can a surgeon of acknowledged competence and with an undisputed professional reputation be left idle for 18 months?
    Six months ago, part II of the report of an independent panel of three surgeons was produced. They were led by a noted local Queen's counsel, Jeffrey Burke. They reported that Mr. D'Sa was at fault for oppressing a junior. It is not for me to argue Mr. D'Sa's defence, which is not the purpose of the debate, but he says in his defence that he was quizzing the junior doctor rather aggressively about peri-operative mortality and failures of the operations conducted by the surgeons on whom he blew the whistle. I mention that simply in passing.
    The substantive recommendation of the independent panel was that Mr. D'Sa should be reinstated. It referred to his hitherto unblemished record. The management of the hospital could easily have accepted the part II recommendation, and reinstated Mr. D'Sa with a warning. The panel believed that he should receive a written warning. The matter would thus have been brought to a speedy conclusion six months ago.
    Instead of doing that, the management issued what it called a document of mitigation. As the judge it came up against was to rule, it was not so much a document of mitigation as of aggravation. In it, the management saw fit to include, as the major reason for not reinstating Mr. D'Sa, a letter that he had written to his Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), and copied to me as the Member of Parliament for North-West Coventry. Since we regard all matters to do with the cathedral, the police and the hospital as constituency issues, I felt it right that we should question the management's procedure in using a private and confidential letter that Mr. D'Sa wrote to his Member of Parliament as a reason for not reinstating him.
    As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we took the issue to Mr. Speaker. It would be fair to say that we had to recognise that Members' correspondence does not enjoy privilege or, indeed, qualified privilege. What we say in this House enjoys total privilege and there is no way in which I would abuse that. I understand that any

    939
    correspondence that I have with my hon. Friend the Minister or other Ministers enjoys qualified privilege. However, Mr. D'Sa's letter, which was private and confidential and naturally critical of the management, was included in the management's so-called document of mitigation and submitted to those concerned as a reason for not reinstating him.
    Despite all our opposition to the management proceeding in this manner, the chief executive was determined to do so. The case went to court, as we knew it would, and an injunction was taken out by the lawyers representing Mr. D'Sa. I hate to say it, but the management was humiliatingly defeated at the injunction hearing. Not only was it expressly forbidden to rely on or use the letter addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South and copied to me: it was refused the right to rely on any surrounding information other than what was, quite rightly, in part II of the independent report prepared on the issue.
    One would have thought that that would be the end of it. Enough money had been spent, enough time wasted and enough management attention dissipated—all to no good end, except for the immense legal costs. Has that contributed one iota to patient care or to concern for those who need it most in the hospital? Of course not. This has been a great and costly diversion of resources.
    The management, which had taken the case to court, was condemned to pay all the costs, including those of the surgeons. One would have thought that was the end of it and that we could now proceed with the normal implementation of the independent recommendation in part II of the report. However, that was not acceptable. I am informed that the management is still pursuing the case and seeking leave to appeal against the ruling of the court. That will mean more costs, more delays and further harm. The vote of no confidence that the surgeons have determined to hold on the conduct of the case concerning Mr. D'Sa will proceed, and the Electoral Reform Society is being brought in to supervise it.
    There will be growing concern in the constituency among patients and prospective patients that the hospital is in disarray. That is in no one's interests, and in no way do I want to contribute to that uncertainty by bringing this matter to my hon. Friend's attention. On the contrary, I believe that it is necessary to highlight the one simple action that can be taken that will put an end to the matter once and for all. It will remove uncertainty, restore confidence and re-establish between surgeons and management the co-operation that is so vital to the good functioning of any organisation. It is very simple. The management should be prepared to follow the recommendations of part II of the report, which was prepared by independent experts in the field who were appointed to do the job, and to proceed with the reinstatement of Mr. D'Sa.
    That is why I brought the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not expect her to be able immediately to respond to my concerns about the way in which the statistics for judging the competence of surgeons are used. I hope that she will look into that matter and get back to me. However. I hope that she will be able to use her good offices to intervene, or to say that she is sufficiently aware of the situation and that it has
    940
    gone on long enough, at too much cost and with too much dissatisfaction in the hospital; I hope too that she will ensure that the part II recommendations are introduced.
    11.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on securing time to debate a topic that is clearly of considerable concern to him, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), in whose constituency the Walsgrave hospital lies, but who, by convention, cannot raise any matters that relate to the hospital in the House. I am glad to see that my hon. Friends are in the Chamber for the debate.
    For my hon. Friends' benefit, I wish to start with a few general observations about the Walsgrave hospital. Some newspaper headlines have given the impression that the hospital is in total crisis. The Walsgrave Hospitals national health service trust changed its status to that of a university teaching hospital at the end of October last year, when it became the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. The trust is made up of Walsgrave hospital, Coventry and Warwickshire hospital and the Hospital of St. Cross in Rugby.
    Against the backdrop of a challenging agenda, including changes to the configuration of services, the trust has achieved success in a number of areas. The cardiac services directorate has gained national recognition for mitral valve repairs and receives referrals from throughout the country. A new renal dialysis satellite unit has recently been opened at the Hospital of St. Cross in Rugby. I recently visited the hospital and saw the new unit. The trust's renal transplant department is in the upper quartile nationally for graft acceptance. The radiology department has recently taken delivery of a new £1.2 million mobile magnetic resonance imaging scanner, to be moved regularly between the South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS trust, the George Eliot Hospital NHS trust and the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust.
    Work has recently started in the radiotherapy and oncology department to provide state of the art linear accelerator facilities,involving an investment of about £6 million. In partnership with the local community trust, a walk-in centre has been established, offering a seamless service to patients.
    The trust is also taking the lead as the English national pilot site for colorectal cancer screening. With a catchment population of around 1 million, the uptake to date is well in excess of the target set for the pilot.
    These are just some of the successes that the trust can demonstrate, in addition to which it reports a reduction in the number of nursing vacancies, and a 30 per cent. increase in the number of consultants. Of course, last year the trust achieved accreditation as a university teaching hospital.
    The first issue of substance in tonight's debate was the suspension of a medical consultant at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. Where concerns are raised about professional misconduct it is

    941
    right that, as an employer, the national health service is able to investigate concerns expressed about the competence or behaviour of that employee.
    Although that course of action should be a very rare event, occasionally it is necessary to suspend an employee. It is important to stress that, although it is not always perceived as such, in legal terms suspension is a neutral act and must not be used as a disciplinary sanction. Suspension is intended to protect the i interests of patients, other staff and the employee or to assist the investigative process.
    As my hon Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will be aware, issues around staff management are a matter for the employing national health service body—in this case, the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust. That includes matters relating to the suspension of staff from their duties. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for me to intervene or comment on the individual case highlighted by my hon. Friend in the House tonight, as I understand that the case is still subject to legal proceedings. However, I note the points raised by my hon. Friend and will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of the regional director of the NHS executive regional office.
    My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that we are revising guidance on the handling of suspensions. In future, there should be less need to suspend employees, because medical staff with developing problems can refer themselves—or be referred by their employers—to the National Clinical Assessment Authority—the NCAA. Through a swift and accurate identification of problems and solutions, the NCAA is intended to ensure that fewer suspensions will be necessary.
    The NCAA will issue guidance to NHS organisations late in 2001 to help them to identify suitable cases for referral, and to advise them on how to make such referrals. As part of its remit, the NCAA will also consider any outstanding cases that are still awaiting resolution.
    In future, NHS employers must ensure that suspension is used only after all other alternatives have been considered—for example, a period of supervised retraining pending outcome of formal investigation; voluntary restriction; or referral to the NCAA with voluntary restrictions. When an employee is suspended, employers must ensure that it is for the minimum necessary period of time.
    My hon. Friend draws attention to the importance of taking seriously concerns raised about the performance of individual staff members. We expect a climate of openness and dialogue in the NHS, and a culture and environment that encourage staff to feel able to raise concerns about health care matters sensibly and responsibly, without fear of victimisation.
    Wherever possible, concerns raised by staff should be dealt with locally, in accordance with local policies and procedures. However, in some cases, individuals have considered the local response provided to them to be inadequate; as a consequence they have sought to raise their concerns with the NHS executive.
    Officials are liaising with the regional offices to develop a protocol for handling cases raised with the NHS executive. That is likely to include identifying a first point of contact in each region. Public Concern at Work—a leading authority in that sphere—has offered to provide staff working in the Department and the NHS executive
    942
    with training on how to respond to individuals who contact the NHS executive to raise concerns. Of course, I realise that the case raised by my hon. Friend is still subject to legal proceedings, but I shall ensure that the regional office is aware of his concerns. I hope that some of the issues that he highlights are less likely to occur in future because of the measures that we are putting in place.
    Before I address my hon. Friend's concerns on the standard of colorectal services at the trust, it is important to raise a matter covered in the local press today. I read a leading article stating that
    "Surgery in the hospital is in turmoil."
    I must confess to the House that, in preparing for the debate, I have seen nothing that would lead me to such a sweeping conclusion. We need to be very careful when using language that causes great concern to the local population about the standard of service provided by their local NHS hospital. I believe that it could do a great disservice to the hard-working staff at the trust to read lead stories making such general accusations.
    On the standard of colorectal services at the trust, I am advised that my hon Friends have already had sight of the outcome of the detailed investigations conducted by both the trust and the regional director of public health following the concerns that were raised. I have read the report; the regional director agreed that there were issues that needed to be addressed at the trust. I understand that the regional director of public health made recommendations relating to future staffing levels for the service, and to the appropriate grading for staff involved in provision of colorectal surgery at the trust. I am informed that the trust is acting on those recommendations, and that a fully qualified colorectal surgeon has been appointed and is expected to start employment with the trust next week. I have asked the regional office to continue to monitor the establishment of that service at the trust in the short to medium term. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West about the basis of some of the statistical analysis. I think it would be best for me to write to him after the debate with precise details of how the analysis is determined.
    My hon. Friend also expresses concerns about the trust's senior management team, noting that there had been a vote of no confidence by a very small number of surgeons at the trust. I am aware that, on 26 February, my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues met Nigel Crisp, the chief executive of the NHS so that he might have an opportunity to take account of their concerns about the management of the trust. I understand that, following that meeting, Nigel Crisp spoke to the regional director of the NHS executive and asked him to ensure that concerns raised by my hon. Friends were being addressed.
    I am also of course aware of the issue that was raised as a point of order in the House on 17 January, relating to the use of a letter. Mr. Speaker has responded and it would be inappropriate in that context for me to add anything further.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was disgraceful for the management to seek to use a letter written in confidence to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and copied to myself, as a reason for not reinstating and

    943
    putting in hand the part II recommendations? Would she not as a parliamentarian, let alone a Minister, deprecate that form of behaviour?
    Ms Stuart: As a parliamentarian I also accept the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker has responded to the issue and I am content with that.
    I recognise that my hon. Friend has some very real concerns about the matters that he has raised today, and of course it is important that they are addressed. It must be recognised that the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust has been faced with a challenging agenda over the past few years. It has made great progress in many areas. The trust has had to implement some major developments regarding the reconfiguration of services. The trust's management has driven forward the development agenda while maintaining good quality services to the population that the trust serves.
    At the start of my speech, I provided my hon. Friends with examples of some of the successes and improvements made by the trust, but every institution is capable of even further improvement and I am sure that that will happen in this case, too.
    Even though there have been service changes, it is incumbent on the trust chief executive and chair to ensure that the services provided at the trust meet the needs of patients and ensure their safety. As I outlined earlier, the colorectal service at the trust has been investigated by the regional director of public health. Following his investigations, the trust has acted on his recommendations with regard to future management of the service, and a new fully qualified colorectal surgeon is expected to start work at the trust next week.
    Mr. Robinson: That point has been covered. Will my hon. Friend say why, in her opinion, the management will not accept the findings of part II as a simple resolution of our problems so that we can get back to the good progress that we all recognise that the trust has been making?
    Ms Stuart: The management and the management style of each trust is a local issue. The difficulty is that, as I understand it, there are still legal proceedings in this case. It would be inappropriate and foolish of a Minister to try
    944
    to second-guess anyone else's reasons but, more important, it would help no one at this stage not to allow a due process to continue. We have made it clear that both the chief executive of the NHS and the regional office are well aware of the situation, but ultimately issues regarding employees are the responsibility of the local employing trust, which must take the decision. Our role is to ensure that proper processes are followed.
    Mr. Robinson: It is on that point that we find it most difficult to accept what my hon. Friend is saying. The simple fact is that this process will cause great costs to the hospital—tens of thousands of pounds of further useless legal costs are being incurred, all to no good purpose, because the legal problems, of which I am as well aware as my hon. Friend is, will continue only as long as the trust is intent on a legal resolution. The trust has a recommendation, which it could and should implement. The further this matter goes on, the more difficult the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South and I are put in, because our letter, a confidential House of Commons document, is being used—or an attempt is being made to use it—by the trust management to furthen its legal case, in which it has already been humiliatingly denied.
    Ms Stuart: I think that my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into pre-empting either a decision of the court or a management decision by an NHS trust. Surely it must be up to local trusts, as the employer, to have the final decision on the most appropriate way to proceed, and I would not wish to pre-empt the reasons for their decision.
    It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he is still dissatisfied with the answers provided today, he should request a meeting with the Minister responsible for the midlands region, the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), so that his concerns can be looked at in more detail. I am sure that he will meet my colleagues to discuss his concerns if he thinks that is necessary.
    On employment matters relating to an individual consultant where legal proceedings are still on-going, it would be inappropriate for a Minister to do anything other than to say that it is a local matter for the trust and that we will ensure that the due process is being followed.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Foot and Mouth
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Mr. Jamieson]
9.30 am
Mr. Keith Simpson: I welcome the opportunity to debate the important subject of the foot and mouth outbreak's impact on the rural economy in what can only be described as an escalating crisis. When I applied for the debate a week ago, we had not seen and heard about all the events of the past four or five days. The Prime Minister has now taken personal control of the crisis. In the past 24 hours, we have received the appalling news that there are cases of foot and mouth in the Lake district. I emphasise that the foot and mouth outbreak is not just about farming. Obviously, foot and mouth has a terrible and immediate impact on farmers, their families and workers, but it also has an impact on the wider rural economy. Increasingly, we have seen much support and sympathy from the urban population
There will no doubt be a serious debate later on the future of farming, the food industry, the rural economy and the management of the countryside. The purpose of this Adjournment debate, however, is not to consider the long term, but to concentrate on the immediate and short-term impact of foot and mouth on the rural economy. The views and questions that I shall put to the Minister are based on representations, letters, telephone calls and visits in my constituency. I suspect that other right hon. and hon. Members will do the same. Mid-Norfolk is a mixed rural constituency with small towns and villages. It still depends very much on farming, the food industry, small businesses and tourism
The Government fatally underestimated the scale and speed of the crisis. It gives me no pleasure to say that, because the people in the eye of the storm find the party politics of the crisis largely irrelevant. Nevertheless, I have come here today to represent my constituents' views on the subject. The Minister is probably aware that an NOP poll in today's Daily Mail shows that an overwhelming 77 per cent. of voters think that the crisis is out of control and that only 15 per cent. believe that it is being contained. That may be only a perception, but it is a worrying perception for any Government
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Was that not also the perception last Thursday and Friday of the Government's chief scientist, who stated unequivocally to the media and elsewhere that the crisis was out of control?
Mr. Simpson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I think that it was only last Thursday when we received reports by the various scientists involved that
182WH
the Government fully realised for the first time that this was not a minor regional problem, but a major crisis. As my right hon. Friend said, it is sadly out of control.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: During the weekend, I have been discussing the issue with vets, including local veterinary inspectors employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are not able or willing to give their names. Clearly, they cannot criticise the Government openly. Is my hon. Friend surprised to learn that they say that this is no longer an epidemic, but a pandemic? They also say that, because of the Government's inability to act quickly—not only in taking the decision to cull animals, but in implementing the cull—the position has moved on so far that vaccination should be considered. Sadly, it seems that MAFF is taking no contingency—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is sufficiently long for one intervention.
Mr. Simpson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend makes valuable points to which I shall return shortly. Following on from what he said. farmers, vets, business men, local authorities and the rural population at large have been bewildered by what could best be described as the orders, counter-orders and disorder that have characterised the crisis over the past month.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem was that in the initial stages of the outbreak, the Government said that people should not go to the countryside? Respectable bodies, county councils and national parks also urged people not to go into those areas. That has had a devastating impact on the tourism industries, particularly in the run-up to Easter, which is usually their busiest time.
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During the past month, MAFF has moved from saying that there was a crisis, to saying that the crisis was under control, to the political direction of the crisis effectively being in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Michael Jack: Is my hon. Friend aware that, at the Select Committee on Agriculture last Wednesday, the chief veterinary officer admitted that, apart from a shopping list exercise to buy railway sleepers and indifferent quality coal, MAFF had effectively done no desk-top, real-world scenario planning for an outbreak of this size and complexity?
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many of us are worried that MAFF appears not to have undertaken such contingency planning. In my own area of Norfolk and Suffolk, for example, we had an outbreak of swine fever last year and had thought that lessons would be learned from that. For two and a half years, I was a special adviser for the Ministry of Defence, where contingency planning, standard operating procedures and so on were the norm for dealing with major crises. I hope that the Government will learn a lesson from that, even it is too late for this crisis.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real tragedy is that the

183WH
Government did not learn the lessons of the 1967 outbreak? At the weekend, I held a meeting of experienced vets who worked through 1967 in Wem and they made an excoriating attack on the manner in which the outbreak has been handled. The words "gross ineptitude" and "far too little, far too late" were used.
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend is quite right. We have also heard that in Norfolk. There is an obvious lack of joined-up government, centrally and locally, which has led to frustration not just on the part of Members of Parliament—we are merely in the business of communicating that frustration—but of tens of thousands of our constituents. Until 10 days ago there was little co-ordination between MAFF, the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Indeed, the DETR has shifted from advising that the countryside be closed down, to the Asquithian "business as usual", to encouraging people to visit the countryside with care. Many people believe that the Government's desire to hold a general election has influenced the outcome of the crisis. That is not a view being put forward by just Conservative, Liberal Democrat or nationalist MPs; there is a widespread belief that the timing of the general election has become caught up in the handling of a major crisis, to the detriment of that crisis.
Mr. James Paice: Is my hon. Friend aware of the chief veterinary officer's statement on the DETR website, which was an attempt at joined-up government? That statement, which was removed only last weekend, specifically said that it could not be assumed that any part of the country was free of the disease—which flies wholly in the face of everything that DETR Ministers and, latterly, MAFF Ministers have been saying.
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend makes another good point. The people at the sharp end—farmers, business men, local authorities—are bewildered by the process of order, counter-order, disorder. The Prime Minister said yesterday that trying to follow the length and breadth of the disease is like trying to follow a flu germ. If hon. Members will pardon the analogy of an old military historian, it is a bit like trying to deal with the German blitzkrieg in May 1940: the Government are always building road blocks where the enemy has broken through. There is a similar lack of co-ordination.
Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the need for command and control. Only now has the MOD been properly engaged. In my area of Powys, we need not only a senior Army officer to sort out the logistical problems but the burial of livestock. Does he agree that that is urgent?
Mr. Simpson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Many of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), have been calling for weeks for greater involvement of the Army than senior military personnel only, but it is a reflection on the Government if the Army is called in on such a scale. The public know that it is a national emergency.
Mr. Eric Pickles: In the context of joined-up government, one of my constituents who deals with the equine and canine industry took advantage of the Government's offer and rang the Department of Trade and Industry to ask what help would be given. The official advised him to declare bankruptcy and contact the Department of Social Security. He contacted the DSS, but it did not have the remotest idea of what help or advice it could give him.
Mr. Simpson: I shall refer to that issue in relation to a constituent of mine a little later.
The DTI advice has shifted from "close down the countryside" to "business as usual" to "visit the countryside with care". The Government face a fundamental challenge to their political strategy: how will they square the need to implement drastic and wide-ranging measures to control foot and mouth with the need to prevent damage to the rural economy? Such damage will be serious in my constituency, and Cumbria, Scotland, Essex and Devon are close to total meltdown.
Mr. David Prior: A company in my constituency, Osprey Foods, imports beef and meat and dairy products from abroad but cannot obtain certificates to re-export those products. I hope that the Minister will address that issue in his winding-up speech.
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. A number of my constituents are similarly affected.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On behalf of the butcher trade, I wish to ask whether the Government acknowledge that butchers who might be tempted to close their businesses if the meat trade flattens might be able to survive the crisis with some transitional help, perhaps with business rates.
Mr. Simpson: I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
My constituents ate concerned that MAFF appears to have no collective memory of or ability to learn the lessons from previous crises. It learned nothing from the inquiry into the 1967 foot and mouth outbreak, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, or from the swine fever outbreak last year. The Government must address that.
The Minister's problem is that the crisis is similar to the fuel protests, but on a much wider scale. The Government are unable to comprehend the scale of the crisis and downgrade it. They say that the Opposition are making party political points. They try to move up the learning curve, but, unable to deal with the situation, they blame the people at the centre; they whip the farmers.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Without trying to downgrade the real problems in many areas, does the hon. Gentleman have any idea why the disease has not affected Norfolk? In the interest of moving along the learning curve that he mentioned, is there a message there for the rest of the country?
Mr. Simpson: The hon. Gentleman is a scientist and, I understand, an expert in the subject; I await his

185WH
contribution with great interest. It might be because of luck as much as anything else that the disease has not reached Norfolk, but my constituents and his in Norwich are praying that it does not. It is not simply a question of whether they carry on with business as usual; they are terrified.
The foot and mouth crisis must be seen against the wider slump in farming. Since 1999, farmers' incomes have fallen by 27 per cent. in real terms, and the industry's income has fallen by £700 million. Rural communities carry an enormous burden of fuel price rises, red tape and the cost of raw materials. In Norfolk and Suffolk, the pig industry is slowly recovering from the swine fever outbreak. The Minister, in his statement last week, said that the pig sector is back to 85 per cent. of its normal production. That is excellent news, but there is still a 15 per cent. gap. Farmers in Norfolk remain worried about the European Union's everything but arms proposal, which could have a dramatic impact on sugar beet production.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend addresses the plight of farming, but it is the farmers near outbreaks and with restrictions on the movement of their stock who are suffering most acutely. They could be forgiven for wondering even whether it would not be better for their farms to have the disease, because they would then receive compensation. Is it not essential for the Minister to address the plight of those farmers, in Essex and elsewhere, who are paralysed because of their proximity to outbreaks, even though there have not been any outbreaks on their farms?
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was telephoned yesterday by a constituent, Robert Long, of Hillfield farm, Scarning, who desperately wanted to move hundreds of calves. He told me that he has animals stacked up like aircraft over Heathrow airport. That is an enormous source of frustration for farmers. It is also a major animal welfare problem, which seems to be overwhelming the Government.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the problem is not only that farmers in exclusion zones are unable to move their livestock, but that MAFF is incapable of giving any answers. Farmers in my constituency, where there has been a foot and mouth outbreak, asked when their farms would be cleaned up. They did not get any answers from MAFF, so I tabled a parliamentary question, and the reply, which I received today, was simply that the Minister would reply as soon as possible. If Ministers cannot even give answers to hon. Members, what hope is there?
Mr. Simpson: I regret to have to say this to my hon. Friend, but that is what happened during the swine fever outbreak. The lesson that I learned from that outbreak was that the House was in recess when it should not have been. If we go into a long recess for a general election, our ability and our constituents' ability to press Ministers will be incredibly limited. Ministers should bear that in mind.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: On information transfer, does the hon. Gentleman agree
186WH
that it is important that farmers receive information and do not feel excluded from the decision-making loop? That would make it easier for them to act in partnership with the Government to resolve the issue. On that basis, does he agree that one lesson that we have learned already is that MAFF needs more resources for its information and communication systems?
Mr. Simpson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, when the crisis is over, the Government—whether this one or another—must seriously examine not only the organisation of MAFF, but the entire Whitehall structure that deals with food, the food industry and the environment.
Mr. Christopher Gill: My hon. Friend will be aware that Ministers have relied heavily on their officials' advice. Where that advice seems to have been faulty, or Ministers' judgment has been faulty in accepting it, why did neither of those bodies not simply accept the findings of the 1969 report and implement them immediately?
Mr. Simpson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, if there is a Government inquiry into the outbreak, that point must be made.
Farming is not an isolated activity, but part of the integrated food chain and the rural economy. We calculate that, for each person directly employed in farming in Norfolk in 1967, four were indirectly employed; now, for each person directly employed, 14 people are indirectly employed. Any impact on farming will affect not only people who are physically involved in it, but the wider community. The irony for the rural community is that, during the past 20 years, it has been asked to diversify, it has done so, and many farms now have businesses on them. If movement is restricted, despite modern information technology those businesses are likely to have a cash flow problem.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Cash flow will be a real problem for farmers who have their cattle slaughtered and for those who are unable to move their stock; farmers whose cattle are slaughtered will not be able to restock for at least six months because of the quarantine. If the Minister, who is in charge of the taskforce, is to do anything, he should co-ordinate the work of Departments. Is it not reasonable for those suffering an extreme cash flow problem to have a VAT, income tax and council tax holiday until their cash flow returns?
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend is slightly ahead of me and has eaten one of my parliamentary sandwiches. I shall come on to that subject in a few minutes.
I shall now deal briefly with the impact on the rural economy and tourism. Many hon. Members know the figures. Total expenditure in the UK in 1999 was about £64 billion, overseas visitors spent about £12.76 billion and an estimated 1.85 million jobs are in tourism. The English Tourism Council reckons that total spending by visitors to the English countryside amounts to £12 billion supporting 380,000 jobs.
What of the impact on tourism of foot and mouth disease? At parliamentary questions yesterday, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

187WH
acknowledged a potential loss of about £250 million a week now, rising to £375 million per week in April and £500 million in July. The downturn will not be short; I suspect that it will continue for some time. The Countryside Agency estimates that rural tourism losses could rise to £2 billion by the end of the Easter break.
I shall now deal specifically with the impact of foot and mouth on the economy of Norfolk. Acknowledging the argument of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr.Gibson), I am aware that Norfolk is lucky in not yet experiencing a specific case of foot and mouth, but the county has been affected. Tourism expenditure in Norfolk is about £1.3 billion a year and supports 41,000 jobs. It is a major industry by any standard. The Norfolk tourism partnership concluded that long-term bookings were down slightly, but that short-term bookings were down by as much as 50 per cent. People in the rural economy and tourism are receiving a mixed message from the Government. They recognise that unless the Government is able to contain and eradicate foot and mouth, even though it is not yet in Norfolk, the problems of the rural economy and tourism are bound to continue. The top priority must be to deal with the disease.
Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will know that many Americans visit Norfolk as well as other parts of the United Kingdom. Would he be surprised to learn that friends working in the consulate general in New York have told me that, despite the recent visit of the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to New York, bookings to the United Kingdom are more than 30 per cent. down during the coming months—which we hope will see the end of the foot and mouth outbreak—and that cancellations to all parts of the UK, including Norfolk, have reached a staggering 80 per cent?
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend is correct. I disagree with Ministers who say that continuing to talk up tourism, and stressing that large parts of the country remain unaffected, is all that we need to do. I agree in theory, but as long as the photographs and pictures continue to be published, people see the spread of disease and that is what makes the major impact.
Mr. Roger Gale: As a military historian, my hon. Friend will know that on 15 April 1986 American war planes flew from East Anglia to bomb Colonel Gadaffi. I remember it well because at that time I was in the air on my way to America to promote tourism in the United Kingdom. We arrived to face a damage control exercise with pictures of armed policemen at London airport all over American television. American tourists cancelled their holidays to the United Kingdom in droves, and that went on for months. However eccentrically charming it may be, does my hon. Friend agree that the sight of a Minister holding up a pair of green wellies on American television is unlikely to supersede the pictures of burning sheep? Should we not be dealing with foot and mouth first?
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend makes his point. I am trying not to make personal points here. We have a major problem relating to organisation and politics and
188WH
I want to hold the Government to account on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) made the point that one of the countryside activities that has been seriously affected by foot and mouth is the equestrian sector. One of my constituents, Mr. David Sayer, of Great Witchingham horse trials, had to cancel those trials and has lost more than £40,000. He is one of a number of small businesses that have been dramatically affected with the prospect of little help in the near future.
It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that the Government have come forward with packages during the past month. The Minister of Agriculture has introduced packages to help farmers. The Minister for the Environment is chairing the rural taskforce and he also outlined a series of measures. I want to put one measure to him, which he should take seriously. It was put to me by local councillors and business men in my constituency. He should go beyond what he has done already and possibly have a business rate holiday for affected businesses. The business rate will have a large impact on those businesses and a holiday might give them a breathing space. Secondly, we should seriously consider the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks for a financial package of between £10,000 and £12,000 to tide over small businesses that might otherwise go to the wall.
Mr. James Gray: We welcome the partial business rates holiday that the Government have announced, but will my hon. Friend give particular consideration to one group of people who will not benefit—small village shops and post offices, such as the one in Laycock in my constituency? It is in an affected area that already has business rate relief because of the initiative that the Conservative Government introduced. The Laycock village postmaster tells me that me that his income is down by 50 per cent. and nothing that the Government have so far announced will help him.
Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
I want to leave the Minister in no doubt, not about my feelings and those of other hon. Members, but about the feelings of my constituents about the Government's responsibility in this crisis. The Government underestimated the scale and the speed of the crisis. They lagged behind the outbreak and I fear that they still do. The Prime Minister failed to take a strategic grip until last Thursday or Friday. It took the report of the vets to frighten him into realising that he was standing at the edge of an abyss. I make no criticism of the Minister for the Environment, but a Minister of State is not at the right pay scale to chair the rural taskforce.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks was laughed at by the Prime Minister when he talked about having a war committee, but that is what is required. We need a committee of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, like Banquo's ghost, haunts proceedings but leaves no fingerprints—and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The taskforce must be at that level to come to grips with the crisis, which is now at a national level. We have a mixed and muddled message about the need to isolate and eradicate foot and mouth while underestimating the impact on the rural economy.

189WH
Finally, many people, not all of them Conservative, Liberal or nationalist voters, are amazed that the Government appear to be more concerned about their preparations for the general election than the crisis. As one constituent put it to me yesterday afternoon, it is not just a question of what Ministers will be doing, but whether they will apply themselves to the real issues of the general election. Far from postponing the election sending a message to the world, as The Sun would have us believe, that Britain is not working, it would show that, unfortunately, Britain is only partly working, but that the Government are determined to get on top of it.
Mr. Tom King: Most hon. Members will agree that Members of Parliament have a role to play in this crisis. When MAFF is stretched beyond the limit, all sorts of problems arise. The impact on tourism in Norfolk is a sideshow compared with what is happening in my constituency. I had to tell people at a meeting in Porlock on Friday that there was a chance that in a week's time I would no longer be able to help them, because I would cease to have any authority to act; under the rules of reply, Ministry officials will presumably not be able to deal With ex-Members of Parliament. I find that obscene
Mr. Simpson: My right hon. Friend, for whom I worked when he was Secretary of State for Defence, has great experience of Parliament, and knows how to handle crises.
I know that the Minister is pressed for time and my hon. Friends and I have asked him many questions. The views that I have expressed are not mine alone; they are shared by a wide range of my constituents. The Government are in a hole and they had better stop digging.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I repeat that an unprecedented number of Members rightly want to contribute to the debate, and, if all are brief, the majority will be able to speak.
10.1 am
Mr. David Drew: I shall take careful note of what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The debate comes at a particularly difficult time. In Berkeley in my constituency seven farms have already had to implement the slaughter policy and another 11—one of which has special breeds—will have to lose all their livestock. That is the result of the proactive policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment does not speak for MAFF, but he could help with the definition of "contiguous" because it is open to misinterpretation. We must be fair to all those affected and ensure that they know the likelihood of their being involved in such dramatic action.
I was disappointed that, unlike today's debate, last week's debate on the Government's approach to food policy was not well attended, as this is not a one-off issue. The current foot and mouth epidemic, crisis or catastrophe does not come out of the blue. It comes on the back of BSE, bovine tuberculosis, which has had a
190WH
dramatic effect on the dairy herds in my constituency, and, in certain parts of the country, classical swine fever. If we do not learn how animal life is affected by one crisis after another, we do nothing in politics. We must learn the lessons very quickly.
I have said many times that the food chain has been over-centralised; that is nothing new. There is a case for re-localising, but this is not the time or the place to argue that point. However, from an agricultural perspective, there are some immediate lessons to learn about how the issue is being handled. One problem is that we keep alluding to 1967, but the current situation is on a completely different scale because of how the food chain operates and its much greater impact on the wider rural economy.
Some difficult issues need to be unpacked. I want my right hon. Friend to announce how the strategy of the taskforce is evolving and the amount of compensation that will be made available. I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will address those matters, if he makes a statement this afternoon.
Although I do not underestimate the impact of the crisis on the rural economy, it is strange that Opposition Members are proposing massive state intervention, not least because of the financial implications. One of the agricultural industry's problems is that it veers between believing that it is a private enterprise—which it is, at the level of the individual farm—and acknowledging that it is subject to enormous intervention from national Government and Europe. That contradiction impacts on both farming and the wider rural economy, and it is important that it is appropriately addressed. If it is not, the criticisms that I and others have of the common agricultural policy will be exacerbated.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The crisis would not have been as great if the Army had been involved earlier.
Mr. Drew: It is easy to say that. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] Hon. Members may say that, but I have liased daily with my local Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food office, and I have talked with farmers and their representatives, and it is clear that, from the outset, more specialists were needed, but the Army does not employ many vets, and neither has it customarily performed the role of slaughterer or contractor. However, it certainly has a logistical role to play, and the forthcoming investigation will examine whether it should have been called on earlier to play it. One may easily assert that with the benefit of hindsight, but the disease has spread more quickly than expected.
Mr. Paice: Last week, the Prime Minister told the House that there was not a shortage of slaughterers, and that it would not be necessary to accept offers of help from hunts and other organisations. There is no excuse for the fact that the slaughter of infected animals has not kept pace with their diagnosis. On Friday, the chief scientific officer announced that the average delay had lengthened to three days. The widespread infection has

191WH
been caused by that delay: the chief scientific officer said that if it were reduced to 24 hours, the disease would rapidly be brought under control.
Mr. Drew: That was not a helpful intervention, but I will try to answer the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Some regions have experienced problems in terms of disposal rather than slaughter. I have religiously checked with my MAFF office, and it is satisfied with the current slaughter arrangements. There is, however, a missing ingredient that must not be overlooked. It is understandable that money matters, such as valuation and settlement, should generate considerable emotion, but if individual farmers' concerns were ignored, the entire process could be accelerated. However, those concerns must be addressed, because the United Kingdom is a democracy. The Government require consensus to rule and although they might want to exercise greater power, the farmers are under enormous strain and some of them might not readily agree to compensation packages that were imposed on them. That would create greater problems.
It has been alleged—I will not use a stronger term—that there have been instances of stock being illegally transported, although that has not happened in the region that I represent. That has also created problems.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has been speaking about the taskforce, but it is also important to examine the implications of the crisis for the wider rural economy. How will the farming industry be rebuilt? How will farmers restock during the six-month quarantine, and how will they generate income in that period?
It is also important to address the implications of the crisis for the wide variety of businesses that are involved in the rural economy. My right hon. Friend may care to write to all hon. Members with a clear statement about exactly what help is available to businesses—not only those in the most affected areas, such as my constituency, but those that have suffered lost tourism business.
Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Drew: Not at the moment, as other hon. Members want to speak.
The viability of some businesses is contingent on what happens in rural Britain. We are dealing with a difficult message. I accept that that message has not always been right, but we must try to keep the rural economy functioning while a large segment of it is effectively closed down because of its wildlife and these tragic circumstances.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will clearly restate exactly how we are approaching the matter. We must ensure that we give money to those who are suffering enormous cash flow problems. We must also send the message that we are trying to ensure that tourists can visit the places that they want to see. I have been rather taken aback by how the idea is bandied around that the countryside is open or closed, when some places, such as
192WH
the vast majority of market towns, are accessible, and there is no reason for people not to visit them. That is the message that we should send.
We must also ensure that in the short run businesses receive help with their cash flow and taxation. We should introduce measures to help them to relaunch their business, as that is what they must do. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do that today, in liaison with MAFF and the Prime Minister, in order to send the difficult but essential message that we must rebuild the rural economy and that we cannot start a day too soon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to make short speeches. Many hon. Members want to speak on behalf of their constituents. If they limit their remarks to about three minutes, a worthwhile number of them will be able to speak.
10.12 am
Mr. Tom King: I have already commented on the need for Members of Parliament to be able to continue to help their constituents during this appalling crisis. I follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I have just received the latest issue of the foot and mouth bulletin, which is produced by the south-west National Farmers Union and is a most excellent document. It will not have made pleasant reading for him, as the last two days have seen a rash of new cases in Devon and Gloucestershire, heightening fears that those counties may be following the pattern established in Cumbria. The simple statement made by a gentleman who was standing beside the Prime Minister in Exeter on Saturday, Anthony Gibson, who has been very much involved in the communication, highlights the scale of the problem. I know that the Minister was in Taunton and Devon and will understand the scale the problem.
I have here a copy of the 1968 inquiry. Now is not the time to discuss the issues involved, but serious questions will have to be asked, and a full public inquiry or royal commission will have to be held into how the matter was handled. It is a scandal that the matter has got out of control, but I shall not discuss that today.
On Friday evening, I visited and had a meeting in Porlock in my constituency. Porlock is on the edge of a national park—Exmoor—which, thank God, does not have foot and mouth at the moment, although it is creeping all around the area. Following the announcements that Combe Martin and Blackmoor Gate, a big cattle auction area, are now in an infected area, the disease could be drawing towards Exmoor. Exmoor is, rightly, closed. It has a fabulous herd of red deer, and, following the terrors of what is happening in the Lake district, we have the same terrible fears of what might happen on Exmoor if the disease got into the red deer. Arguments have been advanced about whether red deer are susceptible to this strain of foot and mouth, but we do not want to run such risks.
I want to discuss the role of the rural economy. At Wednesday evening's meeting there were 200 people who run various forms of business, including rural accommodation, holiday accommodation, caravan parks, pony trekking and various events and

193WH
attractions. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) is lucky. The people I met have no bookings at all. Everyone has cancelled, having been told that Exmoor is closed for riding or walking holidays. Many other Members of Parliament will share my experience. Those people say that they are four weeks from meltdown, which is about as long as they hope that the bank manager will not come to call. They do not know where to turn. I am an experienced Member of Parliament and I felt as hopeless in that meeting as I have ever felt. Those people had built up livelihoods. I could not think how to advise them on how to survive.
I can make a special case for Exmoor. It is a national park with a fabulous and important herd of red deer. Rural business people could encourage others to visit the park and say that they can walk on the roads and the lanes, but they do not want to do that because they know that their whole business is built around the attractions of Exmoor and its herd, and they do not want to put it at risk. They were terribly torn and asked me what they could do.
My hon. Friends have made various suggestions, such as that concerning the business rate and the Inland Revenue not calling for its money in a hurry, and for a sensitive and intelligent approach to be taken by banks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) suggested in a non-partisan manner to the Prime Minister that some form of interest relief grant from the banks might see people through and the Prime Minister said that he would consider that. I am not sure how much of the tourism structure will survive. I am also conscious that, depressed though farming is given the state of fanning prices, many agricultural diversifications, such as farm accommodation and bed and breakfast, will also be affected, leading to a further destruction in farming incomes. Tourism will be the most difficult problem for the Minister. We will see a significant part of its fabric collapse
Somerset county council and o hers have appealed for the power to close roads. A road over the top of the Quantocks is not too heavily used. There are alternative routes. I think that the Minister knows the Quantocks well. It has a deer herd. The access roads on the southern flanks of Exmoor should be closed There are infected areas to the south of Exmoor. There should be powers at least to restrict the use of minor roads and to establish an intensive disinfectant operation perhaps with Army support on the southern roads There should be access only to a limited number of roads on Exmoor.
Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, helpfully said in the other place that the county council had powers to close the roads. The county solicitor told me that it did not have such powers. I tried to clarify the matter and contacted a senior lawyer in the DETR who said that he did not know who had advised Lord Whitty, but that the Department has no more powers concerning non-infected areas than a county council, and that neither of them had the power to close roads. The only way round the problem is to use emergency powers.
Mr. Jenkin: A fortnight ago, I wrote to the Minister for the Environment about road closures, because they 194WH
affected outbreaks in my constituency. I have yet to receive a reply and I hope that he can deal with that matter when he responds to the debate.
Mr. King: If Exmoor becomes an infected area, we will have the power to close the roads. I admired the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he talked about the precautionary principle, but that now seems to have been lost. I telephoned the Benefits Agency about people who will be laid off and asked what plans had been made for them. As a Member of Parliament, I can get a reasonably good service, but it did not seem to be switched on to the problem or to have any idea about it. No message seemed to have come down from above saying, "Make sure you are ready to help such people."
10.19 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be extremely brief. I rise to speak at a time of great and unprecedented crisis and with a heavy heart. A cull started on a farm in central Cheshire at 9 o'clock this morning, and the Cheshire show has been cancelled. During the weekend, the foot and mouth outbreak spread to my constituency. The farmer, Mr. Malcolm Evans, knew exactly where it came from—it was borne on the wind from the rendering plant at Widnes. We should have listened to the farmers early on. Farmers have long careers of 50 years or more working on the land. Many of them were working during the last crisis in 1967, and knew how to deal with animals by instant dispatch and burial on site in deep pits. Diseased, infected carcases were not transported through the open countryside.
However, this outbreak has happened and it is not under control. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) accurately stated, farming is not an isolated activity; it is bound up in the welfare of the entire rural economy. Businesses in my constituency are facing bankruptcy—not in the medium or long term, but next week and the week after on an escalating scale. It is time for a Marshall plan, because we are, in a sense, at war with the virus that is wreaking havoc on the lives of the people whom we represent.
This is not the time for us to be without Members of Parliament, although I share the sense of helplessness of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), a much more experienced parliamentarian than I am. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister will go to the country and will be electioneering instead of getting a hold on the crisis. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for the Environment will also be electioneering. It is time to get a hold on this crisis. There is also the question of respect and dignity for those suffering in the countryside. This is a time for special measures and intervention—not for politics as usual.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that brief speech.
10.21 am
Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), because that may well have been his last speech as a Member of Parliament. I sympathise with

195WH
him for the plight of his constituents. My constituents in Brentwood and Ongar were the first to suffer the fear of foot and mouth and they continue to do so.
In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), I raised the plight of my constituent, Mr. Lipman, who lives in the village of Abridge. Eight years ago he started a successful equine and canine business that supplies leather goods. His entire trade is at country fairs in this country and on the continent. His business has now virtually closed down because fairs and county shows have been cancelled and he is not welcome on the continent where—he told me this morning—there have been instances of tyres being slashed and lorries being stoned. He cannot do anything.
One would have thought that the Government would want to help such a person, whose business is dependent on the countryside. However, he does not qualify because, geographically, Abridge is outside the Government's definition of the countryside. It does not matter that Abridge is entirely surrounded by fields in a rural part of Essex. Mr. Lipman thought that the Government would help, so he rang the DTI and said, "I run a successful business, but I have a liquidity problem and no money coming in. What can you do to help me?" As I told my hon. Friends a few moments ago, the advice was to go bankrupt.
I thought that the DTI was supposed to be in the business of preserving companies. Mr. Lipman's company is not inefficient; it is a good company with enormous prospects. Had the foot and mouth outbreak not happened, the company would be standing high in the esteem of the local community. The DTI then said, "If you contact the Department of Social Security, it may be able to offer help, because it has been given instructions to be flexible," but when he made that contact he found no flexibility whatever. No one knows what they are supposed to be doing and no one has received any instructions. The Government need better co-ordination.
10.24 am
Mr. David Rendel: I begin by pointing out the sheer variety of industries, other than farming and tourism, that are affected by the disease. There is an outdoor clothing business in the middle of Newbury that will not receive any of the advantages that have been offered in terms of rate relief. Last week, its takings were down by 50 per cent. There is also a veterinary diagnosis and consultancy business in my constituency. It cannot get any samples in, so the business is collapsing completely. Each business may employ only a handful of people, but such people are threatened with redundancy almost immediately.
Another business, which deals with pet food and bedding, is finding that goods cannot be moved away from the area because an affected flock is too close to it—movement has been restricted in the area. My constituency also contains Sheepdrove organic farm and Elm Farm research centre, and I am pleased that the Government have taken notice of the research work on vaccination that has been done. It should be considered seriously, whether it is the right policy or not.
196WH
I wish to concentrate on the racing industry because, although it is not peculiar to my constituency, there is a great preponderance of it there, unlike in most other parts of the country Many people think that racing is not affected and is all right—it shut down for seven weeks and then started again. However, although the weather has been so appalling that it has caused several meetings to be cancelled, meetings have been lost explicitly because of foot and mouth disease. People who rely on odd earnings—perhaps once a month—to upgrade their poor incomes have entirely lost that. Such people are programme sellers, providers of refreshments and some on-course bookmakers. They may earn only a small amount from racing, but are dependent on it to eke out an otherwise meagre standard of living.
Trainers and owners are involved in racing, although some people may think that owners will do better from a cancellation because they usually lose money from racing, rather than gaining it. However, racing is important to jockeys and, particularly, self-employed jockeys, who are paid for each race in which they ride, rather than a retainer. If races are cancelled, such jockeys may find that their income quickly drops. They are not being offered compensation.
People feel that it is unfair that farmers automatically receive compensation for loss of stock, but that no other people are given compensation, even when they may be losing as much of their livelihood as the farmers. I hope that the Government will recognise the feeling that the current compensation method is unfair to people who suffer consequential losses, rather than to farmers who suffer direct losses.
10.27 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The foot and mouth outbreak has made the extent to which the country's economy depends on agriculture eye-openingly clear. The Minister will have noticed the headline in today's issue of The Times, which shows that the Government are blaming the outbreak on smuggled meat. I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 15 November 2000 to point out that I had heard reports of meat that had been illegally imported from France via Ireland. In February—two and a half months later—I received a reply that said that such imports could not take place because they are illegal. Hon. Members will form their own conclusions on the adequacy of that reply, and the fact that the outbreak is being blamed on that cause.
My second point, and the principal concern in my constituency—where there is not currently an outbreak—is the sheer difficulty that farmers and producers experience in obtaining clear instructions and directions from MAFF. Of course, we have already experienced such events through classical swine fever. However, one example will suffice, such as the farmer who approached me this weekend with what appeared to be the simple problem of the disposal of dirty water that results from pig production. He told me that when he asked MAFF for advice, he was told, "It is your problem." He added that it would be illegal to spread the water with his machines, and that he would be fined for doing that. However, to do what MAFF asks would also be illegal, and he would be fined by the

197WH
Environment Agency because the water would go through the drains. People at risk of losing their livelihoods do not need that kind of aggravation.
Thirdly, it is the Government's prerogative to call a general election when they choose. The public know that they do not need to do so for another year. If they do call an election, however, they must be able to give a full assurance to people affected or potentially affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth that a general election campaign will in no way affect the spread of the disease. They must also assure the public that they will be able to give their full ministerial attention to fighting the disease, which they describe as a crisis, while fighting a general election that they do not have to hold. As hon. Members have said, it is at this precise moment that we need Parliament, and Members of Parliament to question Ministers on the progress of the disease. Whichever choice the Government make, their conduct will be judged as evidence of their concern for rural Britain.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall use my discretion and call one more Back-Bench Member.
10.30 am
Mr. Tony Baldry: I shall be extremely brief. I wish to make two points.
In a written answer to me last week, the Minister said that his remit was to kick-start the rural economy once foot and mouth had been eradicated. That begs two questions. What does the phrase "to kick-start" mean? It is one of those wonderful new Labour phrases that is intended to give the impression of something happening. Every indication is that the foot and mouth outbreak will not be eradicated for months. If the Minister has not heard the voices it this Chamber today, I should tell him that the countryside wants action now, not months in the future.
The countryside needs information. There was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in my constituency, at Grange farm, Little Chesterton, some weeks ago. It is not sufficient merely to slaughter the affected animals; a MAFF-supervised clean-up of the farm is necessary. The farmer is still waiting to know when that will happen. Farmers whose farms art near to an exclusion zone want to know when they will be able to move their stock, but no one is telling them anything, and no one is telling the National Farmers Union anything.
Last week, I tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister of Agriculture, asking when he expected the post-slaughter clean-up at Grange farm to begin. I received a reply from the Minister today, saying that he would reply as soon as possible If MAFF cannot even tell Members of Parliament when a clean-up will start on farms on which an organised foot and mouth slaughter took place weeks ago, the epidemic is totally out of the Government's control and the sooner the Government get a grip on the matter the better.
10.33 am
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this debate on the impact of
198WH
foot and mouth on the rural economy. He rightly spent 20 minutes talking about agriculture. All hon. Members who represent rural constituencies understand that the impact on agriculture is total and absolute, and that is why we underline it constantly.
I said last week that those whose farms were not infected and were outside restricted areas felt that the sword of Damocles was hanging over their head. Floods provide a better analogy—people see the water lapping around their buildings, take precautions and put out the sandbags, but they know that once the water breaches those defences, disaster will ensue. That is how people feel in the dairy lands of Somerset. The crisis affects not only farmers but everyone associated with them. Last Sunday was Mothers' day, so perhaps it is right to recognise that the families of farmers are as affected as much as the farmers themselves. There are, of course, also women farmers.
I do not want to rehearse the same arguments that we had in last week's debate on agriculture. Those arguments have been well ventilated. The halving of the number of state veterinary surgeons in the country was not helpful. Nevertheless, contingency plans were clearly not in place; adequate senior management was not focused on the infection at an early enough stage. The logistics have proved to be a shambles.
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, along with us, pointed out the potential problem at the time of the classical swine fever outbreak. Last autumn, we said clearly that if the resources available for classical swine fever had to be stretched further, disaster would ensue—and it has.
Mr. Heath: The right hon. Lady is correct. Very few of the lessons of the classical swine fever outbreak in East Anglia seem to have been learned and put into practice in dealing with this epidemic. Issues such as the welfare of animals, putting a floor to commodity prices and how we deal with this crisis continue to exist.
I introduce one note of caution. A bandwagon appears to be developing in favour of vaccination, but I would treat that with care. Vaccination may have a part to play, but no more than that, because there are clear difficulties in using it. I would not like an orthodoxy to develop that perceived vaccination as a panacea and thought that we would be free of foot and mouth if the Government introduced vaccination measures. That is nonsense.
Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: No. I do not have time. I know that the hon. Gentleman has theories about borax, but we must continue with this debate.
This debate relates to the extent of the impact of foot and mouth on the rural economy as a whole. It is impossible to overstate that impact. I was staggered to discover, when I talked to people in the high streets of the smaller towns and villages in my constituency in Somerset one week after the start of the epidemic, that everybody's businesses already showed a downturn in turnover. It did not matter what kind of business it was—the impact was felt by not only those directly related to tourism but newsagents, butchers and gift

199WH
shops. Everybody felt the impact of the cancellations and the lack of money coming into the rural economy, because sociably responsible people who would usually visit rural areas such as mine at weekends no longer do so. They have read in The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph or wherever that they should not visit the countryside, so they do not—and who is to say that they are wrong?
It is difficult to know how to deal with the problems. The Minister has stressed that the countryside is open. Yes, it is open—but there are heavy caveats. I would still be worried if I saw people using footpaths across dairy lands in Somerset or wandering at will around our country lanes. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, those lanes should be closed as a sensible precaution, because they provide access only to farm lands.
How do we deal with the lack of turnover and the cash flow problems that businesses are experiencing? Suggestions have been made, such as revaluing for business rates purposes. Will the Minister tell us how many revaluations he expects to put through the system in what period of time? How will that have an immediate effect?
A VAT holiday or another kind of tax holiday has also been suggested. That could make a difference, but any business that uses a deferred payment of VAT or another tax to maintain its current cash flow is in line for perdition and needs to treat the matter with great care.
Large estate owners must consider whether the rental on agricultural land and agricultural businesses should be revised. I made that point to the hon. gentleman representing the Church Commissioners yesterday. The rental might be reduced and made more appropriate, and that might be backdated to Lady day or before.
The definitions of rural areas used by the Minister present some difficulties. I do not accept that we are dealing only with centres of population of less than 3,000, which is the traditional yardstick, because the market towns that are suffering do not come into that category. Anyone who understands the country knows that business goes on in the towns rather than in rural areas. We need to deal with that.
We need greater clarity because we are getting mixed messages. We still do not know what activities can and cannot appropriately be continued. There is the question, for example, of whether to cancel the Royal Bath and West agricultural show, which is enormously important to many small businesses as a showpiece and shop window. I was with representatives of the show on Friday and they do not know whether they should go ahead without animals. There is difficulty with instructions to Departments—whether the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise or the Department of Social Security—which are simply not receiving clear guidance. They do not know what they are supposed to be doing, and at this stage in a crisis, they should know.
There is also the issue of resources. We still have been given no clear view on consequential loss or compensation. We are constantly told that agrimonetary compensation was the payment to the farmers. It was not; that was for a totally different purpose. It certainly helps in the current crisis but we
200WH
need proper compensation. Will we get it? The Minister has a taskforce but it has no financial backing. Surely it is time that contingency funds were made available so that it can do the job with which it is entrusted.
Finally, the crisis has made it clear that MAFF is not a rural affairs department. The more that MAFF has concentrated on its narrow viewpoint, the worse a job it has done for the wider rural economy. Surely it is time that we had better co-ordination in Government affairs to ensure that rural areas are properly represented, as they should be.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his discipline.
10.41 am
Mr. Damian Green: This has been a sombre debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) deserves to be congratulated on utilising this Chamber, probably as well as it ever has been, to address the most serious issue facing the country at the moment. The position of the Opposition has been clear throughout the crisis; we will support the Government when we can and criticise it when we must. That is the role of a responsible Opposition and we will continue to carry it out.
We have heard this morning about the many inadequacies of MAFF in dealing with the outbreak, particularly its lack of clear, speedy information to farmers. I know that from my own constituency experience; I get daily phone calls from desperate farmers who simply want advice and clear guidance. Five or six weeks into the crisis they are still not getting it. That is one of the most urgent issues that the Government need to address.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Government will shortly have to deal with the serious issue of advice to farmers on whether to turn their stock out. Many will not have enough fodder to keep the animals in sheds and once they go into the fields the disease is likely to spread much more quickly and over a much bigger geographical area. We need clear advice on that matter.
Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is of course right. There will be other times and opportunities to discuss many of the purely agricultural issues surrounding the tragedy, but today I want to concentrate mainly on non-farming matters, particularly the activities of the taskforce, which the Minister is in charge of—I use the word "activities" loosely. The first outbreak of the disease was notified to MAFF as far back as 18 February. On 11 March, the Minister for Agriculture said that the outbreak was under control—a catastrophically wrong analysis, as events have proved—and it was during that week that the Minister's taskforce was set up. On 20 March, he made a statement to the House about its preliminary findings, including several announcements on business rates, holidays, the attitudes of banks and other ways of helping business through the immediate cash flow problems, which, if they are put into practice, will be welcome. Hon Members have referred to several of those announcements this morning. The rest of the statement largely consisted of aspirations to reopen tourist attractions—aspirations that may or may not come to mean anything, depending on the spread of the disease.

201WH
Since then, the taskforce for which the Minister is responsible has largely disappeared from sight and he must answer the charge that it was set up too late, has been half-hearted in its actions and has simply been overwhelmed by the scale of the crisis. The effect of the Minister's taskforce has been like that of opening an umbrella in a hurricane. In confronting a rapidly growing and spreading national crisis, it has proceeded like a normal Whitehall committee, thinking that it has all the time in the world.
I am afraid that the Government have not got to grips with the root of the problem, which is dual control. The Minister sees it as his job to repeat as a mantra, "The countryside is open for business." He says that things are fairly normal across the countryside, while, on the other side of the street, MAFF is, rightly, trying to close down large parts of the countryside to avoid the spread of this terrible disease. Sending out not only mixed messages, but flatly contradictory messages has left all those at the sharp end of the crisis feeling confused and increasingly angry. People's livelihoods are disappearing by the day. That is not remotely a political point. The least that they can expect from any Government is clear leadership and clear messages, but they have been failed miserably during this crisis.
Also lacking is a proper attitude by the taskforce to the scale of the crisis. To take one example, the tourist-industry is clearly suffering greatly. The Government said that British tourism would get a £10 million cash injection to counter misinformation about foot and mouth, but the Cumbria tourist board estimates that the county is losing £8 million to £10 million a week. That illustrates the inadequacy of the scale of the Government's response.
Many hon. Friends have mentioned specific companies and industries that are badly affected. I should like the Minister to address another—the angling industry. The National Angling Alliance says that it
"represents six major angling organisation…There are 3.3 million anglers in the UK and the industry had a turnover of £3.3 billion in 1994."
It says that the foot and mouth epidemic is having "a huge impact" on their businesses. The secretariat writes that
"the Government does not appear to recognise either the importance of angling or our contribution to the rural economy. The NAA estimates that angling and fishery businesses are losing some £7 million each week".
That is just one example of a sector that is being almost totally destroyed by the outbreak, which feels that the scale of the Government's response is not adequate.
Simply repeating that the countryside is open for business is not good enough. We all wish that it were open for business, but increasingly it cannot be. During the past 24 hours, we have heard the Minister say that we should not get over-excited about the problems in the Lake district and that, so far, there has been only one outbreak in the national park. In this morning's newspapers, however, people involved in selling and managing the Lake district as a tourist destination use phrases such as "a doomsday scenario". In all conscience, I must tell the Minister that, if the people whose job is to keep tourist destinations alive are using such phrases, Ministers who say that we should not
202WH
worry and things are reasonably normal sound increasingly like Corporal Jones in "Dad's Army". They say, "Don't panic", but are in fact increasing the level of panic. They do not measure up to the scale of the crisis.
I have some sympathy for the Minister, because he is at the sharp end of a Government who are trying to face both ways. If they take determined measures to save our remaining livestock, they could damage the tourism industry. If they try to save the tourism industry over the next few months, they may put at risk thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, more animals. I agree that that is a dilemma, but to do neither effectively and end up doing unnecessary and permanent damage to the livestock industry and rural tourism would be unforgivable by both the agriculture and tourism industries, and I am afraid that that is what is happening at the moment. The Minister is aware of the dilemma. Many people, particularly those whose livelihoods are at stake, have some sympathy for him, but it will disappear in a second if it seems that the Government's eyes are focused elsewhere.
This morning we heard the Prime Minister say that he would strain every sinew to solve the crisis. If he is straining every sinew this Tuesday, I hope that he is still straining to solve the crisis next Monday when he might be calling a general election. If he does, it will be starkly clear to people in the countryside whose livelihoods are at stake that he did not mean it when he said that he was straining every sinew, but that that was just today's soundbite. Soundbites are not enough to solve the crisis. People will feel betrayed by the Government. I hope that the Minister will take with him the clear message that, so far, the Government have not measured up to the scale and extent of a crisis that is devastating large areas of our countryside.
10.50 am
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing the debate. It is recognised on all sides that it is a matter of extreme gravity. I pay tribute to the largely sober manner in which the hon. Gentleman debated the issues. It is extremely serious and should not be a party political matter. Everyone wants to overcome the crisis.
Many of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) were directed at my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I shall attempt to reply to as many points as possible, including questions about agriculture.
First, let me make it clear that neither the Government, not the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, nor the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ever said that people should simply keep out of the countryside. What they said right from the beginning was that people should be careful about where they went in the countryside. We have consistently argued that susceptible livestock must be avoided and that people should keep away from farmland, particularly in infected areas. Above all, we encouraged people to obey the "Keep out" signs. All that is obvious, but there remains a large part of the countryside that people can safely visit.

203WH
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) that the Government face a difficult dilemma. Our paramount concern is to do everything possible to contain and eradicate the disease. The whole nation shares that view and is co-operating with the Government. At the same time, however, because of the size and importance of the tourism industry—our fifth largest and worth £65 billion—we must also take account of the needs of small businesses, tourist attractions and the ancillary and related retail sector, which has been severely damaged as a result of the crisis. We are trying to walk a difficult tightrope between the two. Our message is that it is possible to enter large swathes of the countryside perfectly safely as long as the basic rules are obeyed. I do not know of any alternative sensible policy that we could adopt.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) asked about contingency planning. Obviously, there will be an inquiry later into the handling of the crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, the present outbreak is unprecedented. It is on a wholly different scale from that in 1967, to which I shall return later.
Mr. Tredinnick: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher: I have only seven minutes and cannot give way.
On joined-up government, we shall have to investigate with a fine toothcomb later, but I suspect that the DETR and MAFF have liaised from the start. The rural taskforce includes Ministers from the DETR, MAFF, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the DTI, representatives from No. 10 and all stakeholder interests. The Prime Minister is now presiding over the multi-departmental committee under the COBRA procedure—named after Cabinet Office briefing room A. I insist that close co-operation has been evident throughout.
I know that hon. Gentlemen strongly believe that the Army should have been brought in earlier. We have never had any objection to bringing the Army in, the question was whether the Army was most suitable for the tasks that we faced, including dealing with the lack of vets. There are still insufficient vets—
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Meacher: No, I am sorry. There are myriad questions, but I have many points to answer.
We have significantly increased the number of vets but there is still a shortage. However, the problem with slaughtermen and JCBs has largely been overcome. There is also the logistical problem of handling a crisis of this scale. The Army has great skills in that, which is why we brought it in.
I turn to the measures that we have sought to take. Several hon. Members have acknowledged the financial package in the first statement that I made last week.
204WH
First, there will be business rates relief. For many small businesses that will pay perhaps £1,250 over six months. The size of the package will be a complete rates holiday. We have increased the amount that the Government will fund from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that some businesses, such as outdoor clothing and pet food, are outside the area. But there is still the 75:25 break-down between Government and local authorities that local authorities can invoke to help those outside the immediate area, such as those in rural areas and in the hardest hit areas and businesses with a rateable value of less than £12,000. That is the prime concern.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Meacher: I cannot give way even to my hon. Friend. I have refused to give way to others and I must refuse to give way to him too.
There will be a rescheduling and deferment of VAT and PAYE, so far as there is discretion within the legislation. I have spoken to the banks about extending lines of credit and easing interest payments and the whole question of holidays for capital repayments. Many hon. Members argue that there is a case for further interest relief, and we are considering that. I made it clear that the original statement was a preliminary package. I intend to come forward at an early point with further measures. I can assure the hon. Member for Ashford, who suggested that the rural taskforce has disappeared, that it is exceedingly active. I am devoting 18 hours a day to its activities, and it is meeting tomorrow We will consider the matter and a number of other measures and will come forward with further action.
We are extremely conscious that damage has been done. Utterly inaccurate and hysterical stories have been produced about the state of the country, such as that it is not safe to eat here or that people need to be disinfected when they return to the United States. We are funding the British Tourist Authority to try to correct that image. We are telling our embassies and posts abroad to do all that they can to monitor the newspapers and broadcasts to try to correct immediately any of those absurd travesties.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) made point about putting the blame on smuggled meat. We are not apportioning blame; we are trying to find out the cause. If that was the cause, we certainly need to deal with it. She said that clear directions from MAFF were needed, and several right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned that. We realise that. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater fairly stated, because of his track record and his knowledge of ministerial life, the pressures on MAFF at the moment are nearly intolerable. The people at MAFF are doing their best and coping extremely well with an enormous crisis that in some ways is almost unprecedented.
We appreciate that there is a need for clear directions for all sorts of people, and we are trying to deal with that. When we say that we will reply to letters as soon as possible, that is exactly so.

205WH
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) asked what I meant by kick-starting the economy. Our first concern is to overcome the crisis and to provide rates relief and assistance with deferment of other statutory payments that have to be made to tide people over the crisis. That is our first concern, but there must be a rural regeneration package. We will implement the rural White Paper proposals as soon as we can when we begin to reduce the number of—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an important debate, but I regret that time is up.

Scottish Economy
11 am
Mr. Eric Joyce: Thank you, Mr. Winterton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I remind the hon. Gentleman that fortunately, because of a motion of the House, I can now be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Joyce: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and congratulations.
The last full financial year showed Scotland's manufacturing sector output growing 2 per cent. faster than the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland's share of United Kingdom-manufactured exports is considerably higher than its share of manufacturing employment. That can be explained partly by Scotland's success in attracting export-oriented inward investments; it is also attributable to the excellent productivity of Scotland's workers.
The Scottish National party argues that the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee takes decisions that favour the service sector in the south-east at the expense of the Scottish manufacturing sector, yet the fact that Scottish-based manufacturing industries are out-performing their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom is core evidence that the SNP's premise does not stand up.
Scotland's economy is integral to that of the United Kingdom and its success is due in large part to our competitiveness in the global market. Non-United Kingdom companies now produce more than 70 per cent. of all Scottish manufactured exports and 10 Scottish exporters account for roughly 50 per cent. of the total of Scottish manufactured export sales. The electronics sector is particularly important, accounting for about 53 per cent. of all exports.
Employer survey data suggests that manufacturing employment is still falling, which is worrying to those in that sector. There is no doubt that the difficult conditions in the global economy put pressures on all industrialised countries, as well as Scottish manufacturers. However, Scottish firms are performing well, all things considered, and are well placed to benefit from recent improvements in the global outlook.
That said, Scotland, in line with most developed economies, has seen a significant decline in employment in manufacturing in the past 20 years. During that period the number employed has fallen by a third to about 300,000. That represents 30 per cent. of total employment in Scotland. Much of the decline can be explained by the long-term trend of job losses in the large, labour-intensive industries such as shipbuilding, textiles and steel. However, during the same period, the total number of jobs in Scotland has increased as the growth of the service sector and new high-tech industries, particularly electronics, has more than compensated for the loss of traditional manufacturing jobs.
Manufacturing still accounts for about one fifth of Scottish gross domestic product, however, and it remains the case that there are significant links between

207WH
manufacturing and the rest of the economy. For example, it is estimated that Scottish manufacturers spend more than £6 billion per annum on services from companies in Scotland. Manufacturing, therefore, remains a significant contributor to Scottish GDP when direct and indirect contributions are taken into account.
My constituency, Falkirk West, serves as a microcosm of the Scottish economy. Historically, the iron industry employed a high number of men in the area. In the past quarter of a century, conforming to wider economic trends, most of the foundries have closed. For many, that has been a painful process, and unemployment was high during the Conservative years. In the past four years, however, under the Labour Government, while there remains much to do, employment levels in Falkirk have grown well, and 74 per cent. of working-age people are now in work—the Scottish average is 72 per cent.—and unemployment is down by more than a third on 1997. Much of that is because local people have embraced the need to change with the times. New industries have moved in to replace older ones, taking advantage of central Scotland's excellent communications links and the productivity and enthusiasm of local workers. Jobs may be lost from time to time—for example, in the metals industries, and in the former Wrangler factory, at Camelon—others take their place, with substantial recent investment by companies such as Thomas Cook and Telecom service centres in Larbert, and Scottish Power.
There is no single response to the globalisation of services and products, however, and modernisation cuts across the whole of society and the economy. Our success or failure in the years to come will be based largely on our ability to adapt quickly to the changing nature of the world's economy.
It is therefore vital that we recognise the criticality of diversification. Exports are currently dominated by the electronics, drinks and chemical industries, so we must ensure innovation in new growth areas. That means continuing to address the business birth rate by creating an entrepreneurial culture where business success is recognised and rewarded and business start-ups are nurtured and supported. It also means ever-increasing—
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1997, when the Conservative Government left office, there were 6,600 business startups per annum in Scotland, and in the second quarter of 2000 the figure was 4,500 per annum? How does that square with the hon. Gentleman's eulogy of Government economic policy in Scotland?
Mr. Joyce: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the development of local enterprise companies; my constituency is covered by Forth Valley Enterprise. There is a tight relationship between LECs and the Government. There have been several recent policy statements which would make good reading and encourage the hon. Gentleman in his projection of how well the Labour Government will perform in the coming years.
For 18 years, the Tories pretty much prevented meaningful economic development happening in tandem with social advance because of their economic
208WH
policies that led inexorably to boom and bust. It is important therefore, to highlight features of the Government's economic management, which has changed the pre-1997 economic environment of Scotland almost beyond recognition.
At the 1997 general election, the Labour party pledged not to increase the rate of income tax and it has not done so. It also introduced a new, higher starting rate of tax. We have always been committed to fairness in the workplace and to striking a balance between the interests of the employee and the interests of the employer. The Tories, on the other hand, have never recognised that protecting the interests of the employee is directly in the interests of the employer. Partnership with trades unions remains fundamental to the Labour Government's approach. In my constituency, that contrasts with the recent example of the SNP-Tory council in taking a major decision, which, in due course, could affect all its employees' conditions of service, without a single mention in advance to Unison, the relevant trade union.
Labour has introduced the individual savings account; far from n attacking savings, the new arrangement will encourage many more people to get into the habit of saving regularly. That is a positive measure that will benefit Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Labour is committed to reforming welfare in a way that stresses the importance of individual productivity through work. The new deal has been a remarkable success. Labour is also committed to ensuring that works pays. That was clearly demonstrated by the introduction of the national minimum wage and its recent upgrade by the Chancellor. It is worthy of note that the Scottish National party was unable to send a representative on a day trip to attend either the original vote on the matter or the Secretary of State's statement on the upgrade of the national minimum wage to £4.10
Sir Robert Smith: Or to this debate.
Mr. Joyce: Indeed, or to last week's debate on a similar topic. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. There is no meaning or sense in having representatives who do not come down to Westminster.
As my hon. Friends know, low pay and low skills go together and are the hallmark of the Tory approach to job creation. Scotland has suffered for too long from both unemployment and skills shortages before 1997. There is no future for Scotland as a low-wage economy. We will never be able to compete on wages with countries—particularly in the southern hemisphere—that pay wages that are a tenth or a hundredth of British wages. National boundaries mean very little in a world where capital can be instantly transferred from one continent to another at the touch of a button. In the modern world of work, both businesses and consumers increasingly interact on-line and across continents.
Labour is committed to driving up the knowledge base throughout Scotland. Our 1997 manifesto stated:
"The UK must be positively committed to the global pursuit of new knowledge, with a strong science base in our universities and centres of excellence leading the world. We support a collaborative

209WH
approach between researchers and business spreading the use of new technology and good design, and exploiting our own inventions to boost business."
The foundations of the knowledge economy are: high levels of education, technical skills, and technological knowledge; widespread collaboration and partnership between universities and enterprise, leading to greater commercial exploitation of useful knowledge; and the creation of an entrepreneurial culture that encourages the growth of new businesses and encourages changed attitudes to wealth creation and risk taking.
Scotland is well placed under the Labour Government to develop the education, skills and technological know-how that are central to the knowledge economy. Our universities produce 21 per cent. of Britain's computer science postgraduates and 11 per cent. of all British engineering and technology graduates.
Through the combined effort of the Labour Government, the Labour-led Scottish Executive and many other agencies including the local enterprise companies, Scotland is experiencing a learning revolution in which skills are continuously upgraded and lifelong learning is a reality. Of course, that must happen in a manner that enables people to balance the responsibilities of work and family life while learning. That is happening, and it is reflected in the wide participation in tertiary education. Almost 50 per cent. of Scottish young people attend higher education, and more people than ever are attending vocational courses later in life at institutions such as mine, the Falkirk college of further education. That ever-deepening pool of talent is a tribute to the quality of Scotland's tertiary education system, and it is a fundamental part of the excellent economic prognosis for the next years under a Labour Government.
Only by the practical application of the knowledge generated by our outstanding universities can we hope to generate a successful high-technology economy. By building on the model provided by Cadence and other emerging centres of excellence, such as the research centres for aerospace technology at Prestwick and for semiconductors at Livingston, we will continue to encourage partnership working. Those centres represent best practice in partnership between companies, educational institutions and the public sector.
The Scottish Executive, the DTI and the Office of Science and Technology operate number of programmes and initiatives to support technology, technology transfer, business innovation and lifelong learning. To build the knowledge base, there are programmes such as the joint infrastructure fund, foresight, the foresight link awards and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council research development grant. The main grant programme for business innovation is SMART, the small firms merit award for research and technology. The new tax incentive for small and medium-sized companies to undertake more research and development is of major potential importance to this part of the corporate sector.
Several Government initiatives aim to help companies learn from each other. Scottish Enterprise's cluster development action plans are of particular importance to firms in the manufacturing and services sectors. A great deal is being done to promote education
210WH
and skills, including the Scottish university for industry, the national grid for learning and the doubling of the number of modern apprenticeships.
The backdrop for Scotland's economy has not looked so positive for decades. Labour's economic policy has shifted the UK from a boom-and-bust economic cycle to one of stability with a high employment rate, low inflation and low long-term interest rates. The success of the UK and Scottish economies has not happened by accident but most definitely by design. However, even with its inherently positive environment, Scotland still has much to do to maximise its economic potential. Our greatest challenge is, perhaps, the productivity gap. Scotland and the rest of the UK lags behind the productivity of our competitors. The growth of the United States economy over the past decade has been driven mainly by productivity. Scotland has some way to go to catch up.
Increasing productivity is consistent with Labour's idea of sustainable development. It is sound to use natural resources efficiently, while simultaneously increasing business competitiveness. We should note that Scotland's birth rate is persistently low, which means that we must maximise the entrepreneurship of the people that we have. Entrepreneurship does not come naturally to us, and more must be done to create a cultural shift in our attitudes to self-employment and risk taking.
The greatest challenge facing Scotland's labour market is the skills gap, which occurs when the skills of the labour force do not match job vacancies. The Government and the Scottish Executive are rightly attaching importance to stimulating demand for learning, and finding new ways of reaching out to workers who have not traditionally participated in formal education and training. Brains matter much more than brawn in today's labour market, and even low-skilled vacancies now require levels of skill that were not previously needed in equivalent jobs in the mid-20th century.
Labour stands for a higher skill, higher wage economy. The Tories were always happy to have a section of the economy that competed on the basis of cheap labour. We believe that lifting the level of employment for all will lead to higher standards of living and, ultimately, a more fulfilled society. The role of Government in that is to facilitate a strong and vibrant business economy, which can generate growth and promote social well-being. That has meant modernising the relationship between the state and the economy, although not along the lines of the Conservative free market economy or the Scottish National party's economics of independence. Such policies do not benefit the wider economy or society.
Labour has worked towards creating an economy that achieves the correct balance of supporting business and enterprise, while promoting social development. Economic development not only generates higher incomes and a better quality of employment, but helps us to achieve our goals of social justice and sustainability.
Business growth promotes lifelong learning, and that raises the value of human capital in our economy. However, ultimately, the purpose of a Labour Government is not only to facilitate growth, but to

211WH
spread widely the benefits of such growth. That means ensuring that public services are well funded and are of a high standard. In my constituency, that includes matters such as the provision of the best health care that a dynamic economy can provide, through the excellent Falkirk and District Royal infirmary.
I close by referring to the Scottish microcosm of Falkirk, West. We must ensure that people who are affected by changes in the economy around them are well served by an imaginative and visionary approach by relevant regional development agencies. Next month, in Larbert, one of the last iron foundries in the Falkirk area will close with the loss of about 45 jobs. In numerical terms, those jobs will be replaced—and more—by jobs of a different type, as I previously described. However, for the individuals and families involved, it will be a painful experience. I believe that the company and the relevant unions have gone to some lengths to ensure that the workers get the best possible deal to help them through the difficult times ahead. However, I wonder why the workers' skills could not be employed on a project such as the Falkirk millennium wheel, which is a huge engineering project in my area. That would have utilised the skills of workers who come from a metalwork background. Forth Valley Enterprise may have been able to facilitate that and, although it is doing what it can to alleviate the plight of the relevant workers, I think that a small chance may have been missed. However, that must be set against the context of success that is reflected in the economic landscapes of Falkirk, central Scotland, Scotland and the whole of the UK. The success of the Labour Government to date has been a consequence of choice and planning—definitely not of chance. I believe that the Scottish public recognise that, and will act accordingly upon that knowledge at the appropriate time.
11.19 am
Mr. Eric Clarke: I am sorry for being late, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was watching the debate on the monitor. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing it. I do not know why there are not many people here, because there is great interest in the subject.
My speech will be brief. Scotland is a leader in the cluster system, which the Government support. I am referring to the electronics industry around Livingston—Cadence Design Systems and so on. An inquiry was held on the subject and feedback from Ireland and America suggested that people were envious of us and complimentary about what is happening in Livingston. The electronics industry involves not only manufacturing, but research and development, and in that we are ahead of the rest of the world.
We are part of what is called the Celtic corner, because we have a turn of phrase that is second to none. The Welsh, Scottish and Irish are seen not as competitors but as partners in the go-ahead situation of education. When the Livingston plant was established, Cadence told us that 60 per cent. of the graduates there were home-grown although many of them had returned from studying abroad. The development in the electronics industry augurs well for Scotland, and the potential spin-off is mind-boggling.
212WH
I want to discuss a parochial situation in Midlothian, my own constituency. The research and development departments of all the institutions involved in biochemistry have clustered together, and universities and industry are co-operating. The institutions on the Pentland and Bush industrial estates are clustered together and feeding off the universities of Edinburgh, Herriot-Watt and the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies.
We also have the Roslin institute, which was the creator of the famous Dolly. That is the one that got the headlines, but there are other projects that are just as important. We are lucky that other developments have come from the Dolly project, in manufacturing the enzymes contained in the beasts that have been created, which are beneficial to human beings in treating skin diseases and other things. Those developments are in their infancy, and .the mind boggles once more at the thought of their potential. The Moredun and Lasswade institutes are involved in animal husbandry and agriculture; further scientific study of those subjects is clearly necessary, given the way things are at the moment.
I must declare an interest in the coal industry in Scotland. We always said that the British coal industry was the finest in the world technically and in terms of safety, and yet it has been partially closed down. However, I am happy that the Government subsidy allows the Scottish coal industry to continue. The Government are to be congratulated on that. I shall conclude my remarks now because I am running out of steam.
11.24 am
Sir Robert Smith: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on successfully overcoming the hurdles of late-night debates in the House to arrive on the Order Paper with your proper title. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). Given all the present uncertainties, we face the danger of never quite knowing whether it is the last time that we shall speak in this Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr Joyce) on introducing the debate. I join him in expressing a slight worry about the lack of hon. Members present, but that again could be due to outside uncertainties, which could be focusing their minds on other matters.
When it comes to debating the economy, there is consensus about how the free market operates, although there is still worry about free trade and how that operates. In a sense, political debate can have a less direct effect on the economy and while Governments like to take a lot of credit for helping the economy, in many ways it is helped by their restraint rather than by their actions. The success of our economy is down to the ability, entrepreneurial spirit and the innovative ideas of the individuals behind the businesses that operate in the economy. We muse not lose sight of the fact that our success lies on their shoulders.
Yesterday, I attended Shell livewire business start-up regional awards for the north-east of Scotland. One of my constituents, Julie Rendall, of the Roselodge Nursery in Aboyne successfully went forward to the Scottish final. Scotland often tends to dominate the

213WH
United Kingdom final. We have the talent; 40 per cent. of the judgment of those who decide the awards depends on the quality of the businesses, but 60 per cent. of their judgment is based on the people who drive them. They look for livewires who will take businesses further.
Some of the issues to which the hon. Member for Falkirk, West referred are now matters for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. Many surround the problem of business start-ups Lessons can be learned from different parts of Scotland about how to maximise potential and not throw away good practices. We are lucky in the north-east of Scotland, in the way in which we nurture business start-ups. We ensure that there is a good interchange of experience from different enterprise trusts and companies, to maximise support.
As for the reserved matters, the key worry concentrates on the roles of the Chancellor and the Department of Trade and Industry, our relationship with Europe, the wider infrastructure in terms of linking Scotland to the rest of Europe through our rail system, or what is left of it, improving the freight link through the channel tunnel and the direct link between Scottish business and the rest of Europe. There is a range of successful business in the Scottish economy and challenges must be faced. A big driver in the economy is the oil and gas industry and we shall discuss that industry and its future tomorrow in the Grand Committee. It plays a crucial role in manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom. Those of us who live in the north-east of Scotland see it on our doorsteps, but there is a great danger that for the rest of the country, industries that are out of sight are out of mind. It is important for all of us in politics not to lose sight of how much investment has come from the North sea and how much more there is still to come.
Any talk of a windfall tax on the oil industry must be considered carefully. It is tempting for those removed from the industry and its importance to see it as an easy hit for another tax. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Scotland for her previous role as spokesman for energy. It is recognised in the industry that her understanding played a crucial part in bringing together Government and industry in a dynamic and constructive way. At yesterday's awards, she was praised by a spokesman from Shell who said that in his experience she was unique in being the catalyst in bringing together different sectors of the industry—contractors and operators—to home in on how best to maximise the take for the state and for the industry. Although contractors and operators are in competition with each other, recognising the many ways in which they help each other may help them in areas in which they are competing.
In tomorrow's Grand Committee, we shall no doubt deal in more depth with issues relating to our gas industry.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West raised the role of our high-tech industry. That is clearly an industry of the future. Business a.m. has issued a warning with its technology index. At the start of the Scottish Parliament the index was up in the thousands, but it is now down to 660. Clearly, there are challenges in getting wealth out of the technology industry and the Minister must tell us where he sees the problems facing that industry. As with
214WH
all these things, we must recognise that the role of Government should be not to step in with both feet and disturb things.
The financial services sector is another key industry in the Scottish economy that has not yet run away to other parts of the United Kingdom because of the creation of the Scottish Parliament, despite the pronouncements of the prophets of doom. As with the oil industry, we cannot see or touch the financial services sector, so we may underestimate its importance in underpinning our economy.
The drinks industry was touched on by the spokesman for the Scottish Affairs Committee and I do not want to prejudge the outcome of its inquiry, which has been affected by events beyond its control in terms of the timing of the report's publication. I was impressed by the witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee—by their entrepreneurial spirit and enthusiasm for driving forward their industry and their products. Now that Scotland produces 75 per cent. of the United Kingdom's spirit production, the drinks industry is part of the key cluster, to use the jargon.
The hon. Member for Midlothian rightly raised the importance of linking research, turning it into economic activity and recognising its value. Although many such matters are now devolved, there is a warning sign that when it comes to fundamental investment into pure research, it is crucial that short-term headlines are not the goal. Much of what is now exploited in Midlothian came from research that was funded with no particular idea of its benefits. Lord Rutherford did much to further our understanding of nuclear physics, but when he was challenged as to his motivation, he replied that it was pure research, purely for academic interest. A huge industry that has made an enormous impact on our country was established on the back of that work. He had no interest in the economic application of his research, but had he not received funding and been able to enjoy his pure research, we would not have the understanding and technological advances that resulted from it.
The biggest challenge currently facing the Scottish economy is the foot and mouth outbreak. Although it is based in our rural economy, its tentacles spread throughout the country. It has a direct effect on farming and a wider effect on the tourist industry. I am already getting feedback from tourist centres about people from abroad cancelling holiday bookings. Our key message must be the normality of life outside the direct impact of the crisis, but that is a hard one to get across. I am interested to hear about the Minister's role in the task force, and, while we have the Scotland Office, his role in providing the link to ensure that the challenges facing Scotland are not lost in the United Kingdom response. I was rather disappointed to read an advert in the Evening Standard last week that was designed to encourage people back to the countryside. In the traditional manner of unjoined-up government, towards the bottom a short line stated that the Scottish Executive would issue a separate advert on the issues affecting Scotland. I feel that—
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): That is fair enough in the Evening Standard, which circulates only in London.
Sir Robert Smith: That shows a classic lack of joined-up thinking. In considering the tourism industry and

215WH
encouraging people to come on walking holidays in their Easter break, we want to encourage not only people in Scotland to come; we hope that many people in London who enjoyed the excellent—[Interruption.] If the Conservative party ever want to represent Scotland, they will have to venture from outwith Scotland.
Mr. Grieve: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that my principal recreation is walking in Scotland, but at the moment I cannot deduce from current information whether I am welcome.
Sir Robert Smith: That is the crucial message to send to the Government. Where people are welcome, information should be available to welcome them, and it should be clear when people are still advised to stay away from livestock. People need certainty. Scotland offers many other attractions, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if the key aspect that originally attracted someone to an area does not appear to be available, that person will not look further. It is important to have a joined-up strategy to market and reinforce the fact that we are still open for business and welcome careful tourist visitors.
On Friday, at a meeting of the Kincardine and Deeside enterprise trust with businesses from my constituency, I met an archaeologist, all of whose contracts have been cancelled as much of the land that he investigates is closed to him because it contains livestock. The need to get on top of the foot and mouth outbreak and eradicate its spread is extremely pressing for the Scottish economy.
The wider background affects the climate in which business operates. The organiser of the enterprise trust event pointed out that many businesses moan to him about developments that are in the realm of politics and Government. He suggests taking them forward, which is why he organised a meeting for Members of the Scottish Parliament and the local Member of Parliament to meet businesses. We need to increase that dialogue. Frustration is often felt at the coal face of a business, as those involved are so focused on running the business that they forget to go back to the political process and say that they have a problem as a result of regulation not having been thought through, and allow the political process to deal with their anxieties. It needs to be a two-way dialogue. The day before the Budget, I met a spokesman—I shall not name him, as that would be unfair—for a business that would be affected by the Budget. I said, "I hope we hear good news for you tomorrow", and he said, "Why, what's happening tomorrow?" The following day's Budget had completely slipped his mind. Business should engage in the political process in order to influence it. Although it must serve not only business, but the wider society, if our businesses and economy are not flourishing, we shall not have the investment required to underpin the benefits for the wider society.
I welcomed the proposal to create an independent central bank that appeared in the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the previous election, and which the Chancellor implemented almost as soon as the election was over. It helps to create more of a long-term culture for the underlying monetary policy and challenges of
216WH
inflation in a country that has often faced inflation. Inflation corrodes investment attitudes and results in extra cost in investment and extra risk to business activity. We often joke in the Chamber when the Prime Minister refers to ending boom and bust and smoothing out—it would be a brave politician who claimed to have ended boom and bust in the economic cycle—but it is helpful to try to dampen down some of the swings that can result if interest rates are at the mercy of political decision-making and election timing.
That does not absolve the Chancellor of his responsibility in producing a Budget to be aware that he is setting criteria and rules by which the Bank of England will have to operate. For instance, the Bank sets interest rates in accordance with its interpretation of the Chancellor's fiscal policy. Therefore, if he proposes irresponsible policies, he cannot be absolved of influence over the Bank's subsequent decisions and their consequences.
Much of the Scottish economy would also benefit from currency stability. Exchange rate stability would be especially welcomed by exporters, the tourism industry, and farming and the broader rural economy. There is widespread disappointment in such sectors of the economy that the euro has not been more vigorously debated, and that the Government have failed to display greater leadership, although they are beginning to be more resolute about expressing their opinions.
However, the United Kingdom's currency belongs to the British people, and they will take the final decision on the euro in a referendum. I welcome that. My party advocated a referendum in the previous general election. It forces those of us who are involved in the political process to engage with I he general public. We should not walk blindly into new political arrangements without taking the public with us because that could lead to an immense backlash.
Last week, the Confederation of British Industry emphasised that the Government's relations with Europe must be constructive and progressive to underpin much of our economy and trade. That is especially the case with regard to Scotland: farming and fishing constitute a large proportion of its exports and therefore the UK's relations with Europe are crucial to significant sectors of its economy.
Fishing is a particularly significant sector of the Scottish economy. With regard to that industry, will the Conservative spokesman explain why his party tells a different story in the Scottish Parliament about how it would tackle Europe than it does at Westminster? The Conservative party believes in the Union, but the United Kingdom has only a single voice in Europe and cannot therefore hold divergent opinions on the matter. That circle will have to be squared before the fishermen know where the Conservatives stand on the issue.
I have mentioned that, in terms of grand gestures, the political process has as a less dramatic effect on the economy than it had 100 years ago. The Chancellor has therefore taken to tinkering with his Budgets. If the political process were more robust and confident, one might expect the Chancellor to tell the House that the economy is thriving and nothing further needs to be done. However, because grand gestures can no longer be made, there is a dangerous tendency to tinker by introducing a series of little pots of money, several tiny

217WH
tax initiatives, or a few small tweaks to the tax system. That creates a complex tax system that can damage businesses. They might face extra costs and burdens, without reaping any compensating productive benefits, if they are confused about which pot they can benefit from, or which new innovative tax credit they can apply for, or if they are uncertain whether they or the Benefits Agency must operate the working families tax credit on behalf of the Government. The current tax system is complex and the Chancellor should begin to try to simplify it because people waste time trying to come to terms with it. I welcome the fact that he has started to try to do that with regard to value added tax.
The transport infrastructure is important because it links the Scottish economy with Europe. Freight links are especially important, but the UK's railway system is fragmented and in a depressingly poor condition. I am not claiming that everything was rosy before the previous Government intervened, but they did not leave as their legacy a railway structure that responded to the subsequent challenges. Individual freight companies have experienced some benefits, but it is necessary to secure the underlying investment so that proper height clearances on railway lines can be introduced and a uniform size of freight wagon can run from central Scotland to the heart of Europe. The opportunity for such a freight link is one of the most significant contributions of the channel tunnel.
The Government must be careful not to take too much credit. They must be keen to have an election because what is happening in the American economy will affect our stock exchange too. When economies turn around, Governments may not necessarily be at fault but, if they take all the credit in the boom years, they inevitably take more of the flak in the bust years.
One fundamental lesson about boom and bust is seen in the fact that, although the Government have smoothed out the economic cycle, they have certainly not smoothed out the public investment cycle in respect of investment in education. As was said earlier, it is important to underpin that. The Government spent the first two years imposing Conservative spending cuts that even the outgoing Conservative Chancellor said that he would not have stuck to, so as to present a nice smooth injection of cash into public services in the run-up to the election. However, that policy has meant that, as the Government reach the end of their term of office, they are spending less, as a percentage of the nation's wealth, than was spent under the policy that trey inherited from the previous Government. One may compare this Government's capital spending and under-investment with the achievements of the previous Government.
Many challenges continue to face the Government in terms of underpinning the economy, but the greatest is to be cautious about interfering in and playing around with the tax system unnecessarily, to tackle red tape and to show more leadership in respect of our currency and exchange rate. Finally, they must recognise and pay tribute to the fact that the positive state of the economy is due the spirit and hard work of the individual people working in businesses.
11.46 am
Mr. Dominic GrieveIt is a pleasure to have an opportunity to participate in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West
218WH
(Mr. Joyce) on his speech and on securing the debate. His speech was fascinating because we heard in it the authentic voice of Scottish Blairism. It included a variety of propositions, with a mixture of emphases—on education and the "need for the cultural shift in the attitude to risk taking", to use his words. That is a very Blairite concept from the bosom of the Labour party; even 10 or 15 years ago one would have been unlikely to hear that from a Member of Parliament who supported the Labour interest.
The hon. Gentleman made a variety of other points based largely on his own experience in his constituency, which, I am sure, were valid and reflected in part the fact that his constituency has been historically very dependent on the old manufacturing industry base, as one can see when one drives through or past it. His speech was important, and I am sorry that such an important debate has attracted so little interest from his fellow Labour Members from Scotland and, perhaps unsurprisingly, zero interest from the Scottish National party. One has only to consider that party's basic proposals to realise that they are living on planet Tharg. It is not at all surprising that no SNP Members are present, because they do not want to engage in dialogue, as debate is a means by which one may be brought down to size and have to face up to one's shortcomings.
I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West will bear with me if I am a little iconoclastic this morning, although that iconoclasm will be directed at my own party, too. It is my last opportunity to do that before the general election, and this forum may be appropriate, as we are having an informal and good-humoured discussion.
In 1997, the Conservative party experienced meltdown in Scotland for a variety of reasons, but mainly because the electorate were sick of us and wanted to get rid of us owing to our inability to grapple with the challenge of devolution and the extent to which we adhered on a philosophical basis to maintaining the Union in its old form. They also wanted to get rid of us because of the problems experienced in the economy during the period of recession that preceded that election.
It is noteworthy, however, that the available statistics reveal that in 1997 the Conservative party left Scotland with a series of economic indicators that were effectively unrivalled. I leave unemployment to one side and will return to it later.
Let us examine some of those indicators. In the four years after 1991, Scotland had a faster rate of economic growth than the rest of the United Kingdom. It weathered substantial parts of that recessionary period far better than elsewhere. In 1997, average earnings in Scotland were the fourth highest of the 10 UK regions, although I am the first to accept that some constituencies, such as the one represented by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West and others in Glasgow, had serious indices of social deprivation and poverty. We have such problems in the south-east of England, even in constituencies close to mine, which is the wealthiest in the UK in its heartland of south Buckinghamshire.
On top of that, from 1979 to 1996 earnings in Scotland had increased in real terms by 33 per cent. for men and a staggering 60 per cent. for women, although the latter increase was undoubtedly due in part to the

219WH
changes in working practices for women and the great growth of parity in pay. Nevertheless, those are major transformations. One had only to visit Glasgow in the early 1990s to see the extent to which that city—which had previously been hugely underachieving and looked dilapidated-was in the process of transformation. It is also noteworthy that, in 1995, exports peaked at £17.32 billion. That was a measure of the underlying strength that was developing in the Scottish economy.
Although the decline in unemployment has undoubtedly been one of the most significant and important features of the past three years, it was already declining in the years immediately before the Conservatives left office, as the inevitable consequence of the growth of productivity, and of the economy in general, in the period preceding that. My experience is that unemployment starts to decrease after the economic indicators of growth rise. They do not work precisely in tandem; we know that, in many matters concerning the economy, one trend follows another.
With that in mind, we must examine, with a degree of caution, the situation today. Several factors demonstrate that the Scottish economy is not doing as well as it should, and they are inherently linked to the Government's economic policies. We start with the basic fact that, despite the faster growth in Scotland under the Conservatives, there is no sign that that has led to the parity in gross domestic product for Scotland that one might have expected. In fact, it has fallen back: Scotland is now at 97 per cent. of UK GDP. Much more worrying is the fall in productivity, which was increasing nationally at 2.2 per cent. per annum in 1997. The rate of increase has now fallen to 0.7 per cent. That is reflected in Scotland, and it is a much lower growth rate than that enjoyed either in Europe or, much more tellingly, in America. Either the hon. Member for Falkirk, West or the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) made a point about the American economy. Until recently, it was surging forward, but that surge was not matched in Britain.
Most worrying is evidence of the past year, which shows a growth in business failure. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West spoke about risk taking, which we need to encourage, although of course one of the consequences of taking risks is that one may come a cropper. Nevertheless, if one takes risks, one should do so in a financial climate in which there is at least some hope that they will succeed. The Grant Thornton report shows that last year the number of businesses in Scotland that went into receivership rose by 67 per cent. I should be interested to hear from the Minister to what he attributes that and whether he concludes that it may be partly a reflection of the Government's policies.
The number of new businesses being set up has fallen by a third since the second quarter of 1997; as I said earlier, we had 6,600 new business start-ups in 1997 and 4,500 in the second quarter of 2000. I am not sure whether further statistics have become available since then; if they have, I have not seen them. That is not the sign of an economy cruising into a higher gear; it is the sign of a faltering economy. Unless the problems are addressed, the trends that have been apparent over the
220WH
past five or six years will be reversed, including an eventual growth in unemployment. If business start-ups are declining and receiverships are increasing, problems will start to multiply.
The Minister needs to explain why he thinks that those factors come into play but I shall highlight a number of points. First, Scotland is dependent on a number of key sectors, one of which is drink. There is no doubt that the whisky industry is a great money-spinner, not just for Scotland but, in terms of export, for the United Kingdom. Just before the Budget, I was involved in a delegation to the Financial Secretary for the Treasury on behalf of the whisky industry to raise with him that industry's concerns that they were being continuously handicapped—[Interruption.] Does the Minister wish me to give way? I thought that we were going on until 12.30 pm, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker>: Indeed, the debate is going on until 12.30 pm. There is no reason for the hon. Gentleman to hurry if he does not wish to do so.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister's gesture made me think for a moment that I was lacking in courtesy by allowing him insufficient time to reply. A horrible sinking feeling came over me that we were going to finish at noon.
Mr. Foulkes: I abjectly apologise. That was not in any way my intention. I was just trying to indicate that it was the hon. Gentleman's Government that kept the duty on whisky up and our Government that have reduced it in real terms.
Mr. Grieve: Now that the Minister has interrupted me more coherently, I can say that I am prepared to accept that the level of duty, from which the Government derive a great deal of income, is difficult to fix. The fact remains that the key issue is the differential, which has been institutionalised at a European level, between the levels of duty on wine and on spirits. The Government have not taken full advantage of the opportunity that they now have to change that. I await with interest what the Minister has to say on the matter.
The whisky industry was deeply disappointed because it was hoping for a reduction in duty. The duty has been pegged, but when one considers the amount of income that can be generated, the Government seem in danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg—or at least of not encouraging the goose to lay the golden egg. That is an example of poor fiscal management.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in which years the whisky industry thanked the previous Conservative Government for changing whisky duty in the way that he suggests?
Mr. Grieve: My research does not go back over the whole history of the whisky industry, but extends to my involvement over the past 12 months. I am trying to deal with the issues that the industry raised with me. Together with the Minister of State, Scotland Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North ( Mr. Wilson), we went to discuss the issue with the industry prior to the Budget. There was disappointment that the level of duty

221WH
was not reduced. The industry sought a reduction to achieve parity, in terms of alcohol content, with the wine and spirits industry. It did not succeed, so will the Minister provide a clearer justification and explain why not?
Mr. Savidge: It is my impression that the whisky industry and the people of Scotland are in much better spirits now than during the 18 years of Conservative Government.
Mr. Grieve: I am afraid that I cannot agree with that, certainly not on the basis of the information supplied to me by the whisky industry. I leave the hon. Gentleman with that thought. Unfortunately, he was not present earlier and will not have time to make a proper contribution on that point.
Other issues go to the heart of taxation. Taxes have risen more heavily in Scotland than they have here. There is a new higher business rate, new parking taxes, new tolls on trunk roads and further projected tolls on urban roads, a new bed tax, a new sightseeing tax, a new compulsory training levy, and the Government's tax on pesticides. Nationally, the Government have raised taxes by £25 billion, of which £2 billion is being spent on Whitehall bureaucracy.
The whole picture adds up to one of increasing burdens on business, particularly small businesses. The current burden amounts to 31 hours per month of extra paperwork for a business with between 10 and 14 employees. That extra work is necessary to carry out the functions and responsibilities that the Government have placed on such businesses.
I was struck when Mr. Jackson, secretary of the AEU, was quoted as saying, in the context of the Government's fiscal policies:
"We are not against taxation, but do you really hit businesses with new taxes when industry is already under pressure from the strong pound. Business should be treated n ore fairly."
I am not sure whether that is the voice of old Labour talking to Blairite Labour across the swamp, but people in industry and business know that all is not well. It is a consistent pattern that affects Scotland along with the rest of the United Kingdom, but with the added problem that Scotland has had to face extra burdens as a result of devolution. A huge amount of extra core expenditure is spent on administration, which was an inevitable consequence of devolution. I do not complain, but an extra chunk is being taken out of the Scottish economy to provide for its administrative Framework.
In assessing the present position of the Scottish economy, current trends give serious cause for concern. Conservative policies will be put forward at the next general election, and I shall not provide a rehash of the Conservative election manifesto. However, one important and consistent theme is to target some of the projected increase in the Government's revenues, which are colossal while the economy continues to boom, at people who require encouragement We should help small businesses to be self-sufficient, encourage savers in order to become less of a burden on the welfare state and stimulate business. That will be one of the key issues at the next election. The Government cannot get away from the fact that, most worryingly the savings ratio has fallen consistently. In 1997 it stood at 10.6 per cent.
222WH
It is now under 3 per cent. Indeed, the latest figures show it to be under 2 per cent., the lowest figure for the last 40 years.
Does the Minister think we should worry about that or can we simply disregard it? Unlike in France, which some of my forebears came from, where they put gold coins in socks and hid them under the bed, people in this country have traditionally used their savings to invest. Investment is one of the key ways in which risk takers are benefited and encouraged to take risks. The savings ratio has collapsed. How does that bode for the performance of the economy over a five or 10-year period? It is a direct result of punitive and confiscatory taxation on pension funds, and the way in which the general financial and economic climate discourages people from saving. Those are key issues that the Government have failed to address.
Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman has again highlighted the problem of the exchange rate. It would be helpful if he could explain how he would tackle the exchange rate issue and the concerns that business has about it.
Mr. Grieve: I accept that the exchange rate presents challenges for business. All exchange rates always have done. I find with businesses in my constituency, and I have no reason to think that the position is different in Scotland, that if the general financial and fiscal climate encourages them to be competitive, the exchange rate is a problem that can be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily. It has to be balanced out against the problems of joining a single currency, which on current showing would have led by now to considerable inflation, as is being experienced in Ireland because we have no common economic cycle. It is all very well arguing that we should join the single currency.
Mr. Savidge rose—
Mr. Grieve: Would the hon. Gentleman bear with me a moment?
I am not even sure what the Government's policy on the single currency is. It has become so murky and unclear. One thing is certain: if we surrender control over our interest rates to a European central bank, it may be an irritant in years of plenty, but if there is a downturn in the economy it will create serious problems if we are not in a common economic cycle with our European partners. What is happening to the euro at the moment suggests that there are serious problems. Business men in my constituency—and I see no reason why their problems should be different from those in Scotland—are virtually unanimous in their hostility to the single currency. A large number of them trade in dollars anyway, including with other European countries. They much prefer to be within a competitive environment with a Government who address their concerns.
Mr. Savidge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way once again. He has been very generous. He talks about the importance of the general fiscal climate. How far does he think it important that in 1997 under his Government, 42p in every £1 of tax was spent on the cost

223WH
of unemployment or debt, which has been brought down to 16p in every £1? Is that not a more favourable fiscal climate?
Mr. Grieve: I welcome that. First, it is a reflection of a booming economy and secondly, it is a reflection of the way in which those areas of expenditure have been reduced. That is why I find it so extraordinary that the overall take by the Government has risen from 35 per cent. to more than 37 per cent. of GDP. When the economy is doing well, the Government should look to cut taxes as much as possible, but there has been a complete failure to achieve that.
Mr. Savidge rose—
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
Mr. Grieve: This is a high-tax Government. I shall again give way to the hon. Gentleman briefly, but I want to give the Minister time to respond.
Mr. Savidge: Is it not the case that one reason why the tax take has increased is that more people are in work and have higher earnings? The increase is therefore a reflection of a buoyant economy.
Mr. Grieve: It may be a reflection of those factors, but if the taxman is taking an increasing percentage of GDP when the economy is booming, that is a serious matter. It highlights a failure of the Government, which will translate into an inability to provide the right financial climate for business. I have spoken for far longer than I expected. I am grateful for that opportunity and I await the Minister's response. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West on raising those matters. The Scottish economy would be far better served by a Conservative Government at Westminster.
12.10 pm
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): As you know only too well, Mr. Stevenson, this is the third Adjournment debate in about a week to which I have replied. Nevertheless, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) not only on obtaining his second Adjournment debate since he was elected, but on his interesting, positive and insightful introduction to this debate on the Scottish economy.
Hon. Members have mentioned the poor attendance. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, they have attended all three Adjournment debates. Their spokesmen have participated well, although I do not agree with all that they have said. Given that the Tories have no MPs in Scotland, that is not a bad record. Labour Members have contributed extensively to the previous two debates and substantially to this one. I have a half-back line supporting me that is worthy of Heart of Midlothian football club. As hon. Members have pointed out, yet again the Scottish National party is not present. That is a real disgrace, and I shall return to it in a moment.
224WH
We have had a historic Budget, for which Opposition Members have not given my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer full credit. We must recognise that it represented the Government's policy of achieving economy stability, on which we can create opportunity and prosperity for all and improve public services. As I said in last week's debate on poverty, the best way of taking people out of poverty is to provide them with job opportunities, which is what we have been doing. At a time when the Scottish and British economies are creating jobs in record numbers, we have been focusing on I help for more disadvantaged people, so that they can share in the prosperity of our stable economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West is one of the most appropriate Members to secure a debate on this topic. As he said, his constituency is a microcosm of the Scottish economy, and he has had good news on that, even since his election. Walter Alexander, the coach builder, won a £23 million contract from National Express. Since May 1997, as my hon. Friend rightly said, jobs have been created by the Telecom service centre in Larbert, Thomas Cook in Larbert and Scottish Power in Falkirk. That shows how the Scottish economy has boomed under Labour. Falkirk is a good example. Indeed, I saw another example in the Borders yesterday with a colleague of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). Mainetti is increasing its employment from 100 to 200. Heriot-Watt university is doing well, and Hawick Cashmere is prospering thanks to support and guidance from the Labour Government. Clearly, there has been a sea change in Scotland in the past four years compared with the previous 18 years.
We cannot talk about the Scottish economy without mentioning our partnership with the Scottish Executive, which is key. Nowhere is it more important than in respect of our economic strategy. Although we are getting the economy right and dealing with macro-economic policy at UK level, we acknowledge that the Executive are responsible for many of the micro-economic levers affecting the Scottish economy. That interdependence is recognised in their document, "A Framework for Economic Development in Scotland", which was published in June last year. The foundation must be a coherent, effective economic policy from the United Kingdom Government.
Whatever the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) says, we inherited an economy in the United Kingdom and in Scotland in a bad state of repair, with high unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates—the most volatile in the G7 countries. The hon. Gentleman spoke about wage increases, which must be set in the context of the high level of inflation at the time.
Mr. Grieve: The economic statistics show that underlying inflation in the April quarter of 1997 was 2.5 per cent. In the October quarter of 2000 it was 2.2 per cent. That does not suggest the galloping inflation that the Minister talks about.
Mr. Foulkes: No. I am talking about what we inherited from the Tories. Under the Tory Administration, high inflation undercut wage increases and resulted in some of the wage increases that the

225WH
hon. Gentleman described. We also inherited poor skills and derisory levels of investment in the public and private sectors. I remember sitting in relative impotence on the Opposition Benches watching what the Tories were doing to destroy the British and the Scottish economy; that is why I am proud to serve in a Government that are putting it right and building a prosperous, successful, dynamic, competitive and, above all, inclusive economy.
In the past four years we have pursued a comprehensive and co-ordinated strategy and I shall set out its key elements, the first of which is to deliver macro-economic stability and to replace the boom and bust of our predecessors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West rightly said, it is a matter of fundamental choice, not chance, to steer a course of stability, prudence and responsibility. We have laid the foundations for a Britain where there is opportunity and security for all. We gave independence to the Bank of England, freeing interest rate decisions from political interference, which delivered the lowest inflation for 30 years, for which the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine gave us credit, averaging 2.4 per cent. since 1997, the lowest in the European Union.
We have the lowest long-term interest rate for 35 years; mortgage rates that averaged 11 per cent. between 1979 and 1997 are now down to 6.75 per cent. or less. Economic growth is at 2.7 per cent. since the election and GDP in Scotland is now at its highest ever level. Employment has risen by more than 1 million in the United Kingdom and by more than 100,000 in Scotland; more people are at work than at any time in the past 40 years, but we have done even more: the Government's tough new fiscal framework has allowed us to make a record net debt repayment, as my hon. Friend rightly said, of £35 billion this year. We have cut the national debt from 44 per cent. of GDP to an estimated 31.8 per cent. That is prudence with a purpose at work, enabling the Government to release more funds for key spending priorities and public services. In Scotland, spending will be £3.4 billion higher by 2004, with an additional £200 million announced in this year's Budget.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who mentioned world economic development, to which we are not immune, knows that there has again been an upturn in the stock market, but the Government's new macro-economic framework should help to continue to deliver stability, low inflation and sound public finances, which means that our policy is well placed to respond to global economic developments. While significant risks remain, especially from the United States, we have ensured that our budget forecasts take full account of the effect of slowdown in United States growth and its impact on world activity.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield was talking Scotland down yet again, as seems to be his habit when he comes to these debates. Business investment has grown to 14 per cent. of GDP compared with 10 per cent. in 1994. Whole economy productivity grew by 2.6 per cent. in the third quarter of 2000, compared with 1997. The Economist Intelligence Unit ranked the United Kingdom first for its policies towards private
226WH
enterprise competition. That is an entirely different picture from that painted by the hon. Gentleman when he was talking Scotland and the UK down.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: No.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine asked whether the Scotland Office was involved in dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak. I am a member of the task force chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. I also attend MAFF meetings chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Government's top priority is to control and eradicate the disease. I share his concern about the tourism scares. We should make it clear that people can quite safely visit substantial areas of the United Kingdom. Local authorities are making it clear which are the no-go areas.
Information about our help for businesses with income tax and custom and excise duties has been circulated in Scotland to local authorities, MPs and MSPs. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield should know that we recognise that there is a problem for small and new businesses. The Scottish Executive are tackling that. However, the evidence of the substantial new jobs created shows that effective action is being taken. The recent data from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry show that Scottish exports are £27.8 billion, a 9.1 per cent. increase on 1998 and current prices. That is much more than the hon. Gentleman described. He also spoke about whisky and had to admit that the Conservative Government did little about that. Spirit duty has been frozen in the last four Budgets. Steps have been taken not just to help the whisky and other spirit industries, but to deal with the duty on spirits vis-à-vis the duty on wine and beer.
I turn now to absent friends.
Mr. Eric Clarke: My hon. Friend has not mentioned how the minimum wage has benefited individuals in Scotland. In Dumfries and Galloway, for example, which was a Conservative stronghold for many years, wages were well below the minimum wage.
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right. Good employers were paying the minimum wage. The legislation ensured that the cowboys also paid it so there was no unfair competition. I did not mention it today because I mentioned it last week. I shall mention it again next week.
I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind me turning to absent friends. He will remember the events of 28 March 1979. The anniversary is just about to come up. We will never forget how nationalist Members trooped through the Lobby with Mrs. Thatcher to get rid of the Labour Government, heralding 18 years of Toryism. We remember Linwood, Corpach, Ravenscraig, Caterpillar and Invergordon. We remember the record of the Tory Government brought in by the SNP. One of my colleagues described them as Maggie's midwives. Now they are aiming to be Hague's little helpers, to ensure the return of a Tory Government.

227WH
The SNP has proposed a 45p rate of tax. That is to cover the uncosted pledges of £3 billion that the party made in the first five months of the Scottish Parliament. The setting up of separate embassies, Army, Navy and the Air Force establishments in Scotland, a separate social security system are costed at £4 billion, yet now, because of the belated recognition of the uncosted pledges and the cost of separation, the first of the SNP tax chickens is coming home to roost. It is the thin end of the wedge. If the SNP were ever to gain power, the hardworking people of Scotland would have to pay more taxes.
The SNP will go into the election saying that it will stand up for Scotland. How can it stand up for Scotland, when its Members of Parliament do not even turn up for their work here? What is happening is astonishing. Not even one of the six Scottish National party Members is here today to speak up for Scotland. Labour Benches are doing that and we shall continue to do so. The SNP deals in fantasy economics. It has been naive in its overestimation of the Scottish income tax contribution. It has ignored the share of United Kingdom national debt, which would be attributable to Scotland, and it is basing its financial plans on oil revenues that have fluctuated wildly from £12 billion in 1984–85 to £1 billion in 1991–92, then up again to £2.3 billion in 1995–96. That is putting the economy at the mercy of the world oil price and of OPEC. That is something that the Scottish people would embrace at their peril.
I hope that this message will get through to the people of Scotland. We depend on the United Kingdom single market. The importance of that to the Scottish economy is clear. More than half of all exports from Scotland go to the rest of the United Kingdom. More than two thirds of imports into Scotland come from the rest of the United Kingdom. Business organisations and employee representatives recognise that the Scottish economy draws its strength from being part of the United Kingdom. Scotland's economy under Labour is being
228WH
transformed into a modern, flexible economy, which is capable of supporting diverse industries. As well as strengthening the competitive edge of our traditional industries, we are looking increasingly at the areas of growth for the future, such as the creative and service industries and the financial sector. Manufacturing is still important to the Scottish economy. It accounts for 289,000 jobs, 14 per cent. of employment.
We must not forget that the finance and business sector now accounts for more jobs than manufacturing. Since 1991, the number of jobs lost in the manufacturing and construction sectors of the Scottish economy has been more than made up by the number of new jobs that have been created in the service sector alone. Through prudent, economic management and new measures to improve the climate of business, we have put in place in partnership with the Scottish Executive the economic conditions that encourage growth and employment. Devolution means partnership between us, and we are focusing on encouraging jobs in all sectors that add value to our economy, fostering a dynamic environment for the economy to grow and prosper.
If we are to have a successful economy, even more people need to be in work. I referred earlier to our employment record and low unemployment level. Much has been done, and we recognise that much more needs to be done. The Labour Government are committed to full employment. That is not a pipe dream; it is a realistic and achievable aim. We are determined to deliver such a goal. We have achieved the economic stability that is creating a record number of jobs. We now need to tackle the poverty of aspiration, the skills gap, discrimination and inequality of opportunity that hinder our drive towards full employment and a more fair and equal society. I am proud that the Government have made a significant start. I urge people outside the House not to put that in jeopardy. Voting nationalist or for any other party will at least allow for the possibility of returning to boom and bust and the high unemployment that existed during 18 years of Tory Governments. That would not just be bad for Scotland; it would be bad for the whole United Kingdom.

Wythenshawe Heart Transplant Centre
12.30 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. I am especially grateful to speak up for the Wythenshawe hospital transplant unit, which is a centre of excellence not only in the north-west and the United Kingdom but in western Europe. I am pleased to be able to put on record the appreciation of people across the north-west for the work done by Wythenshawe, and the Opposition's determination to ensure, that that work continues.
The background to the debate is the Government's decision to reduce the number of heart transplant centres from seven to four, and then to three, with the closure of Harefield hospital in 2006. The Government have said that it is right on clinical grounds to have fewer units carrying out more transplant operations. They have said that the poor availability of donor organs and the development of alternatives to transplantation mean that it is desirable to have fewer centres. I do not intend to question those views, or to denigrate the Northern General hospital in Sheffield or the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. The transplant centres at both of those hospitals do excellent work. The purpose of the debate is to demonstrate that if only one of those three centres is to survive, it must be Wythenshawe.
Wythenshawe is the obvious choice on the basis of the Government's criteria. The Government want centres with high volumes of transplant surgery. Wythenshawe performs heart, lung and heart-lung transplants. The unit has performed 44 double lung transplants, 92 single lung transplants, 326 heart transplants, and 38 heart-lung transplants—a total of more than 500 transplant operations. It has had much greater experience than the other centres under consideration. Ministers want experienced surgeons. At Wythenshawe, three of the six transplant surgeons who have been in place for some time have each performed more than 100 transplant operations. The transplant team at Wythenshawe has considerable experience and expertise. In her reply to a debate on a related subject on 31 January, the Minister's departmental colleague, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), said that the successful centre should have an on-call rota of no more than one to four. That implies a minimum team of five surgeons. Wythenshawe has had six surgeons and has recruited a seventh, so it can meet that criterion comfortably.
The Government have said that they are worried about the decreasing availability of donor organs. Wythenshawe has an outstanding recovery system, with people on standby to ensure that no suitable organ would ever be missed because of recovery problems. The Government have said that they want efficiency in the operation of the transplant system. Wythenshawe transplant unit has the benefit of guaranteed intensive care bed provision when an organ is found. No transplant will be missed, and no organ wasted, because of a shortage of intensive care beds. The Government want to develop centres of excellence. Wythenshawe is already one. It is one of the finest centres in the United Kingdom for cardiac work, and it has the north-west lung centre and an adult cystic fibrosis unit on the same site. Many of the patients who go for lung
230WH
transplantation are cystic fibrosis sufferers. With the opening of the new, dedicated transplant ward in a few weeks' time, Wythenshawe will be the only fully comprehensive transplant centre in the United Kingdom, and possibly in western Europe. The Wythenshawe transplant unit is a magnificent achievement that has inspired great loyalty and commitment from people throughout the north-west.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Wythenshawe transplant unit is indeed a centre of excellence, as is confirmed by the experience of my own constituents, who, if it were closed, would have to go to Sheffield or Birmingham, which are considerably further away. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard of the experience of my constituent, Sylvia Hinde, of 23 Hockenhull crescent in Tarvin, near Chester, who states:
"I have heard the government has plans to close the Heart Transplant Dept. of Wythenshawe Hospital. Please would you protest strongly against this decision.
It means a lot to my family as six years ago my nephew then"—
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has got the message.
Mr. Brady: I had got the gist of the point, as my hon. Friend expressed it so eloquently that he could convey the meaning in just a few words. The letter that he received from his constituent contains a message that I am sure is reflected in letters that hon. Members from all parties who represent the north-west have received. There has been an enormously positive response to the work that Wythenshawe has done. The furthest afield place from which I have received a letter is Dorset, which shows the extent to which the work of Wythenshawe has impacted on the lives of people throughout the country. Retaining it is vital.
Mr. Stephen Day: My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned the fact that people from the local area, including my constituency, which is just to the east of Wythenshawe, would have to travel to Birmingham or Sheffield. Sheffield presents a great difficulty because of the physical presence of the Pennines, which in winter are impenetrable. Travelling to Sheffield is often virtually impossible. Equally, travelling to Birmingham from Manchester is, because of traffic on the congested M6, virtually impossible. Is my hon. Friend aware of the serious anxiety in my area, and that he speaks for the entire north-west, not only his constituency?
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that some people manage to travel across the Pennines. He is a case in point, and we are pleased to have him on the right side of the Pennines. He makes an important point about the serious difficulties that would face many of our constituents in the northwest, who would have a difficult journey not only to travel for transplant surgery but, perhaps more importantly, in the post-operative period, for continuing care and assessment.
The unit has inspired tremendous loyalty and commitment from people throughout the north-west, as has been shown by the fantastic fundraising effort of the

231WH
New Heart, New Start charity, which has so far raised more than £6 million to support the transplant unit. That includes the entire £1.9 million cost of the new transplant ward. Until his death last year, New Heart, New Start benefited from the energetic chairmanship of my constituent Jim Quick, who himself benefited from 13 years of productive life post-transplant and whose name will be borne by the new transplant ward at Wythenshawe.
Like the centres at Sheffield and Birmingham, Wythenshawe has been in limbo for several months. When I expressed anxieties in this Chamber on 31 January, the Minister said that it was a close race and that no decision had been taken. Still no decision has been taken. Professor Harnden, chairman of the trust, has written:
"The uncertainty which has been caused by this long, protracted process has severely damaged the morale of our staff and is now affecting staff recruitment and retention. We really do need an answer quickly."
The Manchester Evening News has picked up the matter with its own campaign, "Keep the Heart Beating". In an open letter to the Prime Minister, the editor said:
"Dear Prime Minister, Lives are in your hands—and it is time to end the indecision."
All hon. Members can understand why the Government may wish to put off an unpopular decision until after a general election. However, any further delay is untenable, when real damage is being done to morale, to the recruitment and retention of staff, and to the unrivalled voluntary fundraising effort of New Heart, New Start, donations to which have fallen. Ministers must set out clearly their criteria for the choice of which unit will survive. They must say which unit is to be chosen, and say it now.
12.40 pm
Mr. Paul Goggins: I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Wythenshawe transplant unit is in my constituency but, as he said, its future has aroused concern among hon. Members throughout the northwest, and across all parties.
I underline the impressive clinical record of the Wythenshawe transplant unit. More than 500 transplants have taken place, including double lung and heart-lung transplants. The unit is embedded in a hospital that provides first-class cardiology and thoracic services. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the importance of the New Heart, New Start charity. It has contributed £6 million to the unit and is providing funding of £1.9 million for the new dedicated transplant ward. The charity has raised impressive amounts of cash, and just as importantly, it has won the affection and support of people throughout the north-west.
I hope that the Minister will reassure us that when a judgment is made in the review of transplant services, it will be based not merely on the record to date—which in Wythenshawe's case is very impressive—but on the physical and clinical capacity that the chosen unit has to
232WH
absorb the work of the two units that will inevitably close. I strongly believe that Wythenshawe has that capacity and I want to place on record the assurances that I have received from the chairman and chief executive of the South Manchester University Hospitals trust. They see the unit as an important part of the future of Wythenshawe hospital.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the £110 million redevelopment of the hospital will be completed by September. It is vital that the Wythenshawe transplant unit remains part of what will be a world-class hospital in my constituency.
12.43 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing the debate. The future of our organ transplant services is important, and a matter of concern for many people. The Department has received many re presentations, not only about the future of the transplant centre in Wythenshawe hospital but about the future of the centres in Sheffield and Birmingham. As hon. Members will know, there was an earlier debate on the future of the Sheffield centre. It was right for my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and others to raise the concerns of their constituents and make the case for the Manchester centre
I shall explain why the Government need to find four specialist centres for heart transplants. Clearly, it is a vital health care service. In cases of liver, cardiothoracic, heart and lung transplants, the procedure is literally life saving. In the case of kidney failure, renal dialysis can sustain people while they wait for a suitable organ to become available. Ultimately, however, we need to ensure a secure future for organ transplant services in this country. We perform approximately 3,000 transplants a year with organs from 900 donors, but more than 6,000 people remain on the transplant waiting list.
The Government's commitment to modernising organ transplant services was set out a year ago in another place by the Under-Secretary. my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in response to a report from the Royal College of Surgeons on the future of the then United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority and an inquiry by the permanent secretary into conditional organ donation. Much progress has been made, but critical issues remain in relation to the future of organ transplant centres.
The need for change and reorganisation in cardiothoracic transplant services is determined by two key factors. The first is the number of operations that take place. Improvements in road safety and the prevention of strokes in younger people are important health gains and are very much to be welcomed, but the fact that fewer young people are admitted to hospital and subsequently die has had an inevitable effect on the supply of organs for transplant. In the past five years, the number of organ donors under 60 has fallen by 15 per cent. The fall could have been greater had it not been for the dedication of staff in intensive care units and the efforts of transplant co-ordinators and teams in identifying donors

233WH
The Government are committed to doing everything possible to maximise organ and tissue donation and maintain the very high standards of our organ transplant services. That commitment was demonstrated at an organ and tissue donation summit on 27 February, at which the Secretary of State for Health announced an NHS action plan intended to double the number of people on the organ donor register by no later than 2010. The problem is that the fall in organ donations has meant a year on year reduction in the number of cardiothoracic transplants being performed—from 423 in 1995 to 290 last year, which is a reduction of more than 30 per cent. Over the same period, heart transplants performed in the seven centres in England fell from 262 in 1995 to 172 last year.
Although there is much that we can do to boost the supply of kidney donors, the number of younger donors for heart and lung transplants is expected to continue to decline. We will have to work very hard to reach our target of a 10 per cent. increase in donors by optimising organ donation and retrieval arrangements. Even if we achieve our target, however, the current programme will be increased by only 30 transplants a year.
Hon. Members will be aware that it is vital that surgeons have sufficient expertise and experience to perform the complex operations under discussion. They must carry out sufficient operations to maintain the skills and expertise of the team, to avoid standards being jeopardised or falling. Clearly, it would be unacceptable if the standard of treatment received by patients in need of cardiothoracic transplants declined as the numbers of transplants declined.
The second important factor affecting the organisation of services is the need for proper staffing cover. In considering how best to modernise transplant services, the Government have accepted recommendations from the Royal College of Surgeons on minimum staffing levels for transplant units. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West mentioned, it recommends that surgeons should work no more than a one in four rota for being on call out of normal working hours. That is because so much of organ transplantation takes place at night or over the weekend. Surgeons' working hours must now comply with the European Union working time directive, which means that we need teams of a minimum of five surgeons. At the time of the report, only two of the seven adult cardiothoracic transplant centres had at least five transplant surgeons.
Cardiothoracic transplantation has been a national service since 1986. A national designation prevented the proliferation of a large number of transplant centres, which happened in other countries Nevertheless, a major expansion of the service was agreed in the late 1980s in the belief that the number of organs would continue to increase. Four new adult cardiothoracic transplant centres were designated and by 1991 there were seven adult centres in England. The intention was to ensure that each centre performed at least 50 transplants a year.
Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester is one of those new centres, and last year it carried out 36 of the 290 heart, heart-lung or lung transplants performed in English centres. Another of the new centres, St. George's hospital in London, performed only 10 transplants before its programme was suspended
234WH
following a run of poor results. That programme is currently the subject of an investigation by the Commission for Health Improvement. The other two new centres were Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham and Northern General hospital in Sheffield. Last year, Birmingham performed 21 cardiothoracic transplants and Sheffield 23. The three original centres are Papworth hospital in Cambridge, which carried out 78 transplants, Freeman hospital in Newcastle, which performed 56, and perhaps the best known of all, Harefield hospital in Middlesex, which undertook 65 transplants.
Hon. Members will be aware of the need to ensure that those carrying out the transplants have sufficient expertise to perform complex operations, and the relevant skill to keep standards up. We are concerned that too few operations are being performed throughout the country. In some units, the number of transplants performed is insufficient to maintain the skills and expertise of a team of five surgeons. If that continues, transplant team members could begin to lose their skills and standards could fall. For the sake of current and future patients, we must ensure that each transplant team is well staffed and supported, and performs sufficient operations for all its members to maintain high skill levels.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Minister helpfully read out statistics in which Wythenshawe ranked highly among transplant centres in terms of the total number of operations and the success rate. Given that record, would it not be an appalling shame to lose that excellence? My constituent made that point in the letter that I was unable to finish quoting earlier. The Government talk a lot about partnership, but it would be an unfortunate example if the Wythenshawe unit closed as a result of the Government's decision—yet to be confirmed—when voluntary groups have undertaken such a fantastic fundraising effort. At a time when the Government are trumpeting partnership, surely such a closure would be a kick in the teeth for those volunteers?
Yvette Cooper: I understand the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I know of the strong feeling in the Manchester area about the importance of the organ transplant service.
The national specialist commissioning advisory group is responsible for advising on which services should be provided nationally. Last year, it recommended that the national programme should be delivered from only four centres in England. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said that there would be only three, but I can assure him that that is not the case. Each unit would have the optimum infrastructure to support a programme of approximately 50 heart transplants.
Mr. Brady: Perhaps I am a little confused, but I understood that Harefield is due to close in 2006, leaving only three centres.
Yvette Cooper: No. Notwithstanding discussions taking place about the location of services in London, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will continue to be a London centre and that the Harefield transplant team will continue. In addition to the centre yet to be

235WH
decided, there will be a London centre, one at Papworth hospital in Cambridge and one at Freeman hospital in Newcastle. To minimise disruption to existing services, the advisory group advised that two units with sufficient surgical staff should continue—at Papworth and Freeman hospitals. It also recommended that the transplant services based in London should be consolidated into a single centre. We have accepted that recommendation. It further recommended that a fourth national centre be created by merging the three smaller transplant programmes that are currently provided by the Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield centres.
Those recommendations are supported fully by many organisations, including the Royal College of Surgeons, the cardiothoracic transplant advisory group of UK Transplant and Dr. Roger Boyle, the heart services director. The Government agreed that such principles are right and that the reconfiguration is necessary if we are to maintain the high quality of one of the best cardiothoracic transplant services in the world. Agreement has already been reached on the reorganisation of the London-based service and the new arrangements will start from 1 April.
To remove uncertainty, we recognise the need to make as early a decision as possible about the siting of the fourth centre. However, it is important that we make the right decision. It is also important to ensure that the decision is based on all the available evidence, with a full assessment of the options and the capacity of the different centres. We do not want to be tempted into making a rush decision, which could be the wrong decision, which would be bad for those areas affected and for cardiothoracic patients throughout the country.
Mr. Brady: Of course, it is important that a thorough assessment is made. The Minister must accept, however, that damage is being done by the delay. When will a decision be made and when will it be announced?
Yvette Cooper: I can say a little more about the timetable for further consideration. The Birmingham, Sheffield and Manchester centres have all made persuasive cases. Understandably, and rightly, the Members of Parliament for those areas have made strong representations on their behalf. We must take into account the impact of the enlarged transplant team on other priority areas for cardiac operations as set out in the national service framework. Clearly, it would not
236WH
benefit the local population if their access to essential coronary artery bypass surgery was reduced to allow people from other areas to have a heart or lung transplant.
We must consider future capacity as well as track record. That is why the Government have asked for a more detailed study of the three sites, to enable us to assess the impact of an enlarged team on the capacity at the centres, as well as other important factors such as access for patients We recognise the importance of access and travel for patients. I assure the Chamber that, whatever decisions are made, all centres have adequate accommodation for those patients who have to travel and for their families. We shall also be looking further to improve shared care arrangements, so that travelling to distant centres is minimised.
When that further work is concluded and Ministers have all the facts, we shall issue a document setting out the proposals, to inform the public. We shall also seek comments because it is important that such a decision takes place in as transparent a manner as possible. The public and those in the areas that will be affected will be given the opportunity to comment before the final decision is made. That means that we are unlikely to reach a final decision before the summer, to give proper time for public comment on the proposals and for the facts to be assessed fully.
However, when the decision is taken we will work hard to complete the necessary changes by 1 April 2002. I understand the enthusiasm for speedy decision making and I accept that all the areas and the Members of Parliament who represent them will want to make the strongest possible representations. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that we shall take into account the points that they raised on behalf of the Manchester centre.
I am sure that hon. Members understand that we need to recognise our responsibility to make the right decision, which means making a proper assessment of all the competing claims of the different centres to ensure that the decision is made on the basis of the facts, and to offer time for public comment and debate once those facts are known. The issue is extremely important, not simply for those areas that are affected, but for cardiothoracic patients throughout the country. It is too important for a hasty or wrong decision to be made on it; we must make the right decision in the interests of people not only in the Manchester area, but in Sheffield, Birmingham and throughout the country.

Home Care
1 pm
Ms Linda Perham: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the Department of Health's draft guidance, "Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services", which was issued with a consultation paper in January 2001. I am also pleased to have secured the debate just before the consultation period ends on 30 March. The guidance is for local authorities on non-residential community care charges, such as those for home care and day services. It is due to be finalised in May and fully implemented by April 2002.
I pay tribute to the Coalition on Charging, the Leonard Cheshire Foundation and the Carers National Association, which are working with me on the issue, and to the excellent work that they carry out for people with disabilities and their carers. I have been pleased to support the Leonard Cheshire Foundation since my year as mayor of Redbridge in 1994–95, and have had the privilege of working with its head of policy, John Knight, since my election to the House.
Members of my local carers group, the Redbridge Carers Support Service, raised concerns about charges for home care when I spoke at their annual general meeting on 9 November—the same day that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced the £191 million package of extra help for carers, which was warmly welcomed. They raised the issue again during a visit to their headquarters in Ilford on 1 March by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), on 1 March. Charging for services is a matter of great concern to carers, and the Carers National Association believes that the draft guidance does not pay enough attention to the impact of charging on them. That is a particularly sensitive subject because, from April, the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 will for the first time allow local authorities to provide services to carers, while giving them the power to charge for those services.
The Government's intention to provide a fairer means of charging for non-residential services should be welcomed. It includes the commitment to reduce the worst hardship caused by charging to the least well-off people, by proposing a minimum level below which service users' incomes cannot fall the creation of a buffer zone of 25 per cent. to protect that minimum income; the reminder that councils retain the discretion not to charge; the view that charging without taking into account a service user's means is unacceptable; the requirement that local authorities must take into account the ability to pay; and the principle that the value of a person's home may not be taken into account when assessing ability to pay.
Although the guidance will bring some real improvements, there remain areas of concern. People on income support will not automatically be exempt from charging. The draft guidance states that nobody should fall below the level of income support, which means that the most vulnerable in our society will still be hit. Income support is a breadline benefit, payable to people who would otherwise fall below the poverty line, which remains the case even where a person receives other income or benefits. Someone who is on income support
238WH
and being charged for care cannot wait a year before the charges stop. They must be stopped now. Those who are currently facing hardship because of personal care charges cannot wait until April 2002 for charges to be abolished.
Exempting people in receipt of income support is also consistent with charging systems for other comparable health and social services such as prescriptions, dental treatment and eye tests. In any case, it will be inefficient to charge those on income support, as the amount that councils have to spend in assessing that group of people, compared with the meagre sum raised, will mean little or no overall income. In the final guidance, the Government should ensure that no one on income support is charged.
Many organisations are calling for personal care services as defined by the royal commission to be available free of charge. That now looks set to happen in Scotland and is a major concern of the Coalition on Charging, a consortium of 200 national and local organisations representing disabled and older people.
The Health and Social Care Bill clearly states that those receiving care from a registered nurse will not have to pay personal care charges in any setting. That is welcome, but many older or disabled people receive a similar service from a social care worker but would have to pay charges. There is real anxiety that what is laid out in the guidance could act as a disincentive to work. The draft guidance states:
"The Government's policy is to encourage and enable those who wish to take up employment, including disabled people to do so. Charging policy should avoid creating disincentives to work."
It continues:
"Those in work should retain the majority of any benefit from entering work or from increased earnings…no more than a maximum of 55 per cent. of net earnings should be included within any calculation of total income."
It is clear that the majority of earnings will not be retained if the majority, 55 per cent., of a person's earned income is deemed available to pay for charges. Many disabled people already face barriers in their everyday lives. Those in work also contribute to the cost of non-residential social services, as well as other services essential to society, via income tax, council tax and national insurance. On top of that, up to 55 per cent. of earned income being taken away to pay charges is unacceptable to service users who work. They are being taxed four times, which is clearly unjust. If a maximum figure of earnings is to be contemplated, it needs to be much lower to tackle the issue successfully and to ensure that charging does not discourage disabled people from finding work.
The guidance suggests that partners' income can be taken into account, but that could compromise a disabled person's independence and cause tensions within a household or relationship. Section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 states that a service user can be charged, but not other parties. There is anxiety that the guidance does not make things clearer, and it could be a problem for local authorities and service users.
Many partners of disabled people already make many financial commitments to support their partner. They also save the local authority money by the informal support that they give. It is unfair that they are then caught in a double whammy of having to pay their partner's formal care costs.

239WH
Organisations representing disabled and older people and carers believe that, if charging continues, partners should not have to pay charges, and I seek an assurance that that will be the case. Although it is good that the value of a person's home is not taken into account when assessing the ability to pay charges, the current savings level is too low. Levels have been set at the same limit as for people living in residential accommodation. That is causing great concern to service users, as people living in their own home need extra savings to pay for the maintenance that home ownership necessitates, and they also use extra support and equipment.
The draft guidance shows that savings over £10,000 could be taken into account when charging. Service users with savings of over £18,500 could be expected to pay the full charge for a service—a limit that would leave little money to cover the costs involved if someone had a progressive condition, for example, and had to find money for a chair lift, or if a home needed repairs after flooding.
Disability-related benefits such as disability living allowance are intended to pay for the extra daily costs faced by disabled people. Those costs are well documented and are frequently substantial, ranging from paying for extra heating to paying for communication aids or adjustments to a car. When the benefits were introduced, they were not intended to pay for services provided by local authorities and the amounts involved clearly reflect that. They are not sufficient to fund or subsidise care or extra living costs.
There is a contradiction between the Government's strong record on improving civil rights for disabled people since they were elected in 1997, through such measures as the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, and the effect that charging has on the everyday lives of disabled people. The Government's recent proposal to scrap the small employer threshold so that no small employer can discriminate against disabled people is welcome, but that positive development has less meaning if, because of the extra charges that a disabled person needs to pay to get to work in the first place, he or she is better off staying on benefits and not working.
The guidance could lead to improvements in local authorities' charging policies but I urge the Minister to consider seriously my concerns, which may be summarised as the continuation of charging for personal care if administered by a social worker but not a nurse; the disincentive to work created by the plan to take up 55 per cent. of a service user's income to pay for personal care charges; and the unfairness of charging partners for an elderly or disabled person's care. As a matter of urgency, a commitment to ensure that charging for people in receipt of income support stops immediately, rather than in April of next year, would also be warmly welcomed.
The main reason for the guidance appears to be the current variation in charging between different councils-problems that, as the consultation paper states, were identified in the "Modernising Social Services" White Paper, the report of the royal commission on long-term care, and "Charging with
240WH
Care", which was published by the Audit Commission in May 2000. However, I fear that too many charging variations will continue under the guidance.
Together with the Coalition on Charging, I believe that councils will be left with too much discretion in several key areas, such as in taking into account disability-related benefits, partners' income or capital, savings, and setting a maximum charge. Local authorities should be obliged to undertake effective consultation on charges and to take the views of service users and carers fully into account. Carers would like assurances that the Government intend to ensure that a more detailed appreciation of charging issues for carers is represented in the guidance.
I hope that the final guidance will realise the Government's genuine intention of introducing fairer charges for home care and other non-residential services. I welcome the consultation that has taken place with interested parties on the draft guidance. I am sure that the Minister welcomes the opportunity of addressing my concerns and those of the individuals and organisations who took part in the consultation.
1.13 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) on securing the opportunity to consider the Department's consultation paper and draft guidance on charging policies for non-residential social services.
In July last year, we took new powers to issue statutory guidance under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, in relation to discretionary charges for home care. Until that time, we had no powers in that area. We identified the extent of variations in charging policies between councils as an issue needing to be tackled in our "Modernising Social Services" White Paper in December 1998. The full extent of the variations—and I must acknowledge that in some cases the charging policies are hard to defend—has been exposed n the Audit Commission's recent report, "Charging with Care", published in May last year.
My hon. Friend mentioned the royal commission's report on the funding of long-term care, published in January 1999, which recommended that personal care should be provided free wherever it was undertaken. As she knows, we had to decide how best to improve long-term care. We thought it right to spend most money on improving the general quality and range of services provided for older people. That will help individuals to regain as much independence as possible. It will support them in their own homes and enable services to be tailored to their needs, not those of the organisations providing them.
To make personal care free to everyone in every setting would cost about £1 billion a year, but that huge investment would do nothing to improve front-line services. Not one extra person would be offered help to remain independent in his or her own home. It was a hard choice, but we chose to invest most resources in changing fundamentally how our care system supports older people.
We chose to invest in the development of a new range of services to promote the independence and improve the quality of care of older people. An important part of

241WH
the investment will be used to provide a new range of intermediate care services to prevent hospital admission and to offer effective rehabilitation, both enabling prompt discharge from hospital and preventing premature admission to long-term care.
Under the NHS plan of July 2000 by 2004 there will be 5,000 extra intermediate care and 1,700 supported intermediate care places, benefiting 150,000 more older people each year; more rapid response teams and other avoidable admission prevention schemes, benefiting about 70,000 more people each year; 50,000 more people will be enabled to live at home through additional home care and other support; and further carers' respite services will be extended to benefit a further 75,000 carers and those for whom they care.
That investment will allow us t o employ more nurses, doctors and therapists, but we clearly cannot spend the same money twice, as my hon. Friend would acknowledge. It is a hard choice, but we have made the right one for our country. It is vital to achieve our ambition of having joined-up services that promote independence, choice and quality, and other non-residential services such as day care.
The extent of variations in local charging policies, which we and the Audit Commission have identified, risks inhibiting our ambitions for developing the care of people at home. Too often, local charging policies have not been related to the need to promote independence and have been exclusively budget driven, crudely designed, and insensitive to individuals' circumstances. If home care is to play its full part in helping people to live independent lives in the future—which the Government want to encourage—charging policies that are manifestly unfair and deter people from accessing care need to be tackled.
The design of charging policies is important. It would have been an important matter, even if the royal commission's recommendation to make all personal care free of charge had been implemented in full. Non-residential social services include services such as home help and community equipment, which can be vital to maintaining independence, and the royal commission recommended that such services, where they do not involve personal care, should still be subject to an assessment of ability to pay charges. We would still need to address the fairness of charging for services.
I must emphasise that the draft guidance is precisely that. It was issued with a consultation paper, seeking responses to several questions. While we have done our best to overcome the difficulties of designing good charging policies, we may not have all the answers and we welcome all responses to the consultation, including those of well-informed service users, voluntary groups and, indeed, my hon. Friend's contribution today.
Local councils will rightly retain real responsibilities and some discretion in charging policies in future. For example, it will still be open to councils not to charge and they must decide what proportion of costs to recover through charging arrangements. The draft guidance sets out essential requirements to ensure fairness in assessing ability to pay charges, and consistency with the Government's overall social care and economic objectives. The draft guidance will be issued as statutory guidance to which councils must have regard in setting their charging policies. As
242WH
councils retain substantial responsibilities, it is vital that they give proper priority to the key processes, which include consultation, communication with users and reviews of their policies. The draft guidance includes advice on all those issues, which in my view obliges councils to undertake effective consultation. I am certainly at one with my hon. Friend on the importance of that.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomed a number of the main principles in the draft guidance, which include the requirement that charges should not reduce a user's net income below basic levels of income support; the view that charging all users at a flat rate, without taking account of their resources, is unacceptable; and the requirement that councils must take into account the ability to pay. I should add that it is already a legal requirement for charges to be reasonable, so that is not new.
My hon. Friend accepts that the draft guidance will mean real improvements, but she has, quite legitimately, raised concerns, to which I want to respond positively. We have proposed that councils should bring the final guidance into force during the financial year 2001–02 and no later than 1 April next year. She says that people on income support will continue to experience hardship if councils charge users on basic levels of income support and take no action until April 2002. I have some sympathy with that point, which we shall need to consider carefully. Others have made the same point in response to the consultation exercise. If I inject a note of caution, I do so only because achieving the objectives that we both want to achieve is a complex matter. We need to take into account the ability of local councils to deliver changes to their charging policies within a reasonable time.
My hon. Friend says that other charging systems such as those for prescriptions and dentistry exempt recipients of income support. That is not all that those systems do; they also protect, at income support levels, the incomes of people who are disqualified from receiving income support, such as low earners and students. To do that, they require a specific and quite complex means test under the NHS low-income scheme. We have set out our intention to provide similar protection for people liable to pay home care charges, but it will not be a simple matter for councils to achieve that quickly.
There is also an important interaction for people receiving both income support and disability benefits such as disability living allowance or attendance allowance with the way in which home care charging systems treat disability benefits. If councils take disability benefits into account as income without assessing the reasonableness of doing so, that may reduce a user's net income below income support levels. That means that it is not a straightforward matter to divorce the treatment of people receiving income support from other issues. As I have said, however, we will consider the issue carefully as we respond to the consultation.
My hon. Friend made an important point about incentives to work. I want to make it clear that our policy is to encourage those who want to take up employment, including disabled people, to do so. Charging policies should avoid creating disincentives to work. That remains our fundamental objective. Our

243WH
intention in the draft guidance was to propose that councils treat earnings more generously than other income to ensure that there are incentives for disabled people to work. We have made it clear in the draft guidance that councils already treating earnings more generously than the maximum proposed in the consultation may continue to do so. There is no reason why disabled people now in employment should lose out as a result of the draft guidance. It discusses ways in which the overall approach will help to minimise work disincentives. It proposes as a guiding principle that those in work should retain the majority of any benefit from entering work or from their increased earnings.
As my hon. Friend said, the draft guidance proposes that no more than a maximum of 55 per cent. of earnings should be included in any calculation of total income. That is not the same as saying that 55 per cent. of income is available to pay charges. That percentage will be offset against premiums at income support levels, including disability premiums, with the addition of housing costs and disability-related expenditure incurred by the service user. Much less than 55 per cent. of earnings will therefore be assessed as a maximum charge, other than for very high earners.
We have had many representations about that element of the draft guidance. I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by our willingness to reconsider whether it achieves the removal of disincentives to work. If there are convincing arguments that it does not, it will be reconsidered. I can assure her that we shall not issue any final guidance that makes it harder for disabled people to enter work. That would be entirely counter to our wider objectives and will not happen. We have already proposed that earnings should be treated more generously than other income, and we will re-examine that to ensure that the maximum proposed achieves the objective that we desire.
The draft guidance reiterates the current legal position, which has previously been set out in advice from the Department, on the treatment of partners' income and savings. That is a complex issue, and I want to assess whether we can clarify the guidance further as a result of the consultation. I fully accept my hon. Friend's points about the sacrifices that many carers already make to care for their partners. The draft guidance will help such carers to some extent: for example, we know that some councils currently take account of the user's income only, but assume that it is all available for charging, even though it supports both the user and the partner. We have made it clear that that is not acceptable. In some situations, it might be fairer to the user and partner to assess their income and expenditure as a couple: for example, where a benefit is assessed and paid at the flat rate for a couple. It can be invidious to assess that as income for the user only. That can happen now, and we are clear that it is not acceptable. On the other hand, it is arguable that a couple with joint savings, or one of whom has large savings, may fairly be assessed as a couple. We will carefully review the comments that we receive about that and try to achieve greater clarity.
The proposed savings levels are similar to those that are in force in approximately three quarters of councils. The other quarter have less generous limits, sometimes
244WH
as low as £3,000, with full charges applying above that level. We will take account of the point that people living at home might need greater savings than those in residential care. That is absolutely right. However, I should mention that the draft guidance does not require users with savings above the upper limit to pay the full charge—the full cost—for a service. Councils may choose to subsidise charge payers at that level as an incentive to independent living in the community. Councils may also apply higher savings limits and set an overriding maximum charge to be paid by any service user. The draft guidance would require councils to consider setting such an overriding maximum. That would be a significant step forward.
My hon. Friend suggested that the draft guidance would leave too much discretion to councils in a number of key areas, including the treatment of disability benefits. The draft guidance proposes that disability benefits may be taken into account as income only if councils also specifically assess a user's disability-related expenditure. That, too, would be an important step forward. While I understand her point, I believe that that is a clear requirement. A number of local councils have criticised the guidance not for leaving them too much discretion but for being too prescriptive. It requires a more sensitive test of ability to pay a charge, when a council wants to take benefits such as disability living allowance and attendance allowance into account. That approach would ensure that charges do not reduce a user's net income below basic levels of income support, and would allow disability-related expenditure at level higher than the benefit concerned to be taken into account. Many users with high care needs would not pay a charge, or would pay a much lower charge.
We do not believe, as a matter of principle, that disability benefits should be entirely excluded from consideration as income. That would be wrong, for example, where a council provides a care package that meets all or most of a disabled person's care needs. The approach that we have proposed would achieve greater fairness and more sensitive assessment of a user's financial circumstances, and would increasingly be combined with better advice to ensure that unclaimed benefits, such as attendance allowance, are claimed, thus increasing the user's income and quality of life. I am sure that we will receive many comments about the treatment of disability benefits, but I have tried to set out the aims behind our proposal.
My hon. Friend cogently made the point that the draft guidance should take more specific account of the needs of carers. That is precisely the kind of comment that we want to hear during the consultation. We are willing to consider more specific guidance on the cumulative impact of charging a disabled person and a carer in the same family. I understand that following a recent meeting with the Department, the Carers National Association will make such points in a written response to the consultation, and I look forward to receiving them.
My hon. Friend has done her constituents a substantial service in raising these matters. We have an open mind on the subject and will seriously consider the many representations that we have received, not least hers.

Hillingdon
1.29 pm
Mr. John Randall: I start by registering an interest as a council tax payer in the London borough of Hillingdon. I am also a director of my family business, which pays substantial business rates in the borough.
Hillingdon is, by and large, a pleasant place to live, and I value the quality of life there. It is a diverse borough, ranging from Ruislip and Northwood in the north to West Drayton, Yiewsley and Hayes and Harlington. It encompasses many different communities, and I sometimes think that the powers in government do not understand the nature of the borough.
I apologise to the Minister. Her officials asked my office for details of what I planned to discuss today, and I did not get back to them, not because I was being awkward, although that might be a good reason sometimes, but because pressure of work in the usual channels kept me too busy.
The Minister will be pleased to know that some of the matters that I raise will not be within the competence of her office, so she will be able to bat them away relatively easily. I hope, however, that she will pass my comments to the appropriate Departments.
Despite the smell of an election in the air, there is an all-party approach in Hillingdon to the matters that I want to raise. All three Members Of Parliament for the borough—my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and Iߞare at one on these matters. The apparent inability of Governments to fund local authorities correctly is not necessarily a new phenomenon. Similar issues arose under Conservative Governments, certainly in respect of the standard spending assessment. However, other factors affect us and I shall touch on four subjects: the problem of insufficient Government funding for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Hillingdon; education in the borough; major repairs allowance; and the contentious matter of the ceiling on our SSA.
On the matter of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, hon. Members will be aware that Heathrow is in the borough of Hillingdon, which gives it more problems in that respect than many other areas. A recent assessment by the director of social services showed that Hillingdon council was providing a social service for the 11th largest population of looked-after children, yet received the 10th lowest SSA and the llth lowest quality protection grant to enable it to meet its statutory duties in that work. The mechanism used to calculate SSA takes no account of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and the quality protection grant is based on the same SSA formula. That compromises the local authority's ability to deliver an effective service and places an unnecessarily great financial burden on the council.
Hillingdon has a relatively high number of looked after children: it is in the top 50 per cent. of boroughs if unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are included. If those children are not included, however, it falls within the lowest 50 per cent. of boroughs. Hillingdon has the worst ratio of SSA per looked after child if
246WH
unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are included, and the second worst ratio if they are not. If the grant for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is included, Hillingdon still has the worst ratio in London.
I will give the Minister some figures for comparison. Hounslow, for example, which is a neighbouring borough, has 257 looked-after children, including five unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It receives an SSA of £12.3 million and a quality protection grant of £2 million. Hillingdon, on the other hand, has 384 looked-after children, including 145 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—that is 140 more than in Hounslow—and receives an SSA of £9.5 million and a quality protection grant of £1.6 million. The quality protection grant is applied to all looked-after children equally by law, but Hillingdon receives a lower grant in spite of having more looked-after children.
We have not been inactive within the borough or in Parliament. We have been in touch with the Department of Health, which has not been completely unhelpful. It has tried to solve some of the problems, recognising that some extra costs around care leaving were not met by last year's grant. Unfortunately, that is about as far as the Department's help goes. Although a seminar on the subject was announced, I was disappointed that no one from the Department was able to meet a delegation from the London borough of Hillingdon. The letter stated:
"Given that the grant allocation for 2000-01 has been settled and the forthcoming seminar in March, I do not think a meeting would be beneficial at this stage."
That is a disappointing response. The grant was increased from £500 to £575 per child, but no allowance was made for the displacement costs that arise from providing a high-volume service. The shortfall for Hillingdon in relation to that subject is estimated at £1 million.
With regard to Hillingdon's education budget, we have been disadvantaged by the £2 million shortfall that resulted from the ceiling. A letter from the chair of education to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment emphasises the borough's disappointment that, despite pursuing the Government's objectives in putting education at the forefront, out of a budget of £52 million, our LEA would receive only £100,000, which is the lowest level of grant awarded. That happened despite the issues raised by the chair of education and the Labour lead member for education.
The letter goes on to say that the funding gap between Hillingdon's SSA increase and the actual rise in pupil numbers means that the borough might be unable to accept all of its SSA and that, even if it could, it would
"not reach the Government's target of an in crease of 5 per cent. per pupil in the total delegated and devolved funding for schools. The new grant will make a very small difference to this, raising our increase by £2.50 per pupil or 0.1 per cent…the grave, and growing, seriousness of the recruitment and retention problems of Hillingdon Schools which are exacerbated by the additional funding and greater priority for recruitment and retention initiatives awarded to neighbouring LEAs included in Excellence in Cities."
The borough is still regarded as not having the same problems as neighbouring boroughs although, in actual fact, our vacancy rates are higher and our potential

247WH
recruits—not to mention existing teachers—are being pulled away. We are not being treated fairly in comparison with neighbouring boroughs. In the words of the director of education,
"The combined effect of these two issues is to put the maintenance, let alone the raising of standards in Hillingdon at real and imminent risk."
Having been a headmaster, Mr. Philip O'Hear is a capable professional. He has been doing great things in Hillingdon, but says that the decisions of the Department for Education and Employment are likely to undermine the progress of raising standards in Hillingdon schools. A pattern is beginning to emerge. He said:
"we have not been granted a meeting and yesterday's announcement not only shows a failure to accept or understand Hillingdon's difficulties—
that is, the announcement of the grant—
but is actually going to compound them.
Mr. O'Hear said that the assessment has not met with urgent Government action and the recent effective work in Hillingdon to raise achievement is at real and imminent risk.
I have written to the Minister about the major repairs allowance in the hope that we would receive increased resources, but I have not yet received a response to my letter. As for the introduction of a ceiling on the London borough of Hillingdon's SSA, it lost £2 million of its cash settlement. That came like a bolt from the blue, and has caused great problems for people not only in my constituency, but within the borough. We are about £3 million short of Government funding. That estimate is not based on a wish list. That money is due to us. Furthermore, each person in Hillingdon will have to pay 23 per cent. more than last year, and that is just to fund the Greater London Authority. I cannot blame the Minister for the Mayor's decision, although it was her Department that set it up in the first place.
My constituents find it ironic that we are paying more, yet seeing fewer police and fire engines. An interesting comment was made at a recent council meeting. A senior Labour councillor, an ex-leader of the authority, said:
"What does it take to persuade the Government we are not a leafy suburb? We have social, economic and transportation problems that equate closely to those of an inner city borough."
It seems that the Government have it in for our borough. We have a teacher recruitment and retention problem, which is aggravated by the Government's inability to recognise it. Hillingdon ratepayers pay disproportionately more for having Heathrow in the borough. That problem is not helping community relations as people realise that part of the increase in council tax is due to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and that is something that worries all of us.
The Government have managed by stealth to increase taxes on my fellow residents and have tried to put the blame on local councillors. That forces local councillors of all parties to take unpopular measures. In Hillingdon, we are not quite as gullible as that. We realise that a lack of central Government funding is causing us many problems.
1.44 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was interesting. I wonder what he might have said had he been a Member during the previous Administration, when Hillingdon received substantially less Government support than it receives now.
None of us pretends that the distribution of local government finance is an exact science. We recognise the issues in Hillingdon which is why it received maximum funding this year I suspect that were the hon. Gentleman to visit my authority, or indeed yours, Mr. Stevenson, he would find a different position, with equally strong arguments about need.
The manner of distribution is not perfect, as we have admitted, and that is why we are reviewing local government finance. We have published a local government finance Green Paper and later this year we will publish a White Paper which will begin to reconsider the distribution of money.
Mr. Randall: I recognise that everyone fights their own corner, and I hope that I would fight mine regardless of which Government were in power, because that is what I was sent here to do. The right hon. Lady says that we were fully funded, but I understand that the £2 million that was taken away as part of the ceiling means that we were not.
Ms Armstrong: What I said was that Hillingdon received the maximum funding available this year, which is true. I shall explain the rationale behind the ceiling. The ceiling is rejected only if the local government distribution system is considered perfect. As we do not believe that it is, we made adjustments around it. I am aware, however, that the authority has experienced some highs and some lows in the past year, and I am sure that those involved will have been delighted to learn yesterday that the Government have withdrawn the special measures that were introduced following a poor social services inspectorate report. I congratulate the authority on its efforts to improve the service. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to ensure that councils have the funding necessary to enable them to improve their services in that way.
Since taking office we have provided authorities with significant increases in grant, which has meant an increase during the past four years of 14 per cent. in real terms. That compares starkly with the 7 per cent. real terms cut in the previous four years to 1997–98.
We have given priority to education and social services. Next year, provision for education spending will increase by £1.9 billion. Social services spending will increase by 8.1 per cent, which will mean an extra £576 million. We will therefore have provided an extra £6.4 billion for education and £2 billion for social services since we took office.
Hillingdon has benefited more than most from that extra money. As the hon. Gentleman said, Government grant is distributed to local authorities through the system of standard spending assessments. In the four years since we took office, Hillingdon's SSA has increased each year by 4.8 per cent. on average. Most other authorities have received much lower increases.

249WH
Compared with the previous four years, the council's average yearly increase under the Government makes it 1.6 per cent. a year better off. That is not because the council fared worse than other authorities in that time; indeed, it did relatively well. Its average yearly increase was 3.2 per cent., when for comparable outer-London boroughs it was only 1.3 per cent.
I must put the hon. Gentleman's comments in context. This year, the council received a grant increase of more than £10.1 million, an increase of 6.5 per cent., and the council is one of the main gainers from next year's settlement. The authority has received an increase in provision for spending on education and social services of £9 million and £2.5 million respectively. Although priority has been given to such provisions, funding for spending on other services has increased by more than £2 million.
In addition to that money, the Government are significantly increasing the money that they are providing to local government by way of grants for special purposes. The main ring-fenced education and social services grants that Hillingdon will receive next year have increased by about £2 million. That is an increase of almost 20 per cent. and that figure does not include grants for asylum seekers, which are yet to be announced.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The authority was eligible for higher weekly grant rates during 2000–01. although I understand that it was late in submitting the application for the money. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), none the less expedited the application and the authority was able to claim over £7.2 million. It does not have a short fall between eligible costs and the grant claimed and. according to the grant claim, Hillingdon supported an average of 387 children during the year, of whom about three quarters were 16 and 17-year-olds.
With regard to the asylum-seeking adults and families grant, Hillingdon has been paid almost £4.9 million for the first six months of the year, and a payment on account of the same sum for the second six months of the year. I appreciate the work that is being done, especially in London boroughs with asylum seekers and unaccompanied children, and I recognise the pressures on Hillingdon. However, we have consistently increased the money that is available. The average grant for the first six months allowed Hillingdon to claim £140 per week for each single adult and £300 for each family. However, it will now be able to claim £350 for each family per week. The Government are doing what they can to assist, in difficult circumstances. During our Administration, the amount given for such purposes has significantly increased.
The hon. Gentleman referred to education, and I understand that every authority wishes to do what it can to raise standards. I am confident that, with good management, Hillingdon will continue to do that. He specifically referred to teacher recruitment and retention, and I understand his concerns. We are aware of the problem, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is examining issues specific to Hillingdon. However, we have already taken action to tackle the problems of teacher recruitment and retention in Landon. Next year's
250WH
proposals for the teachers' pay award include a pay increase of twice the rate of inflation for newly qualified teachers, and an increase of 30 per cent. for each of the London weighting allowances.
Mr. Randall: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Armstrong: I am more than happy to give way, but I am not confident that I shall be able to finish my speech.
Mr. Randall: The point about the teachers' pay settlement is that there are insufficient funds for it. It is easy for the Government to say what they will pay the teachers, but they have not provided the funds for the education authority to do so. Therefore, the settlement takes money from its budget.
Ms Armstrong: That is a matter for debate. No Government have ever fully funded a pay settlement on their own. We did give a generous education settlement, and Hillingdon benefited from that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State allocated more money to the settlement to address authorities' concerns about teachers' pay, and Hillingdon received an additional £100,000, after its funding was assessed in relation to its needs. We have introduced a new recruitment and retention allowance of £5,000, and we have proposed to remove all restrictions on the right to offer it. We also plan to allow employers to offer incentives in kind, such as subsidised housing.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the major repairs allowance. He wrote to my Department about the matter, and I understand that he received a reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who was then an Under-Secretary at my Department but is now at the Department for International Development. I am not aware of the hon. Gentleman's subsequent letter. I apologise for that, and I will ensure that my colleagues respond to it rapidly.
It is understandable that hon. Members of all political persuasions want more money to be allocated to their local authorities, but they should recognise that we are investing much more each year in housing. In 1997, local authorities received £926 million in housing capital resource allocation, whereas the budget for 2003-04 will be £2.634 billion, and some of that money is MRA, which must be used to repair social housing.
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways by asserting that taxes should not be raised but that there should be additional public investment. We are determined to maintain the right balance between those priorities. In the past, there was significant underinvestment in housing, which is now presenting us with enormous problems. That is why we are seeking annually to increase investment.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about floors and ceilings, and he mentioned that we imposed a ceiling on Hillingdon. In the current year, there were significant changes in data. They are difficult to pin down, but one of their consequences is that some areas of great need whose population has fallen are experiencing difficulties in meeting their commitments. Those areas will lose significant sums if there are a couple fewer pupils in some classes, but no schools will be closed. That is why

251WH
we believed that it was necessary to have a floor, but we also considered that it was justifiable to introduce a ceiling. Hillingdon was identified as one of the councils that would not receive a grant increase of more than 6.5 per cent. because of the ceiling, so Ministers agreed to meet its representatives.
We heard a range of views during our consultations. There was broad agreement about the concept of a floor, but not about that of a ceiling, particularly from those authorities that missed out because of it. However, we believe that a 6.5 per cent. increase in general grant should be sufficient for the authorities that were affected
252WH
by the ceiling, even after allowing for the fact that they must cater for growing populations. In each case, the increases will be topped by substantial increases in ring-fenced grant, and I have stated that Hillingdon will therefore receive an increase of 20 per cent.
There are always difficult decisions to take, but I believe that any organisation that is guaranteed a 6.5 per cent increase ought to be able to manage its budget in the following year. I believe that Hillingdon will be able to do that, and I hope that it will employ the money that it receives in the most effective ways. If—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TREASURY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the National Insurance Contribution liability was of a self-employed person earning(a)£20,000 and (b)£30,000 in the financial years (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; and what it will be in 2001–02. [150049]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: Since 1999, this Government have introduced a package of measures to build a fairer National Insurance system, to improve work incentives and encourage job creation. In particular, we have aimed to improve the position of lower earning self-employed people and to address the under-contribution of the self-employed as a whole to the National Insurance Fund, compared with the National Insurance contributions (NICs) payable by employees and employers.

  The self-employed pay class 2 which is a weekly flat rate charge and class 4 which is charged as a percentage of profits over the lower profits limit up to the upper profits limit.

  In the March 1999 Budget the Chancellor announced a reform of self-employed NICs to reduce the burden of National Insurance on the lowest earning self-employed and encourage the start up of self-employed businesses. The flat rate was reduced from £6.55 a week to £2 a week and the class 4 rate was increased from 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. The starting point for payment of Class 4 NICs has also been aligned with the income tax personal allowance. These changes were introduced following recommendations of the Taylor report.

  Over the period mentioned in the question the Government have also introduced a number of measures on income tax. For example, we have introduced and extended the 10p starting rate, cut the basic rate to 22p, introduced the Working Families Tax Credit and the Children's Tax Credit, which reduce direct tax.

  By October 2001 as a result of personal tax and benefit measures, UK households will be on average £590 a year better off and families with children will be £1,000 better off on average from measures introduced over the parliament as a whole.

  The NICs and income tax liabilities will depend on many circumstances.

  The table shows the net effect of changes to NICs and income tax for a single self-employed earner who has no children.
  530W

  £

  Year/Income

  NICs

  Income tax

  Total

  1996–97

  10,000

  503.00

  1,340.40

  1,843.40

  20,000

  1,103.00

  3,740.40

  4,843.40

  30,000

  1,322.60

  6,258.00

  7,580.60

  1999–2000

  10,000

  488.80

  1,107.95

  1,596.75

  20,000

  1,088.80

  3,407.95

  4,496.75

  30,000

  1,448.80

  5,707.95

  7,156.75

  2000–01

  10,000

  497.05

  1,052.90

  1,549.95

  20,000

  1,197.05

  3,252.90

  4,449.95

  30,000

  1,744.45

  5,452.90

  7,197.35

  2001–02

  10,000

  486.55

  976.70

  1,463.25

  20,000

  1,186.55

  3,176.70

  4,363.25

  30,000

  1,879.55

  5,376.70

  7,256.25

  The following table shows the net effect of changes to NICs, Family Credit, Child Benefit and Income Tax (including the abolition of the married couple's allowance and introduction of the Children's Tax Credit and Working Families Tax Credit) for a family unit which contains a single self-employed earner, who is working more than 30 hours, married and has two children under 11.

  £

  Year/Income

  NICs

  Family credit/Child benefit

  Income tax (including WFTC)

  Total

  1996–97

  10,000

  503.00

  2,031.91

  1,071.90

  -457.01

  20,000

  1,103.00

  1,019.20

  3,471.90

  3,555.70

  30,000

  1,322.60

  1,019.20

  5,989.50

  6,292.90

  1999–2000

  10,000

  488.80

  2,075.64

  -690.28

  -2,277.12

  20,000

  1,088.80

  1,248.00

  3.210.95

  3,051.75

  30,000

  1,448.80

  1,248.00

  5,510.95

  5,711.75

  2000–01

  10,000

  497.05

  1,300.00

  -2,700.04

  -3.502.99

  20,000

  1,197.05

  1,300.00

  3,215.83

  3,112.88

  30.000

  1,744.45

  1,300.00

  5,452.90

  5,897.35

  2001–02

  10,000

  486.55

  1,344.20

  -3,456.43

  -4,314.08

  20,000

  1,186.55

  1,344.20

  2,587.64

  2,429.99

  30,000

  1,879.55

  1,344.20

  4,856.70

  5,392.05

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many self-employed persons paid(a) only class 2 National Insurance Contributions and (b) class 2 and class 4 Contributions in 1999–2000; and what estimate he has made of the same figures for 2000–01; [144833]

  (2) what the proceeds were of (a) class 2 and (b) class 4 National Insurance Contributions in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000; and what estimate he has made of the same figures for 2000–01. [144832]
  531W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The reform of class 2 and class 4 National Insurance Contributions (NICs) will reduce the burden on low earners and encourage business start-ups. In 1999–2000, around 0.7 million self employed are estimated to be liable to pay only class 2 and 1.8 million are estimated to be liable to pay class 2 and class 4 NICs. For 2000–01 around 0.2 million are estimated to be liable to pay only class 2 and some 2.3 million are estimated to be liable to class 2 and class 4 NICs. Theses estimates are based on the survey of personal incomes.

  Estimates for class 2 and class 4 NICs receipts in 1998–99 to 2000–01 for the United Kingdom are given in the table.

  £million

  UK NICs receipts

  Year

  Class 2

  Class 4

  Total

  1998–99

  680

  960

  1,640

  1999–2000

  730

  990

  1,720

  2000–01

  350

  1,040

  1,390

  These estimates were provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral answer of 1 March 2001,Official Report, column 1022, from the Paymaster General, on what evidence she based her claim that the majority of employers have welcomed the Working Families Tax Credit. [155433]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The evidence is that over 1.1 million working families now receive WFTC—300,000 more than received Family Credit at its peak. Thanks to the generosity of WFTC awards, employers are now able to offer jobs to people who would otherwise face financial barriers to work. This is a significant benefit to employers and the economy as a whole. The CBI has supported the WFTC which it has described as playing"a key role in raising incentives to work by targeting additional resources on those people who are most likely to suffer from the poverty and unemployment traps".

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the entitlement to Working Families Tax Credit is of a lone parent with three children under 16 in receipt of child benefit and with eligible child care costs of £200 per week and gross earnings of(a) £34,000, (b) £40,000 and (c)£45,000. [155355]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: Whether such families are entitled to Working Families Tax Credit, and the sizes of their awards, depends on other conditions, including their savings. The Inland Revenue booklet WFTC/BK1, "Your Guide to Working Families' Tax Credit" explains how to calculate whether a family is entitled to an award, and its size. A copy is available on the Inland Revenue website:www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk. The values of the various
  532W
  credits, and the income threshold, for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are shown in Table A.3 of the Budget 2001 Red Book.

  Budget Measures (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) expected impact of the 2001 Budget and (b) combined impact of the Budget measures of 1998, 1999 and 2000 on (i) women and (ii) men in London. [155007]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The impact of Budget measures on men and women cannot be measured separately for London. For the UK as a whole, by October 2001, as a result of personal tax and benefit measures:on average women rill be £85 a year better off and men will be £80 a year better oft from Budget 2001, compared to an indexed Budget 2000 base;
  on average women will be £440 a year better off and men will be £225 a year better off from measures introduced over the Parliament as a whole, compared to an indexed 1997 base. For households, the average gain will be £590 a year.

  Looking at the impact of individual new measures on people in London:
  the introduction of the Children's Tax Credit will benefit 475,000 families;
  the increase in the 10p income tax band will benefit around three million tax payers;
  the £5 increase in WFTC will benefit 85,000 working families.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances self-employed persons may become eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit; and if he will make a statement with specific reference to those businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. [155352]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Both self-employed people and employees may be eligible for Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) if they are on low or middle incomes, work 16 hours or more a week and if they are responsible for one or more children. WFTC is available to people working in businesses affected by foot and mouth disease, just as it is to other employed or self-employed people.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances employees who work for small businesses which have cash flow problems resulting in reduced working hours and changed conditions of employment may become eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit and if he will make a statement with specific reference to businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. [155353]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) provides an earnings top-up for low and middle income working families. An employee working for a small business—including any business affected by foot and mouth disease—would be eligible to apply for WFTC as long as he or she works for 16 hours or more a week and has one or more dependent children.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many buildings the Inland Revenue(a) owned and (b) rented in (i) Scotland and (ii) the United Kingdom in

  533W
  (A) 1998–99 and (B) 1999–2000; and what was the insurance expenditure to cover buildings and employees in those years. [155310]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows:

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Freehold

  Leaseholds

  Freehold

  Leaseholds

  Scotland

  16

  27

  16

  28

  United Kingdom

  117

  360

  117

  371

  Government policy is to self-insure.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of Inland Revenue employees by UK region, indicating the wage cost(a) in total and (b) by region for 1998–99,1999–2000 and 2000–01 and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weighting. [155307]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the staff numbers, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Cabinet Office publications Civil Service Statistics 1998 and 1999 and the Cabinet Office news release of 29 November 2000. The cost of wages by UK region is not available.

  Customs Staff
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to how many HM Customs staff who left in 2000 compulsory Early Severance Terms under the pre-1987 agreement applied. [155566]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Six people left HM Customs and Excise in 2000 on Compulsory Early Severance terms with reserved rights under the pre-1987 agreement.

  Guaranteed Annuities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date in 1998 his Department received the report of the Government Actuary's Department into life offices' exposure to guaranteed annuities options. [154807]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: I understand that the Government Actuary's Department sent a report on reserving for annuity guarantees to HM Treasury in September 1998.

  Vehicle Repairs (VAT)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the decision to exempt motor vehicle repair shops owned by insurance companies from VAT on labour costs. [155142]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 210W.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals have been received to alter the valuation of business premises in the rating list which came into effect on 1 April 2000; and how many are still outstanding. [155039]
  534W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Information concerning the number of appeals received will be given in the Valuation Office Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, to be published later in the year.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Valuation Office staff are engaged in the programme of deciding proposals to alter the 2000 rating list. [155037]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A precise breakdown of the number of staff involved is not available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer the question from the hon. Member for Hertsmere, Reference Number 150049, regarding national insurance contributions, tabled for answer on 12 February. [152744]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have done so today.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he will reply to the parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester on 30 January, reference 148435, on Treasury staff costs; 154279]

  (2) when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester on 6 February (ref. 148435). [154671]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: I have done so today.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees of the Office for National Statistics there were broken down by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region for (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000 and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weighting. [155311]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 26 March 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of employees in the Office for National Statistics Office (ONS) in total and by region. (155311)

  The ONS employed 3,384 staff in 1998/99 and 3,449 staff in 1999/00. The breakdown by region and salary cost is shown in the table below.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Location

  Employee headcount

  Pay bill(£000)

  Employee headcount

  Pay bill(£000)

  London

  914

  23,742

  890

  24,242

  Newport

  898

  16,575

  974

  17,398

  Runcorn

  143

  2,461

  156

  2,619

  Southport

  634

  9,051

  644

  9,161

  Titchfield

  795

  15,279

  785

  15,696

  Total

  3,384

  67,108

  3,449

  69,116

  London Weighting was abolished for new entrants in 1994 and existing staff retained it as an allowance until 1997, when it was consolidated into the London pay scale.

  Unemployment Statistics (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children in families with no one in work(a) there were in 1996 and (b) there are in 2001 in each London borough. [155008]

  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 Ms Harriet Harman, dated 26 March 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about children from families where no one is in work in each London Borough. (155008).

  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides information on the number of dependent children in families where neither parent is in work. The table gives this information for London Boroughs for autumn (September-November) 2000. Estimates are not available by Borough for 1996.

  Children1 in workless families in London by borough—autumn 1996 and autumn 2000 not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  1996

  2000

  Greater London

  442

  419

  Inner London

  237

  222

  Outer London

  205

  196

  City of London

  2—

  3—

  Barking and Dagenham

  2—

  12

  Barnet

  2—

  11

  Bexley

  2—

  3—

  Brent

  2—

  11

  Bromley

  2—

  3—

  Camden

  2—

  13

  Croydon

  2—

  12

  Ealing

  2—

  17

  Enfield

  2—

  19

  Greenwich

  2—

  15

  Hackney

  2—

  21,

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2—

  3—

  Haringey

  2—

  23

  Harrow

  2—

  3—

  Havering

  2—

  3—

  Hillingdon

  2—

  11

  Hounslow

  2—

  3—

  Islington

  2—

  20

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2—

  3—

  Kingston upon Thames

  2—

  3—

  Lambeth

  2—

  12

  Lewisham

  2—

  16

  Merton

  2—

  3—

  Newham

  2—

  38

  Redbridge

  2—

  19

  Richmond upon Thames

  2—

  3—

  Southwark

  2—

  27

  Sutton

  2—

  3—

  Tower Hamlets

  2—

  26

  Waltham Forest

  2—

  12

  Wandsworth

  2—

  3—

  Westminster

  2—

  3—

  1Children aged under 16, and those aged 16–18 in full-time education

  2Figure not available

  3Figure too small for reliable estimate

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the percentage of(a) full-time employees
  536W
  and (b) all employees who earned below £930 per week in 2000–01; and if he will provide corresponding estimates for each standard planning region. [155477]

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

  Letter from Let Cook to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 26 March 2001:

  As National Statistician. I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of employees earning less than £930 per week. (155477)

  The New Earnings Survey (NES) is carried out in April each year. This provides weekly earnings data for all employees and full-time employees. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy.

  The table provides the available data for Great Britain and the Government Office Regions. These are based on the 2000 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

  Percentage of employees earning less than £930 per week for Great Britain and the Government Office Regions; April 2000

  Full-time employees

  All employees

  Great Britain

  96.7

  97.4

  North East

  98.7

  99.1

  North West

  97.8

  98.3

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  98.0

  98.5

  East Midlands

  98.3

  98.7

  West Midlands

  97.6

  98.2

  South West

  98.0

  98.5

  East

  96.7

  97.5

  London

  91.4

  93.0

  South East

  96.0

  96.9

  Wales

  98.6

  98.9

  Scotland

  97.8

  98.3

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey

  Average Pay (Northern Region)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average pay was in the Northern Region(a) in 1996 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [155051]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Fraser Kemp, dated 26 March 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on average pal in the Northern region (155051).

  Government Office regions (GORs) are now used as the standard classification for regional analysis or statistics. The one used for the Northern region is the North East GOR.

  The New Earnings Survey (NES), carried out in April of each year, is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in Great Britain. This shows that in the North East Government Office Region the average weekly pay was £315.2 in 1996 and £365.8 in 2000, the latest date for which figures are available. The figures provided are for full-time to employees on adult rates of pay, whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence.

  Minimum Wage (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in London had their pay increased on implementation of the minimum wage. [154948]

  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 Ms Harriet Harman, dated 26 March 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked I to reply to your recent question about the number of people in London who had their pay increased on implementation of the national minimum wage (NMW) (154948).

  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999, 2000. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds. Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions, including London, are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/ labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp

  The new methodology has been developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in the two surveys, the NES and LFS, in measuring low pay.

  Census
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is regarding the collection of census forms in April; and if he will make a statement.[155548]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 26 March 2001:

  As Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking about the policy regarding the collection of census forms in April (155548).

  For the first time in a census in England and Wales the main method of collection will be the post-back of completed forms. Postage paid envelopes will be delivered with the census forms. This policy will ensure that field staff resources are concentrated in those areas where lower levels of postal response are experienced, and where additional effort may be necessary to collect completed forms or provide assistance.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost will be of the 2001 Census; and how much will be attributed to(a) fieldwork and (b) data processing. [155252]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Richard Ottaway, dated 27 March 2001:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on what the cost will be of the 2001 Census; and how much will be attributed to (a) fieldwork and (b) data processing (155252).

  The total estimated cost for the 2001 Census in England and Wales over the 13-year period 1993/94 to 2005/06 is £207 million. Of this, some £92 million is attributed to fieldwork activities, mainly
  538W
  concentrated in the period 1999/00 to 2001/02, and £86 million is attributed to processing, mainly concentrated in the period 2001/02 to 2003/04.

  The census is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the plans his Department has in place to ensure that each household in England and Wales will be visited and all inhabitants counted for the purposes of the Census during the foot and mouth outbreak. [155847]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 27 March 2001:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what plans are in place to ensure that each household in England and Wales will be visited and all inhabitants counted for the purposes of the Census during the foot-and-mouth outbreak. (155847)

  On 20 March I released a statement outlining new plans for conducting the Census in areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease. I attach a copy of the statement. This explains that the Census-takers working in the countryside will respect all foot-and-mouth restrictions, and new arrangements will be put in place to allow delivery to farms and households by mail, or where practical to an agreed point such as a farm boundary. Specific guidance for enumerators is being prepared in consultation with MAFF and the National Assembly for Wales.

  In response to the understanding we now have this week about the potential maximum scale of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, I intend to provide an update to this statement this week.

  Census: foot-and-mouth

  Statement by National Statistician, Len Cook

  Plans for conducting the Census in areas affected by foot-and-mouth disease were announced today by Len Cook. National Statistician, and Registrar General for England and Wales.

  The Census will continue.

  "Census-takers working in the countryside will respect all foot-and-mouth restrictions, whether statutory or otherwise imposed". Mr Cook said. "I am conscious of the distress and difficulty the disease is causing, and we shall do nothing that might contribute to its spread."

  Census enumerators are local people, working in local communities, in local conditions. New arrangements will be put in place so that in rural areas Census forms can be delivered to farms and households by mail, or, where practical by prior arrangement to an agreed point such as a farm boundary. Census-takers are being instructed to be flexible in arranging the delivery of forms. On no account will they use taped-off thoroughfares or pass warning signs. They will also comply at all times with local disinfecting requirements. Specific guidance for Census enumerators is being prepared in consultation with MAFF and the National Assembly for Wales.

  People in rural England and Wales have responded particularly well in past Censuses, and this makes it possible to introduce a much more flexible approach to counting people in these parts of the country, in response to the outbreak.

  Census Day is Sunday 29 April. This year, as will be the case nationwide, households in affected areas will return their forms by post.

  Barney Holbeche, Head of Parliamentary Affairs at the NFU of England and Wales, welcomed the plans.

  "We are grateful to the Census organisers for recognising the need to minimise any risk of further spreading infection, and to make special arrangements for the delivery and collection of forms from farmers and their staff in the restricted areas of the

  539W
  country," he said. "It is important that this exercise is conducted in a sensitive manner at this time of great stress for farmers, and we will be working with the Census-takers to facilitate this process."

  Households that cannot be reached personally by a census-taker, can expect to receive a Census form by post. In Wales,there will be forms in both Welsh and English. Also included will be an explanatory letter, an information leaflet and a post-back envelope. The letter will explain that additional or different forms can be obtained by phoning the Census Helpline, which will be available from Sunday 1 April 2001.

  Drug-related Deaths (Peterborough)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) where Peterborough stands nationally in relation to drug-related deaths per 100,000 of the population; [155115]

  (2) how many drug-related deaths there were per 100,000 of the population in Peterborough in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what the (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average figure was for constituencies in England. [155116]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Helen Brinton, dated 26 March 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions about where Peterborough stands nationally in relation to drug-related deaths per 100,000 of the population, how many drug-related deaths there were per 100,000 of the population in Peterborough in the last 12 months for which figures are available and what the highest, lowest and average figures were for constituencies in England. (155115, 155116).

  Rates per 100,000 population are only available for Local Authorities. The Office for National Statistics holds a database on drug-related deaths. This contains information on deaths from accidents and suicides involving drugs, as well as poisonings due to drug abuse and drug dependence. It includes deaths from drugs such as paracetamol and aspirin as well as drugs of abuse. The full definition of deaths relating to drug poisoning can be found in Health Statistics Quarterly 09 (copies of which are in the House of Commons library).

  In 1999, the age-standardised death rate from drug poisonings in Peterborough Unitary Authority was 3 deaths per 100,000 population, compared to an average of 5 deaths per 100,000 for England as a whole. In Local Authorities with more than one death during 1999, the highest age-standardised mortality rate was 16 deaths per 100,000 population. There were 14 local authorities where no deaths were recorded.

  Civil Servant Costs
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will separately identify the average cost of the(a) salary, (b) superannuation, (c) accommodation and (d) personal secretaries support, assuming one secretary per official, of employing a team leader, former grade 5 equivalent, in the Treasury in the financial year 2000–01. [148435]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: Treasury staff in range F fall within Senior Salaries Review Body pay bands 1 and 2. The SSRB's recent report (Cm 4995) gives more details. The average salary for a Treasury range F is £55,400. Superannuation averages £9,170.
  540W
  The average accommodation or personal secretary cost for a range F cannot be separately identified.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155234]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not held centrally.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155241]

  Clare Short
  Since 1 January no ministerial meetings between Ministers from my Department and hon. Members have been cancelled.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the contribution to peace and development in Sudan being made by foreign oil companies operating in Sudan. [155147]

  Clare Short
  We are aware of some efforts by oil companies to provide services to the local populations in the areas of their oil concessions. The exploitation of Sudan's natural resources has the potential to be a major driver of development for the people of Sudan. But for this to happen there needs to be a peaceful solution to the civil war.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has received on East Timorese who are in camps in West Timor. [155027]

  Clare Short
  Accurate information on conditions in the West Timor refugee camps is difficult to obtain, following the withdrawal of UN staff and international NGOs in the aftermath of the killing of three UN workers in Atambua last September. But the Indonesian Government have managed the situation in the camps relatively well, and there have been no reports of widespread hunger. Some international NGOs, including Medecins sans Frontieres and Save the Children Fund, are considering re-establishing programmes. A UN mission is due in West Timor soon to review the security situation and decide whether conditions are safe enough for UN staff to return. The UN are particularly keen to ensure that all of those in the camps who want to return to East Timor are able to do so by 20 June, to enable them to register to vote in the Constituent Assembly elections planned for 30 August.
  541W
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contributions she is making to alleviate the conditions of internally displaced persons in Aceh, Indonesia. [155026]

  Clare Short
  We contributed £500,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) appeal for Indonesia last year; and we support the work of the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in Geneva (also known as the Henri Dunant Centre) which brokered the recent "humanitarian pause" in Aceh. We are also working with the UN system in Indonesia to help strengthen its conflict management activities and its response to humanitarian emergencies, whether natural or conflict related.

  Administration of Justice
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help she is giving to poorer countries to improve the administration of justice. [155128]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer 1 gave my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 597W.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response she has made to the recommendations set out in the access report proposed on St. Helena prepared by High Point Rendell. [155774]

  Clare Short
  My Department will comment on the draft final report of the Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access within the next week. High Point Rendell will then proceed with preparation of the final report. Its recommendations will then need to be discussed with the St. Helena Government.

  Colombia
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Government are contributing to the EU assistance package of aid to Colombia; and if she will make a statement on how this money will be spent. [153934]

  Clare Short
  The UK's attributed share of EC expenditure varies from year to year. In 1999, the last year for which we have finalised figures, the UK's share was 17.75 per cent. Details of the proposed aid package are still being determined and will be discussed at a meeting of the European Union of member states and the Colombian Government on 30 April 2001.

  Child Soldiers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she Will list the countries that her Department is in discussion with about combating the use by those countries of child soldiers in military conflicts. [154456]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been working with UNICEF to strengthen its capacity to protect and assist children in crisis situations. UNICEF is engaged on these 542W
  issues with governments, NGOs and other UN agencies in a wide range of countries including Uganda, ECOWAS states, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Cambodia, the Philippines, East Timor, Indonesia, Paraguay, South Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo. My Department has also been supporting work on child soldiers in Sri Lanka with UNICEF's Children and Women in Armed Conflict programme, the Quaker UN office, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Save the Children Fund.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish the report on the inspection of the Royal Parks Constabulary by Mr. Anthony Speed; and if he will make a statement. [155988]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The report was published today and I have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The report is also published on the DCMS website www.culture.gov.uk. I am grateful to Mr. Anthony Speed and his assistant for conducting a thorough inspection of the Royal Parks Constabulary (RPC).

  The review was commissioned by the Royal Parks Advisory Board which has considered the report carefully. In reaching my conclusions on the report's recommendations, I have had the benefit of the Board's advice for which I am grateful.

  I accept the report's analysis and its recommendations for improved efficiency and effectiveness. Immediate action has been taken to remedy deficiencies and further changes and improvements are being taken forward. Mr. Speed makes 23 recommendations. In the following list I give the action taken on each of them to date.

  It is essential for the morale of the RPC and for recruitment and retention that the Force is properly remunerated. The Government have agreed, therefore, to make more money available to maintain the link between the salaries of RPC officers and of the Metropolitan police service at 85 per cent. The award is being backdated to 1 September 2000. The question of an additional London Allowance is under consideration.

  My Department is discussing with the Home Office the future relationship between the RPC and the Metropolitan police service. The current position is that the RPC remains part of the Royal Parks Agency. There are options for change, as Mr. Speed's report recognises. These options require further detailed examination and discussion. I recognise that uncertainty can be unsettling and we shall reach a conclusion as soon as possible.

  Mr. Speed's report acknowledges the level of public satisfaction with the way in which the Royal Parks are policed. They are relatively crime-free areas. This is due to the dedication and professionalism of the officers of the RPC which I recognise and to which I pay tribute.
  543W

  Report of the formal inspection of the Royal Parks Constabulary by Mr. Anthony Speed

  Recommendation

  Progress

  1. The duality of function of the Chief Officer should cease (Paras 2.3–2.10)

  The Chief Officer no longer has responsibilities as head of personnel. He remains a member of the Management Board

  2. The Chief Officer should be a superintendent on secondment from a Home Office Police Force (Paras 2.20–2.23)

  This is being discussed with the Home Office

  3. The Deputy Chief Officer should be a Chief Inspector (Para 2.24)

  A Promotion Board for Chief Inspector/Deputy Chief Officer post was held on 26 March 2001

  4. The Chief Officer should be allowed to run the Royal Parks Constabulary alone. on properly constituted lines (Paras 2.26–2.27)

  The Chief Officer now has full operational control of the Force

  5. The Royal Parks Constabulary should produce an annual, costed, policing plan, which gives a clear account of performance in the previous financial year (Paras 3.12–3.15)

  Properly costed policing plan for 2001–02 prepared, following full consultation. Currently being professionally reproduced for distribution

  Further work necessary in respect of comparisons with performance in previous financial year

  6. Planning guidelines should be produced by the Force showing the link between the community and the Constabulary and include a clear timetable for the contribution from all parties to the plan (Paras 3.16–3.17)

  Interim guidelines produced to enable preparation of the policing plan for 2001–02

  These guidelines are being reviewed now and a more detailed document will be produced for distribution in April 2001

  7. A properly constituted Police Authority should be formed, with clear links to Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary to hold the Chief Officer to account for Force performance (Paras 3.19–3.22)

  This is being discussed with the Home Office

  8. A budget should be set for the Force allowing the Chief Officer to set staffing levels (Para 3.24)

  Budget currently being set for financial year 2001–02

  9. A full participative management programme should be published which clearly shows how policy is developed and how each rank contributes to that process (Paras 3.26–3.34)

  Manual of Guidance now produced and distributed

  Minutes of Senior Management Team meetings being prepared in greater detail, with policy decisions highlighted. Hard copies being circulated to supplement distribution by e-mail. Target set to circulate minutes within seven working days of meetings A newsletter has been distributed to every officer to explain the process of change taking place and further editions will be sent out at regular interval.

  The consultation guidelines for the Policing Plan 2001–02 include the opportunity to take the views of staff (both police and civil) into account in the setting of Force aims and objectives Further actions to follow

  10. The Force should produce a detailed Human Resources strategy document (Para 4.1)

  This document is being prepared

  11. The Constabulary should not seek any further Investors in People (IIP) assessments until recommendations from previous assessments have been implemented (Para 4.4)

  Meeting with IIP assessors held and areas identified for further action. Work continuing

  12. Staff development should be improved including the use of acting ranks to cover absences (Paras 4.10–4.11)

  Temporary promotions made in the ranks of chief inspector,inspector and sergeant

  Substantive promotion made in the rank of sergeant and about to be made in the rank of chief inspector

  Training plan for 2001–02 prioritises staff development

  13. Pay parity should be immediately linked to 85 per cent., and allowances increased, in line with the total remuneration of the MPS package (Paras 4.20–4.22)

  Pay award has just been made for payment at the end of March. Award backdated to 1 September 2000

  Award links pay to 85 per cent. of national police pay rates and includes payment of MPS allowances in respect of London

  Weighting and London Allowance(2)1. Discussions will be held with the Treasury over payment of the Metropolitan police service allowance known as London Allowance(1), currently £1,011 pa 1London Allowance(2), currently £3,327 pa, is paid to officers who joined after 1994 and who are not in receipt of recent allowance

  14. The Constabulary should immediately start monitoring gender and racial matters

  Additional monitoring of gender and racial matters is now taking place

  544W 545W

  Report of the formal inspection of the Royal Parks Constabulary by Mr. Anthony Speed

  Recommendation

  Progress

  15. The Constabulary should immediately commence diversity training using the help and expertise in the Home Office (Para 4.42)

  Additional diversity training for all officers is already scheduled to take place between January and April 2001

  Further diversity training to be carried out between September and December 2001. This second stage training will encompass best practice from the Home Office and will be designed so as to reflect both Force policy and the specific needs of the community and RPC officers

  16. The Constabulary should establish clear guidelines on grievance procedures (para 4.42)

  Grievance procedures have been redrafted taking account of comments received as a result of consulation. Final draft will be produced for publication by May 2001

  17. Meetings of all parties involved in event management should be held to further the understanding of each other's roles and improve co-ordination (Para 5.31)

  Meetings already held to prepare an Events Seminar for RPA/RPC managers in April 2001

  Further seminar to be developed for RPA/RPC and all outside agencies involved in events, for delivery before summer 2001

  18. An IT policy and procedures manual should be produced (Para 6.2)

  Interim IT User Security Operating Procedures instruction issued in November 2000

  19. The RPC should commence negotiations with the British Transport Police for enhanced call handling facilities and install the necessary infrastructure as soon as possible (para 6.11)

  Contract for the provision of control room services by the BTP became operative on 1 December 2000. System went live on 7 January 2001

  New control room facility is dealing with an average of around 200 calls for police action/attention per week. It is projected that it will handle over 10,000 calls per year. A significant improvement in call handling and response has already been achieved

  20. The Constabulary install locks on the open drive of each computer terminal (Para 6.11)

  New software system introduced to prevent the use of unauthorized floppy discs

  21. A submission should be made to the Home Secretary to change the law so that RPC officers retain full police powers throughout the judicial process (Para 6.22)

  This is being discussed with the Home Office

  22. The RPC should seek full Computerised Crime Reporting System enablement with the MPS as soon is possible (Para 7.12)

  Cost implication of this measure currently being examined

  23. Start up moneys should be provided for the RPC to come under Home Office control as a ring-fenced division of the MPS or, alternatively, funds should be provided to allow proper management, accountability and policing by the Royal Parks Constabulary

  Exercise currently being undertaken as to the cost effectiveness of the two options. This will be discussed with the Home Office

  Outside the 23 main recommendations, the following specific areas were singled out for action:

  Consultants

  In the opinion of the Review Team there was no need for further use of the consultants in the spheres of dogs and the mounted section and, when their contracts are complete, they should not be renewed (Paras 4.12–4.13)

  It may be necessary to retain the consultants for a longer period because of the departure of key personal in the dog and mounted sections

  Search Team

  The RPC have a dedicated, trained search team, who know and understand their particular search area. This should continue (Para 5.22)

  Relicensing of search trained officers commenced November 2000. Force now has a properly relicensed search team

  Brompton Cemetery Warden Scheme

  The Review Team urges that negotiations commence immediately with all parties, the RPC, the Friends of Brompton Cemetery, the local community and the local authority to prepare a properly structured community safety plan for the cemetery (Para 6.21)

  Initial meeting with Friends of Brompton Cemetery took place in January 2001. Follow up action continuing

  Richmond Park. Isabella Plantation Warden Scheme

  The Review Team urges all parties to draw up detailed plans for dealing with issues of training, equipment accountability, powers and personal safety, with regular monitoring and feedback (Para 6.22)

  Once properly arranged, the Brompton Cemetery Warden Scheme will be used as a model for Richmond

  546W

DEFENCE

  HMS Excellent
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent at HMS Excellent in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [155801]

  Mr. Spellar
  The operating and major works costs for HMS Excellent over the last five years are set out in the table:

  £million

  Financial year

  Operating costs

  Major works costs

  1995–96

  14.304

  3.617

  1996–97

  15.385

  0.633

  1997–98

  16.408

  0

  1998–99

  16.117

  0

  1999–2000

  16.350

  0

  Defence Training Review
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Defence Training Review. [155985]

  Mr. Hoon
  Training is crucial to the success of our armed forces, and of the business of the Ministry of Defence itself. It represents a resource investment of some £4.2 billion each year. Increasingly, we face new challenges and it is vital to ensure that our training continues to meet our needs and is cost-effective. Against this background, my predecessor announced on 22 July 1999,Official Report, columns 614–615W that he had ordered a fundamental review of education and individual training. This review has now concluded and its report, entitled "Modernising Defence Training", is published today. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The key findings of the review are that, overall, our training and education are of high quality, as demonstrated by operational successes, most recently in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Improvements are nevertheless required to ensure that we have a training and education system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The report therefore sets out a coherent set of measures designed to deliver a training and education system that is better integrated, aligned to operational and business needs, responsive to change and cost-effective.

  To reflect changing operational priorities, in particular those which emerged from the Strategic Defence Review, the report proposes more joint training between the services, and more multinational and inter-agency training for individuals at all levels. In line with the modernising government initiative, we will introduce improvements to civilian training and to leadership and management training, and will make the leadership expertise of MOD and the armed services more widely available as a resource for the UK as a whole. We will exploit the opportunities provided by new technology to make training better and more accessible, in particular through the expansion of e-learning.

  We also propose significant improvements in the field of education. The Royal College of Defence Studies, the Joint Command and Staff College and the Royal Military
  548W
  College of Science, with two new organisations—a Joint Services Warrant Officers School and a Defence Leadership Centre—will be brought together to form a Defence Academy, which we intend to become a national and international centre of excellence for postgraduate education and research. We plan to set up a defence sixth-form college and a defence undergraduate bursary scheme to boost recruitment of engineers and scientists, and to introduce a programme of progressive civilian accreditation of defence education and training. A common theme behind many of our proposals is the need not only to prepare our service and civilian personnel for the tasks we require of them, but to support their personal development, in line with the Government's commitment to lifelong learning which is already enshrined in the learning forces initiative. This will help recruitment and retention, and also—recognising that for most people the services will not be their only career—provide transferable skills and qualifications that will enhance the national skills base.

  We have identified significant scope for improving coherence and cost-effectiveness through training and estate rationalisation, in particular by delivering a significant proportion of specialist training in new defence schools, either joint or lead service, rather than on an individual basis. As well as eliminating duplication, this would improve the quality of training, particularly that in support of joint forces and operations. This will be investigated further by project definition teams over the next 12 months. Subject to the outcome of this work, we believe that the rationalisation programme will result in more cost-effective training and will free resources both to fund improvements we have identified and for defence as a whole.

  Finally, to drive through and sustain all of these improvements we will establish a Director General Training and Education, who will provide a central strategy and policy focus.

  The review has been comprehensive and wide-ranging, and has been conducted in close consultation with all interested parties both within the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, and outside, including allies. The resulting proposals will build on our existing strengths to provide a better focused and more effective training and education system, ensuring that our service-men and women and civil servants receive the training and education they need to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and helping to maintain this country's reputation for professional, effective and successful armed forces.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responses have been received to his Department's consulative document on screening arrangements for service personnel and civilians who have served in the Balkans and the Gulf and who are concerned about exposure to depleted uranium; and if he will make a statement. [155986]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am pleased to say that we have received a total of 32 very helpful and constructive responses to our consultative document on the technical aspects of a screening programme. These are being used in the development of plans for the next stage of work. We now
  549W
  plan to publish a second consultative document with our proposals by 11 April. This is a little later than we had hoped, but the change is necessary if We are to take proper account of the comments we have received.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he requested Professor Peter Lachmann to subject to peer review his report into the zinc cadmium sulphide trials which was published in March 2000; and if he will make a statement. [154792]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence commissioned Professor Peter Lachmann and his colleagues to produce a report of their independent findings for publication. The report was published and a copy placed in the Library of the House on 24 March 2000. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 December 2000,Official Report, column 165W, which referred to the separate matter of the subsequent plan of Professor Lachmann and his colleagues to submit to a scientific journal a scientific paper, based on the report, for peer review and possible publication. This is a matter for Professor Lachmann and his colleagues. Peer review is a normal part of the process of publishing such papers in scientific journals.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests for assistance in dealing with foot and mouth disease have been received from other Government Departments. [155557]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 March 2001,Official Report, column 521W.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many claims from(a) UK and (b) non-UK citizens for compensation are outstanding against his Department because of accidents; how many claims have been outstanding for more than (i) one, (ii) two and (iii) three years; and if he will make a statement; [155795]

  (2) how many outstanding claims for compensation his Department is dealing with relating to service personnel who received injuries at the time of duty; how many have been outstanding for more than (a) one, (b) two and (c) three years; and if he will make a statement; [155796]

  (3) how many outstanding claims for compensation his Department has from civilian employees for work-related accidents; how many are more than (a) one year and (b) two years old; and if he will make a statement. [155797]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of claims for compensation outstanding against the Ministry of Defence from UK and non-UK citizens as a result of injury caused by accidents as at 23 March 2001 is as follows:

  Outstanding

  UK citizens

  Non-UK citizens

  Total

  284

  51

  Less than one year

  148

  38

  More than one year

  75

  9

  More than two years

  31

  2

  More than three years

  30

  2

  550W
  These figures relate to public liability claims against the Ministry of Defence and therefore exclude claims from service personnel and civilian employees.

  The number of claims for compensation outstanding against the Ministry of Defence from service personnel who received injuries in service was 1,596 at 23 March 2001. Of these 652 have been outstanding for less than one year, 413 for more than one year, 214 for more than two years and 317 for more than three years.

  The number of claims for compensation outstanding against the Ministry of Defence from civilian employees who received injuries as the result of work-related accidents is as follows:

  Outstanding

  Civilian employees

  Total

  833

  Less than one year

  204

  More than one year

  386

  More than two years

  243

  When compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation we do so. The time taken to settle a claim is dependent on a number of factors including the complexity of the case as it relates to determining liability and the nature of the injury, which can range from simple bruises or fractures, for example, to catastrophic injuries where the long-term medical prognosis cannot be assessed for some considerable time.

  In line with all other defendants, the Ministry of Defence is bound by the Civil Procedure Rules introduced on 26 April 1999, which specify time scales for the handling of claims. The courts have the power to impose financial sanctions against defendants for non-compliance with the rules. No such sanctions have been imposed against the Ministry of Defence.

  Royal Navy Fire Fighting School
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the cost was of re-locating the fire fighting school to Whale Island, Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement; [155800]

  (2) what the costs were of the fuel tanks recently installed at Whale Island, Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [155798]

  Mr. Spellar
  The overall cost of the new fire fighting training units at HMS Excellent, HMS Raleigh and Strathclyde fire brigade was £6.50 million (excluding VAT) per annum over a 20-year period. These provide all the fire fighting training for the Royal Navy.

  The overall project was funded as a private finance initiative (PFI) with Flagship Fire Fighting Ltd. under the public-private partnership agreement between the Navy Recruiting and Training Agency and Flagship Training Ltd. Flagship own the facilities at HMS Excellent and HMS Raleigh and the Royal Navy pays a monthly cost for the training, currently estimated to average £500,000 per month. The cost of demolition of the fire fighting training facility at Horsea island was £65,000.
  551W
  The fuel tanks referred to are, in fact, waste water tanks which hold waste water expended following completion of the day's fire fighting training activities.

  The cost of the waste water tanks is included within the PFI contract with Flagship Fire Fighting Training Ltd.

  Rosyth
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the assets disposed of by his Department at Rosyth, indicating in each case the nature of the asset, the date of its disposal and the sum realised on disposal. [151652]

  Dr. Moonie
  Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd., the owners of Rosyth royal dockyard, currently operate a regional marketing agreement for the disposal of surplus Ministry of Defence assets in Scotland, northern England and Germany. A list of those assets disposed of since the agreement came into operation in January 1997 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid by his Department, including the Defence Procurement Agency to consultants to develop the smart procurement initiative. [153450]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2001]: The Ministry of Defence has received advice from a number of consultancy companies on various aspects of the smart procurement initiative (SPI) and related changes.

  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, McKinsey and Co. Inc. were paid £1.35 million for their work specifically to help develop SPI.

  Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he had on the replacement of General Sir Rupert Smith as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe by General Dietrich Stockmann; if the UK made a nomination for this post; and if he will make a statement. [155794]

  Mr. Hoon
  This change was part of an agreement reached preceding implementation of the new NATO command structure in 1999, under which the United Kingdom and Germany will alternate the provision of Senior Commanders at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and Regional Headquarters Allied Forces Northern Europe (RHQ AFNORTH). At SHAPE, we will provide either Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe (DSACEUR) or the Chief of Staff and at RHQ AFNORTH we will provide either the Commander in Chief (C in C) or the Deputy C in C. The nation filling the DSACEUR post will provide the Deputy C in C at the Regional HQ; the UK has recently taken over the key C in C NORTH post in anticipation of General Sir Rupert Smith handing over to General Stockmann as DSACEUR.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Planning Agreements
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which Government programmes allow for the use of section 106 contributions from planning agreements as match-funding; and if he will make a statement. [152491]

  Jacqui Smith
  Section 106 agreements are sometimes used to secure funding for school projects across all sectors. There is no obligation for match funding under such agreements, though money from a section 106 agreement could be used to part-fund a school's project. Current Government policy on use of section 106 funding is set out in circular 1/97 issued by DETR.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, for each month since May 1997, for each local education authority in England, the teaching post vacancies notified to his Department. [153279]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: Information on teacher vacancies in January each year since 1995, for each local education authority, is shown in table 42 of Statistics of Education, Teachers, England and Wales, 2000 edition, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Teacher vacancies for each local authority are collected only for January of each year.

  The number of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) in the maintained schools sector in England at January 2000 was 404,600, the highest for 10 years and 6,900 higher than January 1998.

  There was a growth of more than 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000, and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidance his Department provides to schools on publications in which teaching vacancies are advertised; [155603]

  (2) what guidance his Department provides to colleges on the publications in which teaching vacancies are advertised. [155625]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department does not publish guidance on this matter, which is best decided by schools and colleges themselves in the light of their individual circumstances and requirements.

  Coalmining Areas (Departmental Support)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what specific support his Department has provided to coalmining communities by(a) region and (b) local education authority area since 1997. [154304]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Most funding provided by the Department is distributed via local education authorities. The Department does not hold information on support
  553W
  provided to coalmining communities by region. The tables set out the total funding to coalfield areas for the years 1996–97 to 2001–01 by local education authority area. The following revenue grants have been included: DfEE contributions to the standards fund; class size reduction grant; funding for education action zones; grant for nursery vouchers in 1997–98; school budget support grant; and school standards grant.

  Where there are no figures against years 1996–97 or 1997–98, the authority had either been subject to local government reorganisation, or had yet to be created as a result of LGR.

  £million

  SSA

  Grants

  Capital

  1996–97

  Kent

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Staffordshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Stoke-on-Trent

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Doncaster

  119.7

  1.0

  6.4

  Warwickshire

  164.0

  1.4

  24.1

  Derbyshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Leicestershire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nottinghamshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nottingham City

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Yorkshire

  185.9

  2.0

  3.9

  Barnsley

  76.9

  0.9

  3.8

  Rotherham

  102.4

  1.1

  2.5

  Sunderland

  114.9

  1.0

  8.8

  Salford

  82.5

  0.8

  7.0

  Sheffield

  171.0

  1.6

  4.9

  Calderdale

  77.2

  0.7

  1.3

  Kirklees

  141.5

  1.7

  2.7

  Leeds

  252.5

  2.4

  8.6

  Trafford

  76.7

  0.7

  3.8

  Wakefield

  111.6

  1.2

  13.4

  Wigan

  110.1

  1.5

  4.4

  St. Helens

  66.6

  0.6

  2.2

  Middlesbrough

  61.5

  0.5

  1.7

  Durham

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Northumberland

  113.5

  1.5

  3.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  99.7

  1.5

  1.0

  South Tyneside

  59.0

  0.7

  1.5

  1997–98

  Kent

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Staffordshire

  279.1

  12.9

  7.4

  Stoke-on-Trent

  87.0

  4.3

  1.6

  Doncaster

  118.6

  5.3

  1.5

  Warwickshire

  162.6

  6.6

  3.0

  Derbyshire

  236.4

  10.7

  4.0

  Leicestershire

  201.1

  6.6

  2.9

  Nottinghamshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Nottingham City

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Yorkshire

  187.9

  7.9

  5.4

  Barnsley

  76.1

  3.9

  3.2

  Rotherham

  101.9

  4.8

  2.9

  Sunderland

  113.7

  5.0

  7.9

  Salford

  82.2

  4.1

  5.5

  Sheffield

  168.7

  7.9

  7.5

  Calderdale

  76.8

  3.3

  1.3

  Kirklees

  142.9

  7.1

  3.6

  Leeds

  254.0

  12.3

  9.2

  Trafford

  78.5

  3.4

  5.0

  Wakefield

  111.5

  5.9

  5.2

  Wigan

  109.4

  5.5

  6.5

  St Helens

  67.1

  2.9

  1.8

  Middlesbrough

  60.6

  2.7

  2.6

  Durham

  178.1

  8.8

  9.2

  Northumberland

  114.4

  5.3

  2.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  97.9

  7.9

  3.0

  South Tyneside

  59.5

  3.0

  1.5

  554W

  £million

  SSA

  Grants

  Capital

  1998–99

  Kent

  525.6

  4.7

  22.5

  Staffordshire

  305.8

  3.8

  28.6

  Stoke-on-Trent

  95.9

  1.3

  5.0

  Doncaster

  130.4

  1.5

  2.2

  Warwickshire

  178.0

  2.6

  6.3

  Derbyshire

  257.6

  4.7

  12.7

  Leicestershire

  215.3

  3.5

  6.2

  Nottinghamshire

  280.5

  3.2

  10.4

  Nottingham City

  111.1

  2.1

  2.8

  North Yorkshire

  206.7

  3.1

  8.4

  Barnsley

  83.3

  1.8

  7.2

  Rotherham

  109.9

  1.7

  6.5

  Sunderland

  123.9

  1.6

  6.9

  Salford

  91.0

  1.5

  5.5

  Sheffield

  184.6

  3.2

  14.7

  Calderdale

  83.5

  1.3

  3.0

  Kirklees

  156.6

  2.9

  4.6

  Leeds

  278.7

  4.0

  10.3

  Trafford

  84.9

  1.1

  4.1

  Wakefield

  122.9

  1.8

  7.8

  Wigan

  119.5

  2.6

  9.6

  St Helens

  73.7

  0.8

  3.7

  Middlesbrough

  65.6

  1.5

  2.4

  Durham

  194.5

  3.5

  11.4

  Northumberland

  123.3

  2.3

  4.5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  106.5

  3.0

  8.7

  South Tyneside

  65.7

  1.4

  2.5

  1999–2000

  Kent

  553.5

  14.3

  21.3

  Staffordshire

  323.1

  9.3

  17.2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  99.5

  4.2

  98.5

  Doncaster

  136.1

  5.3

  5.0

  Warwickshire

  187.6

  6.5

  7.3

  Derbyshire

  272.4

  10.3

  13.0

  Leicestershire

  228.2

  7.6

  9.3

  Nottinghamshire

  296.00

  8.6

  14.0

  Nottingham City

  116.7

  6.0

  4.4

  North Yorkshire

  219.7

  8.0

  17.5

  Barnsley

  87.4

  3.9

  5.1

  Rotherham

  116.1

  4.8

  5.3

  Sunderland

  129.1

  3.5

  8.3

  Salford

  95.2

  4.3

  5.6

  Sheffield

  195.0

  8.2

  69.4

  Calderdale

  88.2

  3.6

  3.3

  Kirklees

  164.3

  5.9

  7.1

  Leeds

  292.4

  11.3

  17.0

  Trafford

  91.1

  2.9

  4.9

  Wakefield

  129.0

  4.6

  7.5

  Wigan

  125.3

  5.4

  11.4

  St. Helens

  76.5

  1.9

  4.5

  Middlesbrough

  68.5

  3.7

  2.2

  Durham

  203.4

  8.2

  12.0

  Northumberland

  129.3

  4.8

  6.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  111.0

  4.6

  9.2

  South Tyneside

  68.8

  3.0

  3.4

  2000–01

  Kent

  588.3

  34.0

  61.0

  Staffordshire

  336.8

  21.5

  34.2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  104.2

  11.2

  10.0

  Doncaster

  141.7

  11.5

  10.7

  Warwickshire

  196.7

  13.2

  16.6

  Derbyshire

  288.1

  21.4

  27.0

  Leicestershire

  241.0

  15.5

  21.0

  Nottinghamshire

  311.5

  20.5

  44.2

  Nottingham City

  120.8

  13.7

  9.0

  North Yorkshire

  232.1

  16.8

  23.9

  Barnsley

  91.4

  7.7

  7.0

  Rotherham

  121.1

  12.8

  10.0

  Sunderland

  133.3

  10.6

  14.2

  555W

  £million

  SSA

  Grants

  Capital

  Salford

  98.8

  12.2

  10.7

  Sheffield

  204.9

  23.0

  15.2

  Calderdale

  93.0

  6.7

  8.3

  Kirklees

  172.6

  11.7

  73.7

  Leeds

  306.6

  32.1

  62.2

  Trafford

  95.8

  6.2

  9.3

  Wakefield

  135.5

  11.7

  12.6

  Wigan

  130.5

  11.2

  14.1

  St. Helens

  80.4

  5.9

  6.9

  Middlesbrough

  70.8

  7.3

  4.6

  Durham

  212.3

  17.5

  19.6

  Northumberland

  134.9

  11.9

  16.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  114.6

  9.9

  7.6

  South Tyneside

  71.8

  6.5

  5.6

  DfEE has commissioned research to look at educational participation and attainment in the coalfields.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers there were in(a) Nottinghamshire and (b) nationally (i) in May 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [154462]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The full-time equivalent numbers of regular teachers (ie excluding short-term supply teachers) in the maintained schools sector at January 1997 and January 2000 were as follows:

  £million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  SSA

  86.3

  89.1

  93.7

  98.2

  101.9

  106.2

  Grants

  0.8

  3.1

  1.2

  3.2

  8.9

  111.0

  Of which:

  Standards Fund2

  0.8

  0.9

  1.2

  2.9

  7.1

  7.7

  Class size reduction

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Education action zones

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  10.2

  Nursery vouchers

  —

  2.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School standards (special grant)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.1

  2.0

  School budget support grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  —

  Education budget support grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.8

  Capital

  1.2

  0.9

  1.9

  3.5

  7.0

  N/A

  1 DfEE contributions only. Figures for 2001–02 are provisional.

  22001–02 funding for education action zones not included in letter of 16 February 2001 as amount had not been allocated.

  In the Budget on 7 March, national increases of £100 million for school standards grant and devolved new deal for schools capital were announced. Wandsworth will benefit from these increases; the precise allocations are being calculated, and have not been included in the table above.

  Real-terms national recurrent funding per pupil will rise year on year by over £200 in 2001–02 and will have risen by over £500 since 1997–98. There will be an average real-terms increase in per pupil funding of around £750 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Education Funding and Teacher Recruitment (West Sussex)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on education funding and teacher recruitment in West Sussex. [154836]
  556W

  1997

  2000

  Nottinghamshire

  7,800

  5,900

  City of Nottingham1>

  n/a

  2,100

  Nottinghamshire total:

  7,800

  8,000

  England

  399,200

  404,600

  1Nottinghamshire was split into City of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire in the local Government re-organisation of April 1998.

  The number of regular teachers in the maintained schools sector increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  There was a growth of 2,300 in the number of people recruited to train to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  Wandsworth LEA
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the funding allocations, by scheme, to Wandsworth local education authority in each year since 1996; and what his estimates are for the 2001–02 financial year. [154791]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  1 refer my hon. Friend to the letter sent to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 16 February.

  The total funding for Wandsworth local education authority since 1996–97 is set out as follows:

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter sent to him by the Secretary of State on 16 February. In the Budget on 7 March, national increases of £100 million for school standards grant and devolved new deal for schools capital were announced. West Sussex will benefit from these increases; the precise allocations are being calculated.

  Regarding teacher recruitment, latest figures (January 2000) show the West Sussex teacher vacancy rate as 0.8 per cent. The average for England is also 0.8 per cent. West Sussex will benefit from the Government's existing and planned general measures to improve teacher recruitment and retention, including initiatives resulting from the additional £200 million announced in the Budget.

  Fresh Start Schools (Staff Vacancies)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many unfilled vacancies for permanent members of teaching staff there were at each fresh start school on(a) 31 December 2000 and (b) 28 February; and when he expects them to be filled. [155165]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: We do not collect this information centrally. However, the Department has provided each of the 25 schools which have undergone a "fresh start" since 1997 with additional funding to support their plans for raising standards. Those fresh start schools which have encountered difficulties over teacher vacancies have been able to use these funds both for supply cover, in the short term, and to offer the recruitment and retention allowances needed to attract and keep permanent teaching staff in the longer term.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the meetings and conferences organised by his Department and agencies of his Department which have been(a) cancelled and (b) postponed owing to foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [155358]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information is not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Jewish Schools
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) Jewish schools in the UK received public funds and (b) Jewish schools there were in the UK, in each of the last five years. [155618]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The total number of Jewish schools and the number which received public funds as maintained schools in England as at 1 January in the last five years are as follows:

  Total number of Jewish schools

  Number of maintained Jewish schools

  1997

  70

  26

  1998

  72

  27

  1999

  74

  28

  2000

  78

  31

  2001

  178

  32

  Provisional

  Information about Jewish schools in the rest of the UK can be obtained from the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Chichester constituency, the effects on Chichester of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155283]
  558W
  The Solicitor-General
  In October 1999, in line with national policy, the Chichester office of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), in liaison with a number of other criminal justice agencies including courts, police and local lawyers, introduced procedures based upon the Narey proposals. All defendants charged with a criminal offence where a guilty plea is anticipated now make their first appearance before the magistrates within five working days. All other cases appear in court within 48 hours.

  In April 2000, the CPS at Chichester changed its structure in line with the proposals of the Glidewell review. As a first step towards a trial unit, it established a Crown Court Committal unit. This enables the Crown Prosecution Service to place greater emphasis on serious crime cases, which are heard at both Chichester and Lewes Crown courts.

  The Chichester office also has fast track procedures in place to deal with Persistent Young Offender cases heard at Crown courts and Youth courts. CPS Sussex recorded the best improvement overall in the country in terms of the time taken to bring persistent young offenders to court. The average time taken was reduced from 144 days to 84 days. CPS Sussex is working continually towards the Government's 71-day target. All these changes illustrate the Government's successful policy of speeding up the criminal justice system.

  The Chichester office is also involved in the Direct Communication with Victims initiative. This provides a written explanation when the CPS either discontinues or substantially alters a charge in the Crown court cases within the initiative. In some circumstances the CPS will meet with victims to explain why a decision was taken.

  The Chichester office deals with a broad range of work, including murders. One such case made legal history with the conviction of a man for murder where the victim died more than a year and a day after the assault. Using the Law Reform (Year and a day Rule) Act 1996, and with the consent of the Attorney-General, a prosecution for murder was instituted and the defendant convicted. The case was an important decision as it was one of the first occasions when a defendant, who had been previously convicted of an assault before the victim died, was later tried again in respect of the same conduct and convicted of murder.

  Actions and policies of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office do not directly affect the Chichester constituency.

HEALTH

  Pithing
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of the EU ban on pithing on the safety of abattoir employees. [144340]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that it has undertaken an extensive public consultation on the potential impact of a ban on pithing. The risk to worker safety through involuntary kicking of stunned animals and the need for structural changes to abattoir premises in order to enable slaughtering to be carried out safely

  559W
  without pithing were among the points raised in response. We have recognised these concerns and have delayed implementation of the ban until 1 April 2001 to allow abattoir operators more time to make the necessary adjustments to premises.

  Safety in the workplace is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE has, in collaboration with the Meat Trades Joint Working Party, developed guidelines and procedures which will help to minimise any potential risk to abattoir employees.

  Tablet Blister Packs
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it the policy of the Government to seek to ensure that blister packs of medicinal tablets imported into the UK must have the day of the week identified in English; and if he will make a statement. [153042]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: The requirements for the labelling of medicinal products are set out in Directive 92/27/EEC. Printing the days of the week on blister packs is not one of these requirements. In considering the proposals from importers for the labelling of imported products, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) must ensure that these comply with the terms of the Directive. If they do, the MCA cannot prohibit the importation of the products nor insist that where the days of the week are present in a foreign language they should be translated.

  It is therefore the policy of the MCA, where the days of the week are present on the blister strip in another language, to ask importers to provide a translation either on the labelling or within the patient information leaflet. In general the industry is co-operating with this policy. The MCA will continue to pursue it with individual importers on a case by case basis during the evaluation of their applications and with their trade associations.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is per patient treated under(a) the Cornwall Personal Dental Services Pilot and (b) the General Dental Service in England and Wales as a whole. [153963]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1999–2000 the average cost per patient treated under the Corn wall Personal Dental Service (PDS) pilot was £65.50 and under the General Dental Service (GDS) in Cornwall the average was £42.10 per patient. A corresponding average for the GDS in England and Wales is not available because children having only an examination are not separately recorded as their treatment costs are covered in capitation payments.

  An accurate comparison of figures is not possible because PDS work differs from the GDS average mix. For example, several PDS pilots deal with specialist dentistry and most do not register patients. The Cornwall PDS pilot includes general anaesthetics, special needs and orthodontic services. It is an access centre and operates through a network of 20 sites across the county, complementing the service provided by local GDS dentists. It has proved very popular with patients and is now seeing about 2,000 patients a month.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to include provision for mental health services among farmers in proposals for assistance in respect of the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [155328]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is working closely with the Ministry of Aqriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in support of the development of the rural stress action plan (RSAP), which offers support to help alleviate stress in rural areas. Through the RSAP, MAFF has already made available £500,000 to support farmers as part of the Prime Minister's action plan for farming.

  The RSAP group, which includes representatives from Government, the voluntary mental health sector and national farming organisations met again on 20 March this year to discuss details of future assistance, particularly in respect of the current foot and mouth outbreak. In addition, the Department of Health has also provided the Rural Stress Information Service and MIND with funding through the Section 64 scheme for projects developing support networks and access to information, care and support for people in rural areas.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the red tractor symbol meets his Department's requirements in respect of country of origin food labelling. [155471]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: The "British Farm Standard", denoted by the red tractor symbol, is a voluntary scheme developed by the National Farmers' Union. The presence of the red tractor symbol on a food product indicates compliance with specific farm assurance schemes Under European competition rules, use of indications like the red tractor symbol (and other similar indications), which are indications of quality, not origin, cannot be restricted to national produce.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to ensure that the basic needs of young asylum seekers are met, with particular reference to the duties of social services departments. [155933]

  Mr. Hutton
  Local authority social services departments have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to provide services for children in need in their area. The definition of a child in need is set out in section 17(10) of the Act including for example disabled children. If a young asylum seeker falls within that definition, social services departments have the same responsibilities to provide services to them as to other children who are also in need.

  This means that local authorities must ensure that the welfare of all relevant children are safeguarded and promoted. They must assess the needs of each individual child and provide services as appropriate to meet the assessed needs. Our £885 million Quality Protects programme is designed to improve the management and delivery of children's social services and ensure that our objective of improving the life chances of children in need is met.

  Primary Care Trusts (Dorset)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the appointments process to the boards of primary care trusts in the Dorset health authority area has been conducted in accordance with the Nolan rules. [155810]

  Ms Stuart
  All chairs and non-officer members of primary care trusts in the Dorset health authority area have been appointed following a selection process that accords with the commissioner for public appointments' guidance on public appointment procedures. These appointments were advertised locally and all candidates were interviewed by a panel including an independent member. The recommendations made to Ministers included confirmation that the proper procedures were followed.

  Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish its response to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee 6th Report of Session 2000–01 on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. [155983]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government's response to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's 6th Report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine is published today and copies will be placed in the Library. The Government welcome the Committee's Report and believe its main recommendations will help protect the interests of patients and other consumers.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the London Underground public-private partnerships. [155958]

  Mr. Prescott
  Bob Kiley and I today had a full exchange on the state of progress on the PPP negotiations. Mr. Kiley had earlier written to me following the recent talks between the Government and Transport for London. I have now replied to Mr. Kiley setting out the changes to the PPP which both parties had discussed and which the Government had been prepared to consider. These were offered in an attempt to reach an overall agreement on the PPP consistent with Mr. Kiley's aim for "unified management control". I am placing a copy of my letter to Mr. Kiley in the Library.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what training was given to London Underground station staff between December 2000 and February 2001 inclusive on procedures to evacuate passengers from crowded station platforms in emergencies. [154564]

  Mr. Hill
  London Underground inform me that they operate a programme of continual training for all of their station staff. They state that the training in evacuation procedures is an important part of this ongoing programme. Station Assistants and Station Supervisors are
  562W
  taught evacuation procedures as part of their initial training. When deployed to their first station after training they then have to undertake additional training (including evacuation) to become familiar with that station. London Underground inform me that evacuation plans for central stations are required to be practised every six months and that all station staff have to be included in such training practices. This additional training has to be repeated each time a Station Assistant or Supervisor transfers to another station.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if a risk assessment has been carried out on the likely severity of injuries to standing passengers in the event of an accident on the Circle and Hammersmith and City Line Underground.[154559]

  Mr. Hill
  Yes. I understand that London Underground have well-developed safety risk control systems, which are the subject of continuous improvement. Risk assessments have been carried out for a wide range of possible incidents on all Underground Lines. In all cases the risk to standing passengers has been assessed as 'very low'. This is considered by London Underground to be `as low as reasonably practical' under regulations set down by the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974.

  Ports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the impact of the proposed European Directive Access to Ports Services on ports; and if he will make a statement. [154707]

  Mr. Hill
  The European Commission published proposals for a Directive on access to port services on 14 February as part of its Communication on Sea Ports. We have received representations on this from the Transport and General Workers Union, Hutchison Ports, the UK Major Ports Group and the British Ports Association. There are a number of important issues to be addressed in developing the Government's position on the proposals. We are submitting an Explanatory Memorandum to Parliament, and we will be consulting widely in order to assess the potential impact.

  Hazardous Road Freight (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) hazardous and (b) radioactive material which has been transported through the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency by road on a regular basis in the last year. [154834]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no regulatory requirements for transporters to notify movements of dangerous goods by road and therefore my Department does not hold this information.

  Information on the movement of radioactive material is not routinely held by this Department. However, I understand from British Nuclear Fuels plc that they have made 17 shipments of new nuclear fuel from their plant at Springfields, Preston, to Heysham Nuclear Power Station, by road, in the last 12 months.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the cost of a concessionary travel scheme that would allow pensioners to travel for half fare on all buses in the country. [155132]

  Mr. Hill
  We have already guaranteed that from 1 June all pensioners (and disabled people) will receive at least half fare reductions on local buses, with a free pass. The cost of extending that to allow travel at half fare on buses anywhere in England is provisionally estimated at £25 million a year.

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant

  2.577

  2.272

  2.149

  1.969

  2.363

  Income from National non domestic Rates

  3.304

  3.339

  3.644

  4.089

  4.073

  Housing Investment Programme2

  1.192

  1.131

  1.247

  2.966

  1.362

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  0.72

  0.13

  0

  40

  N/A

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.305

  1.004

  1.124

  0

  0

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0

  0.04

  0

  0

  0

  SRB Funding3

  —

  —

  —

  0.035

  1.5

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  4.088

  0.674

  0.755

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  4.088

  0.714

  0.693

  0

  1.135

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.871

  0.925

  1.326

  4.562

  11.289

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  5—

  0.2486

  0.2180

  0.313388

  —

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  5—

  0.293252

  0.579324

  0.579324

  0.739752

  1Where known.

  2Housing Investment Programme—between 1997–98 and 1999–2000 includes Annual Capital Guidelines, Private Sector Renewal Grant and Disabled Facilities Grant. From 2000 onwards, due to the single pot allocations are Annual Capital Guidelines and Disabled Facilities Grant.

  3SRB funding covers deprived towns in West Sussex. This includes Selsey within Chichester district council area.

  4Provisional figure.

  5Grants not available.

  Council Dwellings (Sales)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the cost to public funds is of the discounted sales of council dwellings under Consent A3.3 in each of the last three years in (a) Wandsworth and (b) the United Kingdom; [155124]

  (2) how many council dwellings have been sold to non-council tenants under Consent A3.3 in each of the last five years in (a) Wandsworth and (b) the United Kingdom. [155123]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The data collected centrally on sales and disposals of council dwellings do not distinguish between them by type of consent.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers (a) the Government and (b) the Rail Regulator have to ensure the compliance of Railtrack with the 21 May deadline; and if he will make a statement. [155331]

  Mr. Hill
  The Rail Regulator has enforcement powers under the Railways Act 1993. Railtrack has told the Regulator that it would restore normal operation for most train operating companies by 21 May. The Regulator, having judged that Railtrack is currently in breach of its
  564W

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Chichester constituency, the effects on Chichester of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155284]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The principle funding this Department has provided to Chichester District Council from 1997–98 to date is shown in the table. It includes grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

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

  obligations under Condition 7 of its network licence, is using his powers under section 55 of the Railways Act 1993 to ensure Railtrack's compliance with that deadline. On 19 March he issued a provisional order under section 55 requiring Railtuck to restore its network to normal capability in most cases by 21 May.

  Any failure to comply with the order would expose Railtrack to further action by the Regulator using his powers under the Railways Act, including his powers to impose penalties.

  The Secretary of State has no enforcement powers under section 55 in respect of breaches of licence conditions.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assurances he has (a) sought and (b) received from Railtrack concerning the time scale for reinstating the railway infrastructure. [155247]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport chairs the Rail Recovery Action Group. Since its establishment in December, the Group has been assessing reports from Railtrack at least weekly on its progress in implementing its National Recovery Plan, and has been urging the company to ensure the network is restored to normal condition as soon as possible,
  565W
  consistent with high safety standards. Railtrack has reiterated its commitment to delivering recovery in accordance with the timetable specified in the Rail Regulator's provisional enforcement order of 19 March.

  Climate Change Levy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the impact of the climate change levy on rural enterprises, with particular reference to farms, horticultural producers, sub-post offices and small hotels; and if he will make a statement. [155270]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have received a wide range of representations about the impact of the climate change levy, including representations about farms, horticulture, post offices and hotels. Farms producing pigs, poultry meat and eggs are eligible to join climate change agreements to obtain an 80 per cent. reduction in the rate of levy in return for commitments to achieve agreed reductions in their energy consumption. Horticulture has been granted a 50 per cent. reduction in the rate of levy for five years and we have allocated up to £5 million over three years (subject to State Aid approval) to provide energy efficiency advice to help them to adjust to the full rate. The horticulture sector has committed itself to a voluntary agreement to reduce energy consumption as part of this arrangement. The hotels sector has already entered into a similar agreement. Small businesses in rural areas will be subject to the levy. However, the smallest businesses, with domestic levels of et energy usage, will be exempt. Like other businesses, sma11 rural enterprises will be entitled to free energy efficiency advice from the Government's Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme and from the Energy Efficiency Advice Centres funded by the Energy Savings Trust.

  Motor Vehicle Body Repair Shops
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations apply to motor vehicle body repair shops and the use of volatile organic compounds an 1 other hazardous substances. [155140]

  Mr. Meacher
  Occupational Health and Safety legislation considered to be the most relevant to the use of volatile organic compounds and other hazardous substances in motor vehicle body repair shops is (i) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, (ii) Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquefied Petroleum Gases Regulations 1972, (iii) Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999, (iv) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, (v) Personal Protective Equipment at Work Equipment Regulations 1992, and (vi) Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secret try of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow rural businesses in the tourist industry a payment holiday in respect of business rates as a result of losses incurred during the foot and mouth outbreak. [155106]
  566W
  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 26 March 2001,Official Report, columns 425–26W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to ensure that businesses whose cash flow has been significantly affected by the consequences of the foot and mouth outbreak receive immediate assistance in the form of(a) interest free loans, (b) relief on business rates and (c) other measures. [155157]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: I set out a package of short term help for businesses in my statement to the House on 20 March 2001, Official Report, columns 191–210, and further details of the discretionary hardship rate relief scheme in my answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 26 March 2001, Official Report, columns 425–26W.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sites which have received ash from the Edmonton incinerator since 1996, for use(a) in building bricks, blocks, paving stones and other building materials, (b) in public and private roads and streets, (c) in compost, potting soil, growing medium or fertiliser and (d) on farms, livestock/poultry holding sites and feedstuffs companies. [155314]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 imposes a duty of care on waste producers and others who have control of waste. The parties to the transfer of waste are required to keep records but information on waste transfers is not held centrally. The information available to the Environment Agency indicates that bottom ash has been consigned from the Edmonton incinerator to Ballast Phoenix Ltd. for recycling as a secondary aggregate but that ash is not otherwise consigned from the incinerator for use in (a), (b), (c) or (d).

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Environment Agency requested that the mixing of fly ash and bottom ash at Edmonton be stopped; when the mixing was halted; what assessment has been made of(a) the increase in and (b) toxicity of dioxin concentrations in the mixed ash; and if the toxicity falls within the range observed in urban soils. [155377]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The Environment Agency advises that it has made no such request but confirms that it was informed by the operator of the Edmonton incinerator that the mixing of precipitator ash with bottom ash ceased in August 2000. The Environment Agency has no information on the toxicity of dioxin concentrations in ash mixed before that date. However, the Agency was informed by the operator that test results showed the dioxin levels of mixed ash to be close to background levels (i.e. those found in normal urban soil).

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the studies carried out into dioxin and furan levels in and around the Byker incinerator. [155379]
  567W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The Environment Agency monitors combined dioxin and furan releases from the combustion process at the Byker Heat Station, details of which are available on the public register and the Agency website. Monitoring of local air quality outside the Byker site is the responsibility of the appropriate local authority.

  Disabled People (Parking)
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress made in reviewing the Disabled Persons Parking Badge scheme. [155425]

  Mr. Hill
  The UK-wide review of the scheme began last autumn. Group discussions at national and local levels have taken place with disability organisations, local authorities, enforcement bodies and badge holders themselves. The next stage will be a discussion paper which will be widely disseminated to interested parties including users this spring. The results of this consultation will inform our proposals.

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to help local authorities reach the targets set by the National Waste Strategy. [155764]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Waste Strategy 2000 set targets for the recovery of municipal waste and the recycling and composting of household waste and the reduction in the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste.

  In Waste Strategy 2000 we announced that we would consult on the design and operation of a scheme of tradeable landfill permits for waste disposal authorities to meet the landfill diversion targets. We have published that consultation paper today.

  Waste Strategy 2000 also announced targets for doubling the recycling or composting of household waste within three years and nearly tripling it within five years, to be underpinned by statutory performance standards for each local authority under the Best Value regime. These standards were published on 5 March.

  Spending Review 2000 provided major extra funding directly to local authorities to address waste and recycling, as set out in answer to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on 14 December 2000, Official Report, column 200W. The new Waste and Resources Action Programme, whose funding now stands at £40 million over the next three years, will operate across all waste streams to foster markets for recycled materials.

  On 10 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced the next round of lottery funding (the New Opportunities Fund), including a programme to expand community sector waste reuse, recycling and composting. Such community sector activity can help local authorities to meet their targets.

  On 23 June we issued guidance on managing the waste function within Best Value and on 5 March we published guidance to local authorities on municipal waste management strategies. These strategies will set out authorities' plans for achieving all of their targets.
  568W
  Waste management was a theme in the first year of the Beacon Council Scheme. We have launched an initiative in partnership with the Local Government Association, the Improvement and Development Agency, the Institute of Wastes Management and the Environmental Services Association to establish and maintain networks of authorities, the industry and community sectors to spread good practice.

  Hazards(Employee Training)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action is taken by his Department to ensure that site operator employees are trained as required by the Control of Major Accident Hazards regulations. [155776]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1999 (COMAH) do not contain specific training requirements. They are "goal setting regulations" supported by duties on operators with the highest hazards to demonstrate in a safety report that they have taken the measures necessary to prevent a major accident. The training of staff forms an integral part of the safety management arrangements.

  The COMAH Competent Authority (HSE and Environment Agency in England and Wales) assesses the safety reports that sites with the highest hazards are required to produce and also the major accident prevention policies produced by other major hazard installation operators to ensure that they contain the necessary measures. Inspection at these installations includes checking compliance with the safety management arrangements set cut in the major accident prevention policies and safety reports.

  Competent Authority Inspectors also enforce a range of other health, safety and environmental legislation that include training requirements.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made towards the establishment of a public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. [155959]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am pleased to announce that today the Government have selected the Airline Group as the strategic partner fir the National Air Traffic Services public-private partnership. The Airline Group have satisfied the Government that they will maintain the high safety standards achieved by NATS. Their strategic investment plan will provide NATS with the investment it needs to meet the demands of steadily increasing air traffic, and will guarantee the future of the new air traffic control centres at Swanwick and Prestwick. The Airline Group will also introduce management skills into NATS which will help it to operate efficiently.

  The NATS public-private partnership will be regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, which will ensure that NATS continues to operate safely, while reducing costs to users. The Government will retain a 49 per cent. shareholding to enable them to protect the public interest on strategic matters Staff will have a direct interest in the company through a 5 per cent. stake.
  569W
  Since last November, when the legislation enabling the establishment of the public-private partnership was announced, the Government have beets taking the views of all sections of the aviation community on their proposals. The report on the discussions held during this three month period is being laid in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  This will be the first true public-private partnership, helping to ensure the safe and efficient provision of air traffic services, and providing the opportunity for NATS to emerge as a major worldwide player in its field.

  M6 Junction 34
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to upgrade junction 34 of the M6; and if he will make a statement. [155792]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency is aware of the problems with junction 34 on the M6. Long term plans for the junction are dependent on d3cisions about the proposed local authority link road between Morecambe/ Heysham and the M6. In the interim, shorter-term measures have been identified by the Agency. Bids for funds for the 2002-03 financial year will be considered on their merits and in the light of other regional priorities. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write 10 my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Hilton Dawson, dated 27 March 2001:

  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent question about the plans to upgrade Junction 34 of the M6.

  Safety is a top priority for the Highways Agency and we constantly monitor the operation of our network to identify where improvements are needed. In recognition of this the Highways Agency is currently working in partnership with Lancashire County Council on plans for a link road between Morecambe/Horsham and the M6. One of the route options being considered would see a link road connecting with the M6 at Junction 34 However, this would require a major change in the layout of the junction. Our long-term plans for Junction 34 very much depend on the outcome of these discussions about the link road.

  In the meantime, following a study last year into the junction, a number of short-term improvements have been identified. These include extending the southbound on slip road, dualling the northbound off slip road and making improvements to the signs and road markings at the junction. A bid for funds will be made to carry out this work during the 2002/03 financial ear. However any bid will be considered on its merits and in the light of other funding priorities.

  If you would like any other further information, please contact the Route Manager, Bob Baldwin at Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester MI 4BE—Tel: 0161 930 5680.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent by the South East England Development Agency in lobbying activities in the last twelve months. [155930]

  Ms Armstrong
  We expect to see regional development agencies keep their partnership organisations, elected representatives in their regions and others in touch with 570W
  developments affecting their region. It is not possible to disaggregate the costs of this liaison from RDA programme and administration budgets.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the guidelines for overseas travel by(a) members and (b) officials of regional development agencies. [155931]

  Ms Armstrong
  It is for the individual regional development agencies to set their own guidelines for overseas travel. The regional development agencies are expected to operate systems which are broadly in line with those for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made towards meeting the commitment set out in the Government's housing policy statement "A Way Forward For Housing", to strengthen the obligation on registered social landlords to co-operate with local authorities in the discharge of their statutory housing functions. [155836]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  In the Housing Policy Statement (The Way Forward for Housing, December 2000), the Government undertook to strengthen the obligation on registered social landlords to work with local authorities on lettings. We will deliver this undertaking through best practice guidance derived from the experiences of the 27 local authority choice-based letting pilots announced on 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 291W, and through strengthened guidance to registered social landlords from the Housing Corporation, under S36 of the Housing Act 1996. The Corporation plans to issue for consultation a draft of its revised Statutory Housing Management Guidance in May.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets he has set for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Executive Agency for 2001–02. [155951]

  Mr. Hill
  The Agency's principal financial target for 2001–02 is to achieve a minimum contribution to the Exchequer of £1,400,000.

  An operational target has been set to achieve combined room occupancy of 600 days in the three key conference areas within the centre.

  The Agency is also being required to increase the number of banqueting events by 50 per cent. It also has the following quality of service targets: overall score of value for money satisfaction of 90 per cent.; the number of complaints received to be less than two per 100 events; and an average response time when answering complaints of less than four working days.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the
  571W
  right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 8 February on behalf of Sawtry parish council. [155934]

  Mr. Hill
  I regret the delay in this matter. A reply will be sent to the right hon. Member shortly.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent investigations he has carried out into the possibility of saving energy through the use of micro combined heat and power; and if he will make a statement. [155631]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department is increasing its research in new technology such as micro CHP through both our Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme and new feasibility studies for low carbon technologies. This underlines our commitment to ensuring that households, suppliers and the environment can benefit from micro CHP technology. Micro CHP will also figure in our CHP Strategy, on which we will consult in the coming months.

  Business Rates (Rural Areas)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations in(a) Scotland and (b) Northern Ireland about extending the provisions of the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill to those areas of the United Kingdom. [155807]

  Ms Armstrong
  Rating in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland Executive respectively. We have kept all the devolved Administrations informed of our intentions to extend rate relief to certain rural enterprises in England.

  Bilston Urban Village
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the timescale for the development of Bilston Urban Village. [1553891

  Ms Armstrong
  Bilston Urban Village is a proposed "mixed-use", housing, light industrial and open space development near Wolverhampton. Advantage West Midlands, the Regional Development Agency, has made a significant investment of million to date via English Partnerships funds, to work up a feasibility study in partnership with Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council. An outline planning application is expected to be submitted to the local planning authority during 2001. Commencement of the scheme will depend on the outcome of the statutory procedures.

  Road Clearance
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend the Highways Act 1980 to bring its provisions on the clearance of snow and ice from public roads into line with those of section 34 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1989. [1155936]
  572W
  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 128W.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when PPG 13 will be published; and if he will make a statement. [156064]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are today publishing the final version of PPG13. This is a major step towards integrating planning and transport at the local level and helping deliver the Government's 10 Year Plan for Transport. It forms a key part of our transport, urban and rural policies.

  PPG13 is about getting the right development in the right place and ensuring people have a choice in transport. We want local authorities to actively manage the pattern of growth to make the fullest use of public transport and to integrate local transport investment decisions with location decisions for the major land uses.

  PPG13 introduces Transport Assessments, to replace Traffic Impact Assessments, which will ensure that assessments of major development proposals cover access by all modes of transport. These assessments will help to promote development which is located and designed to provide access by a choice of modes and encourages developers to incorporate measures such as car-sharing schemes as part of travel plans. We will shortly be publishing good practice advice on undertaking Transport Assessments.

  The guidance provides encouragement for well-designed and well-conceived park and ride schemes, ensuring that such proposals will be given favourable treatment through the planning system. In some circumstances, park, and ride schemes may be permissible in the Green Belt, provided a thorough assessment shows the scheme to be the most sustainable of the available options.

  PPG13 also carries forward proposals set out in the Rural White Paper to promote housing, jobs and services in rural service centres, including market towns. We also want local authorities to take a positive approach to farm diversification proposals to promote rural employment opportunities and to help reduce long-distance commuting to urban areas. Such diversification proposals should not be rejected where they would give rise to only modest additional traffic and would not have significant impact on minor roads.

  The public consultation exercise on the draft version of PPG13 showed strong support for the guidance and for the use of national maximum parking standards for the major land uses. However, we have made changes to the standards, and how, they are applied, to address business concerns and ensure the approach encourages investment in town centres an I will be conducting a review of the impact of the standards over the next two to three years.

  Copies of the guidance are being placed in the House Libraries and it is also available on the DETR website (at www.planning.detr gov.uk).

  Agency Targets
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he
  573W
  has set for the (a) Driving Standards Agency, (b) Driver Licensing Agency, (c) Vehicle Licensing Agency, (d) Vehicle Certification Agency and (e) Vehicle Inspectorate. [156079]

  Mr. Hill
  Key targets have been set for the agencies. They are included in the agencies' business plans. The plans also include management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks appropriate to the agencies' businesses. Copies of the business plans will be placed in the Library in due course.

  The key targets for the Driving Standards Agency are:

  90 per cent. of all customers to be satisfies with the overall level of service received from the Agency.

  95 per cent. of candidates to have obtained a theory test appointment at their preferred test centre within two weeks of their preferred date.

  The national average practical car test waiting time to be no more than six weeks.

  Keep 99.5 per cent. of all theory to it appointments, and 99.5 per cent. of practical test appointment that are in place two days prior to the test appointment.

  90 per cent. of calls to booking offices will be answered by a human voice in no more than 20 seconds (following routing by the call handling system).

  To achieve a 1.7 per cent. return on capital employed (ROCE) on statutory activities in 2000–01;

  Use examiner resource efficiently by achieving an average examiner utilisation for car practical tests of 83 per cent.

  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are:

  To achieve an overall efficiency gain of 2.5 per cent;

  95 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles and changes to a registration document to be delivered within 12 working days;

  95 per cent. of ordinary driving licences to be delivered within 11 working days;

  95 per cent. of vocational and first provisional licences delivered within eight working days,

  95 per cent. of VED refunds to be delivered within 30 working days;

  95 per cent. of written replies to be, delivered within seven working days;

  95 per cent. of all telephone calls to be answered within 30 seconds;

  95 per cent. of e-mails to be replied to within seven working days.

  For 95 per cent. of available service hours, customers have lines available to the Customer Enquiry Unit;

  97 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles, changes to registration documents and driving licences to be produced without DVLA induced error;

  To complete 700,000 enforcement cases.
  574W
  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are:

  To achieve a £100 K surplus on the commercial accounts after a 6 per cent. rate of return on capital employed has been applied.

  To have at least 98 per cent. of approval certificates issued error free.

  To achieve a score of at least 90 per cent. on the quality and service matrix targets shown in the Plan.

  To ensure that the figure for average debtor days is 60 calendar days or less.

  To ensure that invoices for Management System Certification work are issued within an average of 25 working days after completion of the chargeable work.

  To achieve a higher score overall in the Spring 2001 customer satisfaction survey against key success factors compared to the score in 1998–99.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Inspectors are:

  To deliver against an effectiveness and quality improvement programme.

  To deliver effective road safety and environmental standards activity as agreed with DETR.

  To continue to improve customer focus across VI and DVO through the implementation of initiatives in line with the Modernising Government agenda.

  To break even year on year and achieve a 6 per cent. real rate of return on capital, over the period 1 April 1998—31 March 2003.

  To increase value for money.

  To improve performance management across the business. To secure the long-term development of the organisation.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change his Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01. [156107]

  Ms Armstrong
  The DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £18 million from £35,361,468,000 to £35,379,468,000 by drawing on the Department's End Year Flexibility Entitlement announced in the Public Expenditure 1999–2000 Provisional outturn White Paper (Cm 4812). In addition there will be transfer of £2 million Provision from the Voted to the non-Voted element of this Departmental Expenditure Limit which will increase from £137,911,000 to £139,911,000. The increase in DEL will be offset by a charge to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Community Well-being
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish statutory guidance to local authorities on community well-being. [156108]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government are today publishing their guidance to local authorities on the use of their new power to promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their communities.

  This broad new power will enable local authorities to take a wide range of action to address the priorities of local people, as set out in their community strategies.

  Environmental Audit
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will publish the response to the Environmental Audit Committee's report "Environmental Audit: The First Parliament". [156127]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased to announce that I have today laid in the Libraries of both Houses, copies of the Government's response to the Environmental Audit Committee's report.

  I thank the Committee for their report which is a valuable contribution to our process of greening government. As our response shows, we have made a great deal of progress and have a record to be proud of.

  But there is of course still much to do, and the Government look forward to discussions with the Committee about their two main recommendations for improving their audit function.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the last meeting of Green Ministers took place; what was discussed; and which Departments were represented by Ministers and which by officials. [156128]

  Mr. Meacher
  Green Ministers held their first meeting of this year on 19 March. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), the Green Minister at DETR spoke about sustainable development at local and regional level.

  The Green Ministers Committee approved in principle a target for the purchase of renewable electricity by Departments and agreed a target to reduce water consumption across the Government estate.

  The Departments represented by Ministers were: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Department of Health; Department for International Development; Law Officers' Department, Lord Chancellor's Department, Department of Social Security, Department of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department for Education and Employment, the Northern Ireland Office.

  Those represented by officials were: The Chancellor's Departments, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the mobile phone industry to recycle discarded phones. [155100]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Information and Communications Technology Industry Association (EICTA), formerly European Trade Organisation for the Telecommunication and Professional Electronic Industry (ECTEL), have already initiated a UK mobile phone take back and recovery scheme on a voluntary basis. The Government welcome this scheme which pre-empts some of the likely
  576W
  requirements of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) currently being considered by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The WEEE Directive is likely to result in increased levels of mobile phone recovery.

  The initial ECTEL launch in 1997 involved only the mobile phone manufacturers—Alcatel, Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia, Panasonic and Philips. The extended scheme, re-launched in 1999, included the network operators—BT Cellnet, Orange, Vodafone, and One 2 One—who together with the mobile phone manufacturers are defined as "producers" for the dual branded mobile phones under the Producer Responsibility Initiative.

  Under the Government's Producer Responsibility Initiative, industry is encouraged to take a share of the responsibility for what happens to their products at end-of-life and to take action to increase recovery and recycling rates. In "Waste Strategy 2000", the Government made clear their commitment to achieving substantial increase in recovery and recycling rates.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Policies (Ceredigion)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ceredigion constituency, the effcts on Ceredigion of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154939]

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

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

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £1).35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about seven million families receive Child Benefit, and in Ceredigion 6,763 families benefit.
  577W
  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Ceredigion the number has reduced from 1,800 to 1,200. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in Ceredigion the number has increased from 700 to 900.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 15,500 older people in Ceredigion have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will Tend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 14,100 pensioners in Ceredigion will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April aid next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition, we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,500 in Ceredigion. 1,300 peusioner families in Ceredigion are receiving the Minimum income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be al least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

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

  Departmental Policies (Ynys Mon)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ynys Mon constituency, the effects on Ynys Mon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154940]

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

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all-One year on: making a difference" (CM4863, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following
  578W
  provide a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Ynys Mon since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Ynys Mon 7,541 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Ynys Mon the number has reduced from 2,500 to 1,700. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Ynys Mon from 1,100 to 900.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 15,300 older people in Ynys Mon have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 14,600 pensioners in Ynys Mon will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State Pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,900 in Ynys Mon. 2,300 pensioner families in Ynys Mon are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

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

  Departmental Policies (Caernarfon)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Caernarfon constituency, the effects on Caernarfon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154938]
  579W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

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

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Caernarfon 6,377 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Caernarfon the number has reduced from 2,200 to 1,600. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Caernarfon from 800 to 700.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 13,500 older people in Caernarfon have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 13,500 pensioners in Caernarfon will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,700 in Caernarfon. 2,200 pensioner families in Caernarfon are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in
  580W
  April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Meirionnyd Nant Conwy)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Meirionnydd Nant Conwy constituency, the effects on Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of his Department's policies and actions since May 1997. [154937]

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

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

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy 4,273 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy the number has reduced from 1,300 to 800. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy the number has remained at around 400.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 10,500 older people in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy have received a winter fuel payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 10,700 pensioners

  581W
  in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 4,500 in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. 1,700 pensioner families in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be it least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

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

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Chichester constituency, the effects on Chichester of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997 [155281]

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

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM48 i5, September 2000) sets out what progress has been mad in the past year, as well as highlighting what more Leeds to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Chichester since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about seven million families receive Child Benefit, and in Chichester 10,303 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period slice May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562 400 to 960,600; in
  582W
  Chichester the number has reduced from 1,100 to 700. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in Chichester the number has increased from 800 to 900.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 26,800 older people in Chichester have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 25,700 pensioners in Chichester will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 11,600 in Chichester. 2,200 pensioner families in Chichester are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

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

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South will receive a reply to his letters of 22 November 2000 and 20 February, concerning Marie Harris of Katrine Place, Irvine. [155808]

  Mr. Bayley
  A reply was issued on Wednesday 21 March 2001.

  Horizon Project
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the final net costs of the Horizon swipecard project to eliminate social security fraud to(a) public funds, (b) the Post Office and (c) the commercial promoters. [151611]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 84W, for information on the costs to the Department. The costs to the Post Office and the commercial promoters (ICL) is a matter for those organisations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Overhead Power Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the setting up of a Royal Commission on the
  583W
  relationship between overhead power lines and the incidence of cancer and leukaemia; and if he will make a statement. [155052]

  Mr. Hain
  The only representation which has been received on the setting up of a Royal Commission was the recent correspondence forwarded by the hon. Member for the Vale of York from one of her constituents, Professor Henshaw.

  The hon. Lady will know that the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation published its report: "Extremely low frequency Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer" on 6 March 2001. (Documents of the NRPB Vol 12, No 1, 2001). Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The independent Advisory Group that is chaired by Sir Richard Doll reports directly to the Board of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). Its terms of reference are:
  "To review work on the biological effects of non-ionising radiation relevant to human health and to advise on research priorities".

  The remit covers static and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (including those at power frequencies) and radio-frequency fields and radiation such as infrared, visible and ultraviolet.

  The members of the Advisory Group are appointed by the NRPB on the basis of their proven research expertise. They are also independent of Government and commercial interests. Membership reflects the work of the Advisory Group at any particular time.

  There is every benefit in maintaining a group that is independent and comprises a number of particularly eminent scientists. I could not foresee the need for establishing a Royal Commission on this issue.

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Chichester constituency, the effects on Chichester of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155278]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Chichester constituency has benefited from a range of initiatives that has been implemented since May 1997.

  The Sussex Business Link

  The Sussex Business Link, covering the whole of East and West Sussex, receives funding from the Department to assist businesses at all stages of development. The Business Link also has an independent income stream. Initiatives are aimed to reach groups of businesses that have shown a need for a more direct approach. It would not be possible to dis-aggregate the benefit for Chichester and the figures shown are for the whole area covered by the Business Link.

  DTI funding for Business Link

  £000

  1997–98

  2,319

  1998–99

  2,707

  1999–2000

  3,171

  2000–01

  13,693

  1Includes £152,361 British Trade International funding

  584W
  The Farm Business Advisory service supports farmers to develop and manage their businesses.

  The Business Advisory Service gives easy access to a wide range of quality business services, initial business diagnosis, impartial expert advice on business issues, and practical value for money support tailored to the make the most of an individual's potential.

  The Export Counselling Service was a scheme initiated in 1997 to aid local businesses develop an export market.

  Other initiatives include:

  British Trade International—a separately funded unit dealing with expanding the export and raising the profile of British goods abroad.

  SMART awards—two awards have been made to Ocean Air Marine Ltd. totalling £126,000 to develop innovative technological ideas to improve the business.

  Small Business Service—from April 2001 the Sussex Business Link will provide services on behalf of the Small Business Service. This will be a sharper and more focused service, acting as a gateway to the wide range of services available to local businesses.

  Miner's Compensation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-miner claims for compensation for Vibration White Finger had been registered(a) by 30 October 2000 and (b) up to the latest date for which figures are available. [155640]

  Mr. Hain
  At 29 October 2000, IRISC had registered 114,000 claims in respect of Vibration White Finger, VWF. To date, the number of claims initiated is 118,000. There was a cut-off date for claims on 30 September 2000. The Department reserves its position regarding limitation for claim; received after this date.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many meetings with hon. Members he has had to discuss the issue of miners' compensation since 15 January. [155639]

  Mr. Hain
  As Minister for Energy responsible for miners' compensation, I have had eight formal meetings with hon. Members on this issue since 15 January. I have also had a number of informal meetings. I have met hon. Members during my visits to all the coalfield regions of Britain, including several to South Wales and one to North Wales. I attach great importance to this issue, and will continue to meet hon. Members and keep them informed on a regular basis.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish a draft Bill on arms exports; and if he will make a statement. [154103]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to publishing a draft Export Control Bill during this Session of Parliament and intend to publish the Bill soon. Publication of the Bill in draft will give all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Government's detailed proposals for new export control legislation.

  Multinational Enterprises
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to promote and implement the revise d OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises in the United Kingdom. [156080]
  585W
  Mr. Caborn
  The UK Government are committed to promoting both the use of the Guidelines and their effective implementation. Primary responsibility for promoting and implementing the Guidelines in the UK rests with the UK National Contact Point, based within the Department of Trade and Industry, but working in liaison with other Government Departments and interested bodies.

  The UK NCP has undertaken a number of activities to promote the Guidelines including the launching today of a booklet explaining its role and the Guidelines more generally. This is being distributed to relevant organisations and is available free of charge from DTI Publications. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  In addition, a website has been established, www.dti.gov.uk/worldtrade/ukncp.htm . The NCP has already held meetings with UK business, trade unions, and other non-governmental organisations and will continue to do so.

  Future activities include the production of a publicly available Annual Report covering the activities of the UK NCP; using Government contact with business at all levels to promote the Guidelines and the UK Government's support for them; and contributing to OECD efforts to raise awareness in non-adhering countries.

  This is in addition to its main task of responding to any inquiries or concerns about the activities of Multinational Enterprises raised with the NCP.

  Mirror Group Newspapers
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the inspectors investigating the affairs of Mirror Group Newspapers plc completed their report; and when it will be published. [156082]

  Dr. Howells
  The inspectors have now completed their report. In view of the fact that while in opposition the Secretary of State questioned whether Kevin and Ian Maxwell should receive legal aid, he has been advised by officials, who consulted independent counsel, that he should stand aside from decisions flowing from the submission of the report. The Secretary of State has accepted this advice, has not seen a copy of the report and has delegated decisions on the report to me.

  I have considered this matter carefully and decided that publication would be in the public interest.

  I therefore intend to publish the report before the end of March 2001.

  Employment Conditions (Contracted-out Staff)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to reduce disparities between staff in contracted-out public services who are transferred on TUPE terms and other employees of the contractor. [156083]

  Mr. Byers
  The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations are designed to preserve the continuity of employment and protect the rights of those affected by business transfers. All employees have already benefited from the framework of basic minimum standards introduced by this Government. We are 586W
  nevertheless examining whether unfair disparities between different groups of workers doing the same work for the same employer may arise where one group retains rights as a result of a TUPE transfer following contracting-out and others are then employed under different terms and conditions of employment. This will be considered in parallel with our wide-ranging review of the TUPE Regulations, on which we intend to consult in the summer.

  Byker Plant
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public subsidy has been provided each year since 1979 to the Byker plant. [155382]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The Byker plant received support from the Fossil Fuel Levy under NFFO-1 arrangements between 1992 and 1998. No public support has since been provided.

  Information on the amount of support provided to individual projects under NFFO arrangements is commercially confidential to the contracting parties.

  Renewables
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how developers of renewable energy and technology businesses will have access to the further money he referred to on 6 March 2001,Official Report, column 465. [155550]

  Mr. Hain
  The allocation between technologies of the further money for renewable energy announced by the Prime Minister on 6 March is subject to the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit who will be reporting later in the year.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department takes to promote renewable energy. [155773]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on 22 March 2001,Official Report, columns 463–65.

  Low Sulphur Petrol
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many garages in England and Wales sell low sulphur petrol. [155651]

  Mr. Hain
  My department estimates that 68 per cent. of total UK petrol retail sites have converted to ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP). This corresponds to 77 per cent. of total petrol sales being ULSP. There are no separate figures for England and Wales.

  Palestine
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives his Department has undertaken to encourage British companies to invest in the territory under the administration of the Palestinan National Authority. [155449]

  Mr. Hain
  Trade Partners UK, in conjunction with the British Consulate-General Jerusalem, provide a wide range of services including advice and information for
  587W
  British companies considering doing business in the territories under the administration of the Palestine National Authority. In November 1999 in conjunction with the Middle East Association, Trade Partners UK organised a seminar in support of the Bethlehem 2000 Project. In July 2000 the Export Promoter for West Bank and Gaza arranged with the support of the BC-G Jerusalem and the Institute of Packaging, two seminars in market and earlier this year Trade Partners UK organised an inward mission to a UK exhibition for the hospitality industry.

  Medicines
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to support the reform of the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement to improve poor people's access to essential drugs and medicines. [155480]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 9 March 2001, Official Report, column 348W.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is on the proposed introduction of TRIPs plus laws; and if he will make a statement. [155482]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: The UK and EU have no intention of seeking to impose on other countries intellectual property rights regimes that are more stringent than the minimum standards of TRIPs. Standards higher than these are a matter of policy for individual governments to decide.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce compulsory licences to reduce the price of drugs to treat HIV/AIDS and related infections under the TRIPs proposals. [155479]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: Compulsory licences are a matter for national law. I have no plans to introduce compulsory licences to reduce the price of drugs to treat HIV/AIDS and related infections in the UK market. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 9 March 2001, Official Report, column 349W.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding the introduction of compulsory licences to reduce the price of drugs to treat HIV/AIDS and related infections under the TRIPs proposals. [155478]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: None in respect of the UK which is the only market where the Government would have the right, in certain circumstances, to issue a compulsory licence. I also refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 9 March 2001, Official Report, columns 348–50W.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the use of World Trade Organisation-sponsored trade sanctions against
  588W
  developing countries which produce and export cheap generic medicines used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. [1554811

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: Generic medicines are those which are off patent and are therefore not covered by the TRIPS Agreement. Copies of patented drugs can ire legitimately made under the TRIPS Agreement through voluntary or, in certain circumstances, compulsory licensing arrangements. There are no examples where, consequent upon the decision of a Dispute Settlement Panel, WTO sanctions have been imposed on intellectual property rights grounds.

  Sub-post Offices (Cornwall)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former non-Crown sub-post offices there were in the St. Ives constituency in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [155737]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that data on the post office network are not held on a Parliamentary constituency basis.

  Miners' Pensions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a decision in respect of sacked miners' eligibility for pensions; and if he will make a statement. [154641]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department is giving full consideration to responses to the consultation document issued on this subject last year and I will make a full statement in due course.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the United Kingdom Government are taking to encourage investment by UK companies in Sudan. [155148]

  Mr. Caborn
  Trade Partners UK, in consultation with the British Embassy in Khartoum as necessary, provides frank and comprehensive information about the investment climate in Sudan. In particular, we point out current FCO travel advice and sign-post companies to relevant web based resources.

HOmE DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how retch money has been set aside to provide payment to private consultants to achieve the Government's pledge with regard to young offenders; and if such funding will be available in future years. [155846]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Youth Justice Board has provided £49,075 in 1998–99, £1,624,932 in 1999–2000 and £2,879,237 in 2000–01 for private consultants to tackle delays in the youth justice system including with persistent young offenders. It will provide further funding in 2001–02.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) of 22 March 2001,Official Report, columns 323–28W, on police numbers, if

  Police strength figures as at 31 January 2001

  Police force

  Chief constables

  Assistant chief constables

  Superintendents

  Chief inspectors

  Inspectors

  Sergeants

  Constables

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  3

  20

  34

  146

  447

  2,318

  2,968

  Bedfordshire

  0

  2

  13

  14

  51

  138

  813

  1,031

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  2

  15

  12

  72

  208

  999

  1,309

  Cheshire

  1

  3

  16

  26

  102

  331

  1,543

  2,021

  Cleveland

  1

  2

  24

  2

  74

  207

  1,116

  1,426

  Cumbria

  1

  2

  8

  14

  49

  162

  813

  1,049

  Derbyshire

  1

  3

  23

  23

  88

  282

  1,397

  1,816

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  4

  35

  35

  143

  415

  2,294

  2,927

  Dorset

  1

  2

  15

  22

  64

  201

  1,034

  1,339

  Durham

  1

  2

  19

  23

  81

  213

  1,258

  1,596

  Essex

  1

  3

  26

  42

  132

  441

  2,214

  2,859

  Gloucestershire

  1

  2

  10

  18

  55

  169

  905

  1,160

  Greater Manchester

  1

  6

  80

  90

  333

  970

  5,387

  6,867

  Hampshire

  1

  3

  34

  43

  166

  551

  2,653

  3,451

  Hertfordshire

  1

  3

  22

  29

  108

  278

  1,513

  1,954

  Humberside

  1

  2

  21

  22

  97

  274

  1,485

  1,902

  Kent

  1

  4

  27

  43

  144

  477

  2,612

  3,308

  Lancashire

  1

  3

  32

  34

  157

  506

  2,512

  3,245

  Leicestershire

  I

  3

  16

  21

  95

  268

  1,617

  2,021

  Lincolnshire

  1

  2

  10

  16

  61

  182

  918

  1,190

  London, City of

  1

  2

  10

  12

  46

  103

  537

  711

  Merseyside

  1

  4

  43

  49

  170

  604

  3,205

  4,076

  Metropolitan police

  5

  29

  186

  386

  1,218

  4,077

  18,959

  24,861

  Norfolk

  1

  2

  12

  22

  67

  211

  1,082

  1,397

  Northamptonshire

  1

  2

  11

  10

  52

  164

  921

  1,161

  Northumbria

  1

  4

  40

  58

  182

  542

  3,041

  3,868

  North Yorkshire

  1

  2

  11

  10

  63

  210

  1,003

  1,299

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  3

  20

  18

  110

  293

  1,814

  2,258

  South Yorkshire

  1

  4

  39

  49

  175

  499

  2,424

  3,190

  Staffordshire

  1

  2

  19

  23

  101

  342

  1,651

  2,138

  Suffolk

  1

  2

  13

  15

  55

  168

  880

  1,133

  Surrey

  1

  3

  16

  22

  92

  298

  1,655

  2,088

  Sussex

  1

  5

  32

  38

  167

  445

  2,163

  2,851

  Thames Valley

  I

  4

  44

  35

  185

  549

  2,906

  3,723

  Warwickshire

  1

  2

  13

  10

  42

  126

  748

  942

  West Mercia

  1

  3

  17

  33

  92

  288

  1,464

  1,899

  West Midlands

  1

  4

  60

  48

  301

  981

  6,043

  7,438

  West Yorkshire

  I

  6

  47

  69

  240

  637

  3,804

  4,804

  Wiltshire

  1

  2

  14

  14

  59

  179

  845

  1,114

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  2

  13

  18

  47

  178

  804

  1,063

  Gwent

  1

  2

  11

  15

  59

  198

  979

  1,265

  North Wales

  1

  2

  13

  26

  68

  231

  1,091

  1,432

  South Wales

  1

  4

  30

  38

  162

  448

  2,421

  3,103

  Total all forces

  46

  151

  1,180

  1,580

  5.969

  18,489

  95,841

  123,256

  Notes:

  1. These figures are in terms of full-time equivalents, and have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Consequently, the force figures do not necessarily add precisely to the total

  2. The figures exclude secondment to NCS NCIS, central services and inter-force units.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) of 22 March 2001,Official Report, columns 323–28W, on police numbers, if he will list the (a) wastage and (b) recruitment figures for each police force in England and Wales for the period 30 September 2000 to 31 January. [155940]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The request d details are in the table.
  590W
  he will provide a breakdown by rank of police strength for each force and for England and Wales as a whole at 31 January. [155941]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested details are in the table.

  Total officer recruitment and wastage 1 October 2000 to 31 January 2001

  Police force

  Recruitment

  Wastage

  Avon and Somerset

  56

  58

  Bedfordshire

  48

  26

  Cambridgeshire

  63

  25

  Cheshire

  47

  34

  Cleveland

  31

  17

  Cumbria

  22

  22

  591W

  Total officer recruitment and wastage 1 October 2000 to 31 January 2001

  Police force

  Recruitment

  Wastage

  Derbyshire

  51

  18

  Devon and Cornwall

  71

  34

  Dorset

  53

  26

  Durham

  32

  19

  Essex

  97

  58

  Gloucestershire

  31

  20

  Greater Manchester

  199

  88

  Hampshire

  89

  71

  Hertfordshire

  52

  64

  Humberside

  49

  53

  Kent

  128

  63

  Lancashire

  78

  40

  Leicestershire

  31

  24

  Lincolnshire

  44

  18

  London, City of

  14

  21

  Merseyside

  82

  74

  Metropolitan police

  594

  337

  Norfolk

  36

  26

  Northamptonshire

  29

  18

  Northumbria

  92

  38

  North Yorkshire

  24

  19

  Nottinghamshire

  75

  22

  South Yorkshire

  71

  50

  Staffordshire

  26

  25

  Suffolk

  37

  24

  Surrey

  79

  36

  Sussex

  103

  65

  Thames Valley

  82

  47

  Warwickshire

  40

  17

  West Mercia

  56

  26

  West Midlands

  231

  117

  West Yorkshire

  92

  85

  Wiltshire

  42

  21

  Dyfed Powys

  36

  18

  Gwent

  28

  24

  North Wales

  47

  30

  South Wales

  116

  24

  Total all forces

  3.304

  1.942

  Notes:

  1. Recruitment and wastage figures are in terms of numbers of officers (whereas the total strength figures are in full-time equivalents).

  2. The force figures exclude transfers to and from other England and Wales forces.

  3. For the reasons stated above, the previous strength total plusrecruitment minus wastage does not equal the current strength total.

  Airwave
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has invited the Health and Safety Executive to advise on the health and safety implications for police officers of using Airwave equipment; and if he will make a statement. [155809]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are aware of the issue. It is conducting its own independent assessment based on available information.

  I have asked both the Defence Evaluation Research Agency and the National Radiological Protection Board to conduct reviews of the relevant science. The result of these two exercises will be published. If, during the course of these exercises, any issue arises which suggests a risk to health, it will be made public without awaiting the publication of final reports.
  592W
  In addition, I anticipate that further research in areas that are directly relevant to the technology used in Airwave, will be undertaken within the independent Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme. The Health Research Programme has been initiated by the Government in response to the Stewart Report on mobile phone health issues and is focusing on emerging technologies.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) told(a) him, (b) Ministers and (c) officials in his Department that the telephone conversation about Mr. S. P. Hinduja's naturalisation application between the right hon. Member and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), which took place in June 1998 was private. [155819]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 5.775.83 and paragraph 5.209 of Sir Anthony Hammond's report "Review of the Circumstances Surrounding an Application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja in 1998" (HC287) which was published on 9 March 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reasons Mr. S. P. Hinduja's naturalisation application was prioritised in 1998; and if he will make a statement; [155821]

  (2) if Mr. S. P. Hinduja's second naturalisation application was prioritised because of the involvement of (a) the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and (b) the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). [155817]

  Mrs. Roche
  The full circumstances of Mr. S. P. Hinduja's naturalisation application are detailed in Sir Anthony Hammond's review which was published on 9 March 2001.

  The detail of the priority afforded to the application is given at paragraphs 5.166 to 5.177 of the review.

  The general guidance for handling requests for priority treatment of citizens hip applications is given at Annexe D of the review.

  Hammond Inquiry
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken on the recommendations of the Hammond report (HC 287). [155815]

  Mr. Straw
  Chapter 9 of Sir Anthony Hammond's report recommends hat Departments review their Private Office working practices on the monitoring and recording of telephone calls and general record keeping. My Department has put in hand such a review in order to ensure that consistent arrangements are in place across Private Office.

  In paragraph 5.191 of the report, Sir Anthony Hammond notes that, a number of measures have been put in place since 1998–99 to improve the working practices of the nationality group of the Integrated Casework Directorate. Caseworkers have been reminded of the need fully to document action and decisions in all cases.

  Parliamentary Candidates (Credentials)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what contact his Department has had with the British National Party concerning the verification of the credentials of their parliamentary candidates and their access to party election broadcast; [155483]

  (2) what discussions he has had with electoral registration officers about ensuring the verification of the credentials of British National Party candidates in respect of their access to party election broadcasts; [155484]

  (3) what safeguards he is introducing to ensure the verification of the credentials of parliamentary candidates in relation to their access to party election broadcasts. [155485]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Subject to sections 11 and 37 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the allocation of party election broadcast, is a matter for the broadcasting authorities (that is, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority and Sianel Pedwar Cymru). section 11 of the Act requires the broadcasting authorities, in determining their policy on party political broadcasts (including party election broadcasts), to have regard to the views of the Electoral Commission. Section 37 of the Act provides that only parties registered under Part II of the Act may qualify for such broadcasts.

  We have held no discussion is with electoral administrators concerning the British National Party's eligibility to qualify for an election broadcast. We have had no discussions with the British National Party and would not be disposed toward having any.

  In response to concerns that unscrupulous candidates had in the past misled electors into supporting their nomination, the Representation of the People Act 2000 made it an offence for a person to include in his nomination paper any fraudulent or fraudulently obtained signatures of persons purporting to Act as a candidate's seconder or assentor.

  Replica Guns
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the availability of replica guns, with special reference to those which fire ballbearings. [155635]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is a range of different types of replica firearms available in this country, some of which are capable of discharging projectiles and some of which are not.

  As regards the first category, controls will depend on whether any projectile which is expelled is capable of inflicting a lethal injury. For example, fully functioning replicas of historic guns, whether breech loading or muzzle loading, are subject to the full control of the firearms legislation. Replica breech loading cartridge firing pistols are prohibited weapons which may only be held with the express authority of the Secretary of State. The possession of replica air weapons capable of lethal performance is governed by the wider provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 as amended and such weapons cannot be sold to a person under 17 or give n to a person under 14. They are also subject to the provisions of the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969.
  594W
  Replicas which fire small plastic pellets or, in some cases, steel ball bearings with insufficient energy to penetrate the skin are not regarded as lethal barrelled weapons. Nor are blank firing replicas which cannot readily be converted to fire a live round, and realistic non-firing replicas. Such guns do not fall under the controls of the Firearms Act 1968 as amended and may freely be bought by anyone.

  Under the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1989 any toy gun which discharges a hard projectile must not have an energy level in excess of 0.08 joule.

  The Government recognise the concerns which have been expressed in relation to the misuse and ready availability of realistic replica guns and are looking carefully at the possibility of introducing additional controls. This is a difficult and complex matter, not least because of difficulties of definition, and the Firearms Consultative Committee have been asked to consider the detailed implications of any changes and to report back.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 31 January regarding a constituent, Ref. 2093/1. [155811]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 26 March 2001,Official Report, column 488W.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a report from the Operation Antler team of the Wiltshire police regarding its inquiries into allegations relating to experiments on NHS patients for biological warfare purposes during the 1960s at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; and if he will make a statement. [154763]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No, but I have received oral briefings on Operation Antler itself during a visit to Wiltshire Constabulary and from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. In addition officials and members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary have from time to time discussed matters arising from it with Wiltshire Constabulary.

  Asylum Support
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's forecast is for the average cost of asylum support, expressed as a figure per asylum seeker, in the financial year 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [152873]

  Mrs. Roche
  Asylum seekers are currently supported either by payments under arrangements put in place following the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 from the Department of Social Security, or by local authorities, or for newer applicants following the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, directly by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The costs of all three methods of support are met from the Home Office budget, subject, in the case of local authorities, to agreed unit cost limits. Based on current forecasts of cost and estimates of the average number of asylum seekers supported for the year,
  595W
  the average forecast cost in 2000–01 of supporting an asylum seeker (ie an applicant for asylum or a dependant of one) who has requested support, is £6,100 for the whole year. These costs include accommodation or Housing Benefit where provided.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used to determine which asylum seekers should be sent to Oakington Reception Centre; what the qualifying nationalities for detention at Oakington are; how many and what percentage of new asylum seekers from each of the nationalities listed in the instructions were sent to Oakington in the last three months for which figures are available; on what grounds the nationalities listed in the instructions are selected; and if he will make a statement. [155568]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: Applicants are referred to Oakington where it appears that their application can be decided quickly, including those which may be certified as manifestly unfounded, and there are no other circumstances which would make their claim unsuitable for Oakington. Nationality is a factor, although not the only factor, in deciding whether a case is suitable for consideration at Oakington as the country of origin has a bearing on the likely complexity of the claim. Information on nationalities currently potentially suitable for consideration at Oakington is provided in the table. Operational constraints, for example the availability of interpreters, limit the range of nationalities than can, in practice, be dealt with at Oakington at any one time.

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and those cases referred to Oakington, December 2001 to February 20011

  Nationality

  Total applications2

  Cases referred to Oakington

  Percentage sent to Oakington

  Albania

  395

  125

  32

  Bangladesh

  215

  38

  18

  Bolivia3

  10

  0

  0

  Brazil3

  10

  0

  0

  Cameroon13

  85

  0

  0

  China

  380

  190

  50

  Ivory Coast

  85

  0

  0

  Czech Republic

  280

  167

  59

  Estonia

  20

  8

  42

  Ghana

  45

  14

  31

  Hungary3

  *

  0

  0

  India

  355

  75

  21

  Iraq

  2,130

  167

  8

  Kenya3

  60

  0

  0

  Latvia

  40

  18

  45

  Lithuania

  60

  15

  25

  Nigeria

  130

  65

  51

  Pakistan

  585

  112

  19

  Poland

  190

  89

  47

  Romania

  430

  85

  20

  Slovakia

  5

  3

  43

  Slovenia3

  5

  0

  0

  Tanzania

  25

  9

  38

  Ukraine3

  135

  0

  0

  Uganda

  80

  22

  27

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  745

  117

  16

  Zimbabwe

  390

  212

  54

  1Provisional figures

  2Figures are rounded to the nearest 5. "*" denotes 1 or 2

  3 Recently introduced nationalities

  Note:

  Referrals to Oakington in December 2000 to January 2001 do not necessarily relate exactly to applications in that period

  Criminal Justice Review
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the criminal justice review undertaken by Lord Birt. [155151]

  Mr. Straw
  The work undertaken by Lord Birt was considered alongside that undertaken by the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Law Officers' Department and Her Majesty's Treasury in preparing the Government's strategy document, "Criminal Justice:The Way Ahead" (Cm 5074), which was published on 26 February 2001.

  Departmental Policies(Regent's Park and Kensington,North)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including individual statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect upon Regent's Park and Kensington, North of his Department's policies since May 1997. [155351]

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

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

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was awarded £117,000 for a six-camera system covering two residential areas in North Kensington, Swinbrook estate and St. Quintin Park The scheme aims to reduce incidents of assault, criminal damage and vehicle crime on both estates.

  Youth Offending

  The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) Youth Offending Team (YOT) covers the entire borough. Its aim is to reduce offending by children and young people aged 10–17. During 2000–01 the YOT dealt with 170 new case This represents approximately one in 70 of the youth population. The borough attributes its apparently low offer ding rate to the success of partnership arrangements aimed at reducing crime including the YOT, as well as the excellence of its Youth Service and Social Services Departments (as evidenced by recent Ofsted and Joint Review inspections). Robbery, burglary and violent

  597W
  offences are a priority for the YOT and its partners for 2001–02. The Youth Justice Plan contains objectives to develop intensive supervision programmes for persistent young offenders, develop an anger management programme and to share intelligence with the Police Service in relation to the most prolific young offenders in the Royal borough.

  The YOT contracts with the Divert Trust for the delivery of a mentoring scheme. This scheme provides positive adult role models for young offenders. 17 volunteers from RBKC are currently on the scheme. RPS Rainer have been contracted to provide a bail supervision service aimed at reducing offending on bail as well as decreasing non-attendance at court. The YOT is part of the Royal borough's Community Safety Strategy and has specific targets to meet around early intervention in work, support and guidance for parents of young offenders and the development of an assessment framework. The RBKC YOT piloted the new assessment framework called ASSET. The team continues to be part of the research programme investigating the efficacy of ASSET. The YOT places a particular emphasis on early intervention. During 2000–01, 70 per cent. of young offenders given a Final Warning took part in a rehabilitation programme, (despite the fact that attendance is voluntary). A sample of 50 cases showed only five occurrences of re-offending. This re-offending rate is lower than the previous cautioning rate. A course for young people at risk of offending or school exclusion called "Chance to Change" is run annually. Last year only one of 12 attendees subsequently re-offended.

  In addition to statutory community orders, the YOT operates a groupwork programme for male and female offenders (separately), aimed at tackling anti-social behaviour and improving life skills. The YOT also operates a Youth Inclusion Programme to in the north of the borough aimed at providing an intensive programme for the 50 young people in the area most at risk from offending. This programme is run in partnership with the Royal borough's Youth Service. The YOT has operated as a catalyst for developing joint work within partner agencies. Links with the voluntary sector have been strengthened and the incorporation of a victim perspective has brought a whole new dimension to youth justice interventions.

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

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

  Racism
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the National Union of Students regarding the operation of racist groups on college and university campuses. [155452]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have not discussed this matter with the National Union of Students (NUS) nor have I been asked to meet the NUS to discuss this issue. The Government are fully committed to tackling racism and anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. We have laws, such as the law on incitement to racial hatred, to deal with those who seek to stir up racial hatred. The question of whether groups on college or university campuses are breaching these laws is a matter for the police.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department is undertaking to monitor websites which contain antisemitic material. [155451]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government condemn those who use the internet to distribute racist material of this kind. The law on incitement to racial hatred applies to material on the internet which comes within our jurisdiction.

  Monitoring criminal activity is a matter for the police. In November last year my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the Government were making available £25 million to the police over the next three years to initiate the implementation of a national high-tech crime strategy. That will enhance the capability of law enforcement to investigate crime, including racially-motivated crime, more effectively where new technology is used.

  Additionally, the Government are assisting the Internet Watch Foundation to set up a complaint hotline which will enable the public to report racially inflammatory material they find on the internet.

  Prisoners (Gender Reassignment)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who are currently serving a prison sentence(a) have undergone some part of the gender reassignment process, (b) are undergoing treatment for gender reassignment and (c) have requested an assessment for gender reassignment. [155267]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not routinely collected centrally on the number of prisoners with gender dysphoria, or who are receiving treatment for that condition in prison. However, 16 cases of prisoners needing assessment, care or treatment for gender dysphoria have been drawn to the attention of Prison Service Headquarters in recent years.

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Chichester constituency, the effects on Chichester of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155287]
  599W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office annual reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. The next report will be available shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000' and 'Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000' can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder Partnerships.

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

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Two schemes submitted by Chichester district council were awarded a total of approximately £320,000. Selsey CCTV Provision was awarded over £125,000 for a five-camera system to cover the High Street shopping area. The scheme aims to reduce overall crime in the Selsey parish by 15 per cent. over three years, with incidents of criminal damage, violence against the person and vehicle crime greatly reduced.

  Midhurst CCTV Provision was awarded almost £195,000 for eight cameras to cover the length of the main shopping area, Midhurst Grammar School and surrounding residential areas. The scheme will reduce overall crime in the Midhurst parish area by 15 per cent. over three years, with incidents of criminal damage, violence against the person and vehicle crime greatly reduced.

  Youth Offending

  The West Sussex Youth Offending Team (YOT) comprises staff and resources from West Sussex County Council, Sussex police, the Probation Service and the health authority and is a countywide service. It brings together staff from the five partner agencies to form an integrated, operational team. The YOT has been involved at a strategic and operational level in the key issues around 'speeding up youth justice', which has assisted in bringing down the average times for the processing of all youth cases, including Persistent Young Offenders. The court service has been improved by providing informed and proactive court duty officers to the increased number of scheduled youth courts, to promote the issues which assist in reducing unnecessary delays in the processing of young offenders.

  A Remand Management Service has been established in partnership with RPS Rainer. This has resulted in a reduction in the number of young people being remanded to custody and local authority accommodation. A mentoring service, in partnership with Divert and the Crime Reduction Initiative has achieved the recruitment of over 30 trained mentors matched with the high-risk and persistent offenders. In partnership with Parentlink, a
  600W
  parenting support programme offers both voluntary and mandatory programmes to parents of teenagers in trouble. A substance and alcohol misuse counselling service, which is a partnership between West Sussex Health Authority, the Drug Action Team (DAT) and Crime Reduction Initiative has been set up using DAT development funds and charitable funding. West Sussex county council arid the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children are working in partnership on a young abusers assessment and treatment project which is aimed at young people who sexually abuse other children and young people. The YOT are also involved in an appropriate adult project. This aims to recruit and train volunteers to meet the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in providing trained adults to custody suites to assist in the interviewing of arrested children and young people.

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

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

  Prisoner Education
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the provision of education and skills training to inmates of HM prisons; [155772]

  (2) what plans he has to improve the provision of education to inmates of Her Majesty's prisons. [155771]

  Mr. Boateng
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on 14 February 2001,Official Report, column 172W.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) provision of ITC skills training programmes in KM Prisons there is and (b) plans he has to extend such provision. [155751]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service is working to include Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the education provision of all Prison Service establishments. The Service held an Information Technology (IT) conference in London on 21 March and it is intended to follow this up by creating a steering group to facilitate IT strategy and policy for all prison education departments. The Prison Service is developing a number of pilots including the University for Industry/"learn direct" in six establishments, aimed at enhancing basic and key skills using interactive computing technology; the European Computer Driving Licence in the Yorkshire and Humberside area; die computer repair and maintenance (CRAM) project, in conjunction with the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) in Brighton, to teach prisoners how to repair
  601W
  computers and linked to a job search programme; the Leonardos pilot, a tri-national project run by the probation service to enhance learning for different nationalities.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage inmates of HM prisons to participate in distance learning. [155770]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service has arrangements for eligible prisoners to undertake degree and other higher education courses with the Open University. Many prison education departments facilitate open learning through the National Extension College while some use courses provided by the National Distance Learning College. In the longer term the Prison Service partnership with the University for Industry will provide access for prisoners to distance learning packages.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has plans to make the internet accessible to inmates of HM Prison service. [155768]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no plans to provide prisoners with unrestricted direct access to the Internet. Many prison education departments have internet accessible computers allowing information to be downloaded by the relevant member of staff when required.

  Prisoners do have access to internet based learning material through the Learn Direct partnership. There are also a number of education departments that have CD-ROM based learning material with the aim of improving literacy and numeracy, thereby avoiding the need for direct internet access.

  Foreign Nationals
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace the application forms for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [155987]

  Mrs. Roche
  The current application forms are valid for use until 14 April 2001. Revised forms will be prescribed before then and should be available by the end of March 2001. From the time they are issued until 14 April 2001, applications may be made on either the newly prescribed forms or the current versions. Only the new forms may be used for applications made on or after 15 April 2001. Copies will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Animal Rights Extremism
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to combat animal rights extremism. [156062]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have included a number of measures in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, currently before Parliament, air led at combating the activities of animal rights extremists. These include a new power for police to remove pros esters from outside homes; measures to strengthen provisions on the sending of malicious communications; and a system to prevent disclosure of the home addresses of Directors of vulnerable companies.
  602W
  We have also consulted closely with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to encourage a consistent approach to enforcement in this area. A consultation document is being issued tomorrow, 28 March, setting out a package of measures in this area, and copies will be placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) live sheep and (b) live pigs were exported for (i) slaughter, (ii) further fattening and (iii) breeding in 2000 broken down by country of destination. [147060]

  Ms Quin
  The total number of live sheep and live pigs certified for export from the UK during 2000 for slaughter, further fattening and breeding are shown in the following table:

  Country of destination

  Breeding

  Fattening

  Slaughter

  Live sheep

  Belgium

  178

  593

  —

  Denmark

  —

  —

  2,170

  France

  1,233

  199,327

  —

  Germany

  86

  30,003

  —

  Greece

  —

  4,350

  —

  Republic of Ireland

  255

  3

  120

  Italy

  —

  51,912

  —

  Netherlands

  39

  304,809

  —

  Portugal

  —

  3,800

  300

  Spain

  20

  32,769

  —

  Switzerland

  376

  —

  —

  Tristan da Cunha

  80

  —

  —

  United Arab Emirates

  15

  —

  —

  Total

  2,282

  627,566

  2,590

  Live pigs

  Austria

  9

  —

  —

  Belgium

  13,454

  —

  —

  Canada

  42

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  336

  —

  —

  Czech Republic

  150

  —

  —

  Denmark

  121

  —

  —

  France

  2,458

  —

  —

  Germany

  40,158

  —

  —

  Greece

  716

  —

  —

  Republic of Ireland

  1,261

  200

  61,393

  Italy

  5,498

  —

  —

  Japan

  2,285

  —

  —

  Latvia

  1,736

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  731

  —

  —

  Mexico

  529

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  16,898

  —

  —

  Poland

  252

  —

  —

  Portugal

  404

  —

  —

  Romania

  418

  —

  —

  Slovakia

  41

  —

  —

  South Korea

  1,235

  —

  —

  Spain

  8,861

  —

  —

  Thailand

  1,200

  —

  —

  United States of America

  24

  —

  —

  Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo

  617

  —

  —

  Total

  99,434

  200

  61,393

  Owing to a computer malfunction which occurred at the end of 2000, the above figures exclude some exports which took place during the month of December 2000.
  603W
  These figures are derived from the computer system used to issue export health certificates and are subject to updating and amendment.

  Horseracing
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has given to the British Horseracing Board about the holding of(a) horseracing fixtures in general and (b) the Cheltenham Festival in March; and if he will make a statement. [152288]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 March 2001]: On 5 March my Department provided the British Horseracing Board with a detailed veterinary assessment of the conditions necessary to reduce the risk of spreading foot and mouth disease through horserace meetings. The key conclusions are as follows:

  (i) No meeting should be held within three kilometres of an infected premises.

  (ii) No livestock have been on the racecourse or areas accessible to the public within the previous 28 days.

  (iii) No livestock are present in adjoining fields during the 24 hours prior to and during the race meeting.

  (iv) All members of the public are restricted exclusively to hard areas, stands and enclosures (not in field areas) during a race meeting.

  The decision as to whether individual meetings, including the Cheltenham Festival, should proceed is a matter for the race organisers and racecourse owners. If required, the Foot and Mouth Order 1983 provides powers to prohibit the holding of any sporting or recreational event inside an infected area.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will speed up the arrangements for valuing animals that have to be slaughtered because of foot and mouth disease. [156065]

  Ms Quin
  An Order has been made to change the valuation procedure for animals slaughtered for foot and mouth disease. This Order gives farmers the option of payments at standard rates, or of having animals valued by a valuer. This is intended to help speed up the valuation process and so ensure that animals can be slaughtered as quickly as possible.

  The standard rates of valuation are as follows:

  £

  Sheep

  Breeding ewes (in lamb/lamb at foot)

  90

  Cull/draft ewes

  32

  Hoggets (male and female old season's lamb)

  55

  New season's lamb

  60

  Rams

  150

  Pigs

  Gilts

  190

  Breeding sows

  130

  Cull sows

  80

  Piglets on sow

  18

  Stores: Breeding units (weaners)

  30

  Stores: Finishing unit

  55

  Boars

  520

  604W

  £

  Cattle

  Clean cattle: steers (under 30 months old)

  600

  Clean cattle: heifers (under 30 months old)

  500

  Clean cattle: young bulls (under 30 months old)

  580

  Breeding cows

  1,100

  Breeding heifers

  900

  Breeding bulls

  1,000

  Cull cattle (including clean cattle over 30 months old)

  325

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has given to county councils about the disinfection of vehicles using public roads near locations associated with outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [153840]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: The Foot and Mouth Order 1983 sets out requirements for the disinfection of vehicles that enter or leave an infected premises. While there are no powers or EU rules to require the disinfection of vehicles that pass adjacent to such premises, MAFF has posted advice on its website about the precautionary measures people should take in the vicinity of livestock farms.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that meat imported for the Ministry of Defence and local authorities does not come from countries infected with foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [154010]

  Ms Quin
  All meat imported to the UK for human consumption must comply with Community animal and public health provisions that require meat to be accompanied by veterinary certification and to come from approved establishment in approved countries. These permit the importation of meat from some countries where foot and mouth disease is present but only where the veterinary authorities have contained the disease in specific regions. Community rules permit imports of meat from those regions only if it has been deboned and fully matured and is therefore not considered to present a risk of spreading foot at d mouth disease. Countries to which these controls currently apply are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay However, because of their foot and mouth disease situation meat may not currently be imported from South Africa, Swaziland or Argentina. There is, and I envisage, no exemption from these general rules for the Ministry of Defence or for local authorities.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with farmers and farm organisations over his Department's decision increasingly to restrict herds where inconclusive reactions to foot ant mouth tests are found. [154036]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: Ministers have held regular and wide ranging meetings with farming and other organisation since the earliest days of the foot and mouth outbreak. Restrictions are imposed on herds where disease is suspected to exist. Disease may be confirmed on clinical grounds alone is the State Veterinary Service is satisfied that animals are clearly exhibiting signs of the disease. Where doubt exists as to whether the clinical symptoms actually relate to foot and mouth disease, samples are taken for testing. The testing process will ultimately lead to a positive or negative

  605W
  result. On occasions it may be necessary to take further samples before a clear result is obtained, particularly a negative. Restrictions will not be lifted until it is certain that the disease is not present.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how frequently his Department's website relating to the foot and mouth crisis is updated; and if he will make a statement. [154282]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry's website www.maff.gov.uk relating to foot and mouth disease is updated at least twice a day. We recognise the importance of putting a wide range of information on the internet 10 assist farmers and the industry, and will continue to ensure that we provide a comprehensive and timely service.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what equipment for handling carcases of slaughtered livestock infected by foot and mouth disease was transported from Marsh Farm, Fambridge, Essex to Wick Farm, Layer-de-la-Haya, Essex; how and when it was transported; and what measures were taken to disinfect equipment before it was transported. [154314]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: One teleporter, hired from Sonic Rail Services Ltd., was moved under its own power with a MAFF escort on 10 March 2001 between 19.00 hours and 20.30 hours. Before being transferred between premises the teleporter was fully disinfected in accordance with the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983. The disinfection was supervised by a MAFF official.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the risk of foot and mouth being spread throughout Shropshire by vehicles transporting infected carcases, to the rendering plant at Widnes. [154485]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to Me hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 26 March 2001, Official Report, columns 513–14W.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has received indicating a linkage between foot and mouth disease and Welshpool market; and if he will make a statement. [154557]

  Ms Quin
  We have confirmed a number of cases of foot and mouth disease in animals which have passed through Welshpool market. Further epidemiological investigations are continuing, the results of which will be published.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans are in place to use the rendering plant at Marsh Barton, Exeter for foot and mouth cases. [154436]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: Following the successful introduction of rendering foot and mouth carcases at the Prosper de Mulder plant in Widnes, carcases have been sent to the plant at Marsh Barton since 16 March. Further plants at Great Torrington in Devon and at Paisley are now also being used.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list of suspected foot and mouth sites on his Departmental website at the time of signature of form C. [154492]
  606W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: Details of premises under form C are now placed on the Ministry's website. This will be updated once a day.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what methods of slaughter were used for killing livestock at Wick Farm, Layes-de-la-Haye in Essex; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which the methods used complied with the required animal welfare standards. [154719]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: The susceptible livestock were slaughtered by licensed slaughtermen using captive bolt, an approved safe method of slaughter.

  Fisheries
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek to ensure that Polish fishing vessels are prohibited from fishing in the North Sea and the Irish Sea; and if he will make a statement. [155442]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's objective for fisheries is to ensure that any quotas granted to Poland and other acceding member states cover only those areas and stocks for which they already have recognised track records. As Poland has no track record in fishing in the North Sea and Irish Sea since the establishment of the Common Fisheries Policy it will not receive any quota for these upon accession.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the pesticides approvals granted and extended by him for spraying in connection with genetically modified crops, indicating(a) the approval reference number, (b) the date where applicable of (i) approval and (ii) extension, (c) the permitted annual maximum area to be treated, (d) the date, where applicable, of (iii) expiry and (iv) extension of the approval, (e) the active ingredients and the products approved and (f) the company or other person holding the approval. [154337]

  Ms Quin
  The only approvals that we have specifically granted for the use of pesticides on genetically modified crops are experimental approvals. Unlike commercial level approvals, experimental approvals are not published for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  We are, however, in the process of reviewing the current arrangements to provide for greater openness and transparency. In the meantime the Pesticides Safety Directorate have been asked to seek the consent of the relevant approval holders to the release of the information requested. I will write with as much of the information requested as is consistent with proper safeguards for commercial confidentiality. Copies of the letter will be made available to the Libraries of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants (Salary Increases)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the average percentage increase in salaries
  607W
  of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, was in her Department for 2000–01. [152791]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: The average performance-related increase in consolidated basic pay for staff of the Scotland Office was 5.6 per cent. An average non-consolidated performance bonus of £528 was also paid to staff who performed to a higher level.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers were employed by the Scottish Office in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and at what cost. [154254]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: During both years there were two special advisers in post at any one time at a cost of £76,855 in 1995–96 and £92,587 in 1996–97.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Chichester constituency, the effects on Chichester of she Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155286]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. We have taken steps to improve the management and effectiveness of the services we provide and to meet customer needs, including working closely with other agencies to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice, improve the availability of affordable and good-quality legal services and to improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families.

  Sitting hours

  Courthouse

  Courtrooms

  January-December 1998

  April 1999-March 2000

  April 2000-December 2000

  Abingdon, Oxon

  1

  520.10

  Closed

  —

  5 King George V Road, Amersham

  1

  608.50

  568.00

  268.00

  5 King George V Road, Amersham

  2

  368.00

  298.25

  120.00

  Walton Street, Aylesbury

  1

  1,111.75

  990.25

  837.75

  Walton Street, Aylesbury

  2

  459.75

  726.00

  695.50

  Walton Street, Aylesbury

  3

  993.00

  657.75

  546.25

  Warwick Road, Banbury

  1

  1,073.00

  928.15

  756.20

  Warwick Road, Banbury

  2

  864.00

  924.30

  737.80

  Warwick Road, Banbury

  3

  278.00

  164.30

  95.45

  Windsor End, Beaconsfield

  1

  433.00

  559.75

  306.50

  Windsor End, Beaconsfield

  2

  677.75

  241.75

  664.75

  Queen's Avenue, Bicester

  1

  785.00

  553.45

  485.80

  Queen's Avenue, Bicester

  2

  249.00

  378.15

  301.40

  Town Square, Bracknell

  1

  869.75

  923.75

  539.25

  Town Square, Bracknell

  2

  578.25

  483.25

  375.50

  Town Square, Bracknell

  3

  59.50

  72.67

  6.25

  Verney Close, Buckingham

  1

  272.25

  246.00

  147.00

  Mereland Road, Didcot

  1

  459.40

  798.30

  693.00

  Mereland Road, Didcot

  2

  96.80

  60.60

  89.50

  Northfield End, Henley On Thames

  1

  232.10

  Closed

  —

  Bridge Road, Maidenhead

  1

  783.25

  942.30

  841.50

  Bridge Road, Maidenhead

  2

  465.00

  539.85

  472.00

  Bridge Road, Maidenhead

  3

  227.00

  331.80

  282.00

  608W
  The Arun, Chichester and Horsham Community Legal Services Partnership (CLSP), which covers the Chichester constituency, is one of 165 CLSPs throughout England and Wales.

  Within Chichester, the Legal Services Commission awarded contracts for 2000–01 to the value of £111,339. The contracts cover a range of categories and these include family, employment, housing, mediation, mental health and personal injury.

  Thames Valley Courts
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which courthouses in the Thames Valley magistrates courts committee area(a) do not meet the statutory requirements for disability and (b) do not comply with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 with regard to custody cases. [155814]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Thames Valley magistrates courts committee has made an assessment of its accommodation. Based on this assessment, the courthouses at Banbury, Bicester, Bracknell, Didcot, Maidenhead, Newbury, Oxford, Reading, Slough, Thame, Wantage and Witney do not fully meet the current statutory requirements for disability. The custody areas at Banbury, Oxford and Witney courthouse, require work to remove potential ligature points and install panic alarms. Works will be carried out during tie 2001–02 financial year to improve this position.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for how many hours each courtroom in the Thames Valley magistrates courts committee area was used in each of the last three years. [155813]

  Jane Kennedy
  Sitting hours were collected for the calendar year up to the end of 1998, and for the financial year from April 1999 onwards. No data were collected centrally for the period January to March 1999. Data are given for the three completed quarters in the current financial year. The information is in the table.
  609W

  Sitting hours

  Courthouse

  Courtrooms

  January-December 1998

  April 1999-March 2000

  April 2000-December 2000

  301 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes

  1

  675.00

  3,080.65

  540.85

  301 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes

  2

  770.00

  344.45

  631.25

  301 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes

  3

  1,295.00

  640.05

  952.20

  301 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes

  4

  1,090.00

  595.05

  898.25

  301 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes

  5

  570.00

  393.80

  486.30

  301 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes

  6

  520.00

  355.65

  382.70

  301 Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes

  7

  460.00

  202.70

  862.40

  Mill Lane, Newbury

  1

  972.00

  904.50

  651.75

  Mill Lane, Newbury

  2

  786.50

  694.25

  520.50

  Mill Lane, Newbury

  3

  145.00

  193.00

  145.50

  Speedwell Street, Oxford

  1

  1,340.40

  1,397.10

  850.00

  Speedwell Street, Oxford

  2

  1,043.20

  1,067.40

  898.00

  Speedwell Street, Oxford

  3

  1,022.80

  1,120.50

  861.00

  Speedwell Street, Oxford

  4

  707.80

  796.20

  774.00

  Speedwell Street, Oxford

  5

  564.70

  535.40

  603.75

  Speedwell Street, Oxford

  6

  48.70

  35.80

  170.25

  Civic Centre, Reading

  1

  971.25

  833.00

  617.25

  Civic Centre, Reading

  2

  1,189.25

  1,189.75

  832.00

  Civic Centre, Reading

  3

  1,131.50

  1,211.25

  847.75

  Civic Centre, Reading

  4

  606.50

  548.00

  468.50

  Civic Centre. Reading

  5

  761.00

  771.00

  564.25

  Civic Centre, Reading

  6

  366.00

  258.25

  258.50

  Chalvey Park, Slough

  1

  667.75

  1.195.25

  820.25

  Chalvey Park, Slough

  2

  710.00

  1,064.75

  835.50

  Chalvey Park. Slough

  3

  517.50

  558.05

  400.00

  Lower High Street, Thame

  1

  668.10

  600.60

  292.00

  Lower High Street, Thame

  2

  113.20

  93.10

  28.00

  Church Street, Wantage

  1

  349.20

  430.20

  328.75

  Church Street. Wantage

  2

  104.70

  79.50

  44.00

  Alma Road. Windsor

  1

  542.25

  Closed

  —

  Alma Road, Windsor

  2

  278.75

  Closed

  —

  Welch Way, Witney

  1

  643.00

  539.90

  417.00

  Welch Way, Witney

  2

  419.00

  434.30

  268.95

  Easton Street. High Wycombe

  1

  946.00

  791.00

  519.50

  Easton Street, High Wycombe

  2

  1,200.00

  958.95

  961.00

  Easton Street, High Wycombe

  3

  720.00

  527.25

  628.00

  Easton Street, High Wycombe

  4

  750.00

  594.25

  646.75

  Wycombe

  Directions

  —

  39.50

  45.00

  Grand totals

  —

  38,130.20

  36,462.97

  29,313.05

  Notes:

  1. Thames Valley MCC was created in April 1999.

  2. Data for the earlier year is the aggregation of Berkshire and Oxfordshire MCC and Buckinghamshire MCC.

  Extra-Statutory Scheme (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria the Lord Chancellor will use to assess applications for funding from the extra-statutory ex-gratia scheme, in Northern Ireland. [156081]

  Mr. Lock
  I can advise my hon. Friend that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will consider each application for funding from the Extra-Statutory Scheme on its individual merits and in the round. In so doing the Lord Chancellor will have regard to

  (a) whether the issues raised in the application fall outside the scope of a coroner's inquest;

  (b) whether the applicant would qualify financially for full civil legal aid in other circumstances;

  (c) whether an effective investigation of the death by the state is needed, and whether the inquest is the only way to conduct it;

  610W

  (d) whether the applicant has a sufficiently close relationship to the deceased to warrant funding;

  (e) whether an alternative to public funding is available;

  (f) whether the applicant needs representation in order to participate effectively in the inquest—for example, because there are unusually complex questions of law or fact, or evidential difficulties, or because of the level of representation of others who have an interest in or are involved in the inquest;

  (g) whether there is a significant wider public interest in representation being provided;

  (h) the views of the coroner, if expressed; and

  (i) any other matters which appear to be relevant to the individual circumstances of the case.

  The Lord Chancellor is writing to interested parties to invite their views on the criteria.

  The consultation exercise for these criteria will conclude on 30 June 2001. In the meantime and until the Lord Chancellor reaches a conclusion on the final criteria to be adopted, he will apply the criteria set out to any applications for funding from the extra-statutory fund.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the persons who have served on the Parades Commission from the date of the coming into effect of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, giving in each case the date of the original appointment, the dates of its expiry and subsequent extension, and, in the case of each member

  Member

  Appointment date

  Expiry date

  Extension

  Resignation date

  Alister Graham

  March 1997

  February 1999

  1 year

  —

  David Hewitt

  March 1997

  February 1999

  1 year

  —

  Frank Guckian

  March 1997

  February 1999

  1 year

  —

  Berna Mclvor

  March 1997

  February 1999

  —

  February 1998

  Roy Magee

  March 1997

  February 1999

  —

  December 1997

  Glenn Barr

  February 1998

  February2000

  —

  April 1998

  Tommy Cheevers

  February 1998

  February 2000

  —

  —

  RoseAnne McCormick

  February 1998

  February 2000

  —

  —

  Aidan Canavan

  February 1998

  February 2000

  —

  —

  Barbara Erwin

  June 1998

  February 2000

  —

  —

  Billy Martin

  June 1998

  February 2000

  2 years

  —

  Tony Holland

  February 2000

  —

  —

  —

  John Cousins

  February 2000

  —

  —

  —

  Reverend Roy Magee

  February 2000

  —

  —

  —

  Peter Osborne

  February 2000

  —

  —

  —

  Sir John Pringle

  February 2000

  —

  —

  —

  Peter Quinn

  February 2000

  —

  —

  —

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Sierra Leone. [154101]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our policy remains to repel the rebels, restore the peace process, and to help rebuild the country. Sierra Leone still has a considerable way to go. But I am encouraged by the start, on 14 March, of the UN peacekeeping force UNAMSIL's deployment forward into rebel held areas.

  I also welcome the unanimous adoption of UNSCR 1343 (2001) on 7 March, imposing sanctions on Liberia. We co-sponsored this resolution in response to the UN Expert Panel report, which clearly identified Liberian President Taylor as the primary supporter of the Revolutionary United Front rebels. UNHCR 1343 is designed to persuade President Taylor and his associates to cease their malign activities in the region.

  Coca Crops
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Bolivian Government on the drugs trade in coca crops. [154102]

  Mr. Battle
  We take every opportunity to discuss drugs with the Bolivian authorities. On 28 February I confirmed to the Bolivian Minister of Justice the UK's continuing support for his Government's efforts. We have contributed over a million pounds in counter-drugs assistance to Bolivia since 1997 and I am pleased to announce to the House that I have just approved a further 612W
  who resigned before their term of office expired, the date of their resign Mon and the reason they gave for their resignation. [155601]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table lists the members of the Parades Commission, together with their dates of appointment, expiry date, subsequent extension if relevant, and resignation date. The reasons given for resignation are a f personal matter for the individuals concerned which it would be inappropriate for me to disclose.

  contribution of £100,000 towards a crop survey in Bolivia's Yungas region to identify areas of land currently being used for illicit coca cultivation.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest assessment is of the prospects for the reunification of Cyprus. [154104]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK strongly believes that the current UN settlement process, launched in December 1999 by the UN Secretary General, offers an excellent opportunity to achieve a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus. This is in the interests of all concerned. The UN process is currently at a sensitive and difficult stage but the UK has every confidence in the ability of the UN to find a way to resolve the current difficulties and move forward. To that end we will continue strongly to urge all those involved to remain fully and positively engaged in the search for a solution.

  Burma
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on Burma following the International Labour Organisation's decision on forced labour conditions. [154105]

  Mr. Battle
  In 1997 the European Community suspended GSP privileges to Burma in reaction to the use of forced labour there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wrote to employers and workers groups in the UK on 18 February, asking them to draw the ILO decision to their members' attention and to consider how to give effect to the ILO
  613W
  Resolution. We too are actively considering what further steps HMG could take; I discussed this issue with ILO Director General Somavia on 21 March in Geneva.

  Brazil
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Brazil regarding the problem of forced labour. [154106]

  Mr. Battle
  We are in regular contact with the Brazilian authorities on a broad rant of human rights issues, including forced labour.

  During talks between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Brazilian Government in Brasilia in December last year, Embassy officials again raised our concerns about the use of forced labour in Brazil. We have subsequently passed on a copy of Anti-Slavery International's latest briefing on force I labour to Brazil's National Secretariat for Human Rights.

  Human Rights (Colombia)
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made on human rights in Colombia to the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. [154107]

  Mr. Battle
  We are very concerned about increasing levels of violence in Colombia In recent months, particularly directed at trade unionists such as Wilson Borja and other human rights defenders. We have raised our concerns directly with the Colombian authorities. I issued a statement on 13 February reiterating our concerns. The President of the European Union intends to issue a statement on the situation in Colombia on behalf of all EU member states at the 57th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights taking place in Geneva at the moment.

  I did discuss these matters in Geneva last week with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the Indian Government on the question of a purchase of Hawk aircraft. [154108]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Defence raised this issue with the Indian Government during their respective visits to India in January and December.

  East Timor
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for elections in East Timor. [154109]

  31. Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for elections in East Timor. [154118]
  614W
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospect for elections in East Timor. [154121]

  Mr. Battle
  Sergio Vieira de Mello, the Head of the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), announced on 16 March that the first democratic election for an 88-member constituent Assembly will be held on 30 August 2001. These elections will mark a key stage in the transition towards an independent state, expected in early 2002.

  Luxembourg
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the state of bilateral relations between Britain and Luxembourg. [154110]

  Mr. Vaz
  Relations with Luxembourg are traditionally very good. Ministers and officials have frequent contact with their Luxembourg counterparts at EU meetings. There were also four substantive bilateral ministerial meetings in 2000, including a meeting between the two Prime Ministers in London. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) visited Luxembourg on 21 March to speak on welfare and pensions reform and meet her opposite numbers and there are plans for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to have talks with his opposite number Madame Polfer. Trade relations thrive, with the UK exports to Luxembourg reaching £219.8 million last year.

  China
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit China; and if he will make a statement. [154112]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Beijing from 24–25 May to attend the ASEM (Asia-Europe) Foreign Minister's meeting.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the South African Government concerning the economic crisis in Zimbabwe. [154113]

  Mr. Wilson
  I discussed our concerns over Zimbabwe with South Africa's Deputy Foreign Minister on 6 March. We welcome President Mbeki's expressed intention to meet President Mugabe soon to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with Zimbabwe. [154116]

  Mr. Wilson
  Given the long shared history between our two countries, we would wish to have better relations with the Government of Zimbabwe. But that is not possible while the Government of Zimbabwe pursue their current policies, which are damaging the economy of the country and its international reputation.

  Terrorism (Israel)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Palestinian National Authority in relation to terrorist attacks in Israel. [154114]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government condemn all acts of violence in the middle east, and call on both parties to take steps to reduce the violence and build confidence. This of course includes action where possible to prevent terrorist acts. We take every opportunity to raise this with both Palestinian and Israeli representatives. The European Council in Stockholm on 23 March called for the immediate resumption of security co-operation and urged both parties to do all in their power to end violence, restrain extremism and minimise incitement and provocations.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent initiatives to tackle the international trade in illegal drugs. [154115]

  Mr. Battle
  This Government are at the forefront of international efforts to combat the drugs trade. Our aim, as stated in the 10-year drugs strategy, is to halve the availability of those Class A drugs which cause the greatest harm, particularly heroin and cocaine.

  Kashmir
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Kashmir. [154117]

  Mr. Wilson
  We remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Kashmir, including reports of abuses by security forces and militants. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with his Indian counterpart, Jaswant Singh, during talks in London in November last year. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Democratic Development (Third World)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy on the development of democracy in the third world. [154119]

  Mr. Battle
  We take a close interest in the democracy building activities of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and are in contact with the Chairman of the Board of Governors. In this financial year £4,325,500 of FCO funds has been channelled towards successful WFD activity in a range of countries, with a particular focus on Africa, the Balkans and the Former Soviet Union.

  Middle East
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace initiative. [154120]
  616W
  Mr. Wilson
  Following a successful EU Troika visit to the region, Heads of State and Government discussed the situation in the middle east at the European Council in Stockholm on 23 March. The Council reaffirmed the Union's determination to contribute to peace, stability and future prosperity in the middle east. To that end it requested the EU High Representative Javier Solana to explore how the EU can play an enhanced role in promoting the resumption of the peace process. While there has been an overall reduction in the level of violence in the past two weeks, we remain deeply concerned at the continuing tensions and instability. We urge both parties to take immediate parallel steps to address the current crisis.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Libya. [154122]

  Mr. Wilson
  The United Kingdom has full diplomatic relations with Libya. We are constructively engaged with Libya and continue to encourage them to play a positive role in the international community.

  Vojvodina
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Vojvodina. [154123]

  Mr. Vaz
  We welcome the recent, constructive dialogue between Belgrade and Vojvodina. This is a further encouraging sign that a mutually agreed and lasting constitutional settlement can be reached on a redefinition of autonomous powers for the province.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects British citizenship to be restored to residents of the island of St. Helena. [154124]

  Mr. Battle
  We are fully committed to introducing legislation to give British citizenship to the people of St. Helena and the other Overseas Territories. We will make parliamentary time available to introduce the legislation for this measure as soon as practicable. Preparatory work to agree the principles of such a bill along with drafting Instructions for the Parliamentary Counsel has been completed.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the charter of fundamental rights on EU law; and if IN will make a statement. [154125]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Charter of Rights is a political declaration. It is not legally binding. It creates no new powers or tasks for the EU and does not modify powers
  617W
  or tasks defined by the Treaties. It sets out fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that the EU should respect when going about its daily business, and it promotes the visibility of those rights.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to assist the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [154126]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development had separate meetings with President Kabila on 13 March. We pressed him to implement the Lusaka Agreement, assured him of our continued political and practical support and stressed that those who fail to honour their commitments would be held to account by the international community.

  European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the ratification of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. [155984]

  Mr. Vaz
  I am pleased to announce that the UK has today ratified the Charter. In doing so, we have undertaken a binding commitment to protect and preserve Welsh, Scottish-Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster-Scots as an essential part of our cultural heritage. We are considering the case for Cornish to be included. Our Instrument of Ratification lists the specific provisions, in Part III of the Charter, which we have undertaken to promote the use in public life of Welsh, Scottish-Gaelic and Irish. Copies of the Charter and the Instrument of Ratification have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

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

Guardians ad Litem
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the current service by guardians ad litem to children in public law will be maintained if each case is fee-capped from 1st April 2001.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, your Lordships should know that the new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) will come into being on 1st April. It will combine in a single service the family court welfare functions currently provided by the Probation Service, the children's branch of the Official Solicitor's Department and the local authority guardian ad litem services. Guardians ad litem are experienced childcare experts appointed in public law cases to give an assessment of a child's best interests. Traditionally they were engaged by local authorities through 57 local panels: about 737 were treated as self-employed, and 113 employed. Eleven of the 737 raised the question of their status with the Inland Revenue, whose opinion was that all were employees. The project team for the new CAFCASS, which recognises that probably a majority of guardians want to retain self-employed status, has been negotiating with the Inland Revenue new terms of engagement by CAFCAS S which the Revenue would accept qualify as self-employment. They would move from an hourly rate to a graduated fee for each different service provided. Graduated fees apply widely in the law and what is essentially going on is an old-fashioned negotiation about the adequacy of the graduated fee levels plus some uncertainty among the guardians about whether they want to become employees or retain self-employed status.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his very full Answer. Is he aware that guardians have been hopping mad over what they have perceived as delay in reply, evasiveness and lack of consultation on the part of the new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be a tragedy if children at risk of harm from their families lose those experienced guardians who might choose to walk away from the profession?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perception quite often departs from reality. The approach to the Revenue by the 11 guardians had the effect of imposing a more urgent timetable. The self-employed guardians' representative body, NAGALRO, had a
92
first draft of the proposed new contract just before Christmas. There have been regular monthly meetings since 1st June between them and the project team. A further meeting will take place this afternoon. The formal proposed contracts were not issued until 27th February; and a six-week honeymoon period from 1st April has now been proposed, during which the guardians could continue on their old terms or opt for the new system.
I hope that peace will break out and that these experienced professionals, whom we value highly, will come over to CAFCASS on terms that they can accept as fair.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that the answers he has just given will mean that lack of funds will not prevent justice from being done by the appointment of a guardian ad litem when necessary?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no lack of funds. CAFCASS proposes that under a graduated fee system the guardians will be paid 3.8 per cent more than the total paid out to them by local authorities this year. The global sum will increase from £20.77 million to £21.55 million. So want of resources does not come into the issue.
I favour graduated fees in principle provided that they are set at a fair level. A system of hourly payment without limit and irrespective of the difficulty of the individual tasks undertaken can be an incentive to inefficiency and fail to deliver value for money.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, would it not be a gross mistake to attribute any degree of culpability to CAFCASS? It appears to be caught in a cleft stick between guardians, who want to retain their self-employed status, and the requirements of the Revenue.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a very fair comment. CAFCASS is trying to secure self-employed status for those guardians who want it—it is by no means clear that they all want it—on terms that the Revenue will accept. Simply to have continued their previous terms when the Revenue's clear position was that they would not pass an audit for Schedule D purposes when they joined CAFCASS would have been irresponsible. CAFCASS would have failed the Revenue audit planned for itself and would rightly have been criticised by its auditors. So the description of a cleft stick is a fair one.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I have to declare an interest. My wife is a self-employed guardian. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be aware that well over 90 per cent of guardians have not yet agreed to sign the new contracts. Many feel that under the terms of the contract they are unable to fulfil their professional duties under the Children Act court rules, Section 11, paragraph 9. Will the noble and learned Lord endeavour to use his offices to draw their

93
representatives directly into dialogue with himself in order that an honourable settlement can be found to their satisfaction and that of the Government?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is curious in a parliamentary Question and Answer session to appear to be participating in old-fashioned employment relations negotiations. I repeat my answer to the previous question. It was the wish of the 11 to change their status that put the cat among the pigeons, if I may describe guardians and the Inland Revenue in that way. The project team has offered enhanced graduated fees in the most difficult cases, as well as an independent review of the banding criteria and of the quality of service delivered to children after six and 12 months under the new system. The right course is to wish all the negotiators well.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I declare an interest as a magistrate in the family proceedings court. I do not want to continue the employment negotiations analogy, but, in view of the importance that the Government have attached to the creation of CAFCASS, and perhaps most importantly the necessity to vulnerable children of its smooth operation, if the negotiations do not come to an amicable solution very quickly, will the Government delay any further action on the fixed fees scheme until a pilot scheme has been implemented and evaluated to ascertain its impact?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that that is the way forward. The tax status of self-employed guardians continues to be a problem for both the Revenue and the guardians, regardless of whether they remain for a temporary period with the local authorities. The way to deal with a problem is to address it directly. That is what the current negotiations are doing.

Manufacturing Industry
2.45 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to stimulate manufacturing industry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are helping manufacturing industry by creating a stable macro-economic climate and by pursuing policies that help firms to innovate, to develop the skills of their workforce and to grow.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, has the steel-maker Corus turned down the imaginative plan drawn up by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to save 6,000 jobs in the steel industry? The plan calls for part-time shifts, with the rest of employees' time being spent on training. It would be funded by the Government and by Corus. Does the Minister appreciate that according to an eminent QC—namely, Cherie Booth—the plan
94
would pass European state aid rules? Finally, does he agree that no stone should be left unturned to save those jobs, which are in areas that can ill afford to lose them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that the loss of jobs from the steel industry in South Wales—and on Teesside—would be tragic and that everything possible should be done to preserve them. I understand that Corus and the steel trade union had a meeting this morning. We have not heard the outcome of that meeting. Among other things, they were due to consider the proposal for an application under Article 95 of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty for an aid programme containing a significant training aid component. The Government would be willing to support such an application, but I should not disguise the fact that it would be very difficult and would need the active collaboration of Corus and the trade unions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, might not one helpful measure be to make further adjustments to the climate change levy for energy-saving industries? Incidentally, that would also help agriculture, which needs all the help that it can get now.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the climate change levy is revenue-neutral as a whole, but it is bound to affect high energy-use industries. There are derogations from it for parts of the steel industry, as the noble Lord knows. Our view is that we have struck a proper balance between our Kyoto obligations and our obligations to our manufacturing industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware that our deficit in traded goods last year, excluding oil, exceeded £34 billion? That is the highest figure on record, and the trend is still rising. Is not that a serious situation? Do the Government have a strategy to deal with it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this country's balance of trade in manufactured goods—if that is what the noble Lord is referring to—has been adverse for nearly every year since about 1862. I would rather look at the growth in manufacturing industry and in our manufacturing exports. In the fourth quarter of last year our manufacturing exports increased by 10 per cent over the comparable period the previous year. Even exports to the European Union, with which we acknowledge that we have an exchange rate problem, grew by 5 per cent.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the future of the Cammell Laird shipyard could have been made much safer with the new luxury cruisers that were to be built there. The American firm Luxus was willing to do that if the Government were prepared to underwrite the project. Why have the Government refused to underwrite more than 50 per cent? The cruise liner business is expanding fast. We are not experts at it and

95
the proposal would have been an opportunity for our manufacturing industry in a part of the country with high unemployment that needs such opportunities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am unable to give an answer to the precise question about Cammell Laird put by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. Of course, she will be aware that, in turn, the Government must be conscious of the state aid restrictions of the European Union, which very largely are to our advantage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that manufacturing industry as a percentage of GDP has fallen since 1973 from 32 to 19 per cent? In addition, does he agree that there is a point beyond which one cannot go if one wants to sustain a reasonably balanced economy in which manufacturing industry can perform? Therefore, will he consider an idea which has been put forward previously by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and, indeed, by myself that a Select Committee, similar to that set up in 1985, should be formed to consider the position of manufacturing industry and overseas trade?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I acknowledge that in recent years the manufacturing share of GDP has gone down in this country, as it has in all developed countries. However, I can give some hope to my noble friend. We forecast that manufacturing industry will grow by 1.75 to 2 per cent this year and by 1.5 to 2 per cent in each of the two following years. Those forecasts have been in place for some time and have recently been confirmed.
As to the issue of a Select Committee of this House, that is, of course, a matter for the House authorities and the usual channels.

Identity Cards
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider introducing a national identity card.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, we are not persuaded of the case for introducing a national identity card. We have looked seriously at the arguments but, for the moment, have concluded that the potential drawbacks outweigh the anticipated benefits.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Last year he said that the matter was under review, but it sounds as though the review was rather inactive. Eleven other countries in Europe all have a form of identity card. Why cannot we follow
96
suit? Surely a smart card would help to combat fraud, which is absolutely prevalent in this country. That is one area in which a card would be most helpful.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We gave the matter active consideration last year but concluded that, all things considered, it is not the route that we wish to take. The noble Baroness draws attention to other European countries, but they do not all have national identity cards. I believe that Denmark, Eire, Sweden and Finland do not have such cards.
As to the noble Baroness's point in relation to smart cards, that issue is being given active consideration. I believe that a number of schemes are being undertaken or considered by government in connection with local government. However, many of those cards can themselves be used and abused for fraudulent means and that can lead to further fraud. Therefore, perhaps the matter is not so simple and straightforward as the noble Baroness likes to suggest.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Lord enlarge upon the drawbacks to which he referred? Can he also tell me what difference there is now compared with the last war, when everyone had a national identity card? So far as I know, the use of cards during that period did not cause trouble to anyone.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the last war was rather before my time. As I recall, the noble Baroness made that point last year when the same question was put. I congratulate her on reminding us about it.
I readily acknowledge that benefits are to be gained from the introduction of national identity cards. However, many concerns also arise in relation to civil liberties, costs and security. In addition, it would be a major undertaking to establish a system for issuing cards promptly and with high security. All those points apply. I believe that when the noble Baroness's government were in power, they decided that the cost of such a scheme would be too great. They wanted a voluntary system. I believe that they costed a national identity card scheme at some £600 million at the point of introduction. For all those reasons, at present we are not convinced that such cards would be of great benefit to us.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak as someone who can remember carrying an identity card in the late 1940s. Does the Minister agree that one of the benefits of living in this country nowadays is that we do not have to carry identity cards with us?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the case. I am sure that in some states it is obligatory to carry a national identity card, and one may become criminalised as a result of not doing so. Without any

97
doubt, that is something to be taken into consideration. I am sure that it is a matter that would trouble the police service.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are still planning to introduce a form of identity card for 16 to 18 year-old students? If so, when will it be introduced?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are giving active consideration to that matter. I believe that my noble friend refers to connection cards, which we consider to have benefits. As I understand it, potentially that scheme would cover as much as 75 per cent of the age group in question. We are also considering whether such a card should include a date of birth so that it could be used for establishing proof of age. I know that many other benefits arise in terms of passporting, education courses and so on. Therefore, I consider it to be a very useful development.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, does the Minister consider that the introduction of a national identity card would, among many other benefits, help to eliminate electoral fraud in the same manner as the introduction of the voter ID card in Northern Ireland is currently planned to do?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not an expert on elections in Northern Ireland. From time to time, I hear stories about elections there and, thus, I can well understand the noble Lord's point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister agree that nowadays everyone knows everything about everyone else because of the existence of a variety of different cards? As the Government are so concerned, quite rightly, about illegal immigrants, what is their objection to having identity cards? The only people who would fear them would be illegal immigrants. What is wrong with that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that the introduction of national identity cards would necessarily benefit our enforcement of immigration controls. However, I have heard that argument made. It is certainly not part of the arrangements and agreements that have come into play as a result of Schengen. Of course, these matters must be considered in the round. We have taken the view that a national identity card would produce some benefits but that those are greatly outweighed by the disbenefits.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the police would be perfectly happy with a system of voluntary identity cards? I was not talking about a compulsory system.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware that that was an option which the previous government considered. However, in the end it did not
98
come to pass. We are happy with the current arrangements. For all the reasons that I outlined at the outset of this Question, we believe that the benefits of a national identity card are not so great that such a scheme is worthy of further consideration at this stage.

Hospitals: Quality of Patient Services
2.58 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will appoint an independent inspector general of hospitals who would report to the Secretary of State for Health on cleanliness, patient handling, food standards and other non-medical and non-clinical matters relating to the administration of hospitals, such reports to be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we see no need for such an appointment. National standards will be set and performance managed by the Department of Health. The proposed patients' forums will also inspect premises and report on the quality of patient services in every trust.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he recognises that what I propose is a good deal sharper and more focused than what he has described. I am aware of the body which has been set up. Indeed, I read the article by his right honourable friend in the Sunday Mirror of 4th February. However, is he not deeply concerned that a large number of our hospitals have overflowing lavatories and soiled tissues around the wards, and that one-third of them fail the basic hygiene checks? Does he agree that such problems are primarily a matter not of resources but of management, discipline and pride? We need a proper inspection process that will name and shame. It might use as a model the excellent performance of Sir David Ramsbotham in relation to the inspection of prisons.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no doubt that over the years the standards of some NHS trusts in relation to cleanliness and food have declined. That is why, in the NHS Plan, which was published last summer, we drew particular attention to those problems and instituted a set of procedures to put them right. One mechanism, as the noble Lord suggested, is the establishment of patient environment action teams. They are made up of people from the NHS and the private sector and of patients' representatives and they have visited every trust in the country. They have drawn attention to problems in the cleanliness area. It is absolutely clear that that has had a dramatic effect on the quality of cleanliness. I know that during the past few weeks patients have seen distinct improvements. That effort goes alongside the additional resources that we have given trusts for that purpose.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of these problems are best tackled not

99
by the appointment of higher-up administrators who operate on a large scale, but by the simple reintroduction of matrons in hospitals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. That is why, in the very same NHS Plan, we advanced the proposal that modern matron figures should be appointed. It is abundantly clear that under the stewardship of the party opposite, ward sisters lost authority—they lost control over cleaning and catering and the results were clear for all to see. Our proposals and changes will reassert the authority of the sister or modern matron. I am convinced that that is the way in which to get standards back to where we all want them to be.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have listened to my noble friend's remarks, but I do not know whether we need an inspector. What progress is being made towards the elimination of mixed-sex wards? I am sure that they have been inspected. How is his department monitoring that and the health service generally?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend knows that I share his views on these issues. We conduct regular progress monitoring. In the latest returns, 93 per cent of trusts report that they will comply with our objective to eliminate mixed-sex accommodation by 2002. There are 25 that have not done so, but seven have now devised specific action plans that will be implemented by the end of 2002. That leaves 18 trusts, of which 16 will meet the target through major capital schemes which have already been approved. The remaining two are in discussion with the department about what can be done to bring forward compliance.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what is the difference between a modern matron figure and an old matron figure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I discovered when I took up office in the Department of Health, many nurses—certainly those in the hierarchy—resisted the term, "matron", because they saw it as returning to what they may regard as the bad old days. I do not share that view. That is why we used the word. However, it does not do any harm to call them modern matrons; that enables the nursing profession to give support and ownership to what we are trying to do.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the changes that, the Minister explained to us today ensure that people in hospital, particularly the elderly, are properly fed? There are alarming stories about people—particularly older people—being less well fed during their time in hospital. While I am on my feet, will he also ensure that such patients are addressed by their names, not by a series of nicknames?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, those who address patients in hospital should do so using the
100
names that the patients wish to be addressed by. On the question of feeding, that is a matter that the visiting teams study. They watch patients being fed and ensure that if patients are unable to feed themselves they are not left alone. I make it clear that it is the responsibility of nurses to ensure that patients' individual nutritional needs are met. The chief nursing officer wrote to all nurses a few months ago to make that abundantly clear. So far as concerns the treatment of older people generally, the national service framework, which is being published today, gives clear direction to the NHS about treating older people with respect and dignity.

Macedonia
3.6 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current situation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we and our partners in the international community are extremely concerned about the ongoing conflict in Macedonia and condemn the violence perpetrated by armed ethnic Albanian extremists. We recognise the right of the Macedonian Government to use force, but it is important that that is proportionate to the threat and is focused on the armed extremists. However, there is no military solution to the crisis. We urge the Macedonian Government to take steps to address the legitimate political aspirations of the Albanian minority working with the ethnic Albanian parties in the government. KFOR is already taking Finn action on the border and the MoD is urgently considering what further support we can offer to the Macedonian Government bilaterally or with our allies through KFOR.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. Is not Macedonia the most dangerous tinderbox of all of the tinderboxes in the former Republic of Yugoslavia because of the Albanian minorities in so many neighbouring countries? Are we not in debt to Macedonia because of the help that it gave us during the Kosovo campaign and because it is now virtually the sole avenue of supply to KFOR in Kosovo?
I believe that most noble Lords would agree with the Minister in condemning the violence of the Albanian guerrilla fighters. I also believe that we are right to encourage the Macedonian Government—I believe that this is what the Minister said—to take political steps to meet the aspirations of the Albanians, who constitute one third of the population. Is there not a danger that the moderate Albanian leaders who exist will have suffered in influence as a result of the recent

101
fighting? Is that not a very good reason for doing everything that can be done to prevent further fighting?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that it is of the utmost importance to do all that we can to prevent further fighting. I also agree that the Albanian situation is very difficult—the noble Lord described it as a tinderbox. As such, we have to deal with it very judiciously.
Although there have been real difficulties in Macedonia, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords. On Sunday, the Macedonian army launched an operation to retake the hills above Tetovo. That appears to have been a success and there does not appear to have been any civilian deaths as a result of that enterprise. The steps taken by the Macedonian Government have been given wholehearted support by Albanian minority members, who are part of that government. That must be a positive indicator for the future.
We are doing everything that we can, together with our international partners, to support the Macedonian Government in their proportionate and proper response. At the same time, it is right for us to recognise that the Albanian minority have some legitimate concerns, which it is incumbent on the Macedonian Government to address.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I understand that our troops could be involved in armed conflict. Under whose command do they serve?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that our forces in Kosovo are part of the KFOR effort. Their ability to respond will be under the same command as it is at the moment. There will be no change.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Does my noble friend agree that the Albanians in Kosovo have been encouraged, and perhaps are still being encouraged, to believe that if they keep up their terrorist activity they will eventually gain an independent Kosovo and a greater Albania? Can my noble friend say whether the British Government and NATO are making it absolutely plain to the Albanians that there is no prospect of either an independent Kosovo or a greater Albania independent of Serbia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although I hear what my noble friend says in relation to people encouraging a change, I can assure him that there will be no change. Macedonia and Yugoslavia have been clearly told that their integrity will be preserved. Anyone who believes that a greater Albania can be created by starting a bloody war is quite wrong.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the questions of both my noble friends, will the Minister accept that the Government of Macedonia must be supported in defending the integrity of its frontiers? Once frontiers in the Balkans start being disputed, we
102
go straight back to the blood baths of the past. Will she also accept that the movement of British troops up into the frontier areas to do the policing indicates a new phase in Britain's as well as NATO's involvement in what is an increasingly dangerous situation? Can the Minister give us some idea of the longer-term plan? Is there not a need for a more robust NATO strategy as to what is to be achieved in the future? If it is not to be an independent Kosovo, what kind of Kosovo is it to be? How long will our troops be left defending those frontiers? These disputes have been going on since Roman times. Are we doomed to stay there for ever or is there a plan for a more stable future?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that this is not a "new" phase. Of course it is right that we should do our best to assist those who wish to stabilise the Balkans and bring back a degree of normality. That was and remains our purpose. The longer-term plan involves the building of capacity. We have to support civil society. We have to make sure that the institutions are working appropriately so that the people of the Balkans can take their future into their own hands in a way that is proportionate and proper but which also allows all ethnic minorities to find their proper place.
As the noble Lord is aware, one of the difficulties is the struggle that the Albanian minority have faced in having their proper place recognised. We understand that the Macedonian Government accept that there is a need for change. They are looking creatively to bring about that change and, in relation to long-term strategy, our support for those efforts is the quickest way of ensuring that these troubles finally come to an end.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are some more hopeful signs in this disturbing situation? Is it not correct that the leaders not only of the Albanian minority in the Macedonian Government, but also the leaders within Kosovo of the Albanian majority—Ibrahim Rugova and others—indicated that they do not wish in any way to be involved in terrorist or guerrilla activities? Is it also the case that the Macedonian president, in the recent past, advanced proposals for providing greater guarantees of human rights for the Albanian minority? Finally, is it correct that Macedonia looks to the possibility of membership of the European Union as its major ambition and goal and in that respect therefore is anxious to uphold human rights in a way that would make it an acceptable candidate at some date in the future?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am glad to agree with all that the noble Baroness says. It is a hopeful sign that it is not just the Albanians in Macedonia who support this, it is also the Kosovo Albanians. We hear a united voice of reason from the people against the terrorists. That must give us great courage and hope for the future.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the root cause of this problem was the

103
wretched Albanians siding with the Ottoman Turks in the first and second Balkan wars? The Slays carved them up, leaving them in difficulties and so their territorial and nationalist ambitions were deeply restrained.
That is the historical background. Can the Minister explain how, when NATO has as many troops in Kosovo as Great Britain had in India in 1938, a number of men were allowed to cross the border while being watched by NATO troops? If it is necessary to have troops there, we should ensure that they are used properly and that they do not allow people to cross the border, even though the whole border is a muddle in that part of the world.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again I hear what the noble Earl says and thank him for the history lesson. But the truth is that our forces are employed in many tricky activities on that side of the border. This issue is being addressed and addressed properly. In fact, I should like to take this opportunity to wholeheartedly congratulate our forces on the work that they are undertaking with great courage and fortitude.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that some of us find it very strange that Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina were allowed to break away from Yugoslavia, but that Kosovo alone is told that it may not break away, particularly in light of its experience at the hands of the Serbs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's question, but this is an area which has perennially caused difficulties, as he knows well from when he was in another position on this Front Bench. There has been an improvement in the situation. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia indicated that it is open to negotiations with other minorities to try to obtain a political solution to what has been an impasse for a long time. My noble friend will know that it is a political solution which will finally bring peace to this region and not a military solution.

Business
3.16 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Business of the House Motion, my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the latest developments in the foot and mouth outbreak.

Elections Publications Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for postponing the operation of certain enactments relating to election publications and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
104
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 69, Mr F.A. Cranmer be appointed an Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills in place of Ms H.E. Irwin with effect from 6th April.—(The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
3.18 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I should perhaps explain that my noble friend is unable to be here early today as she is celebrating the 89th birthday lunch of her father, my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff.
It may be helpful if I explain the reason for this Motion being tabled. Your Lordships will be aware that it is the usual practice of this House to divide up all the Wednesdays in the first portion of the Session among the various parties and the Cross-Bench Peers. At the start of this Session it was agreed that Wednesday 28th March should be allocated to Labour Peers. It is therefore a matter for Labour Peers, and only Labour Peers, to decide what they wish to debate on that day.
At their weekly party meeting on 15th March, Labour Peers unanimously endorsed the recommendation of their own co-ordinating committee that Wednesday 28th March should be used to debate the important issues raised in the Homes Bill and the tobacco Bill. Given all the speculation in the press about an early election, Labour Peers felt it appropriate to ensure that this House should be assured of the opportunity to put on record its views on those two important Bills, each of which fulfils manifesto commitments.
As your Lordships know, the last Labour debate of every Session of this Parliament has been handed back to the Government by Labour Peers to deal with legislation, without complaint and to the benefit of the whole House. Indeed, it has long been the practice to ensure that the last Wednesday debate of each Session is allocated to the party of government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is well known for his courtesy and commitment to the traditions of the House. He well knows that it is his right, as it is the right of any Peer, to table a Motion at any time he pleases. However, he also knows that this House works only by a system of self-regulation and self-restraint. Clearly, if even a small number of Peers table

105
Motions for debate without consultation or regard for other business, this House would quickly grind to a halt.
I was therefore amazed to discover that the noble Viscount had tabled this Motion without any consultation whatsoever. In the first place he made no effort to consult the Labour Peers group to discover if it wished to use its debate day to discuss the countryside and foot and mouth disease before homes and tobacco.
I shudder to think what would be the reaction from the Benches opposite if a Labour Back-Bencher were to table a Motion on a topic of his or her choosing for Wednesday 4th April, which is the next Conservative debate day. Noble Lords opposite would rightly be outraged. Wednesday 4th April belongs to Conservative Peers, and it would be monstrous for another party to try to hijack it. By the same argument, Wednesday 28th March belongs to the Labour Peers, who are indeed outraged that a Conservative Peer has unilaterally decided that Labour Peers would rather debate his Motion before the topics that they have chosen. As Chairman of the Labour Peers group, my noble friend Lord Dubs has written to the noble Viscount asking him to withdraw his Motion for debate.
The noble Viscount made no attempt to consult my noble friend Lady Hayman before tabling his Motion. I am sure that the House would agree that my noble friend has been most diligent in reporting to the House and answering Questions and debates since the foot and mouth outbreak began. Indeed, she will repeat another Statement on the subject immediately after this Motion. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that the current outbreak means that my noble friend is exceptionally busy outside the House. I must choose my words with care. I understand that it is particularly inconvenient to my noble friend to have to leave that important task to be here tomorrow afternoon.
I am astonished that the noble Viscount did not have the courtesy to discuss his Motion with my noble friend before he tabled it. I hope that the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw his Motion for debate. If he does not do so, even under the terms of the business Motion, my noble friend Lady Hayman will still have to be here until late tomorrow evening to reply to the debate.
The noble Viscount made no attempt to discuss his Motion with the usual channels. To this moment he has not spoken to me about it, despite the fact that he and I had at least two conversations on other matters last Thursday evening after he had tabled his Motion. Noble Lords will know that for this House to function, business must be agreed through the usual channels. If your Lordships decide that it is in order for Peers to table Motions without consultation or consideration for other business, we would swiftly find ourselves having to tighten our rules and having to spell out more clearly what Members can and cannot do. Such a process would only result in an erosion of the rights of Back-Bench Peers, and is not one which I should like to see commence.
106
To table business without consultation through the usual channels is impractical, discourteous and short-sighted. I am extremely surprised that the noble Viscount, with his long experience in the House, has done so. Also, I understand that if Labour Peers had tabled a Motion or Motions for debate on any subject tomorrow afternoon, the noble Viscount would not have tabled his Motion on foot and mouth for debate. That has the clear implication to me that the Motion tabled by the noble Viscount is more a matter of parliamentary tactics than an overriding desire to debate the countryside and foot and mouth.
Finally, I draw attention to the subject matter of the debate tabled by the noble Viscount. The current outbreak of foot and mouth is extremely serious. It is appropriate that parliamentary time should be made available to discuss it. Over the past three weeks we have discussed the issue on six occasions. The noble Viscount took the opportunity to participate on only one such occasion. In addition, we shall discuss foot and mouth in the Statement which will be taken after this Motion.
I do not underestimate the importance or the gravity of the subject. However, I do not believe that the way in which the noble Viscount has tried to ensure a debate is the right way to proceed. He has made his point, although not in the most appropriate way. I hope that he will now agree to the request from my noble friend Lord Dubs, Chairman of the Labour Peers group, to withdraw his Motion for debate tomorrow. I hope that he will accept my noble friend's request so that the House will not have to decide the matter on a vote. Whatever the outcome of such a vote, that would not be a seemly way for this House to conduct its business.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the public Bills to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Viscount Cranborne.—(Lord Carter.)
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for the restrained way in which he administered his rebuke. The last thing in the world I want to do is to offend the noble Lord, for whom, as he knows, I have the greatest possible respect. However, I notice that it has become a habit for the Labour Party to do something which our party did not do when it was in Government; that is, to indulge in a private deal with their own Front Bench to try to get government business done, at least in part, on Wednesdays.
Despite the appeal of the noble Lord, I oppose the Motion. Perhaps I may briefly explain why to the House. My reason, which the House may find difficult to believe, is not just that I do not fancy a late night tomorrow, but may be found in the reason why I tabled the Motion in the first place. To that extent the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is right. As he pointed out, for some time priority has been given on Wednesdays to Back-Bench business. I think that the whole House would recognise that our Wednesday debates are not only much appreciated within this

107
House but have given a lead, particularly on long-term issues, to another place and to the nation at large. I do not think that I need to expand on that observation. It seems to me to be common ground between all Members of this place.
Equally, the House has always recognised that towards the end of the parliamentary Session, if the Government are to get their business through, as I think the noble Lord acknowledged, the Back-Benchers should gracefully surrender their Wednesday rights. That has been common practice under both Conservative and Labour Governments. I do not believe that anybody in this House would object to the principle of the Government getting their business through being maintained.
I also believe that, until recent Labour Party practice, that decision has always been arrived at in the same way. As the noble Lord said, the matter has been agreed through the usual channels and then by the whole House as a result of a Motion. Up until now, that procedure has been universally observed. As far as I am aware, on this occasion, as on previous occasions, in conjunction with their own Back Benches, the Government have formed a habit which, in view of the importance of Wednesdays, I feel is disrespectful to the House. I understand from my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench that on this occasion as on others the Government never approached either the Opposition through the usual channels or consulted the whole House, to which Wednesdays belong whichever Back Benches' turn it is. As the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms pointed out, they merely did a private deal with their own Back Benches to take over Back-Bench time.
There is a genuine difference of opinion between the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms and myself. It is right and proper that our practice should continue and that Back Benches in all parts of the House should take their turn. However, I find it difficult to accept that Wednesdays should, by implication, be wholly at the disposal of, in this instance, the Labour Party to negotiate away Back-Bench rights for the convenience of the Government. That is the burden of the difference between the noble Lord and myself.
I wholly recognise that there could be good business management reasons for the Government to want to take government business on Wednesday this week. However, as a matter of principle, it is for the Government to negotiate with the usual channels rather than to fix the business of the House by private agreement with their own party caucus. Of course, if I have been discourteous to the noble Lord in particular, I unreservedly apologise. However, perhaps he ought to think of pots and kettles because, according to my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench, the usual channels were not consulted before the deal was done.
If this House is not to become completely the plaything of the Government, it is important that the House should not increasingly adopt a practice which makes such a mockery of its procedures and habits. For that reason, if Labour Back-Benchers want to use
108
Back-Bench time for a Motion of their own, I should be only too happy to withdraw my Motion for tomorrow. I wholly accept that the noble Baroness the Minister who answers for agricultural matters in this House has been extremely busy and am aware that she has been working flat out during this period of crisis. I am equally aware that in order for consent for the Government's actions not to be withheld, it is important for Ministers in both Houses to give high priority to parliamentary examination of what they are doing. I understand that during the last war—as was said in response to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, it was before my time—the government of the day gave priority to debates in the House of Commons, even though there were other calls on their time.
I believe that an important matter of principle is involved. If there has been discourtesy on my part, I unreservedly apologise. However, I do not apologise for the principle at stake because it is important. I refer to the standing of Back-Benchers in this House. It. is an important principle of this place that the Back Benches are equal to the Front Benches; and our Wednesday debates are an important outward and visible sign of that.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, as a very old Member of this House in every sense, I was surprised and shocked when I saw the noble Viscount's Motion for debate on the Order Paper for tomorrow. It seemed to me extremely discourteous as no one had been consulted and the Labour Peers had agreed to give up tomorrow to other business. He has used what seems to me a specious argument and I strongly object. I hope that the Motion moved by my noble friend the Chief Whip will be agreed to.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate and the history alarms me. The interests of Back-Benchers on both sides of the House are at risk if we ever see a repeat of these events.
It is disingenuous to pretend that the Bills tabled for tomorrow appear as the choice of Labour Back-Benchers for their Back-Bench day. The day is being taken over not for Back-Bench business but for government business. It is by definition no longer a Back-Bench day. A Back-Bench day has been taken away from the House as a whole without consultation with the Opposition. That is the essence of the whole matter.
We must be clear that, by custom, throughout a considerable part of the year Wednesdays are used for Back-Bench Motions. Although there are times when the Government must come to the House to ask that government business should be taken on a particular Wednesday, when they do so negotiations take place through the usual channels in order to reach agreement on all sides of the House.

109
Whichever way one looks at the issue, it is a straightforward case of the Government using a Back-Bench day for their own business without having any consultations through the usual channels. That will not do.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, speaking with experience, having sat on both Government and Opposition Front Benches for some 30 years, I must say to the noble Viscount that we do not need his defence and protection to ensure that the Labour Peers exercise their full and democratic rights within the Parliamentary Labour Party.
If we have made a gesture to the Chief Whip in regard to tomorrow's debates, it is because we have decided to do so. We were not forced to do so; we decided to do so. To say that Wednesdays are solely Back-Bench days is frankly a load of twaddle. They are often used particularly by Opposition Front Benches, Labour or Conservative, to promote their own party lines. We have done so without any criticism at any quarter.
The real danger faced by the House today is that we are beginning to lose the sense of respect towards each other upon which the House has always depended. The noble Viscount, if he believed that the issue he had put to the House today was so important that he should put the whole question of Wednesday debates at a degree of risk, could at least have gone to the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip to explain his anxieties. However, he decided not to do so. He decided to be a maverick—why, I do not know, but there must be a reason.
I do not believe that it is in the interests of the House that our business should be done in such a underhand way. It should be done through consultation and knowledge and the noble Viscount declined to do that. I am sorry to say that because I had great respect for him when he was Leader of the House. He knows as well as I that we depend on trust and confidence in each other. I hope that the noble Viscount will not force the House to divide on this issue.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, are we not making heavy weather of all this? I can understand the noble Viscount wanting to draw attention to a practice which, if it became common, would undermine the authority of Back-Benchers. He has registered a point which all of us have noted. But in recent times this is the only occasion on which the Labour Back Benches have chosen to give up their time for legislation, and I do not believe that we should be too fussed about it.
It is true that in another place the Labour Back Benches are tame. I find no tame Back Benches on any side of your Lordships' House. I believe that were it to become the habit of the government of the day to seek to filch from Back-Benchers time that is properly theirs they would revolt and say "no". They have not done so. This matter has been accepted by the Labour
110
Back-Benchers, and I hope that that is sufficient. Why cannot we get on with the really important business on the Order Paper?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I do not pretend to have been in the high ranks of this House for as long as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but I have been here for a considerable time. What worries me about this matter is that this is not just one occasion but another example of Her Majesty's Government in this and another place doing away unilaterally with age-old traditions of both Houses. I believe that if the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, for whom I have as much respect as anybody in this House, had asked through the usual channels whether on this one occasion this could be done by agreement between him and his Back-Benchers, I cannot imagine that anybody would have said "no" particularly. But I think that this should have been consulted on. I really do hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition to my noble friend on this occasion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I was struck by one of the remarks of the noble Viscount who said that Labour Back-Benchers were in danger of becoming the plaything of the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that my noble friend Lord Dubs would have vigorously defended the recommendations of his committee to Labour Back Benchers on 15th March. My noble friend is in Prague today on family business. As a former chairman I attend all of those meetings. We saw nothing exceptional in the circumstances, which included the fact that these two topics were manifesto commitments and we on this side of the House support them and the Government.
The difficulties sometimes experienced in finding the right topic to debate were put to us in a reasonable, straightforward way. Shortly after the Government came to office I remember conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in which he reminded me of the difficulties that he and his colleagues sometimes experienced in deciding on the right topics for Conservative Back-Bench debates. It is all very well to refer to the myth that on Wednesdays we are on the ball in debating a suitable topic that is relevant to the nation. Sometimes that is so; sometimes it is not. The charge that is made is that somehow or other the Government Chief Whip has marched in and said either this is what he would like to do or this is what we should do. Noble Lords do not know Labour Back-Benchers as well as I do. I can assure the House that Labour Back-Benchers take their rights seriously.
It is not right to say that the Government are not entitled to use their goodwill with their own Back-Benchers in progressing business. If on this occasion this matter meets with the approval of Labour Back-Benchers, as it does, I see nothing wrong with it. Frankly, I am surprised that the noble Viscount acted

111
in the way that he did. It is discourteous and unusual. I hope that, having heard the debate, the noble Viscount will withdraw his Motion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, there are two matters before the House which are being joined together as if they are one: one is the use of Wednesdays; the other is how that issue was brought before the House. It appears that there may have been discourtesy on both sides. I do not stand to judge between them, but certainly my noble friend has apologised in handsome terms for discourtesy on his part. Therefore, let us leave that matter and perhaps consider it privately. However, publicly we should debate the question of how Wednesdays should be used.
I accept everything that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said in his capacity both as a former Chief Whip and leader of his party's Back-Bench group. However, nobody seems to have recognised in the debate so far that the Wednesday afternoon debate is not the sole property of the party which initiates it. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, appears to be amazed. I draw to his attention that if he tables a Motion for his party to debate on a Wednesday I can join in. It is a Back-Bench, not a legislative, issue. There is a distinction between legislation and matters of general interest. It appears that we are being carted off to spend more and more time on legislation, which is tactical, and less and less on matters of general interest, which is strategic. In this nation there is no forum other than here where that can be done, and it should be sacrificed most unwillingly.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord C'ranborne, knows very well that I have the highest respect for him. We have often agreed on a variety of House matters. But on this occasion we are elevating the question of Wednesday's business to a great issue of principle when, in my brief experience, towards the end of a Session on some Wednesdays there is government business on the Order Paper, as the noble Viscount acknowledges.
I give the noble Viscount one good reason why I hope that he will, with the greatest possible respect, withdraw his Motion. He will agree that my noble friend Lady Hayman is widely respected for the amount of work that she carries out. My noble friend is here again today to make a Statement. I hope the noble Viscount agrees that to make my noble friend return again tomorrow in the middle of all that work to reply to yet another debate is not only unreasonable but wholly unfair. I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Motion.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, this is a re-run of the issue of the arrangement of business on Wednesdays and Thursdays which noble Lords debated recently. It is no good the Captain shaking his head in that way—he can shake it in a different way—because that is how it appears to some noble Lords. The noble Lord will remember that on that occasion the Back Benches voted against a Motion tabled by the Government Front Bench and supported by the Opposition Front
112
Bench. The noble Lord should realise that there is unease on the Back Benches about the way in which business is being conducted. The rules appear to be being changed gently.
My noble friend Lord Elton is absolutely right. One Wednesday does not belong to the Conservative Back Benches, the next to the Cross Benches and the next to the Labour Back Benches; it is collectively Back-Bench time. Therefore, if legislation is put on the Order Paper instead of Back-Bench Motions, all Back-Benchers, not just some, lose out.
As for the urgency of these Bills, which we are told are manifesto commitments, what is the rush? We are not yet in the fifth year of this five-year Parliament, so there is plenty of time to come. It appears that among Ministers—of course not in this House but in the other place—recently there has been a most unfortunate outbreak of what might be called "headless chicken" disease. There is some suspicion that it comes from Brazil and has been smuggled in illicitly by someone formerly very close to government circles.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may begin on a lighter note. On behalf of the Opposition I should like to wish the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, a very happy birthday. I wholly understand why the Leader of the House cannot be in her place this afternoon, but the Government Chief Whip has done very well in her absence.
Perhaps I may take a few moments to clarify the position of the Official Opposition. As is widely known, the division of the Wednesday debates between the parties and the Cross-Benchers is agreed at the start of each Session. That was done last year at the end of November and the beginning of December. Wednesday 28th March was given to the Labour Party Back-Benchers to choose their debate for the day. Incidentally, "choose" is a very important word. They have the ability to initiate a debate; it does not mean that the Labour Party owns that day to do with it whatever it wants.
At one of our regular discussion meetings, on Wednesday 14th March, we were told that Labour Party debates would go ahead on 28th March. But on Thursday 15th March we were told that the Labour Party had changed its mind and that the day had been given up unilaterally to the Government. We objected on the basis that it was Back-Bench time. At no time did we agree with the Government's actions.
Last week there was no further change and the Government put down two Bills for debate at Second Reading. So, after the party meetings last Thursday, my noble friend Lord Cranborne, who has always been a defender of Back-Bench time even when he was Leader of this House, seeing that the Labour Back-Benchers had failed to take up the opportunity to have their debate, presumably on the instructions of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I am sorry, but I understand why he cannot be with us today—put down a Motion on foot and mouth.

113
As my noble friend Lord Cranborne has emphasised today, he will withdraw his Motion if Labour Back-Benchers want the time for debate. Sadly, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, says, Labour Back-Benchers have taken the Prime Minister's instructions too seriously and, like 19th-century children, would rather be seen and not heard.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does not the noble Lord agree that as the day was allocated to the Labour Back Benches it is up to them to decide how to dispose of it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am so grateful to the noble Lord for making that point. That is the point: I disagree entirely with that. It is up to Labour Party Back-Benchers to initiate the debate, not to own the day.
Of course we agree that Wednesday Back-Bench debates are suspended in July to deal with the bottleneck at the end of the Session. Of course we shall suspend such Wednesday debates when a general election is announced. Next week, for example, is a Conservative Wednesday. If next week Parliament is to be dissolved, we will unreservedly give up that day.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Am I misreading the Motion on the Order Paper? The Motion on the Order Paper simply says that the noble Viscount's Motion may go ahead but after the Government's Bills. He is not being deprived of his Motion. He just has to sit a little longer in his place than he would otherwise like.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am coming to that matter. Not only have I read the Motion that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is dealing with today, but I have read the original Motion in the Standing Order. I shall come to that point in a moment if the noble Lord can be patient. What the Government and what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, have failed to answer is: first, if next week Parliament is dissolved for a 3rd May general election, the Bills that are discussed tomorrow cannot be passed without agreement: and, secondly, if there is no election, which seems increasingly possible, the point made by my noble friend Lord Tebbit stands: what on earth is the fuss all about, because, in the normal course of events, we have all the time in the world to continue with Wednesday debates?
Therefore, the issues before us are very simple: first, Standing Order No. 40 goes hack to 1852 and was reaffirmed a few weeks ago in a debate in this House. If we ride roughshod over the rights of Back-Benchers for no obvious reason, other than executive convenience, what will the Government do next? Will there be more procedural Motions against other
114
parties—the Liberal Democrats, the Cross-Benchers or even the Conservatives—for government convenience? The Motion is quite explicit. It states:
"On Wednesdays, notices of Motions shall have precedence over notices and orders relating to public Bills, measures and delegated legislation".
The reason for that is quite clear; it is to maintain the right of this House on Back-Bench Motions to debate important matters on Wednesdays in prime time.
Secondly, the debate is on foot and mouth. There is no more important matter facing the country today. Yet, the Motion of the Government Chief Whip will mean that foot and mouth is debated in the middle of the night while the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill is discussed in prime time. Remember, if next week Parliament is dissolved, that Bill cannot be passed without agreement. Yesterday hunting, tomorrow tobacco—how out of touch with the worries of the people of this country does one have to be to believe that tobacco advertising and promotion is a more urgent issue than foot and mouth?
In a few moments we shall vote, unless the noble Lord, Lord Carter, withdraws his Motion or my noble friend feels so moved to do the same. However. if the Chief Whip does not withdraw the Motion, when the votes are counted I know on whose side I want to be. I want to be loudly and clearly in favour of Back-Bench time and against executive action. Above all other things, I want to put the interests of Parliament and the people of this country before what we are witnessing from the Government Benches and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrat Benches, who want to put narrow party advantage before the rights of Parliament.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that if there is an election on 3rd May, the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill and the Homes Bill could not go through without the agreement of the House. Has he given any indication of such agreement?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords, we have not. We have not been asked to give that agreement because, as the noble Lord and the House knows, no general election has been announced.
Lord Carter: My Lords, until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I never thought that we were looking at parliamentary Armageddon. For a long period it has been the practice, both under the previous and this Government, for the last Wednesday debate in each Session to be given to the government party. I am told that some years ago—we do not have the exact year and are relying on the memory of a member of the Clerks' Office—when, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, was Chief Whip, the Labour Opposition gave up their Wednesday to the Conservative Government to enable them to do their business.

115
We have used the last Wednesday of the Session—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord keeps referring to the "last Wednesday". Why is this the "last Wednesday"?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I shall come to that matter. I am just explaining the important point that in 1998, 1999 and in 2000 my Labour colleagues agreed to give up their last Wednesday debate to the Government for legislation. There were no complaints from the Official Opposition and certainly no complaints from the Liberal Democrats. I believe that there were no complaints because noble Lords were concerned about the starting date of the Summer Recess; and if the Government were able to use a day for legislation, the Session might end at a reasonable time.
The reason that the House was not consulted was that there was no need for a Business Motion until the noble Viscount tabled his Motion for debate. The two Second Readings have been in "Future Business" for about a Fortnight. The only reason for the need to consult the House with a Business Motion is the use of parliamentary tactics. That is what this matter is all about. The noble Viscount knows the Standing Order. Under Standing Order No. 40, if he puts the debate down first, it must be taken first. It is a deliberate parliamentary tactic. to which I shall return.
There was no need for me to bring a Motion to the House because all that was on the Order Paper until the noble Viscount's debate was put down were the Motions for the two Second Readings. As soon as I knew—either the Tuesday or the Wednesday—that the co-ordinating committee had that in mind to recommend to our Thursday meeting, I immediately walked down the corridor to the Opposition Chief Whip. I said that I did not think that it was a matter for agreement because it was a Labour debate day, but I told him what the intention was. He made what I regard as a perfectly good and professional Chief Whip's point: "When we come to negotiate the number of Wednesdays next Session, we shall have to think about this". I also informed the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. His comment was, "I do not think that my Back-Benchers would do this". But, again, there was no official complaint, and the Motions for the Second Readings have been down on "Future Business" for some two weeks.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, referred to the high priority of foot and mouth. We have discussed foot and mouth six times in the past three weeks. The noble Viscount was able to be present on only one of those occasions. He has already said that if the Labour Peers care now to put down a Motion for debate on any topic, he will withdraw his Motion on foot and mouth. So is concern about foot and mouth the overriding reason? The noble Viscount is concerned about the way in which Wednesdays are being used, but this is an exceptional situation. Let us not pretend. It arises because my Labour colleagues knew—they can read the newspapers like everyone else—there was
116
a good chance that there could be an election on 3rd May. If so, Wednesday's debate would he the last Labour debate of the Session.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not hiding that.
A noble Lord: Will the noble Lord confirm it?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not confirming anything. My Labour colleagues can read the newspapers. I shall be the last to know. They felt that in the circumstances, with this perhaps being the last Labour debate—it was their decision—the House should have a chance—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I understood him to say earlier that this Wednesday was the last day for a Wednesday debate this Session and that that is why it had been given up. He has now said that it is the last day for a Labour debate. I am raising the matter because I have a Question down for next Wednesday—a week tomorrow—and I want to know whether I shall be able to ask it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I understand the position, if an election is called next week, Starred Questions remain on the Order Paper for the days on which the House is sitting. Therefore, the noble Countess has no need to worry.
If the noble Viscount had a real concern—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In the event that my noble friend's Motion were to be debated tomorrow in the way that he would wish, is there anything to stop the two Bills being taken after that debate? If they could be taken, are not the Government Benches making a lot of fuss? They could have their day a little later; the Government could get their business a little later; and we could all be ecstatically happy.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it has just been pointed out to me by my noble friend Lady Hayman that the previous debate on the subject took nine hours.
If the noble Viscount was concerned, why did he not bring the matter to the notice of the Procedure Committee? That is what we have a Procedure Committee for.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I had wondered whether I might raise the same point with him. As there is clearly some disagreement on all sides of the House about the procedure governing Wednesday debates and how government business takes priority on certain days, will the noble Lord consider referring the matter to the Procedure

117
Committee for examination so what we can clarify what is desirable in time for either the next Session or the next Parliament?
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is prepared to withdraw his Motion, of course I shall. I shall be delighted to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee.
We heard a good deal from the party opposite about debates on Back-Bench days being initiated by Back-Benchers. Two weeks ago we had a Conservative Back-Bench day. Who opened the debate? It was the Leader of the Opposition. So much for concern about the rights of Back-Benchers! If one listens to the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Tebbit, and others, one gets the impression that if we debate homes and tobacco tomorrow, they cannot take part. I have looked at the speakers' list. Conservative Peers have put down their names to speak on homes and tobacco. I really do not understand what this is about. It is a quite simple operation. I have already made the point—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the noble Lord not understand that a general piece of niggling is going on? I do not excuse my noble friend Lord Cranborne for this either, but there is a general air of niggling between the Front Benches and between the parties which I have not seen since I took my seat in this House in 1971. People are trying the whole time to pull flankers. That is something which we must as a House not do. The Liberal Democrats think it funny that the procedure should be mucked about with. It is quintessentially important that we keep the traditions and manners of the House. To a certain extent, a plague on both houses. We are all playing it too rough. For heaven's sake, let us get back to the proper procedure, the proper manners and the proper traditions of this House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the noble Earl think that it adds to this "niggling", as he described it, that a former Leader of the House, a former business manager, now a Back-Bencher, put down a debate last Thursday without having the courtesy even to tell me? Why did he not consult? When he saw me twice on Thursday evening, why did he not tell me?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have resisted joining in the debate, but this is about the third time that the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms has had a go at my noble friend Lord Cranborne for discourtesy. Has the noble Lord forgotten that two weeks ago he put down an amendment on the Hunting Bill without the courtesy of consultation with the Opposition and through the usual channels? The noble Lord was castigated for that and he apologised.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is not strictly correct. I did in fact write to the Opposition Chief Whip with my intentions. There was no agreement between us, and the House decided by a substantial majority that I was right.
118
I do not think that there is much point in continuing this debate. But perhaps I may repeat the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. If the debate on foot and mouth is as important as the noble Viscount says, why is he willing to withdraw it if we put down a Motion on any other topic? It is clearly a piece of parliamentary tactics. I am afraid that the party opposite has not entirely become used to the new House. It no longer has a veto. Things have to be done by agreement, and I do my utmost to achieve that. In this particular case, it was a Labour debate. Before it appeared on the Order Paper, I took the trouble to inform the Opposition Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms is quite right that what concerns me is the rights of Back-Benchers. But given that, rightly or wrongly, I wanted to make the point by putting down a Motion, it seemed perfectly reasonable that the Motion I should choose should be one that concerns me greatly as well as other Members of the House. The noble Lord is right to separate the two points.
During the course of my earlier remarks I did not for a moment discuss the merits or otherwise of foot and mouth except to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. What concerns me is that there is genuine worry about the rights of Back-Benchers in this House, as has become evident during the course of the past 50 minutes.
I notice that, with his usual courtesy, the noble Lord agreed that the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee, which is the proper way of proceeding. I accept that undertaking with gratitude. I do not in any way regret the fact that I raised the matter because my doing so has given it the high profile that it richly deserves.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, whether to be disobliging about me, or to support me. Perhaps I may say that, if this matter is referred to the Procedure Committee for consideration, a relatively minor issue which could become a rather important one will be addressed. For that reason, I am happy not to press the Motion to a vote on the clear understanding of the undertaking given by the noble Lord—who, so far as I know, has never reneged on any undertaking—that he will ensure that this is referred to the Procedure Committee, discussed and then reported to this House. In the light of that undertaking, I am equally happy to withdraw my Motion for tomorrow.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the Motion?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion, on the clear understanding that we have just received from the noble Viscount.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Foot and Mouth Disease
4.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place on foot and mouth disease. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to update the House both on the latest position on the disease outbreak and on the range of actions the Government have been taking since I last informed the House on Wednesday, 21st March. I then want to outline what we know so far about the causes and spread of the outbreak, and to announce the measures we propose to take as a result.
"As at 1 p.m. today, there had been 668 confirmed cases in Great Britain and one in Northern Ireland. Forty-two cases were confirmed yesterday. Out of a total UK livestock population of more than 55 million., 697,500 have now been authorised for slaughter and 423,000 have already been slaughtered. Outside the United Kingdom, there is one case in the Republic of Ireland, two cases in France and five cases in Holland.
"I made public last week the epidemiological studies I have received on the likely course of the disease. They differed in their detail, but they were all clear that this is an unprecedented outbreak which has not yet reached its peak. Our strategy remains focused on three key priorities: all animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on infected farms are to be culled within 24 hours of the infection report; all animals—cattle, sheep and pigs—on contiguous farms are then to be culled within 48 hours; and we are concentrating our efforts in northern Cumbria on clearing all animals identified for slaughter in Solway, and on creating a 'firebreak' south of the worst affected area.
"Last Wednesday, I explained to the House what actions the Government were taking to speed up our response to the disease. I believe that we have taken the right actions and I shall spell out what effect they are already having.
"We have made full use of the resources of the Army. Some 780 soldiers are now deployed, at MAFF's request, helping with the logistic operations. These include 115 in Scotland and 50 in Wales, in addition to over 600 in England, of which 118 are in Cumbria and a further 72 in Devon. As well as the Army unit in our headquarters in London, there are Army HQs in Exeter, Worcester, Carlisle and Dumfries. Military liaison officers will he joining all major disease control centres. The Army's role is to enhance command and control, and to assist in the disposal process. Their presence allows us to free vets to concentrate on solely veterinary matters.
"Last week, I informed the House that we had put in place senior officials as directors of operations in Cumbria and Devon and were about to do so in Worcester. In addition to those three, we have since
120
put in place further directors of operations in Stafford, Chelmsford, Gloucester, Leicester and Newcastle. These senior administrators have also taken over operational tasks from senior vets and allowed them to get on with their veterinary work.
"We are also bringing more and more vets into the front line. The total number of vets in the State Veterinary Service tackling the disease is now 1,235 and we are looking to increase this number still further. We are following up offers of assistance from the French and Spanish Governments. An appeal to its members by the British Veterinary Association has generated a large number of inquiries which are being pursued. Enhanced rates of pay for temporary vets were announced last week.
"Wherever possible, we have reduced the time between when a vet makes one inspection and when he or she can make the next one; where the disease risk is minimal, this turn-round time has been reduced to 24 hours. We have simplified the valuation arrangements—while at the same time safeguarding farmers' interests—by introducing a generous standard tariff. More than 95 per cent of confirmations now take place on clinical grounds; that is, without the need for laboratory tests. We have also revised protocols to allow vets in the field to make on-site judgments and to initiate slaughter.
"The key task is to reduce the time between the first report of the disease and the slaughter of the herd or flock. Our target remains that this should not exceed 24 hours. The epidemiological studies published last week confirmed that this is the single most important intervention in controlling the disease. We are achieving this in large parts of the country, including Devon in recent days. In Cumbria, the high density of infection and sheer number of cases, have meant that we are not yet achieving that target. Work is in hand to address this. Yesterday, I visited the two most affected areas of the country, Cumbria and Devon. I saw for myself the hard work being carried out by the State Veterinary Service, the Army and all the other parties involved. I also met with farmers and their leaders.
"There has been a good deal of speculation recently about the possible use of vaccination as an ingredient in our FMD control strategy. Vaccination can be used in two quite different ways. One approach is to use a national policy of vaccination as a protection mechanism against foot and mouth disease. That is not a policy adopted or favoured by any member state or by the European Commission. It is, however, accepted that emergency vaccination can play a role in controlling an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, either to establish zones of protection between infected areas and the rest of the country, or to reduce the number of cases in disease hot spots. The Commission has already agreed to the possible temporary use of vaccination in such circumstances by the Dutch authorities.

121
"Vaccination is no easy option. It would be expected to delay full return to international trade, at least for the region affected, and would be likely to require tight additional controls, at least in the area concerned. We would need to consider, with the Commission, whether it was necessary in due course to slaughter vaccinated animals, with compensation, as part of a return to normal trading. The Government are considering whether to use vaccination. I have therefore authorised my representative in the EU Standing Veterinary Committee to seek a contingent decision permitting the use of vaccination during the present outbreak, so that it can be deployed immediately if we conclude that it is the right approach.
"We have done a great deal to help farmers financially. That includes full compensation for animals slaughtered on disease grounds, the provision of agrimonetary compensation and the preservation of CAP subsidy entitlements under EU rules on force majeure. In addition, last week I opened the Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme as an outlet of last resort for livestock farmers whose animals face welfare difficulties as a result of FMD-related movement restrictions. The scheme provides for the removal and disposal of animals, for which the Government will bear the costs. At 90 per cent of pre-outbreak market value, the tariffs for the animals slaughtered under the scheme are generous. The detailed payment rates are being placed today in the Libraries of both Houses. The estimated value to farmers of this optional scheme obviously depends on take-up, but is now likely to be in excess of £200 million.
"I shall turn now to what we know about the possible causes of the current outbreak, the spread of infection and the differences between this outbreak and the 1967 outbreak. It is likely that the source farm from which the outbreak subsequently spread was the fourth infected premises to be discovered at Heddon-on-the-Wall.
"Honourable Members will be aware of speculation that the practice of feeding swill to pigs was a cause or the cause of the outbreak. The farm in question at Heddon was licensed to feed swill to pigs. Epidemiological and other investigations continue. The House will understand if I do not comment on the specifics of the case.
"The subsequent spread of infection is traceable to some extent. Virus from the source farm spread to seven other farms in Tyne and Wear. Sheep from one of these farms were sent to Hexham market on 13th February. Sheep from the 13th February market at Hexham were sent to markets at Longtown and further dispersed from there over the period 14th–24th February. So within days, at a time when we were still unaware of the disease, infected sheep were criss-crossing the country in hundreds of separate movements, putting them into contact with other livestock.
122
"From Longtown market, sheep were sent to markets at Carlisle on 16th February; Welshpool on 19th February; to dealers at Highampton in Devon, Lockerbie in Dumfries and Galloway, Dearham in Cumbria and Nantwich in Cheshire; and indirectly to markets at Hatherleigh on 20th February, Hereford on 21st February, Northampton on 22nd February and Ross-on-Wye on 23rd February.
"While tracing movements of pigs from the index farm has proved relatively straightforward, tracking movements of sheep has proved more difficult and in some cases impossible. This is partly due to unrecorded sales of sheep, which it seems took place around the edges of the various livestock markets without passing through the markets' books.
"Over the past four weeks many comparisons have been drawn with the 1967 outbreak. The truth is that the two outbreaks are very different. The key differences between this outbreak and 1967 are the speed and geographical scale of the spread of infection, which result from a number of factors, and the species involved. Experts agree that the current outbreak is unprecedented internationally.
"First, time had elapsed before the infection at the probable source farm was disclosed. The suspicious lesions found on pigs at Heddon-on-the-Wall on 22nd February suggest that they had been incubating the disease for at least two and possibly up to three weeks. By 23rd February, when infection was confirmed at Heddon-on-the-Wall, infected animals had already spread through markets and dealers to Cumbria, Dumfries and Galloway, Devon, Cheshire, Herefordshire and Northamptonshire.
"Linked to this, the second factor in the speed and scale of spread was the larger scale of animal movements nowadays compared to 1967, aided by a much improved network of roads and motorways.
"A third factor was the fact that the infection spread quickly to sheep, and then among sheep, which, because of the nature of sheep flocks and the way they are traded, made the course of the infection more difficult to trace. The 1967 outbreak was mainly in pigs and cattle. The strain of the virus we are currently dealing with does not manifest itself clearly in sheep, which makes detection difficult. Apparently healthy animals may be disease carriers.
"I am announcing four actions in response to this assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The first measure relates to pigswill. I am today proposing a ban on the use of swill feeding in this country.
"I accept that the arguments in favour and against allowing the practice are quite finely balanced. If the statutory conditions for feeding swill are complied with—heating at 100 degrees Centigrade for one hour—it does not present a risk of transmitting foot and mouth disease and other similar pathogens. Nor will banning swill feeding necessarily prevent the risk of illegal feeding of swill and catering waste to pigs, for example, possibly by owners of small numbers of pigs.

123
"However, I have concluded that the potential risk of swill feeding introducing disease to livestock farms where swill is not used—and to the wider community—is now greater than the benefits to the relatively small number of premises which continue to adopt this practice. That is why I am proposing an early ban. My department is today issuing a public consultation document seeking the views of all interested parties on the principle and detailed application of such a ban.
"Meanwhile, let me remind the owners of all pigs in the country, including pet pigs, to comply with the current law. It is illegal to feed untreated household waste or any other materials that may contain meat products.
"I am also issuing a second consultation document today containing a proposal to introduce a 20-day standstill period, after movement, for sheep, goats and cattle.
"There are rules on the identification and movement of pigs, including a general requirement that no pigs should be moved off premises within 20 days of any pigs moving on to those premises. If a similar requirement had been in place, and observed, in relation to sheep in particular, it is likely that the spread of the foot and mouth virus would have been significantly slowed down, making tracing and control of the infection easier.
"I am minded therefore to introduce legislation to require a 20-day standstill period for sheep, goats and cattle, subject to the views of interested parties. That is why I am launching a full consultation exercise today.
"Thirdly, we know that somehow infection has entered this country. One possible way is through illegal commercial imports of meat where contents have not been declared. There is clearly an issue here about carrier liability to which the Government will be giving careful thought. Another possibility is that infected produce may have come in as a personal import. Rules already exist to control such imports. The rules must be enforced effectively. I am coordinating action across government to ensure this happens. I will also be writing to Commissioner Byrne to stress that a consistent and tough approach needs to be taken across the EU.
"Lastly, once we are beyond the current difficulties, my department will be looking at a range of other issues surrounding the operation of the livestock sector to see if more may be done to minimise disease risks still further. This work will include the operation of markets—and in particular out-of-ring sales—and on the identification and tracing of pigs, sheep and goats.
"In all these matters I will be acting in close consultation with the devolved administrations.
"This has been a dreadful time for farmers and others directly affected by FMD. I believe that our policy of containment of the disease is the right one and that the massive logistical exercise required to implement it is being reinforced. We will succeed in eradicating this disease. In addition, I believe the
124
measures that I have announced today will ensure we learn the lessons and minimise the risks of such a tragedy in the future".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is a very long Statement—it took the Minister some 16 minutes to read—and it would have been helpful if I had received a copy a little earlier. That is why—I hope that the House will forgive me—I was not in my place when the Minister started reading the Statement. It has come to us quite late on this occasion.
I again pay credit and give thanks to all those who are working to control and eradicate this dreadful disease. The number of cases has now risen to 668 and continues to rise. I suspect and hope that the Government will acknowledge that at the moment the disease is totally out of control, something that they have not admitted so far.
The new measures mentioned in the Statement—particularly as regards pigswill and the suggested 20-day standstill—are supported by the Opposition. However, as I understand the Statement, those steps will not be introduced straightaway but will follow a consultation period. Can the Minister say how long the consultation will take and how quickly the Government will act upon the findings?
As outlined in the Statement, the original outbreak is likely to have been caused by the illegal import of meat, either commercially or as a personal import. The Minister said that the Government are to tighten up on the procedures. What restrictions does the Minister envisage the Government imposing, presumably in conjunction with their overseas colleagues? It is not something which can be done by this country alone.
I turn to the question of vaccination. Although the Statement says clearly that vaccination is not a. policy adopted or favoured by any member state or by the European Commission, it recognises that zonal management may be agreed if necessary but that that will be in an emergency. Do I take it, therefore, that if there is a move to vaccination the Government are admitting that the disease has got out of control and beyond control?
Fourthly, the Minister mentioned the welfare disposal scheme, which we support. Ninety per cent of the pre-outbreak market value is acceptable.
The Minister referred to the quick spread of the disease compared with the outbreak in 1967. While I accept that there is much more movement of animals than there was in those days, the Government's response was too slow initially and the disease spread too quickly. The Minister said that there was no blueprint. But after the episode in 1967 there was indeed a blueprint which suggested that two points were crucial: one was immediate slaughter; the other was burial. It is only in recent weeks that burial has become part of the Government's armoury. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. The ministry's scientific adviser said on the radio only last week that

125
it would make a huge difference in bringing the disease under control if slaughter took place within 24 hours and disposal within the next 24 hours. But, according to government figures, 640,000 animals are waiting to be slaughtered, and in the past 24 hours only some 31,000 animals have been slaughtered. My maths is not enormously good, but at that rate it would take eight days to clear the backlog, let alone deal with any new cases. The Minister mentioned extra measures. What measures are the Government bringing in, first, to get rid of the backlog and, secondly, to anticipate future cases?
At the moment, I feel that we are "treading water backwards"—an expression that I have used to colleagues in Cumbria. This simply cannot go on. What extra resources are being provided? The Minister will remember that during the debate on the Statement on 11th March I raised the question of the extra vets that were needed and the extra use of hunt servants. I also referred to bringing in the Army. I was told at that stage that it was quite all right and that we had all the support that was necessary. Since then it has become clear that that was not true.
A target of 24 hours is important. But at present there is precious little progress in some areas. I was speaking only this morning to a farmer in Cumbria who said that a neighbouring farmer was suspicious on Sunday that his animals might have the disease but it took until Wednesday for the vet to confirm its presence. This simply cannot go on.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a number of other questions. Does the figure of 264,000 animals awaiting slaughter also include suspect cases, or is it the total figure for animals confirmed to be at risk of the disease?
There is a great deal of pressure from all quarters to consider vaccination. If the EU accepts that we can use vaccination, will that affect our chances of exporting animals in the future? Obviously, there has been a big export market, particularly for sheep, and this is hugely important to people who may be affected by such a move.
Finally, there is the question of people who are offering help. I heard of a vet who had offered help and whose offer was turned down. Who is deciding which people should be accepted and under what circumstances, be it vets or hunt servants? That is an important consideration.
We have been going through some very difficult times. We pay credit to those who are tackling these matters. Our sympathies go out to the many thousands of families who have been directly affected. It is bad enough seeing your livestock and your life's work destroyed before you. But the prospect is one of months and months before a return to normality. I am sure that the whole House shares my feeling. We look forward to the Minister's response.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches we thank the Minister for
126
repeating the Statement. We welcome the four measures mentioned. The public, I believe, will particularly welcome the ban on pigswill. It has been a long time coming. People felt repugnance as they began to realise the extent to which cannibalism has been forced upon farm animals. In this country we are finally taking responsibility for the fact that animals should be fed on more suitable food.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on the fourth measure. Although the Government say that they will examine a whole range of issues surrounding the operation of the livestock sector, that seems slightly negative in tone. I hope that in view of the fact that, in one way or another, exports will be more difficult, particularly if vaccination is introduced, the positive side of the fourth measure will be much more heavily emphasised. I mention, for example—as we always do—the number of small abattoirs. I gather that a number of those who are presently trying to keep open such businesses may see them closed. We may have fewer than 350 by next year. If the Government accept that the small infrastructure that is left to the livestock industry should to be strengthened and supported so that we can have a local home market that works, the fourth measure is crucial and its tone needs to be positive.
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of specific questions. She mentioned that we are making full use of the resources of the Army. However, I assume that there are further resources that could be drawn on should that be deemed necessary. I shall return to that point at the end of my remarks and the Minister will understand why.
The Minister mentioned a target of 24 hours between identifying the infection and the culling of affected animals. I repeat the question posed, although not so specifically, by the Conservative Front Bench: what is the target time between culling and disposal, and does it vary by region?
I return to an issue I raised last Tuesday during the debate on the Statement on foot and mouth and the rural economy. I asked the Minister about road closures, particularly in vulnerable areas. It seems that local authorities do not have the power to close minor roads; this is causing particular concern. Many national parks and AONBs are very vulnerable given that livestock strays on to minor roads because the roads are unfenced. Indeed, sheep are known to lie down on the tarmac because it is warm and dry. It may be that the Ministry of Agriculture did not feel that it was necessary to give local authorities the power to close minor roads, although the power was given to close footpaths and bridleways. I must draw the Minister's attention to a comment made by a MAFF vet, quoted today in the Independent:
"This is a popular tourist area and we get a lot of vehicle traffic through here. There's [also] farm traffic [which could have brought] foot-and-mouth in from other parts of Cumbria. If we can establish this was vehicle-related and there are no other adjacent cases, it would be the best possible result"
I understand what he means by "the best possible result", but the fact that MAFF is now considering more definitely the idea that the infection can be vehicle-borne means that the ability to close minor

127
roads is critical. People in Nidderdale told me this morning that lorries from Cumbria are taking a short cut through the valley to reach Yorkshire; those in other places are equally concerned. I must mention Exmoor because of the red deer herd. If the disease gets into that herd, it will be impossible to eradicate. Similarly, people in the Quantocks are very worried; there are roads that are simply used as a short cut and other routes are available.
People involved in areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks rely on stock widely grazing for reasons of character and biodiversity; and, indeed, for the few jobs that are left to them. I cannot emphasise enough that those concerned feel strongly that they need to have reasonable powers to enable them to close roads, where it seems necessary. No one wants to see blanket road closures because, obviously, the tourism industry would then be hard hit. Therefore, will the Minister urgently reconsider extending the MAFF order to this effect, which I gather would take only a matter of days? Otherwise, we may believe that we are safe because we have closed footpaths and bridleways, but that may be pointless if we have left open those routes that bring the biggest volume of movement through such areas.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses from the Front Benches opposite for their general support for the measures that I have announced this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the timetable involved. I cannot give her a definitive answer on the timetable for the standstill for 20 days of movement of sheep and cattle. However. the noble Baroness will understand that the period of that consultation is, in some sense, academic because we have national controls on movements at present. No movements, other than those under licence, are permitted. I shall certainly seek to find that information for the noble Baroness. The time-scale will obviously form part of the consultation document. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not getting a copy of the Statement to her earlier. Perhaps I may tell her that I did not have it for a great deal of time myself, so I am sure she will understand what I mean as regards keeping it back.
As for the consultation on pigswill, I can tell the House that the period is, I believe, two weeks. Some animal welfare issues must be considered relating to the withdrawal of a method of feeding to which animals are accustomed; for example, over-night changes have to be factored into the process. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured to know that, at the beginning of the episode, we reinforced the inspection of the licensing of licensed pigswill premises to ensure that they were carrying on their operations in a way that would provide protection against the virus.
As I explained when repeating the Statement, we now feel able, the balance of risk having moved, to recommend an overall ban in line with two other European countries—namely, Luxembourg and Portugal. However, this is not territory that has not previously been considered. Similarly, it is not that we
128
suddenly found that, as regulated, the practice is dangerous. The danger is rather analogous to the BSE danger about cross-contamination. policing, enforcement, and other such issues.
I understand the concern that we should put every necessary effort into this operation. Perhaps I may assure the House that, across government, that work is being mobilised. The noble Baroness asked me whether the figures as regards animals authorised for slaughter represented only confirmed cases. I can tell her that it is not only confirmed cases; it is also dangerous contact. We are certainly acting to a 24-hour timetable in that respect. The noble Baroness was right to work out an arithmetical calculation on getting rid of the backlog, but I have to point out to her that that assumes no ramping up of facilities. There has been an enormous ramping up of facilities, especially in Cumbria and in terms of landfill sites, which it is to be hoped will allow us to tackle the backlog in a much speedier time frame than the one suggested by the noble Baroness.
Perhaps I may make the position absolutely clear to the noble Baroness. If she looks back to previous Statements, she will see that it has never been a question of burial being ruled out in the past, and suddenly becoming available. It was always an option. However, as I have told the House previously, because of the potential contamination of water courses and the water table at present, as well as the large size of the herds and flocks with which we are dealing, it is a much more difficult option now than was the case in 1967. Moreover, in a post-BSE world, which was not the case in 1967, we also have to take into account the added issue about cattle—that is, cattle that may be over 30 months old.
The noble Baroness said that there was no blueprint. I have never suggested that there was no blueprint in this respect. Indeed, I am very aware of the Northumberland report, and its recommendations, that came about as a result of the 1967 outbreak. I believe I said that there was no blueprint for assessing what the pattern of that outbreak and epidemic would be when you have found one case of foot and mouth disease in the country. When repeating the Statement, I tried to spell out very clearly the reasons why this outbreak looks very different from that of 1967. That outbreak involved pigs and cattle and was identified much more quickly, but it did not involve the need to consider sheep—those "invisible carriers of disease", if I may put it that way—and their movements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me about vaccination. Yes, we are considering this option; and, of course, it would have an effect on exports in the future. That is why these decisions, the comparative effects of different policies as regards getting back to disease-free status and, therefore, the ability to export products, are all part of a finely-balanced process. The role of vaccination is one that must be carefully assessed.
I am sorry, but I cannot tell the noble Baroness who turned down the application of an individual vet, or why. The last time that I checked the position we had

129
1,200 vets, as opposed to 220 in the State Veterinary Service when we started. We are accepting help, whenever necessary. I should be most upset if there were improper grounds for turning down applications from people who wish to assist. If the noble Baroness has any evidence in that respect, I undertake to carry it forward and look into the matter. Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene?
Baroness Byford: Yes, my Lords. I wanted to know who makes the decision in these cases. It is not a matter of how many. Can the Minister say who makes the decision and at what level; for example, is it made at regional, local or national level? Indeed, what about the hunt servants? Someone must be making those decisions somewhere along the line.
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords; someone is making those decisions. They are being made at a variety of levels, especially locally. However, I should like to hit on the head the idea that hunt servants are being turned down on ideological grounds. I checked this out earlier. We have been extremely grateful for the support from hunt servants in a variety of areas. I believe that a contingent of either 10 or 20—I am sorry, I cannot recall which—offered through the Countryside Alliance has moved into Carlisle to help with the cull in the area. Those offers of help are much appreciated and, indeed, are being accepted. There is the route through the British Veterinary Association, which opened up lines, and individual animal health offices are getting local offers from vets. However, when it is a case of private sector vets coming in, the noble Baroness will understand that they are able only to give a limited proportion of their time in the area. They are not as moveable a commodity as an American or an Australian vet who comes to this country for the duration of the operation and can, therefore, offer more help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made some important points. She pointed out particularly that, in the midst of all this, we must also consider the long-term effects and the structure of the industry in the aftermath. As for roads, I can assure the noble Baroness that I recognise the worries that currently exist. As regards the legal position, I believe that the Minister has powers under the animal health Act to close roads for disease-control purposes, and that local authorities now have those powers under the amended foot and mouth disease order of 1983. However, there has not been veterinary advice that the risk is sufficient to justify invoking them. I believe that those concerned in areas like the Dartmoor National Park have issued guidance, rather than trying to invoke road closures. I shall be very happy to write to the noble Baroness on that point.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I have two questions. First, the disease was announced on a Monday. It was not until late on the Friday that the
130
movement restrictions were introduced. In the interim many sheep were moved, for example from Devon to Northampton market. With hindsight is not that something that we regret very much? Secondly, if the disease arises from bonemeal or infected swill, to what extent are the carcasses of the sheep that have been killed liable to spread the infection when fed on by birds and other wildlife?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord asked about the time frame for the movement restrictions. The disease was not announced on a Monday. On the Monday afternoon a suspect case was reported and restrictions were placed on the abattoir where it was reported. Noble Lords will be aware that every year a number of suspect cases are reported. The procedure I have mentioned is standard. It was confirmed the next day. We then issued a press release. I came to your Lordships' House on the Wednesday and announced that we had a case and the measures that had been taken.
At that time we still believed that we had a localised case in Essex with no further cases. As soon as the Heddon-on-the-Wall case was discovered, with the discovery of lesions that were more than 24 to 48 hours old—in practice they were three weeks old—internal movement restrictions were imposed. I must make clear that export licences were withdrawn administratively on the Tuesday and, legally, on the Wednesday. Action was taken. I am sure that the noble Lord has 20:20 hindsight. One can always make improvements. However, I believe that proportionate measures were taken. At that time some people claimed that there had been over-reaction.
As regards the sheep carcasses spreading infection, I repeat the veterinary advice that has been given all along; namely, that when animals are dead they stop exhaling the virus. The carcasses are treated with disinfectant. Rigor mortis sets in; pH levels are lowered. The infection could reside only in bone and bone marrow rather than in meat. Therefore, there is not a major risk of spread of disease from carcasses.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest in that we have a farm with cattle, sheep and goats in an infected area. The Statement referred to cattle, sheep and pigs in terms of the pre-emptive cull. However, goats were not mentioned. I am receiving many telephone calls from people who keep goats who want to know what the position is. Will the noble Baroness please tell us what it is? I understand that goats are not being slaughtered as they are kept indoors and are carefully watched.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned veterinary and slaughtermen volunteers. It may he that they are not being turned down by MAFF but the message is not getting through to MAFF. I have received a number of letters on that subject after my comments last week. I hope that the Minister will consider establishing a central telephone number for volunteers to ring. I have heard of volunteers who are willing to go from Devon to anywhere and to work all the hours that God sends, and to work at the old rate, the Minister will be pleased to hear.

131
I understand that one of the objections to foot and mouth vaccine is that one cannot tell whether an animal has been vaccinated or has had the infection. I understand that there is a good American test which tests serum and will differentiate between the two cases. In view of the fact that our export industry will be totally decimated before the disease is finished, will the Minister please consider that test? If she wants information, I shall provide it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I shall certainly pursue the idea of a central telephone number. There is, of course, a central helpline but I suspect that people may be encountering difficulties in being forwarded to relevant areas. I shall take the relevant details from the noble Countess.
She is absolutely right to say that one of the downsides of vaccination that has always been asserted is the difficulty of differentiating between antibodies that are present due to disease and those that are present due to vaccination. I understand that markers may be used to allow one to differentiate between the two cases. The Chief Scientific Adviser is taking that work forward.
As regards goats, I understand why some people are confused as the advice is not always as clear as I would wish. Before the end of the Session I may get the chance to clarify the position. As I understand the position, when infected premises are being "slaughtered out", goats are slaughtered. Dangerous contacts that are "slaughtered out" could include susceptible species such as goats, llama or alpaca. The three-kilometre cull in Cumbria concerned only sheep and pigs. The only ambiguity arises as regards contiguous premises where I understand that all susceptible livestock are subject to the measure. However, I hope that I shall be able to clarify that point quickly.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, although we welcome the level of compensation, will the value of an animal be based on its age before the outbreak or on its present age? I declare an interest as I have tenant farmers who have animals which they have not been able to move and whose value has fallen dramatically.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, value is assessed at pre-foot and mouth disease levels. That is obviously the most important factor for most people. There is a specific issue with regard to cattle over 30 months as, due to restrictions, some animals attain an age of over 30 months before they can be slaughtered. Therefore, they have a lesser value than they would have had at 29 months if they had entered the food chain at that point. The NFU has raised that issue with us and it is under consideration. However, I cannot give a policy answer on that today.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I suspect that the Minister is aware that there are real difficulties as regards welfare movement licence applications, particularly in the South West. Some animals are calving and lambing in wholly unsuitable places. Some
132
sheep have run out of food and food cannot be taken to them. The applications are taking over a week to process. I understand that that is not through lack of effort on the part of those in the relevant departments but they are overwhelmed by the number of applications. There is considerable concern that applications under the welfare disposal scheme will take a similar length of time to process. Does the Minister accept that farmers are under pressure when they see their animals deteriorate? At the same time constant attempts to speed things up are not, apparently, meeting with a response. Is there some hope that those officials that are under pressure can be given extra help to cut process times?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise the problem to which my noble friend alludes. We are trying hard to draw separate streams of people to operate the different schemes that are being set in motion. In the past five weeks we have reorganised the whole of the livestock industry in this country. We have introduced completely new schemes in terms of licensing livestock to enter the food chain. That requires a whole stream of people to implement.
The short distance welfare movement scheme, the longer distance welfare movement scheme and the welfare disposal scheme comprise an enormous administrative task. It has not been possible to deal with them instantaneously because sometimes the same people are dealing with them. I understand that people have experienced frustrations in trying to access those schemes. We are trying to allocate extra resources to the schemes. Sometimes it is just a case of providing 20 new fax machines, as occurred in the Cambridge regional office at one point.
The welfare disposal scheme will be run through the intervention board. It is to be hoped, therefore, that it will not draw on the same resources and overburden the same people as the welfare licensing scheme. I recognise what the noble Baroness says and I shall look at the specific problems in the South West.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I come from a List D firebreak farm. I am so glad that the Army is now in place. I wish that it had been there two weeks ago.
Will the Minister accept that the greatest worry of farmers is fear of the unknown? Can the Government speak with one voice on their slaughter policy? Will it be cattle or sheep? What is the disposal policy? When will it happen? Farmers do not know and cannot find out what their future, even a week ahead, holds.
Finally, the automatic valuation of a ewe with lamb is £90. It is not stated whether that includes one, two or three lambs. The valuation includes £40 for a lamb. Any lamb born this year is a lamb, so will we receive £40, plus £90 for the ewe? What is the new valuation? These matters are of crucial importance to farmers who are at present in a desperate situation.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that the schedule which has been published may answer some of the noble Lord's questions. When I spoke to

133
farmers' leaders in Exeter, they were comfortable with the rates being offered under the scheme. If there is a problem on the issues the noble Lord raises, I shall examine it.
I understand that farmers want certainty. However, we have to consider regionally sensitive policies which are appropriate to the area. Therefore in some areas one may be talking about a contiguous farm policy that deals with all animals. In other areas, there may be a three-kilometre policy which deals with sheep and pigs because the area is assessed on a veterinary basis as a source of infection.
Disposal will be whatever logistical advice—it is often Army advice—is the most appropriate in that area. It may be landfill, if that is possible, or movement to a large fire if that will be most effective.
We must ensure that individual farmers have individual certainty by giving them contact which is reliable and goes through the process with them. When two people were allocated to infected premises in Exeter, one of the roles of the Army was to stay with the farmer as his point of contact throughout the process from contact to eventual disposal.
Since we are talking of disposal, I can clarify for the noble Countess the situation concerning goats. I am not sure that it will be welcome clarity. The three-kilometre culls include sheep, pig and goats; infected premises and dangerous contacts include contiguous premises. Goats are treated in the same way as sheep.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the Forest of Dean, which is an infected area, sheep have traditionally wandered loose, not only in the forest but on adjacent land? I must confess that that includes land which we farm. Is the noble Baroness aware that to our amazement those sheep remain at large and continue to invade adjacent land. They have not been culled or rounded up. Do not these free-ranging sheep constitute an obvious major risk of spreading infection and are they not a cause of frustration and despair to local farmers seeking to protect their animals? Why has not the situation been dealt with? It is a localised state of affairs, but I suspect that it could be replicated all over the country. How can farmers be expected to believe in the efficacy of government measures when this patent risk remains?
On another topic, as the noble Lord the Chief Whip said earlier, we have already had six Statements or debates on this crisis. What is to replace the scrutiny of the ongoing situation if Parliament is dissolved in the near future?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can come to the House of Lords if the noble Lord would like to come! I cannot answer that question. If Parliament is not sitting, I cannot report to it. While it is sitting, I shall continue to report to it whenever I can.
As regards the Forest of Dean, I do not know the veterinary assessment on the free-ranging sheep. I shall find out. Whether something is a patent risk has to be assessed locally on veterinary opinion and the risk
134
either managed or dealt with. That is the approach we are taking. The noble Lord is concerned about this particular area. I shall follow up what he says and write to him.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Vinson: My Lords—
Lord Carter: My Lords, there is plenty of time available. I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and then the noble Lord, Lord Vinson.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the whole House and indeed the country will be grateful to hear that the process is being speeded up. The Minister must be aware of the severe criticism by the farming community over the handling of this matter. However, I know that my contacts in Cumbria will be grateful.
Will the noble Baroness agree that vaccination is not the immediate way forward? As soon as infection is diagnosed in a flock or herd, it is important that the animals are killed within a very short time. The vaccine is a more long-term protection—if one goes in that direction. It takes several days before protection is effective. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will look closely at vaccination with all its implications.
It is now clear that a limited number of sheep dealers in the north of England have been responsible in many ways for this explosive outbreak through the not necessarily illicit but unauthorised movement of sheep bought and sold when official markets have closed. Will action be taken against those people who have caused so many problems, so much hardship and so much fear among livestock owners?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, perhaps I may repeat what I said in the Statement. We shall look at the operation of markets, and particularly out-of-ring sales, identification and tracing as a longer-term follow-up.
The noble Lord is right about the downside of vaccination: it is not an alternative to speedy slaughter of diagnosed animals. From the beginning the chief vet set 24 hours as the target. That has been reinforced as the single most effective measure. However, these are not either/or issues. In some cases, in particular when one has cattle which are at present housed inside and will in time come outside to pasture land which may be infected, there may be a role for vaccination and time for vaccination to become effective to safeguard those cattle.
The general view is that vaccination of sheep is a difficult and not particularly effective measure. But a limited vaccination of cattle in some circumstances, in particular where animals have been housed for the winter, may be effective.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer and previously as chairman of the Rural

135
Development Commission. Perhaps I may put forward one suggestion to the Minister. If this plague gets out of hand, the national milk supply could become endangered. It may be sensible to consider vaccinating milk cows, mostly Friesians, and not subsequently cull them. They are all fully registered. There are now wonderful records of all of them. None needs to go into the export chain. It is pretty poor quality meat which is seldom exported anyway. Perhaps that concept can be considered; it may save the national milk supply.
Secondly, many small farmers are not entitled to unemployment benefit. Using their compensation for laying off long-serving staff will nibble away at their capital. I have two suggestions. First, the Government should consider reintroducing the redundancy rebate system to help with redundancy costs. Secondly, we should approach our European lords and masters to sec if an early retirement package can be introduced to compensate those people in the same way as early retirement packages for those in industries such as steel and coal.
I do not suppose that there is time for an answer, but I should be grateful if the Minister can take note of those points.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, our EC partners have been very helpful in providing support on issues such as force majeure, grazing on set-aside land, schemes that need state aid clearance and the possibility of an early retirement scheme, which the noble Lord rightly mentioned. That is being considered. I shall certainly consider the redundancy rebate argument, which has been mentioned before in your Lordships' House. We are working with the Department of Social Security on making jobseeker's allowance and the working families' tax credit more flexible. The noble Lord's point about the milk supply follows on from my response to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. Vaccination may be an option in some areas, possibly even without slaughter, although that has further consequences. It is one of the limited applications of vaccination at which we are looking.

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
5.12 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Requirement of registration for motor salvage operators]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 3, leave out "cognate" and insert "related"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5. It is important that legislation is intelligible to a reasonably educated person. I am a humble hereditary Peer—sadly not a graduate. Outside the House, I am a logistician and/or an automotive engineer. In my short time in your Lordships' House, I have become familiar with primary legislation, but I have never before seen the word "cognate". I raised the issue in Committee when
136
the Minister had an ingenious explanation. He claimed "cognate" was more precise and that substituting the word "related" would not improve clarity. How can "cognate" be clearer if no one understands what it means? I wonder how many of your Lordships could define the word even in this context, let alone out of context, before we considered the Bill.
Noble Lords may be tempted to think that there is no need for a layman to be able to understand our laws. Before I came to this House, I found myself studying primary legislation, particularly the Road Traffic Act 1988. This is a simple Bill. I believe that it is slightly flawed—we shall come to that later—but I accept that it is desirable. If one understands the meaning of the term "Secretary of State" and the fact that a person can be a body corporate, there is no difficulty in understanding the Bill—with the exception of the word "cognate". I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, on these Benches, we have some general sympathy with the view that language should be kept as straightforward as possible to facilitate understanding. However, in this case we had a fairly good thrash round the word "cognate" and related expressions in Committee. So we hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we have already had a substantial discussion on this rather limited topic. I have been asked to reply to the amendment not because of any qualifications in Latin. I know that my noble friends are equally well qualified.
Different draftsmen prefer different terms to express the same or similar things. In this case we have used "cognate", which can be defined as, "representing the same original word" or, "coming from the same root". I recognise that we are discussing marginal issues, but it is more precise than "related", which is defined as "associated or connected with". It is a slightly stronger association.
A number of recent Acts have used the word "cognate", including the Postal Services Act 2000, the Local Government Act 2000, the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and the Finance Act 2000. Members of the public seeking to understand our legislation will become familiar with the word.
We recognise that the noble Earl prefers "related", but we do not believe that it would improve the clarity of the drafting. Like the noble Baroness, I hope that the noble Earl will recognise that, although he has a point, no great issue is at stake and it is not worth delaying the passage of the Bill for the sake of a change that would not enhance it. Indeed, if anything, we believe that it would make the drafting marginally less clear. As this is the second time that we have been through the issue, I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I believe that legislation should be as intelligible as possible. I did not realise

137
that the Government had been inserting unintelligible words into other legislation. The Minister should be aware that I shall raise the issue every time that I see "cognate" in legislation. Perhaps he can select a draftsman who does not use the word in future.
Today's press release from the Plain English Campaign says it all:
"And most of all, it will irritate those people who think only the legal elite should be able to understand our laws".
I was strongly tempted to test the opinion of the House on the issue, but the Minister has been terribly persuasive and I have reluctantly decided not to do so. However, I sincerely hope that Ministers will in future select draftsmen who do not use "cognate". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCES RELATING TO SALE OF REGISTRATION PLATES

(1) A registered supplier who supplies a registration plate to another person when he knows or reasonably suspects that it will be used for an unlawful purpose shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 of the standard scale."

The noble Lord said: This is another point that we have discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. We have gradually focused more on our precise concerns so that the point has got smaller and smaller.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was kind enough to write to my noble friend Lord Astor yesterday expanding on the point. He said that the regulations to be made under Clause 25 would prescribe documents that would be acceptable as proof of identity and entitlement to a number plate. The Government's initial view, he said, was that a driving licence or passport might provide proof of identity and that a vehicle registration document might provide proof of entitlement to the registration mark being issued. Without wishing to pre-empt the consultation period into which the Government will enter, that appears to me to involve quite enough bureaucracy.
The amendment also raises the question of what will happen in the case of collusion. As I read the Bill, if a supplier knowingly supplies a number plate which will be used falsely by an associate and the case subsequently comes to court, only the associate who uses the number plate wrongly will be deemed guilty of an offence and not the person who supplied it. I wish to press the Minister only on that small point.
In relation to the general point, we are introducing a whole new element of bureaucracy mainly for small businesses. I am always most cautious about doing that; certainly I do not want to make life more difficult
138
for them. However, where there is crime and collusion in crime, it is important that we ensure that offences are listed properly in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although I have not been deeply involved in the Bill, I strongly support this amendment and, indeed, Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. It appears that Britain has proportionately the highest rate of car theft in the civilised world. It seems that acceptance of these amendments would go some way towards remedying that shameful state of affairs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for recognising that the combination of what I said in our previous debate and the letter sent to his noble friend Lord Astor have at least narrowed the area of problem in relation to this matter.
Our difficulty lies not with the objectives of the noble Lord but with the fact that we believe that we are fully covered in this respect. There is already provision in the Bill to prevent suppliers selling plates that could be used for disguising the identity of vehicles. As the noble Lord said, under Clause 25 registered number plate suppliers would be required to obtain proof. The regulations to which he referred and which are provided for under Clause 25(1) will define the documents that will be regarded as proof. On our initial thinking, and, again, as the noble Lord said, such proof would be a vehicle registration document and a registration mark. We shall consult on the detail.
The noble Lord also needs to consider that if a person contravened the provision under Clause 25(3)—in other words, if he failed to check the information—he would be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine. If collusion took place, that would mean that the supplier had not discharged the duty under the clause and, therefore, would be susceptible to action under Clause 25(3). It is possible that he would also be susceptible to common law action for conspiracy. However, certainly Clause 25(3) already catches someone who has failed either by design or by negligence to check the documentation that is required by regulations under Clause 25(1).
The amendment also adds a subjective element. It indicates that the supplier should pass a subjective judgment on the legality of the future intentions of a purchaser and of any subsequent owner. That is a step too far. It is not reasonable to require a supplier to guess the intentions or divine the criminal intent of a potential purchaser. That would be regarded as an unreasonable burden on suppliers, particularly as the regulations made under the Bill and the guidelines to be issued before its implementation should provide a clear and unambiguous procedure for suppliers in checking the specified documents when selling registration plates. To go further and require a subjective judgment from the supplier would be regarded by most of the small firms which operate such a business as a step too far. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.

139
As I explained during our earlier debates on the Bill, a purchaser would also commit a serious offence if he provided false documentation and attempted to deceive. Therefore, I believe that we have dealt with the matter from all angles without the need for this slightly unclear amendment, which requires subjective judgment on the part of the supplier.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do not consider that the amendment would force honest suppliers to make a judgment in a normal case. The only intention of the amendment is to help to catch people in cases of collusion. However, the Minister has explained how the Government hope to pursue anyone who indulges in that type of activity. If the Bill is incomplete in that respect, no doubt we shall be able to return to the point when some other Bill is introduced. In any event, I am allergic to the idea that we may be putting too great a burden on honest suppliers and, in particular, small businesses. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Issue of new registration documents: vehicle identity checks etc.]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 18, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) After section 22(1)(h) of that Act there shall be inserted ", and
(i) require a person who is a motor salvage operator to whom a vehicle is sold. transferred or received in the course of his business to furnish the particulars prescribed by the regulations in the manner so prescribed.""
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. We return to the issue of the need to destroy the identity of a vehicle or, at least, to make it unusable to criminals. Some of my previous amendments were slightly off target. I was grateful for the Minister's understanding. I believe that my new amendment is much more precise and on target. It may even score a bull's-eye. Therefore, the Minister will have to show that my amendment is unnecessary. He may even succeed.
Noble Lords are well aware of my concerns regarding gaps and loopholes in this legislation. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating them this evening. Since Report stage, I, too, have received correspondence from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I understand that the gap may be rather smaller than at first we thought. It is possible that the Minister will easily be able to meet my concerns. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl's amendments may be more precise but I regret to say that I do not consider them to be on target. I understand what he is trying to achieve. The amendments require motor salvage operators, as defined under Clauses 1 and 2, to furnish particulars. But it is not clear from the wording what particulars
140
are referred to. It is most likely that the amendments would be used to try to ensure that all written-off vehicles were notified to the DVLA when they were received by a motor salvage operator. That is the objective.
I understand the concern expressed previously that seriously damaged vehicles which are not comprehensively insured may not be notified to the DVLA and thus may escape the requirements of the VIC scheme. However, that is not absolutely correct. First, since 1971 regulations have required people to notify the DVLA if they intend to destroy a vehicle. That would cover the situation where a person sold or gave the vehicle to a motor salvage operator for scrapping. It would apply as much to vehicles which are not comprehensively insured as it would to those which have comprehensive insurance.
Secondly, there is a code of practice in the industry that requires members to notify MIAFTR—the motor insurance anti-theft and fraud register—which in turn notifies DVLA when it writes off vehicles. It also provides for alternative notifications to the DVLA by paper using form V23.
The code of practice will be incorporated into the BVRLA code of conduct when it is revised later this year. There is also an expectation that over time the V23 system will be replaced through modifications to the codes. The BVRLA continues to encourage its members to fulfil their obligations.
Written-off vehicles with third-party insurance will be covered by the Bill. Under Clause 1(2)(b), a business engaged,
"wholly or mainly in the purchase of written-off vehicles and their subsequent repair and re-sale".
will in effect fall within the definition of "motor salvage". It is immaterial whether the vehicles in question have been comprehensively insured; the vehicle simply needs to have been "written off" in effect by its owner, not necessarily by an insurance company.
Under Clause 7, a business will be subject to regulations and will be required to keep records of any written-off vehicles that it repairs and sells. The police will be able to enter the premises of a business without a warrant and to inspect its records. That is to a large extent a matter for the police.
In addition, we plan to introduce extra measures further to ensure that both categories are subject to a VIC. We will do so either by introducing requirements for the registration document, form V5, to be returned to the DVLA in any case in which a vehicle is sold to a motor salvage operator; or we will require "self-insured" operators to return form V5 to the DVLA. Those provisions will be the subject of secondary legislation and we will consult on that in due course.
Provisions therefore already exist or are in the pipeline to ensure that vehicles are reported to the DVLA as having been written off by insurance companies or owners who intend their vehicle to be destroyed. I have spelt out in detail that point and our

141
future intentions because the noble Earl needs the full picture. I hope that I have covered most of the concerns that lie behind his amendment.
Additionally—this is why I say that the noble Earl's amendment is not entirely on target—the amendment is linked to Clause 33, which applies to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, whereas the salvage provisions cover only England and Wales. Agreeing to the amendments would mean that all the requirements relating to motor salvage operators would apply to England and Wales, except for those that would be introduced by the amendment, which would also extend to Northern Ireland and Scotland. The amendment is therefore in the wrong place and would have a slightly strange effect on the devolved administrations.
We are covering by various means the ending of the identity of a vehicle, which is what the noble Earl seeks. In any case, the amendment is in the wrong place and would have unfortunate consequences on the administration of motor salvage. I recognise that the noble Earl is expressing concerns that are felt within the industry but I hope that he will accept that we are well on the way to resolving all of those problems and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, is he convinced that he has all the necessary primary legislative powers? It would be embarrassing to have to come back to the House at a later stage to ask for more powers. Additionally, what is the penalty for failing to comply with the V5 procedure that he described, and how many prosecutions have there been for failing to make the notifications?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that I would have required notice to have answered the second part of the noble Earl's question. On the first part of his question, it would be jolly embarrassing for the Government to have to return to the House to secure primary legislation. That is not unknown but it would be embarrassing. I am reasonably confident that the necessary primary legislative powers will be in place. As I said, we will introduce some additional secondary legislation in relation to the requirements for the registration document to be returned to the DVLA. I accept that the total system is not yet in place, but it could be put in place through secondary legislation. The necessary primary legislation is already in hand.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I know what "shortly" means in parliamentary speak, and the phrase "reasonably confident" fills me with alarm.
The Minister's initial observations suggest that I did not intend to catch just written-off vehicles. I intended to catch all vehicles that a salvage contractor receives, apart from his own domestic vehicles. I am quite a bit happier, although we are still left with a small loophole. Let us suppose that a self-insured operator damages his car and sells it to his so-called friend, who finds that he cannot repair it and, to make some sort
142
of financial gain, rings it with another vehicle; I am not convinced that my amendment would cover that loophole. There are many potential loopholes in this context and I expect that the Minister will continue to discover more as time goes on. I hope that the necessary primary legislation will be in place to deal with them through regulations. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
5.36 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, as a relative newcomer to your Lordships' House, I have learnt much during the passage of the Bill, and I am therefore very grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House who contributed to our debates. We all support the Bill's aim of reducing vehicle crime. Noble Lords on all sides have been unusually co-operative during the Bill's passage. However, we should not imagine that the Bill is not without its weaknesses. We have identified and debated some of them. In the interests of the Bill's smooth passage at this interesting time in our legislative programme, we have not tested the opinion of the House. I therefore conclude by seeking assurances about the processes of regulation and guidance. I ask for the fullest possible consultation. In this case, it will be more than usually important to ensure that some of the loopholes will be dealt with in that way.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are at one, as the noble Baroness said, in wanting to fight vehicle crime. For that reason, we support the Bill. However, it will set up two new sets of regulations: new licensing schemes for motor salvage operators and for registration plate suppliers. It is not alone in setting up new licensing systems. Such quangos multiply all the time, and a whole forest—or a small wood, at any rate—of regulations will flow from the Bill. Such regulations are also being made all the time. The cumulative effect of all of those new individual licensing systems, with all of their detail, is damaging to small businesses in particular. Firms in some trades have to comply with literally dozens of sets of regulations and get themselves licensed with different bodies for different parts of their activities. Each of those systems is desirable in itself, but it is the cumulative effect that makes it so difficult to run a business these days. Having got that off my chest, we are against vehicle crime and we want to fight it. That is why we support the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my colleagues and I are deeply grateful for the co-operation from both Opposition Front Benches and from noble Lords

143
generally in the passage of the Bill. We believe that it is an important part of the fight against vehicle crime. I agree with the noble Lord about trying to minimise the burdens on small business, but we are clearly dealing with an industry in which a number of scams are running. We hope that we have blocked off the vast majority of them through our proposals and the regulations that will flow from them. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that there will be full consultation.
We hope that we have dealt with all of the major problems in the industry and that we are setting up a regime in which one can get a reputation for being a decent trader—the best in the industry already deserve that—and a regime which will help consumers; that is, the car owners and motorists of this country. We will be making a major contribution towards that. The fact that we have got the provisions through this House, despite the reservations expressed by your Lordships, means that although we may not have gone as far as some noble Lords would wish, we have done a good deal. This is a good Bill and one which will make the life of motorists and honest people throughout the land that much better. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill passed.

Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in view of the plethora of amendments on the Order Paper, it may be for the convenience of the House if I quickly explain the procedure we will follow this afternoon when we come to debate the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001.
My noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton will shortly move his Motion to approve the order. At that point he will make his speech. The next speaker will be my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. The whole debate will then take place on my noble and learned friend's amendment. Any noble Lord who has any point to make in relation to the original Motion, or in relation to any of the amendments, should speak at that point. I assume that the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Mancroft and Lord Glentoran, will all speak during the course of that debate.
At the end of that debate the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer will be disposed of. The other three amendments and the original Motion will be taken formally and disposed of in turn without further debate. I hope that clarifies matters.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, for clarification can I take it that we can debate the generality of the proscribing order?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, yes. Any general point should be subsumed in the debate following the contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001
5.42 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February he 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 28th February be approved.
With the Terrorism Act 2000, which came into force on 19th February, this Government signalled their determination to defeat terrorism in all its forms. As well as bringing our provisions into line with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Terrorism Act ensures that we are in a better position to deal with the serious threat which terrorism poses abroad as well as in this country.
The Act makes available the power to proscribe for the first time terrorist organisations concerned in international or domestic terrorism and not just those concerned only in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland which, as noble Lords will be aware, remain proscribed under Schedule 2 of the Act.
Parliament gave its support to this extension of the proscription regime by approving the passage of the Terrorism Bill. It is clearly of the utmost importance that the United Kingdom does not become a base for international terrorists and their supporters. The proscription and other provisions in the Act demonstrate this Government's commitment to change the climate in which supporters of terrorism might seek to operate in this country.
The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, which is the subject of today's debate, was laid before Parliament in draft on 28th February. It lists 21 international terrorist organisations which, in the carefully considered judgment of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, should now be subject to proscription in the United Kingdom. The draft order was debated in the other place on 13th March and approved the following day under the deferred voting procedure.
Under Section 3 of the Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary (or, in the case of organisations concerned only in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) has the power to proscribe any organisation which he believes "is concerned in terrorism". An organisation is "concerned in terrorism" if it,
"commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism".
"Organisation" is defined in Section 121 of the Act as including,
"any association or combination of persons".
Having satisfied the statutory criteria in any particular case, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary then has discretion as to which organisations should be recommended to Parliament for

145
proscription. In considering which international terrorist organisations should be proscribed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary took into account a number of factors, including those indicated to Parliament by Ministers during proceedings on the Terrorism Bill. Those factors were: the nature and scale of the organisation's activities; the specific threat that it poses to the UK; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. Depending on the organisation concerned and its sphere of operation, certain factors will have carried more weight than others.
To assist consideration of the draft order by both Houses, all noble Lords and honourable Members were sent a brief summary of information on each of the organisations named in the draft order. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear in the debate on the order in the other place, in reaching his decisions he had access to related intelligence-based material on the various organisations in addition to information which is in the public domain and took into account police, security and legal advice. He is entirely satisfied that the organisations which are being recommended to Parliament for proscription are "concerned in terrorism" and thus fully meet the criteria laid down in the Act.
I know that a number of noble Lords expressed concerns that certain domestic extremist groups have not been included in the draft order. As noble Lords will no doubt recall, during proceedings on the Terrorism Bill we indicated that we did not intend to proscribe any of the domestic groups known to us at that time. When considering the organisations to be included in this draft order, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary looked at this matter again very carefully, taking account of police advice. His judgment was that it would not be right to proscribe any domestic groups at present. If circumstances change, however, we could return to the question of proscription.
Ministers acknowledged during proceedings on the Terrorism Bill that proscription is a heavy power. It should be used only where the circumstances warrant it. The draft order includes international terrorist organisations of particular concern to the United Kingdom. It would be unrealistic and excessive to proscribe every international organisation in the world that might be "concerned in terrorism". No other country does that.
As noble Lords will understand, however, the powers and offences in the Act more generally will apply to anyone planning or supporting here terrorist acts anywhere in the world, whether or not the group has been proscribed. The proscription regime provides an additional measure with specific, linked offences, including in relation to fundraising for use against those involved with or supporting the organisations which have been proscribed. The investigation and
146
prosecution of any alleged offence under the Act is, of course, a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities.
The proscription regime is aimed at organisations and individuals concerned in terrorism, as defined in Section 1 of the Act. The definition of terrorism was, of course, considered in great detail during parliamentary proceedings on the Bill and it would be inappropriate to go over that ground again in the debate tonight.
I must emphasise that the provisions in the Act are not aimed at any specific community or at those protesting in a peaceful and non-violent way against alleged injustices or for political change. Nor are they aimed at those raising funds for legitimate social or humanitarian purposes. As long as people do not break our laws, they are free to express views with which the Government may profoundly disagree, including criticism of friendly governments. That is part of our cherished tradition of free speech. That freedom is unaffected by the coming into force of the new Terrorism Act.
Following debate in and approval by both Houses, the proscriptions will come into effect on the day after my right honourable friend the Home Secretary makes the order. It will then be open to any of the organisations so proscribed, or any person affected by their proscription, at any time to make application to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for deproscription. Under the Proscribed Organisations (Applications for Deproscription) Regulations 2001, which came into force on 19th February, that application should, among other things, state the grounds on which it is being made. That provides an opportunity for an organisation or individual to make a case—to the Home Secretary in the case of international proscribed organisations—as to why they should be deproscribed. He will, of course, consider any such applications very carefully and fully indeed.
Where an application is refused, the Act provides for an appeal to a new independent judicial tribunal, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. The commission will consider any refusals to deproscribe in the light of judicial review principles.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the establishment of the commission. He announced on 5th March the appointment of a chairman and two other judicial members, respectively Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, Sir Harry Ognall and Sir Brian Smedley, all of whom are retired judges. He is in the process of appointing legal and lay members of the commission, who will be announced in due course. I am confident that these arrangements are sufficient to ensure that an effective remedy is available to anyone who might be aggrieved at the decision to proscribe the organisations listed in the draft order.
In conclusion, I must emphasise that this is not a once and for all process. The proscription list will be kept under constant review. The Secretary of State can decide at any time in future to recommend to Parliament the addition of an organisation to

147
Schedule 2, where events or circumstances demand such action, and where it meets the criteria in the Act. Similarly, in appropriate circumstances, and when it was safe to do so, an organisation could be removed from the list without it necessarily making an application for deproscription.
I should like to take the opportunity here to place on the record a correction to what my right honourable friend said on 13th March during the debate on this order in another place, at col. 949 of the Official Report. If a decision is taken to deproscribe an organisation, either on application or otherwise, that deproscription will he subject to approval by Parliament by the affirmative not the negative resolution procedure.
In my view, the draft order is compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. It represents a fair, just and proportionate response to the threats we face from international terrorism. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
5.53 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwellrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert ";
but that this House regrets that the Mujaheddin e Khalq have been included in the schedule of proscribed organisations contained in the order and invites Her Majesty's Government to lay a further order, removing the Mujaheddin e Khalq from the Schedule."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I listened carefully to my noble friend. I do not think that I. counted more than two propositions which he put forward with which I might conceivably disagree, although in our debates it is always wise to make that kind of statement without prejudice.
This debate is an example of what is probably the most fundamental problem in democratic politics. How can we reconcile law and order, the protection of people from crime, with the protection of people from the executive, with fairness and justice to individuals? Quin custodiet?—if I am allowed, outside the rules of order, to depart from the English language.
Part of that is formulating rules for the executive when admittedly it is contending against people, some of whom do not play by the rules. Part of that in turn means recognising, as my noble friend said, that sometimes the executive has to act on information which it cannot disclose because to disclose it would be to reveal the source of the information to those against whom it may have to be used.
We debated all that when we discussed the Freedom of Information Bill. It will shortly be discussed in another place when it considers the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Although I have no interest to declare in this debate, it may assist transparency if I disclose that I am a member of that committee. So, I understand some of the problems
148
about which my noble friend will no doubt tell us when he comes to reply; indeed, if he is busy elsewhere I could make his speech for him.
While I am in concessionary mode—I doubt whether my noble friend would consider me to he what was earlier today called "a plaything of the Government"—perhaps I may offer him another trump card. The principle of the Terrorism Act has no more enthusiastic supporter than me. Terrorism does not recognise international boundaries. If it is to be fought on equal terms, this is yet another instance when the international community must set aside the obsession with national sovereignty and bureaucratic ring-fencing and co-operate in the interests of the global family. I approve of the fact that those who practice or plan terrorism anywhere will be denied sanctuary anywhere. I do not rest any part of my argument on the concession which the Home Office made in relation to the organisation which I wish to address today, that it does not practice terrorism in this country.
None of that is in issue between us. But we need to recognise that when the practitioners of crime clash with the forces of law and order, someone may he caught in the middle. Decent, law-abiding, long-suffering people may be crushed in the nutcrackers. My noble friend said—this is the one proposition of which I am not sure—that we should not discuss the definition of terrorism in the Act. It does not address all the problems. I accept my share of the blame. I was content with the general thrust of the Terrorism Bill, as it then was, and I failed to scrutinise the definition; so did we all. However, it occurs to me that within that definition, William Tell was a terrorist, Oliver Cromwell was a terrorist, and Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.
At Second Reading in another place of the Bill which became the Terrorism Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was asked (Official Report, Commons, 14/12/99; col. 152) whether the Kosovo Liberation Army, at that time opposing the Serbian regime in Kosovo, or the Kurds opposing Saddam Hussein in northern Iraq fell within the definition. I hope that I do my right honourable friend no injustice; I read the debate carefully and I do not think that the question was answered. I say that not by way of criticism; in the to and fro of debate questions get lost. However, my right honourable friend specifically argued that in democracies there are other ways of expressing dissent. Yes, indeed, but what if the regime is not democratic? What if it is tyrannical, oppressive and tolerates no dissent?
It is an unfortunate factor in this debate that we are faced with a single unamendable order which includes in the schedule 21 separate organisations—I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will address that later—faced with a whole spectrum of different regimes and a variety of opportunities either to express or repress dissent. We cannot oppose the inclusion of any one organisation without opposing the entire order. That was tempting, I admit. However, if we had done that it would have deferred a process for which in

149
general we accept the need. Yet the mischief would have lain squarely at the door of the Home Office, which elected to proceed in that way.
I have been approached by other organisations which challenge their designation as terrorists, notably the International Sikh Youth Federation and some of the groups concerned with the liberation, as they see it, of Kashmir. I do not propose to discuss them today, partly because I have not had an opportunity to give my noble friend notice that I would do so and partly because I am not sufficiently familiar with the facts.
My amendment is designed not to destroy the order, but simply to invite my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to rectify the situation quickly by introducing a further order to remove from the schedule one organisation. I turn now to the one organisation with which the amendment is concerned, the Mujaheddin e Khalq.
In Iran there is no democratic way to change the regime. There is no freedom to express an opinion or to argue for one's beliefs. Even since Mr Khatami took office, 800 people have been put to death for their beliefs; 75 this year. Those are the regime's own official figures. We know that there have been many more secret murders. Thirteen people have been stoned to death; eyes have been gouged out; limbs have been amputated; and people have been publicly flogged.
In April last year, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemned the executions, the torture, the inhuman punishments, the absence of due process of law and the discrimination against women. That was the 46th time that an organ of the United Nations had condemned the abuses under the regime. The commission extended the mandate of the special rapporteur for yet a further year.
There have been repeated reports by Amnesty International and other human rights organisations. There is no right to disseminate opinions or even information. Last year, at least 40 publications were closed down because the regime disapproved of what they said. In February, Geneive Abdo, the Guardian's correspondent in Iran, was warned to adapt her reports to what pleased the administration and was then unceremoniously removed from the country. Of course there was an election and it served a purpose, because whatever else may be said about the result, it was clear that the people wanted to live under a more liberal regime. They supported Mr Khatami; and I would not dispute that he may have wished to move in the direction of greater freedom. But it is clear that he is as much a prisoner of the mullahs as anyone.
The constitution is not intended to afford free choice. On 7th December last year, Mr Khatami himself spelt it out. He said:
"There is no talk of changing the constitution. Today, talk of changing the constitution amounts to changing the state. This is treachery to the state and to the Iranian nation".
In the election, no one could vote for a candidate who was not approved by the Guardian Council because if a candidate was not approved, he was not permitted to stand as a candidate. We all remember the long delays
150
before the results were announced, and we can speculate as to what was happening to ballot boxes and ballot papers during that time.
Therefore, it is in that context that we need to consider the Mujaheddin. That movement came together in 1965 to campaign for democracy when it was repressed under the regime of the Shah. Thousands of its members were imprisoned, tortured or killed under that regime. There was no question of it using violence at that time.
Then came the revolution and members of the movement thought, as did many, that the terror and repression were over. But it still continued; the new regime did not change the repression. For more than two years the Mujaheddin did not respond with violence, but a time came when it believed that the murders and mutilations were not going to be changed by free elections—there were not to be free elections—and it decided that the only way to stop the repression by the military was to resist the military. The only way to stop the murders was to stop the murderers.
I have never made any secret of where I stand. I do not believe that a free society, where people can live together in peace, can best be brought about by violence. But I understand why the movement came to believe that there was no other way. If I believed that it used indiscriminate violence or risked the lives of civilians, I would have no time for it and I would not be addressing your Lordships today. I believe that it confines its target specifically to military bases and to senior officials of the regime who have themselves committed crimes against humanity.
I do not know on what information my right honourable friend the Home Secretary acted when he decided to include the Mujaheddin in the schedule—and this is a moment when perhaps I might have my noble friend's attention—but I understand that my noble friend cannot reply to that. However, it would be helpful if, when replying to the debate, he would tell us who was consulted: the Secretary General of the United Nations; the Human Rights Commission: Amnesty International; or the Inter-Parliamentary Union? Can we be told which person or body with knowledge of human rights was consulted before that inclusion?
"But", says the Home Office—my noble friend said it today—"these questions are not best discussed in Parliament. The Terrorism Act provides for the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission"; that is, POAC in the acronym-ridden official speak that we all practise. An organisation included in the schedule may appeal to POAC and it will consider it. That is indeed a welcome last safeguard to correct mistakes, but as an argument in this debate it has two weaknesses. First, it raises the question: if Parliament is not to exercise any control over the executive why do we have these debates? Why do we go through the pretence of laying down orders before Parliament if we are then told to stay quiet? Secondly, this form of redress operates retrospectively. Much of the damage will already have been done.

151
Again, we are all to blame. We could have spoken against the scheme of the Terrorism Bill. But there is something distasteful about a process which begins by convicting someone and then proceeds to inquire whether there is a case against them. Lewis Carroll's Queen of Hearts called for sentence first, verdict afterwards. That scheme is best confined to Alice in Wonderland.
There is a large Iranian community in this country. Many are now British subjects. They are fair, law-abiding, hard-working people. They came here initially to escape persecution at home. Persecution for membership of the Mujaheddin has repeatedly been accepted as a reason for granting people asylum in this country. Some have lost members of their families to the murderers and torturers. Even here they are not safe from the regime. At least 35 political opponents of the regime have been murdered not in Iran but in the territory of other countries. The fatwa which declared it was permissible—indeed, a duty—to murder Salman Rushdie did not confine that to Iranian territory; it clearly contemplated that he should be murdered outside Iran. Even last year, when my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was told that it might be withdrawn, there was very quickly a correction. They said that that had been a mistake and it could not be changed. It remains in force.
So where are the terrorists? Are they among the Mujaheddin or among the leadership of the regime? Not surprisingly, most of the Iranian community have supported the resistance, not all of whom are members of the Mujaheddin. But some of them do applaud the Mujaheddin; some even help it financially.
They are in good company. Members of the Mujaheddin have been welcome guests at the Labour Party conference where there is always sympathy for victims of persecution. If the Mujaheddin is in the scheme, those people will suffer the stigma of supporting a terrorist organisation. Under Section 12 of the Act, if they support or even invite someone else to support that movement, they will be criminals.
Those who support the amendment have the satisfaction of agreeing with views expressed by 335 Members of the other place; some 61 Members of your Lordships' House; a majority of members of the United States Congress; 175 members of the German Bundestag; 150 members of the French Assembly; and a majority in the parliaments of Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg. We are simply asking my noble friend in reply to assure us that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will move quickly to introduce a further order rectifying this mistake.
It would be an unusual gesture for the Home Office, but I beg my noble friend to consider it possible that on this occasion it may be wrong. I beg to move.
Moved, That as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert "; but that this House regrets that the Mujaheddin e Khalq have been included in the schedule of proscribed organisations contained in the order and invites Her Majesty's Government to lay a further order, removing the Mujaheddin e Khalq from the schedule".—(Lord Archer of Sandwell.)
6.10 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, this morning the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and I attended a meeting in this House organised by Liberation which allowed a large group of representatives from various organisations to express their views about this order and how they would be treated under the Act. I do not know the strength of their case or the merits of the various organisations. However, it reaffirmed my conviction, which is expressed in my amendment to the Motion, that those who dealt with the original Bill did not envisage that secondary powers would be used to hoover up, as it were, 21 organisations in a single instrument. By any standard of natural justice, that does not make sense. It means that the good, the bad and the ugly are put together.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, pointed out, by the very nature of our rules of procedure we take or leave statutory instruments in those circumstances. I believe that in approaching the matter in this way the Home Office has discredited the procedure from the outset. That was not our intention in seeking comprehensive terrorism legislation that applied to all parts of the United Kingdom. The general belief was that the ad hoc approach to terrorist legislation that had grown up since 1974, with particular emphasis on Northern Ireland, was not good for civil liberties and a comprehensive approach to these matters. But it also illustrates—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, acknowledged a mea culpa that we all share—the danger of legislation which provides quite sweeping secondary powers, because exactly how they are used is dependent on the executive.
What worries me about the way that the Home Office has gone about it is that in the first test of those secondary powers the department has got it wrong. It has approached it in a broad-brush way which leaves a number of organisations, such as the one referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, feeling aggrieved. The Home Secretary in his letter to noble Lords to explain the legislation states that it,
"provides new permanent and UK-wide legislation"—
in response, we say "good"—
"which is proportionate to the threat which the UK faces and may face from all forms of terrorism".
Judgment comes in when one considers the proportionate nature of the threat. All of these organisations are active and linked to various national immigrant groups active in other countries. We shall be going into this matter in considering further amendments. As has been said, none of them refers to UK groups. I am worried that in the "hoovering" process we may put at risk the age-old and much cherished belief in freedom of speech and association in this country, and introduce guilt by association.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, raises a matter which worries a number of people; namely, that organisations have been placed on the list on the advice of the police, security services, foreign governments and foreign security agencies. By the very nature of the legislation, a good deal of this is wrapped

153
in secrecy. Although I understand the responsibilities of government, I am not content to allow Ministers simply to pat us on the head, give us a knowing look to the effect that they are in receipt of secret information which, if only we could see it, would make our toes curl and, therefore, we should nod through every piece of new legislation that they want. The other day I was disturbed to learn that the head of MI5 had complained about parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that our security services should be exposed to parliamentary scrutiny. It would give me a good deal more confidence if the Intelligence and Security Committee, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred, had an opportunity to look at the evidence presented to the Home Secretary in order to make his decisions.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord purely to seek information. Does the noble Lord believe that if the security services obtain information from a particular source, which may be in a country that does not have a nice democratic government, that source will be quite as enthusiastic when it is discovered that in future it will be declared to Parliament?
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am not so naive as to believe that that is what should be made available in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. I have been involved in these matters in one way or another for a good number of years and have grown suspicious of Ministers who fall in love with secret briefings. I believe that Parliament should always be highly sceptical of a process whereby we are simply patted on the head and told that if only we knew what they knew we would understand why they were doing it. We must have some check and balance on that activity.
One of the matters of which we must be assured is that what is being acted upon is at least the advice of our own security services, not simply the complaint of other security agencies or foreign governments. We are not in the business of doing the dirty work of regimes when organisations in this country do things which are perfectly legal here, such as saying rude things about government, but which in other countries are subject to draconian measures. Therefore, it is not part of the exercise to do favours for countries which may have regimes that do not follow our standards.
I should like to mention a few practical matters which were raised at the meeting this morning. If organisations are named in the list, how will they fight proscription if they cannot call meetings, raise funds or rally support for their cause? How much flexibility will they have to work against proscription once they have been named? That is a matter to be clarified. One of the representatives of a British trade union who was present wanted to know how the measure would affect trade unions, which in this country have a long tradition of adopting both individuals and organisations and giving them moral and material support.
154
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, asked, from where do we start in this matter? The noble and learned Lord referred to the ANC. Between 1970 and 1974 I was secretary of the Labour Party's Southern Africa Solidarity Fund which supported the ANC and the liberation movements in Mozambique and Angola. I presume that we would have been caught by these orders. My radical past is coming out here. I was also the secretary of the Spanish Democrats Defence Committee under the chairmanship of Jack Jones. In the late 1960s, I took to see that no lesser a person than the Secretary of State for Defence a delegation from East European Social Democrats in exile who were still working against their regimes.
I make the point that the assumption that people living in this country and working against foreign tyranny are all somehow to be hoovered up under the general term of "terrorist" is extremely dangerous. Yet governments intimidate oppositions into accepting legislation because none of us wants to be caught on the wrong side of questions such as, "Who is in favour of terrorism?" and "Are you soft on terrorists?"
I have never been in favour of what I call "the Bayswater Road liberationists" who sit out their time in London, putting out inflammatory messages and never going into danger; neither am I in favour of London with its particular communications hub becoming a centre for international terrorism. I prefer to stand four square with the warning given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, with his long and distinguished record on these matters: democracy does not protect itself by ever more draconian powers to its security services.
This order is too wide, too reliant on secret reasons and too arbitrary. I have quoted this previously, but I always remember the scene in "A Man for All Seasons" where Richard Rich is advising Sir Thomas More to take arbitrary action. More asks, "But where will one shelter when the wind of tyranny blows if one has chopped down all the protection?" It worries me that, along with the quite legitimate requirement and duty on government to protect the state against terrorism and to root out international terrorism and play our part against international terrorism, we are in danger of putting at risk age-old freedoms of association and liberties which this House has the duty to protect.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I feel slightly like an impostor today. It is as if I have stumbled into a grand and glorious debate, in which I am not really qualified to play a role. The issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, are incredibly important. It is very difficult for government to achieve a balance between the rather grubby things they have to do to make the nuts and bolts of government operate and the important protection of individuals; in this case individuals who come to this country from abroad and need our protection. It is a balance, as so many matters in

155
government are. Furthermore, it is a tricky balance. It is a debate where much is theory but which we need to get right in practice.
Like other noble Lords, I suspect, I do not really know what effect such an order will have in practice. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, who said he was not quite sure what the definition of terrorism is, the more I think about the matter the more I do not know what the definition is. But I have a feeling that if I saw a terrorist I should know it. That is worrying in itself.
I suspect that that those who are intent on the kind of activities which comprise terrorism will not be deterred from their activities by the existence of an order such as this, or the inclusion of their organisation on the list contained in the order. The people who join real. undoubted terrorist groups probably take little or no notice of what amounts to the disapproval of Parliament, particularly if that Parliament is in a different country.
I am reminded of the story of Gilbert Monkton. In the 1950s or 1960s he was sent on a mission to Washington. He had to fill in that very long immigration form the United States used to have. After the questions on age, date of birth, residence and so on, the last question was: do you intend in any way to take up arms against or threaten the security of the United States? He wrote, "Yes, sole purpose of visit". He was arrested on arrival. That was a pity because he was there on the orders of the Foreign Office. It took a little explaining, but makes my point.
My amendment is very much simpler and more mundane than the amendments of previous noble Lords. It seeks to include the names of three UK-based organisations engaged in what we all know, and would know, are terrorist activities within the UK. Looking at the matter in detail in the past 24 to 48 hours, I have discovered that the organisations are engaged also in violent activities in Europe and the United States. However, that is slightly beside the point.
Yesterday we debated provisions within the Hunting Bill. During the course of our earlier debates, the subject of violence and intimidation of the hunting community by animal rights extremists was touched on. It was widely condemned by noble lords from all sides of the House, as your Lordships would expect. Indeed, on several occasions, the Home Secretary has made clear that he finds the violent activities of those fanatics completely unacceptable. We are grateful to him for that support.
It is not recognised as much as it should be that too many members of the hunting community have lived with abuse, intimidation and violence, both threatened and actual, for many years. I pay tribute to their courage, but I also think that we, as a House of Parliament of the legislature, owe it to those people to recognise the extent of the problem. One way of doing that would be to attach the names of the organisations in my amendment to the order and publicly condemn their members in that way.
156
I have an interest of sorts to declare. As a board member of the Countryside Alliance, an organisation your Lordships are getting to know rather well, and as someone closely involved in the hunting community, I have been a victim of these organisations myself. Some of your Lordships who have been here more than a minute or two may remember that some years ago I received a bomb through the post. I have also received quite an amount of unpleasant hate mail from some of these fanatics. I received one letter which contained very specific details about my family and our daily routines, together with some really horrific threats to my wife and young children. So I know about the matter.
I do not wish to over-emphasise the importance of these incidents, except to make two points: first, to commend the police for their support and prompt and professional responses; and, secondly, to indicate, that even those incidents pale into insignificance when compared with the threats, the intimidation and the violence that others have to live with on a daily basis.
As we debate here today in the security of this House, this wonderful Palace, within the past few months in Surrey, not an hour's drive away, some members and staff of the hunt made famous by Surtees in his stories of Jorrocks, the hunting grocer, have been attacked, bombed, and driven from their homes by an almost unceasing campaign of violence in the name of animal rights.
A number of my colleagues recently met Mr Charles Clarke at the Home Office and supplied him with a detailed dossier of some of the worst attacks over the past few years throughout the United Kingdom. We are immensely grateful for his attention to that matter.
The terrorism perpetrated by the three organisations named in my amendment is not confined to those who engage in field sports. But it is now clear that many of those who start out as hunt saboteurs end up as bombers. It does not take too long for them to progress down that route. In the dossier we supplied to the Home Office a full range of activities is clearly documented, starting with trespass; attacks on horses and dogs; serious attacks on people, often resulting in hospital treatment; violent attacks on vehicles and property, causing damage estimated at many thousands of pounds; and bombs, letter bombs, razor bombs and incendiary devices.
Many of these groups have close links and individual members are often linked to more than one group. Many of those engaged in sabotaging hunting, shooting and fishing also commit serious crimes against other animal rights targets. Those have included Boots, the chemists, a fish and chip shop in Wales the other day, a number of scientists engaged in research, and the meat trade. More recently, two Members of another place, Ms Kate Hoey and Mrs Llin Golding, have been threatened. I pay tribute to their courage in resisting those threats.
It is also important to remember that some of the organisations that purport to be respectable have closer links than they should have to organisations that use violence. One of the options that we debated

157
yesterday in the House was promoted by Deadline 2000. I wonder how many noble Lords who received briefing from that group realise that the press officer of the League Against Cruel Sports, Andy Walsley, pleaded guilty to public order offences, including violence in attacking police officers at a riot at Hilgrove farm in 1998. The three organisations mentioned in my amendment are among the worst, but are also among those against which hard evidence exists.
The Animal Liberation Front operates in this country and in the United States. Its activities have recently been investigated by a federal grand jury in Portland. The ALF claimed responsibility for the recent theft of a pack of beagles from the Wye College Hunt. As noble Lords may remember from the newspapers, one beagle was later recovered, having been roughly and callously castrated, and with a mutilated ear. These are animal lovers! Keith Mann is a leading terrorist member of the Animal Liberation Front. He was gaoled in 1992 for attacking the home of a member of hunt staff and was sentenced to 14 years in 1994 for criminal damage, possession of explosives and attempted arson.
The Justice Department is another hardline group. My noble friend Lord Cope knows of it. It first gained notoriety for trying to dig up the grave of the late Duke of Beaufort, shortly after he was buried, in the 1980s. It was involved in bomb attacks in 1993 and sent six letter bombs in June 1994 to companies involved in the live animal export business. In addition, a cross-Channel ferry company had its head office bombed. The Justice Department has also conducted campaigns against furriers and hunters in Canada, notably sending 65 letters with rat poison-encrusted razor blades to hunting guides in Alberta in 1996.
It is believed that the Justice Department was responsible for the attack on Mr Brian Cass, the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Mr Glynn Harding, from Crewe, is a leading Justice Department member. He has recently been charged with sending 11 letter bombs between December 2000 and February of this year. A leading member of Justice Department is Mr Gurjeet Aujila, who was gaoled for six years in 1995, having pleaded guilty to eight charges of sending letter bombs to people involved with the live animal export business.
The final group mentioned in my amendment is the Hunt Retribution Squad. It announced a campaign against the Old Surrey and Burstow Hunt in September 2000. That has been followed by a sustained campaign of violence. In early September the police had to evacuate a family with children from their home before it was laid siege to by 30 attackers, who did considerable damage. Police attending the incident were overpowered and reinforcements, including police dogs and a helicopter, were needed to bring the situation under control. The police have launched an investigation into the Hunt Retribution Squad after two devices were found under cars belonging to hunt members in October last year. This
158
campaign continues. Cars have been covered in paint stripper and people have been subjected to telephone harassment, as well as bombs and attacks on property.
I hope that the details I have given the House are enough to show that this is terrorism by anyone's standards. We are not talking about a grey area. It is black and white, it is ongoing, and it is happening throughout Britain and within an hour's drive of the House today and every day. It is unacceptable. The police have recognised the seriousness of these terrorists by setting up and resourcing a specialist department to deal with the groups and the threats that they pose. These terrorists have been responsible for more violence and more bombs than any group in the United Kingdom over the past decade, including the IRA. I hope that the Government and the House will recognise the severity of the situation by accepting my amendment today.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall speak as the Official Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Cope will answer on behalf of the Shadow Home Office team.
My amendment is clear. It is about administration and clarity. During the passage of the Terrorism Bill I spoke to Schedule 2. I am a supporter of the Terrorism Act, but I feel that the description of the Northern Ireland terrorist organisations is inadequate. Perhaps I may gently remind the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and others on the list are British organisations. I am ashamed to say it, but they are. They operate mostly within the United Kingdom.
I have two main reasons for including in the schedule the organisations named in my amendment. First, they are supposedly covered as the Irish Republican Army. I do not think that many people would accept that. There are now many branches of the Irish Republican Army. Indeed, I am not sure that the IRA would accept it even itself. As we learnt recently, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are leading members of the Army Council. I do not think that they would accept—publicly anyway—that they have any control over the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA. The time may well come—let us hope that it is fairly soon—when the Provisional IRA does what its predecessors have done completely—fades into the political mists and becomes part of the political organisation known as Sinn Fein. Indeed, it may even decommission. It would then have every right to be removed from the schedule.
However, if that situation arose, I would not like the Irish Republican Army to be removed from the schedule because I am certain that there would still be dissident groups that would need to be named in the schedule. I do not need to remind the House of the catalogue of crimes of which the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA are guilty, both in London and in other parts of the United Kingdom, including

159
Northern Ireland I therefore think that it is necessary for the Government to attempt to tidy up this part of the schedule.
The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 refers to organisations being proscribed as per its schedule. In its schedule, the organisations proscribed are the Continuity Irish Republican Army, the Real Irish Republican Army, the organisation using the name "the Orange Volunteers" and the Red Hand Defenders. The Red Hand Defenders and the Orange Volunteers feature in Schedule 2 to the Act, but the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA do not. That is illogical. For the sake of clarity in the future and for the sake of flexibility—we shall want that for the future in order to allow some of these organisations to come out of the schedule and to be seen to come out—I ask the Minister to attend to the matter and to clarify this anomaly.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, the order before us today deals with terrorist organisations—terrorist organisations which use these shores as a base to commit acts of terrorism abroad. There are 21 organisations listed for proscription by the order. The brief accompanying the order would lead us to believe that. collectively, these 21 organisations ensure that terrorism is truly global. Just as the people and government of Spain live under threat from ETA, November 17, which recently murdered a high profile British diplomat, poses a threat to the people and government of Greece.
It is not an easy task to determine which organisations should or should not be included on this register of proscribed organisations. Indeed—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, alluded to this—defining "terrorism"—offering an objective definition of "terrorism" as a means of determining which groups or organisations should find themselves on such a register of proscribed organisations—is equally difficult.
The matter is further complicated when one considers the origins of the term "terrorism". Terrorism was first used to describe the state violence, the reign of terror, in post-revolutionary France. I venture to say that not many modern definitions of terrorism would incorporate state violence in any way, never mind be centred on it.
The term was later applied to the narodniks, or Narodnava Volya anti-Tsarist group in pre-revolutionary Russia, even though it must be admitted that this group engaged mainly in acts of assassination rather than the indiscriminate violence we tend to associate with modern terrorist groups.
Modern usage of the word "terrorism" and the contemporary definition of a "terrorist group" are surely subjective. Nowadays, terrorism is a badge of illegitimacy and a label of disapproval. Therefore to approve this order, we must disapprove of all these organisations: what they stand for; the activities they are engaged in; and their use of the United Kingdom as a base to raise funds, to organise, or from which to launch operations.
160
I confess that I do not have an in-depth knowledge of all these organisations. Indeed, some operate in areas of the world of which my knowledge is less than comprehensive. However, I understand that not all of these groups organise solely in the UK. For those organisations to be proscribed, therefore, is primarily a badge of disapproval, and possibly acts as a minor deterrent to any future organising.
For groups that do not organise in the UK, their proscription can be only a means of disapproval. This is something that I do not necessarily object to, but I can think of other organisations worthy of such statutory disapproval that do not appear on this list of organisations. However, maybe listing additional groups merely gives such groups the international recognition they crave.
Just as there are groups that should be included on such a list of organisations, I am aware that there are concerns about a number of the groups that are included in this order. In another place. there was concern with regard to the inclusion of the Mujaheddin e Khalq and the International Sikh Youth Federation. I confess that I do not know much about the International Sikh Youth Federation, or what threat it poses for the Indian state. However, I have witnessed terrorism at first hand in part of this United Kingdom and I know how terrorist campaigns have plagued Northern Ireland and its people for over 30 years.
I am also concerned about the Real IRA and the 32-County Sovereignty Committee. My concerns as regards the Real IRA are not with respect to the bare inclusion of the IRA in Schedule 2 to the primary legislation. Indeed, I can say that I am satisfied with the assurances given in another place that the term "Irish Republican Army" will include all variations of that term, whether they be Provisional, Continuity or Real. However, I am not satisfied that this proscription of "IRA" extends to the 32-County Sovereignty Committee.
It is my understanding that this order will make it illegal for a person who supports the International Sikh Youth Federation, presumably a youth living in this country, to place a poster purporting to support the organisation in his bedroom window. I am not questioning the merits of this being passed into law, but I am questioning the provisions proscribing what could be termed "domestic terrorist organisations".
If it is illegal for people supporting the International Sikh Youth Federation to express their support, why is it not the same for those who support the Real IRA through the 32-County Sovereignty Committee? Why can a young Sikh in Wolverhampton not place a poster of support in his window, but the 32-County Sovereignty Committee can hold rallies in pubs in Euston Road?
The Real IRA and the 32-County Sovereignty Committee are two sides of the same coin. Their members were behind the bomb attack at the BBC earlier this month; they attempted to blow up the MI6 building near Millbank; and they are believed to have

161
been the bombers of Hammersmith Bridge. Most certainly, and most significantly, they were behind the atrocious attack in Omagh.
Let me remind noble Lords: 31 lives were lost in that bomb attack, two of those unborn. It was the greatest single atrocity committed in Northern Ireland—and there have been many over the years. The victims of Omagh deserve justice. They deserve to have the 32-County Sovereignty Committee proscribed. They deserve to see the United States list the Real IRA on its State Department record of terrorist organisations, especially when one notes the level of fund-raising for that group in the United States. Most importantly, the Omagh victims and the people of Northern Ireland deserve justice under law. If those who committed that most heinous of crimes cannot be brought before the criminal courts, in the interests of transparency and accountability they must be brought before the civil courts.
I fully endorse the efforts of the Omagh Victims' Legal Support Group, which is attempting to bring a civil action against the individuals known—I repeat, known—to have committed that bombing. I hope sincerely that the group will succeed in raising the £1 million it requires to commence that action before it is time-barred in August of this year. I know that its members would appreciate the support of noble Lords in this task.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like, first, to pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for tabling the first amendment to the Motion before the House. I should like also to pay tribute to the measured and clear way in which he moved the amendment and how he was able, far better than I, to put the case for excluding from the list of proscribed organisations, the Mujaheddin e Khalq.
I also applaud the second amendment to the Motion. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It seems rather a nonsense that your Lordships' House should be presented with such a long list without providing for the consultation that should have taken place beforehand. It is a nonsense that we are not able to consider these organisations separately and it is a shame that no proper consultation took place prior to the day, some 28 days ago, when the order was first introduced to the House of Commons. I shall not comment further on that point except to say that I hope that noble Lords will share my concern over bundling together a number of groups and organisations.
I shall return to my remarks on the first amendment. It is regrettable that the Mujaheddin e Khalq is included in the schedule of proscribed organisations contained in the order. However, I welcome the fact that this opens the door for the Home Secretary to bring back a further order to remove the Mujaheddin e Khalq from the schedule. Any examination of the
162
situation in Iran demonstrates clearly and beyond doubt that it is the ruling regime in that country which practises terrorism—terrorism on its own people.
When the Prevention of Terrorism Bill—later the Terrorism Act 2000—was debated in another place, the Home Secretary said that the legislation was directed at groups in Britain that supported efforts to overthrow democratic regimes abroad. Importantly, he added that dissent was a vital part of our democracy. Surely, no one in this House can describe the mullahs' regime in Tehran as democratic.
The United Nations special representative on human rights in Iran, Professor Maurice Copthorne, as recently as this month, has reported that:
"Breaches of human rights are in large part as common today as they were live years ago".
He has also reported that the number of executions reported in the Iranian press during the year are placed at about 200. So far this year, 75 people have been sentenced to death, including eight women; some of the sentences include death by stoning.
The Home Office note associated with this order states that the Mujaheddin e Khalq has not attacked UK or Western interests. Why have our Government included the Mujaheddin in the list at this particular time?
Quite recently, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell and I circulated a statement to all noble Lords urging support for those crying out for freedom in Iran. In a matter of days, almost 100 Members of your Lordships' House responded to the cries of those who live in terror and fear of the mullahs' regime. As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said, a similar statement in another place gained the support and endorsement of 337 Members of Parliament. I ask again: why have our Government—who, like previous governments, have shown compassion and understanding of the need to promote human rights—decided to give comfort to a barbaric regime?
Last Thursday, I had the privilege to hear a speech by Elizabeth Sidney, whom I had never met before, who is, as I understand it, chair of the International Network of Liberal Women. She has made a study of the current situation in Iran. Miss Sidney asked the audience to imagine that they were in Trafalgar Square and that a huge crane is driven into the square with five ropes hanging from its jib. The square was in east Tehran, last Monday week. The crane was driven into position and five people were appended to the ropes and hanged. They were hanged on the basis that they had been convicted of offences involving drugs. Five people—four men and one woman—hanging in public execution in the year 2001. How can a government such as ours give comfort and solace to such a regime?
The entire world is aware of Iran's appalling record on abuses of human rights. The Mujaheddin e Khalq, together with other pro-democracy organisations inside and outside Iran, keep the world informed of the true situation in that country. There can be no justification for our own democratic society denying others the right to draw these matters to the attention

163
of all who truly believe in freedom, justice and the promotion of basic human rights in any part of the world. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
6.54 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I was concerned with the terrorism legislation which preceded this Act. It was my job for a number of years to report to this House and another place on what could be broadly described as two matters: first, the proportionality of the measures that were in place, which were renewable on an annual basis; and, secondly, whether there were proper remedies if things went wrong.
I do not wish to address the political agenda as other noble Lords have done, although I will attach my speech to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I have received, as have, I am sure, many of your Lordships, a large amount of extraordinarily well-reasoned and sensible correspondence from members or supporters—I know not which—of the Mujaheddin e Khalq. I have also received an interesting opinion from Matrix Chambers about what its remedies may be.
I use that as an illustration because, from my recollection of the period when I was dealing with this matter, I was concerned not only with powers relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland, which has been much referred to, but with powers to detain at ports people suspected of being concerned in international terrorism. Indeed, they were detained—even under the old legislation—and, if necessary, they were arrested and tried.
The correspondence and opinion that I have referred to, as well as the discussions on this order in another place, seem to have left a great deal of misapprehension on the part of members of any organisation which is proscribed in the Act—or which is to be proscribed in this order or any other order which may come about—as to what they can do.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, referred to the Proscribed Orders Appeal Commission, a new body which has recently been set up. It is modelled on the Special Immigration Appeal Commission, which was set up a few years ago, and has remarkably similar powers. In both cases, the reason for a special commission being set up is because they have to handle, in a way which is fair, complaints from individuals or organisations that have been proscribed or in some way singled out for unfortunate attention. At the same time, the commissions have to provide some degree of secrecy for the material upon which the action is based. Let us face it, none of us in this House know what it is that has inspired the right honourable gentleman in the Home Office, and those who advise him, to place any of these organisations in the list. The Mujaheddin are the same as the rest of the organisations in this respect.
164
I wonder whether the Minister can say a little more than has been previously discussed in Parliament about what are these remedies. There are twofold remedies because rules have been produced in accordance with the Act which deal with the way in which an appeal against the proscription can take place. As far as I know, these rules have not previously been mentioned in any debate, but they are the rules under which the commission will operate; they are contained in Statutory Instrument 2001/443.
There will be, of course, classified material which cannot be disclosed to the organisation which is appealing against a failure by the Home Secretary to deproscribe it. That is the way it will work. The organisation will appeal against a failure to deproscribe and the procedure will go on from there. There will have to be placed before this tribunal, distinguished as it is, material which may not be able to be disclosed to individuals or organisations seeking deproscription. Therefore, there will be a special advocate to whom this material will be disclosed, who will discuss it in private with the commission. Based upon all of that and the material presented by the organisation or the people involved, the commission will come to a decision. It will give by way of reasons at least a summary of why it has acted as it did in accordance with the secret material that no one else has seen.
It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gave a little more publicity to this matter. It does not appear that any of the people who have written to me have any idea that this procedure exists, and they should have. They ought to be told how to do it, and they ought to be told what is the further remedy and how it will work. Even if the commission does not overrule the Home Secretary's failure to de-proscribe, there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Technically, there may also be an appeal to the Divisional Court, but as the whole of this procedure is based on judicial review criteria alone it is unlikely that the Divisional Court would be involved. The statute says that the appeal is to the Court of Appeal.
What will happen when this material and this appeal comes to the Court of Appeal? There is nothing in the rules about this. So far as I am aware, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has not so far been taken to the Court of Appeal—at any rate, I can find no report of that having happened. Will the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, tell the House what is to be done in front of the Court of Appeal about the secret material? I know that the appeal will be on a point of law; but it will also be an appeal—as will the initial hearing in front of the commission—on the sections of the Human Rights Act which are directly concerned in this kind of exercise: that is to say, freedom of expression and freedom of association.
The points of law that could arise in front of the commission and in front of the Court of Appeal seem likely to involve the disclosure to the Court of Appeal as well of material that the appellants will not be allowed to see. How will that be handled by the Court of Appeal? There must have been some discussion

165
about this matter and there must be some way of dealing with it. I think that everyone would very much like to know.
There is one final point which is very much a human rights point and one that has been made by a number of people who have written to me. Once the organisation has been proscribed under the terms of the order, membership or professed membership of it will be a criminal offence: a person can be arrested for it and, I assume, if it is the decision of the magistrate's court or the Crown Court, he or she can be kept in detention. What will be the position when the police start to move in on one of the proscribed organisations and arrest its members, if that organisation then applies for de-proscription? There will be quite a long process. I have described some of it already. It could go to the Court of Appeal. Will the members who are at present automatically guilty of a criminal offence be held until the matter is decided by the Court of Appeal? Has the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, considered the question of bail, the terms of bail and other matters of that kind? I believe that those who belong to any of these organisations—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. What he has said has been extremely helpful. Does he appreciate that we are talking not only about people who are members of these organisations, but about people who support them or elicit support for them?
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am aware of that. I was attempting to—
Lord McNally: My Lords, it would help if we heard both matters together. I should value a learned opinion on this precise point. The point has been made to me that proscribed organisations that want to go through the kind of procedure indicated by the noble Viscount may want to fund-raise and to elicit other support. Are such activities to be banned? How, then, will those people be able to mount a proper defence if they cannot raise funds and they cannot seek support in the normal way?
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, have put their finger on the point. The question was asked earlier: how do you set up a process of applying for de-proscription if you are not allowed to organise yourself and you are not allowed to raise funds? It is for that precise reason that I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to describe what will happen in relation to people who are thought by the police or by the Security Services to be members of these organisations and who are thought to be organising some sort of campaign against proscription? If they are to be arrested and kept in confinement until the whole case has gone through and the Court of Appeal has made its final decision, then we have a very unhappy state of affairs indeed, and one where I should think habeas corpus will start to lie.
166
I do not believe that any of this has been thought out. If it has been thought out, it has certainly never been disclosed to Parliament. Not a word has been said about the matter in another place, and we have not heard a word about it today. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to take this opportunity, first, to go into a little more detail about what remedies are available, how they will work, what access will be given to those who are seeking de-proscription for their organisations to the material on the basis of which the organisation has been proscribed—that also includes what happens in the Court of Appeal. While all that is going on, what will happen to individual members of the organisations so that they are not deprived of liberty for belonging to an organisation which, one may possibly suspect, in the end will be de-proscribed? I know that they will receive compensation, but compensation is not a great deal of consolation to those who have been locked up on remand for a long period of time. This is an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to explain a good deal more about this matter. Members of this House would be wiser, as would members of these organisations or those who support the organisations and who would like to pursue some of the political aims that have been discussed by noble Lords.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, first, I largely agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord McNally and with the remarks that have just been made. There is a great deal of concern on this side of the House as to the procedures by which this measure has been brought forward.
Secondly, nothing in my remarks should be taken as in any way indicting indifference to human rights issues, which I absolutely accept are in many particulars parlous in Iran. They are far from being as we would wish them to be—although I point out the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that executions are not a prerogative of Iran. About the same number of executions take place in the United States and they are semi-public.
My interest in Iran derives from nothing more than having been to that country. As a student, I spent six weeks there in 1961. I spent some time as a guest of SAVAK, the Shah's secret police, in Shiraz gaol. None the less, I learnt a great deal and admired a great deal in that extraordinary country. I returned to Iran in 1978, before the fall of the Shah, and again in 1997, when I spent two weeks back-packing with my son around the country on public transport. It may surprise some of your Lordships, having heard the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that the people of Iran are in no way cowed or afraid of giving their opinion. In fact, their opinion was so readily and vigorously given that at times we had to retreat from those who wanted to bend our ear. I returned to Iran in 1999, with the first all-party delegation since before the fall of the Shah and I am presently secretary of the British-Iranian All-Party Parliamentary Group.

167
Those noble Lords who are unaware of the background of the Mujaheddin e Khalk (MeK)—or as it is sometimes called, the MKO—and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which supports the MeK, should understand that the organisations have a Marxist-Leninist Islamic root. Although they took part in the revolution which overthrew the Shah and were indeed one of the most extreme organisations in that bloody revolution, they and their leader, Massoud Rajavi, lost out in the post-revolution struggle between the different groups concerned, despite being hard-line anti-American. They were expelled from France in 1986 and then de-camped to Iraq where they have remained ever since. Their finances and their arms come from Saddam Hussein. They supported Saddam Hussein during his grab for Iranian territory in the early 1980s which was only successfully resisted by Iran after an appalling war in which the Iranians lost over 1 million people. It is not to our credit, or that of America, that we supplied Saddam with his arms on that occasion.
The MKO is still based in Iraq. Against that background, the assertion regularly made by the MeK and its supporters—that they have widespread popular support in Iran—is not credible. The MeK and related organisations have been formally designated as foreign terrorist organisations by the United States for many years, and were redesignated as such in October 1999.
On 24th March last year, when answering press questions, Secretary of State James Rubin made clear that the Americans viewed the NCRI,
"as an alias for the MeK".
He made clear that the Americans viewed the MeK as an organisation through which Saddam Hussein sponsors terrorism. He also said that,
"this is a satellite photograph of a new headquarters complex that Saddam Hussein has built for the MeK"—
that is, a complex situated at Falluja, which is about 40 kilometres from Baghdad—
"when it becomes operational, in our judgment, it will be used to co-ordinate MeK terrorist activities and to plan attacks against targets in Iran and elsewhere".
To judge Iran by the democratic standards of western Europe is both unfair and unreal. It has its own very different history. Like most, if not all, countries in that part of the world, democracy has not been its tradition. Islamic influence has been and remains its dominant force. It is still a theocratic state. Its ways, as in other Muslim states, are cruel to our way of thinking in many respects. But that is still their predominant culture. Having said that, Iran has made real and vital strides towards fully-fledged democracy. In 1997, it held a presidential election in which the favourites of the reactionary mullahs—and not all mullahs are reactionary—Nataq Nourri, was unexpectedly trounced by Mr Khatami. Well over 80 per cent of the electorate turned out, which is something we might envy.
In last year's elections for the Majlis, their parliament, again, about 80 per cent of the people of Iran turned out to vote. That election was rubbished
168
up hill and down dale by NCRI and its supporters, the MeK, and company. They attempted to say that the polling booths were empty and that it was a fraud. I spoke to someone at the British Embassy about the situation. Those concerned took the trouble to send their staff to polling stations far and wide. They reported that it was a real election, an enthusiastic election, and unfrightened election, and one they found credible. More importantly, of 290 members of the Majlis returned, 190 were progressives, 50 were independent and only 50 were rightist reactionary mullah-dominated candidates.
That election was not perfect by our standards. Ten per cent of the candidates—over 6,000 of them—were rejected by the Islamic vetting procedure that is part of their complex, theocratic constitution. None the less, it was a free and open election that has delivered to Iran a parliament which, in my view, will ensure that reform and progress continue.
When speaking to the Majlis, as recently as the 11th of this month, President Khatami said that,
"governing and staying in power at any price does not make sense. But so long as I know I can move forward despite all the difficulties I will he willing to serve".
He was referring to the forthcoming presidential election on 8th June, for which he has not yet declared his candidacy. The "difficulties" to which he referred are the battle going on for the soul of Iran between the conservative mullahs and the bulk of the Iranian population, especially young Iranians. A huge proportion of the population are under the age of 25, 15 per cent of whom are university educated with women representing half that number. However, it is just not realistic—indeed, in a way, it would be arrogant—to expect that that advance will go forward at a pace that we should like, or towards a destination that we should necessarily agree with in all particulars.
As I said, there are many blemishes on Iran. There is still torture. Newspapers have been closed—35 of them in the past year. However, when I spoke to someone at the Foreign Office recently, he came back to me with the fact that there are still 25 daily newspapers circulating in Teheran alone, with a circulation of over 100,000 each. They say that more than two thirds of those are reformist. Therefore, the notion of some benighted, oppressed state with a citizenry afraid to say or read anything that does not have the approval of the reactionary mullahs is simply nonsense.
People are still killed and threatened. There is corruption in high places. But, again, for the first time in Iran's history, there were recent convictions of state officials responsible for murdering progressive politicians two or three years ago. Trials are now taking place of policemen who fermented the student demonstrations just before we arrived in Teheran in 1999.
To view all of this outside the context of Iran's own history, outside the context of its region—it is the only stable state in the whole of the region—and outside the context of the undoubted progress that it has made, is self-defeating. The NCRI organised an advertisement

169
in yesterday's Guardian, utilising the crest of the House of Commons rather cheekily. It is full of exaggeration, half truth and worse. Unfortunately, unless he was misquoted, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, was mentioned as saying that,
"the Mojahedin's military arm acts in the framework of international convention and has never attacked civilian targets".
The noble Lord should try telling that to Amnesty, which, in its latest human rights "Watch", says that the Iraq-based armed opposition group MeK continues to carry out attacks against targets inside Iran and that, although the organisation claims to be targeting officials, several civilians were killed or injured in incidents such as a mortar attack on the presidential office in downtown Teheran in February. I know that there have been two more rocket attacks on court houses this month.
Unfortunately, I must also quote from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Again, he may have been misquoted in the advertisement to which I referred, but he is mentioned as saying that,
"the people of Iran have made it absolutely clear that they want to put an end to this dictatorship. The solution for Iran is democratisation".
That is exactly what they are doing—painfully, fitfully and both forward and back. What is the noble Lord, Lord Alton, doing saying that this is a dictatorship with no democracy?
Anyone who goes to Iran and talks to the people will realise that it is unrecognisable today from the Iran of even 10 years ago. I have a number of Iranian friends who left Iran during the time of the Shah because they could not stand the regime. They returned during the revolution, but left again because they could not stand the oppression. Several of them have returned to Iran in the past three years. I have visited them and talked to them at length. Having left the country several times in the past, they tell me that they could never have contemplated the progress that Iran has made today. We must realise that that is all relative.
The notion to which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, gives credence—namely, that the situation in Iran will be improved by the violent military means of the Mujaheddin in seeking to de-stabilise and overthrow the present regime—seems to me fanciful at best. I hope that noble Lords will support what have been sensible and constructive policies pursued by the present Government and the present Foreign Secretary, reinforced by the upbeat recent visit made to the country by Cabinet Minister Mo Mowlam. She found a country struggling desperately to control the drugs flowing across it from Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, would actually encourage civil war. It is misconceived, both as to its analysis of the whole circumstances in Iran and as to the true nature of the MeK. The amendment betrays its own purpose, to achieve more democracy, more freedom and better justice. Iran's painful but real development will not be accelerated by encouraging civil war which would
170
throw it into savage reverse, opening the floodgates, not to enlightenment but to a long, dark night when that admirable people are just seeing some light.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I start by reassuring my noble friend that in my view the one thing I am absolutely sure about—I think that it is a significant part of the debate—is that no organisation on this list will fail to be informed of how to appeal. I go further and say that the likelihood of the Home Secretary losing a number of those appeals is in my view almost equally certain. I am in the market for a bet on either of those propositions. It is possible to lose sight of the fact that there is an elaborate appeals procedure and that that procedure will be available to organisations which have both the wealth and the sophistication to make the fullest use of it.
I was deeply cheered by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Listening to the debate—I know that there are differences between us, and some of us have known each other for a long time and are not surprised at those differences—I find it difficult to believe that we are actually seeking to reduce the ability of terrorists to kill and maim perfectly innocent people. There is an enormous amount of self-delusion in this area. All history demonstrates that, by the very nature of the environment in which they work and the causes they seek to support, terrorists, even if they wished, cannot confine the mayhem to senior army officers and members of the ruling party. Civil war and the overthrow of governments are not like that.
I find the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, worrying. He accepts in principle the Act and its purposes, but then begins to embark upon a categorisation of the different types of terrorism. He draws a distinction between democratic countries where it would not be acceptable and, by implication, as I understand it, non-democratic countries, which comprise the vast bulk of the world, where it can be seen as regrettable but virtually inevitable. I find that extraordinary because the people who usually get hurt are not the leaders or the generals; on the whole they tend to be the "PBI", the simple people. By definition, the senior people in those countries are very well protected. They know that someone might want to kill them and they spare no expense in ensuring that that is avoided. As has been said, Iran has not been a real democracy for any considerable length of time during its history.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Would he include Nelson Mandela among the terrorists of whom he has spoken?
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I often went backwards and forwards to South Africa at the time of sanctions, but, like the noble and learned Lord, I was not present most of the time. I believe that the opinions with which we should concern ourselves are not those of noble Lords in this Chamber where it is warm and comfortable. I believe that the people who had tyres put round their

171
necks in front of their families and petrol poured into those tyres—as Winnie Mandela said, "There's lots more where that came from"—probably thought that those who committed those acts were terrorists. The whole point is that those are always the people who are killed. What happened in South Africa was probably inevitable. However, I do not think that the old regime was brought down by terrorism but rather by economic sanctions—and primarily financial sanctions.
There is no justification for murdering people. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head, but he cannot have it both ways. He asked me a question and I have tried to answer it. I refer to the people who were killed in the Omagh bombing and to the brigadier who was killed in Athens who could not conceivably have had any influence on anything the Greek Government did. The relatives of those murdered people think that those murders were acts of terrorism. They do not have the luxury of sitting in the warm and analysing the position.
One unhappy development in the latter part of the 20th century was the rapid growth in international terrorism. The list constitutes only a sample of that. It is an interesting sample, but many of us could mention many other examples. Euphemisms such as "freedom fighter" give a completely false and very dangerous impression of people who recognise no moral or legal code. Their objective is clear; it is to spread violence and the fear of violence—and the fear of violence is best spread by killing innocent people, not by shooting the odd Minister.
We have seen that phenomenon grow and we have seen the Omagh bombing where 29 innocent people were killed. Some of the people who contributed to those deaths are nice, decent, God-fearing Christians. They live in the United States. Someone introduced them to an Irish wolfhound at one stage and they like singing "Danny Boy". They do not consider that they support terrorism. They pass round the collection box and raise money which they send to the IRA and they think that at Christmas that money will be used to give all the little children a present. The IRA uses that money to buy weapons. That is why financial support for terrorism must also be controlled.
I accept totally that none of that is news to anyone in this Chamber. And yet, to the increasing consternation of friendly countries, for years this country has been a major haven of peace for international terrorists. We have known about that and we have had many complaints about it. Indeed, an extraordinary feature of the Terrorism Act is that in February of this year for the first time we came into line with our international obligations in this area not to allow our country to provide a base for those who plan terrorist activities in other people's countries. Until that time we were out of line with the European Convention on Human Rights—which has total support in this House—with civil and political rights and with the UN conventions relating to terrorism which deal specifically not just with bombing but also with the financing of terrorist activity.
172
That brings me to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. It would be absurd to suggest that all, or even most, Iranians in Britain who want to see a change of government in Iran are terrorists. I have read many of their letters on headed notepaper and most of them seem respectable, middle-class business people. But it would be equally absurd and naïve in the extreme to suggest that terrorists who are happy to live under the protection of Saddam Hussein and receive their pay and rations from hire would hesitate to use the large organisation which clearly exists in the UK to raise money and support for illegal activities and terrorist activities. That was a feature of NORAID in the US and it is a feature of Sinn Fein.
Then we turn to the other point: why should not we have more information? People who give information to the security services of other countries in the circumstances we are considering take very serious personal risks, even to their lives. It is absurd to think it realistic that they would co-operate without total guarantees of confidentiality. A number of people have found themselves in that position. I think of Colonel Penkovsky who came to a very nasty end for co-operating with the wrong people.
None of us knows what led the Government to identify this group of organisations. We can only guess at the reason, but unfortunately the nature of their antisocial acitivites means that reliable information about such organisations can be obtained only by use of classified intelligence operations. That inevitably brings us to the point where there is no alternative to the present procedure. Ministers have investigated the matter and they have produced specific propositions. There is an elaborate appeals procedure and at the end of the day, Ministers have to rely on the advice they have received.
We know the people involved in the production of this list in this place. In addition to the noble Lord. Lord Bassam, they include Jack Straw, Robin Cook, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, the police, the security services, various intelligence agencies and, inevitably, the lawyers. Why should they all conspire to construct this extraordinary facade, which they knew would be highly controversial?
That Iran is a repressive regime I accept. It has been so since about the 16th century. That many Iranians would like to see it brought down is clear. That factor exists in many countries. But fighting wars by proxy in other countries in the safety of this country is not acceptable. We rightly give asylum to many people who fear persecution in their own countries and I hope that we continue to do so. But that does not give them the right to use this country as a base from which to support and conduct murder and mayhem, inevitably involving innocent people.
It is not an issue, as some have suggested, of trade relations. It is not an issue of political views. It is a moral issue about how civilised countries behave in the face of a common threat. This order, regrettable though it may be, is the only sensible way of dealing with it.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I shall try not to delay the House quite as long as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow his argument.
In such a debate, we should not be competitive in our condemnation of terrorism. I do not think that a single noble Lord would say that terrorism is good, that we welcome it, and that we want it practised from our shores. The debate poses fundamental questions about the pursuit of justice in the fight against terrorism. On that basis, I welcome the speeches of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The order represents a process of collective proscription of 21 separate organisations on the basis of evidence which we cannot share in any detail. The process is supposedly ameliorated by the fact that individual organisations can apply for de-proscription. Such organisation will undoubtedly commit criminal offences in preparation for the process of de-proscription.
That seems fundamentally wrong. A presumption of guilt seems to be assumed without available evidence being tested prior to the chance to prove innocence. That is extremely difficult when no one has stated explicitly what one is alleged to have done so that one can proceed to absolve oneself.
In the short time I shall detain your Lordships' House, I do not propose to speak about the Mujaheddin. The case has been covered admirably. But in over 20 years of representing parts of the West Midlands in another place and in the European Parliament. I have had long, regular and useful contact with the Sikh community, including the International Sikh Youth Federation. In over 20 years I met those people frequently; I socialised with them; I dined with them; I argued with them. The only time in any of those discussions when terrorism was part of the agenda was when one of the leaders of the Sikh temple in Walsall was arrested following a murder in Southall. He was released the following day having been exonerated of any involvement in the murder. After his release, he was immediately rearrested and told that he would be deported from the United Kingdom for activities which were incompatible with his staying here. To my knowledge this individual had been a member of the local community for 11 years and was a regular devotee of the Guru Nanak temple in Walsall.
I had always assumed that the Home Office had good evidence on which to base its arrests. After 20 months' detention in Winson Green Prison, without either charge and therefore no trial—he had no opportunity to defend himself—without having been deported, Mr Ragbir Singh was eventually released. That has led me to doubt the universal belief that the betters of our society—the great group described by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh—will get it right automatically on every single occasion. Ask any member of the Sikh community about Ragbir Singh and he will tell you that he is a hero inside the community, not because he was a terrorist but because he stood up to the unfairness of society and, on coming
174
out of his prison sentence 20 months later, resumed his role in the temple in Willenhall without ever showing malice.
I have not been alone in that contact with the International Sikh Youth Federation. Cabinet Ministers, including my right honourable friend Mr Jack Straw, have had regular contact with it. The Prime Minister has had contact with it on a number of occasions. I imagine that every Cabinet Minister who has been engaged in inner city politics has had contact, as has almost every other Government Minister. I have frequently disagreed with some of the political aspirations of the International Sikh Youth Federation, but that does not make me right, and it does not make its members terrorists.
A valued group in our community with no proven case of terrorism against it is entitled to better treatment. The Government must give a better justification of why an organisation based within a religious movement in this country should be told that its activities are incompatible with the standards that we expect in the United Kingdom. Its members are devotees of Guru Nanak. They add to our cultural and religious diversity. They are an important part of improving the understanding of that diversity in our society. On that basis, I value them greatly and have great doubts about the wisdom of the decision of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to include the International Sikh Youth Federation on his list.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord has helped to remove some of the polarisation that was beginning to emerge in the debate. It is wrong to suggest that anyone who in any way questions the order is somehow implicitly in favour of terrorism. I remind my noble friend Lord Marsh that we have an opportunity in this House to question Bills, orders and any other form of legislation. We do not want to turn this House into a rubber stamp.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord has started off on a false premise. It would be ridiculous for me to suggest that everyone who is opposed to the order is ipso facto in favour of terrorism. The noble Lord knows that that is unfair nonsense.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me, but the tone of his remarks was such as to suggest that anyone who dared to question the sagacity and wisdom of the committee to which he referred, which comprised very distinguished people, is in some way complicit in collaborating with the upholding of terrorism in this country or overseas. I entirely dispute that, as I dispute the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who spoke in a similar vein, suggesting that anyone who supports the Mujaheddin or the Council for Resistance in Iran is somehow a closet Marxist or Leninist. That was one of his throwaway lines.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of the very powerful speech made by my noble friend Lord

175
Phillips, does the noble Lord really claim that the Mujaheddin has not sold its soul to the devil? It is backed and supported by Saddam, whose regime is far more murderous than the Iranian regime. Whatever may be said about other organisations, surely there is no argument but that the Mujaheddin belongs on the list.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I shall come to those arguments in a moment. The noble Lord should read the remarks of Elizabeth Sidney, the chair of the International Network of Liberal Women. I had the pleasure of working with her when I was a member of the noble Lord's party. She is a most distinguished woman who is hardly the supporter of revolutionaries worldwide. Last week, she said:
"Instead, we have succumbed to pressure by the mullahs by including the Mojahedin, the group which promotes protest within Iran against the brutalist mullahs, on our list of proscribed terrorist groups.
The reality has been disgracefully distorted in favour of oil, trade and strategic influence and disgracefully pusillanimous in pursuit of human rights".
At the minimum, there is a profound disagreement between us. We can disagree among friends. We should not try to caricature one another as somehow soft on terrorism or closet Marxist-Leninists.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, this is the third intervention in as many minutes, but I shall happily give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble Lord has twice inferred from what I said some slur on those in this House who support the Mujaheddin—namely, that they are Marxist-Leninists. I made a simple factual remark that the Mujaheddin has Marxist-Leninist-Islamist roots. if he can deduce from that any such slur, he is a better man than I am.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord will accept that some Members of your Lordships' House were once members of the British Communist Party. I suppose that they could be caricatured as having Marxist-Leninist roots. I refer the noble Lord to the correspondence that your Lordships have received, as I have, from a number of Iranian organisations in' this country. These are respectable groups who have been accepted here under our asylum and immigration rules. They have stated clearly that they are not involved in any terrorist activities and we have accepted that by allowing them to reside in the United Kingdom. The Anglo Iranian Community in Greater London states:
"The mullahs have rejected all peaceful means, like elections under international observation in the past, despite the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran's repeated attempts 20 years ago to bring the mullahs to the negotiating table. Instead the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran was faced with atrocities, barbarism. imprisonment, torture, systematic rape of their women sympathisers and public hanging of their supporters".
We heard about that last point from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead.
176
The Anglo Iranian Youth Society wrote in similar terms, stating:
"To name this resistance movement in the proscribed list serves no one but the mullahs and those who benefit from dirty deals with them. I wonder how the life of an Iranian youth is calculated in terms of pure financial interest. How many barrels of oil is it worth'? It is indeed a human tragedy to trade people's lives for … economic interests".
I had the pleasure of working with some members of the National Association of Iranian Academics in Britain at Liverpool's John Moores University. It states:
"Including the People's Mojahedin of Iran in this list is insulting. It undermines the hard work of this group in bringing political and public awareness of the atrocities carried out by the Iranian government over the past two decades.
The Association of Iranian Women in the UK states:
"Naming Mojahedin, where women have a significant part in their struggle, in the proscribed list would be seen b^ this brutal regime as a green light to extend their campaign of terror against the Iranian people".
The Anglo-Iranian Association of Computer Scientists states:
"This decision of the Home Secretary has in effect given the Iranian government a clear concession that will allow them to continue to pursue their reign of terror in Iran and abroad".
It is significant that the US State Department lists the Iranian Government alongside the governments of countries such as Iraq and Libya as those that are most likely to be involved in acts of state-inspired terrorism. We seem to have some confusion about who are the perpetrators of terrorism and who has been resisting it. Would we have proscribed the French resistance during the Second World War? That is the sort of parallel that we should draw. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned Nelson Mandela. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will recall that 20 years ago he and I visited Beirut and met members of the Palestinian resistance, including Yasser Arafat. We should think about people such as Menachem Begin or Eamon de Valera. The examples could go on and on.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, where would my noble friend place the state of Israel, which was caught red-handed engaged in state-sponsored terrorism in Amman during Netanyahu's time?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I have just mentioned Menachem Begin. At the time of the blowing up of the King David Hotel 50 years ago, he was placed on the proscribed list and regarded as a state terrorist. We acquire a different view with the passage of time. I suspect that we shall also have a different view of the Mujaheddin in the fullness of time.
It is worth stating clearly for the record what the resistance say about themselves. Mr Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the Iranian resistance, said last year:
"I pledge on behalf of the Iranian resistance that if anyone from our side oversteps the red line concerning absolute prohibition of attacks on civilians and innocent individuals, either deliberately or unintentionally, he or she would be ready to stand trial in any international court and accept any ruling by the court, including the payment of compensation".

177
That is a clear statement. I wish that we could hear a similar statement from the leaders of the Iranian regime, who have been responsible for many of the atrocities that have been alluded to today.
I also refer your Lordships to the lucid and powerful speech made by Robin Corbett on 13th March in another place. He, of course, is the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee—not someone who will easily be taken in by an organisation run by terrorists masquerading under another name.
So far as concerns the noble and learned Lord, it is 20 years since he and I dealt with Northern Ireland matters in another place—he from the Opposition Front Bench. On regular occasions I was happy to support many of the speeches that he made. I believe that he took a clear, unequivocal line against terrorism. There are no lovers of terrorism in the Chamber today, but there are many who uphold the principle of free speech. Many of us believe that it is vitally important that we recognise the nature of the regime with which we are dealing.
Six or seven years ago, I took up the cases of two Christian leaders in Iran—Medi Dibaj and Bishop Haik—both of whom were executed. Interestingly, at that time the regime tried to lay the blame at the door of the Iranian resistance. Last year, it emerged in its official propaganda that the regime now accepts that it was the regime's agents who took the lives of those two clergymen.
Therefore, the dark process that has been taking place inside Iran is not a simple or easy one. It is not one which we should be misled into believing will be easily resolved, and certainly not by acts of violence. In that respect, I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. We all want to see, wherever possible, a peaceful transition and the emergence of true democracy.
I believe that all the indications show that Iran is on the brink of change. Almost four years have passed since Mohammad Khatami became the president. He came then with the promise of reform. Western governments, eager perhaps, as the students suggested in their letter, to have more trade with Tehran, embarked upon a more conciliatory approach towards the mullahs' regime.
Four years later, reform and change within the clerical establishment in Iran have proved to be no more than an illusion. That is not strange because Khatami himself is part of that clerical regime, responsible for the atrocities committed over the past two decades. In 1988, he supported the massacres of 30,000 political prisoners. Not once has he publicly criticised the regime's conduct in such atrocities. However, he has repeatedly expressed allegiance to his mentor, Khomeini, and the current spiritual leader, Khamenei. Not long ago, he said—the noble and learned Lord referred to this during his opening remarks—that there is no talk in Tehran of changing the constitution. In fact, he said:
"Today. talk of changing the constitution amounts to changing the state. This is treachery to the state and the Iranian nation".
178
That was said only a year ago.
British foreign policy is not well served by hitching it to that kind of tarnished star. Khatami had four years in which to bring about change, but he chose not to do so. He wants cosmetic change and not real reform. He knows better than anyone else that moving in that direction will jeopardise the survival of the theocratic regime.
No longer can anyone deny that Khatami has failed and that the people of Iran are continuing to demand change. Over the past year, through dozens of anti-government demonstrations across the country. they have clearly stated that demand. They want to establish a new system which will respect human rights; a system that will guarantee a free and fair election; and a government who will recognise the rights of women and respect the rights of religious and national minorities. Those people have no doubt that the present regime is not the one to do that.
However, it seems that the cry of the Iranian people is currently falling on deaf ears; or perhaps we are listening too much to the mullahs and to their apologists in this constructive engagement so that we do not hear what the people themselves are saying. I believe that the decision by the Home Secretary to proscribe the Mujaheddin is a clear example that we are siding with the mullahs instead of with the people.
I have been following the situation in Iran for some 20 years. It was as a young Member of another place that I organised a meeting on behalf of the resistance 20 years ago at my then party's conference. Indeed, I organised a meeting for them at each and every subsequent conference, even while I was that party's then Chief Whip. Therefore, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, who mentioned the meetings that have been held at Labour Party conferences over the years, I also ask whether in the future such gatherings will be legal or whether they will be proscribed under these orders. Will it mean that even at party political conferences it will not be possible to hear the voices of people who resist that regime? It is quite extraordinary that we should have created such a situation.
Therefore, I was very disturbed to see that the Home Secretary had included that organisation in the list. I am in no doubt that the decision has nothing to do with terrorism but that it is a political decision. It is a sad day for our democracy. Values that we have upheld for decades and even centuries are being violated. Defending the Mujaheddin in this case is defending not only the right of Iranian people to resist; it is defending our own values. It is defending the most fundamental rights of human beings: the right to freedom of expression; the right to freedom of assembly; and the right to freedom of association.
Another problem arises for this Government in proceeding with this list of orders—the "take it or leave it" list. Thousands of Iranians in this country

179
support the Mujaheddin. Most of them have, as I said, been granted political asylum for their connection with, or support for, the Mujaheddin. Where will this order leave the people who have been given asylum if they continue to support the Mujaheddin in the future? Many of them were prosecuted and persecuted in Iran. Expressing their support for the Mujaheddin was tantamount to arrest, torture and, in many cases, execution.
Thank God that we do not have the death penalty, although I believe that it is gratuitous to compare capital punishment, which I oppose, in the United States with the type of public executions which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, rightly reminded us of during his excellent contribution earlier. None the less, the Government are saying to those people, "If you express your views, you will be imprisoned". The families of many Iranians in the United Kingdom have been executed in Iran for being a member of the Mujaheddin. I wonder whether they will be able to hold, for example, a memorial in the future for their beloved ones or whether that, too, would he considered as support for the Mujaheddin.
I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colville, who earlier asked the Minister directly—I hope that he will reply later when he replies to this debate—whether or not the information to which he has been privy will be made available to the Court of Appeal if and when this matter finally comes to rest there.
Four years ago we were told that the new government here would follow an ethical policy in foreign affairs. Today we are confronted with what I consider to be a most unethical policy. For economic or whatever reasons, we have given in to the demands of a brutal regime. How can we justify holding a dialogue with those who stone their own people and yet accuse their victims as terrorists? How can we talk of an ethical policy, yet take sides with the oppressors and not with the victims?
I end by trying to set out my view clearly. I believe that our Government are making a serious mistake. Proscribing the Mujaheddin is not only wrong morally and unethical; it is also unwise from a hard-headed, political point of view. The mullahs' regime is in real trouble and the people of Iran have made it absolutely clear that they want an end to the present dictatorship. Therefore, I believe that this Government are betting on the wrong horse. I have said it before and I stress again that the solution for Iran is democratisation. In that respect, the NCR is the force that cannot he ignored in the current situation in Iran. I believe that we would be wise to support the amendment laid before the House tonight by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, perhaps I may make the shortest speech in the debate tonight and refer to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I well understand the reasons which motivate the noble Lord in seeking to delineate the different varieties of IRA. However, I have some reservations.
180
Moving away from the generic IRA label and specifying the varieties may be counter-productive to his aims. I believe that it would merely tempt the growth of further adjectival innovations, such as the "Artificial IRA", the "Episodic IRA", and so on. It is better simply to proscribe the IRA per se as it is at present in the schedule to the Act. That is the best way in which to deal with these particular terrorist groups.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I shall make only a short contribution. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned the meeting that was held this morning in Committee Room 3, organised by Liberation. It was attended by members of a number of the 21 organisations, and they discussed the order that we are debating tonight. It was an extremely well ordered meeting and the contributions were constructive. It was also extremely colourful because people came in their traditional dress. There were Sikhs. Kurds, Kashmiri, Tamils and Iranians, to name but a few. It did not appear to me at all that I was in the presence of terrorists.
The question that first springs to mind is: why introduce the order at this time? So far as I can discover, there has been no particular escalation of acts of terrorism during the past few months, and none of the proscribed organisations has committed illegal acts in the United Kingdom. There is little evidence that any of the organisations plotted their acts of violence in the UK. Perhaps my noble friend has other evidence; if he does, it would be nice if he could share it with us.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, discussed much more eloquently than I could the problems associated with secretly held information. As my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and other noble Lords pointed out, most members of those organisations who live in the UK are refugees and had to leave their countries precisely because of their membership of one or other of the 21 organisations in the order. They had to leave not because they had committed acts of terrorism but simply because they were members of an organisation. It is somewhat ironic that they should face prosecution for the same reason for which they were granted, or applied for, asylum in the first place.
The listed organisation with which I am most familiar is the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which is based in Turkey and which is often criticised. I am puzzled by its current inclusion because, for the past two-and-a-half years—well before its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, was captured in Kenya—the PK K has declared a ceasefire. Previous ceasefires before that period broke down not because the PKK violated them but because the Turkish Government took no notice and continued their military operation against the Kurdish population in south-east Turkey. Even now, Turkey is illegally and relentlessly pursuing members or supporters of the PKK who are sheltering in Iraq. The Turks are destroying the villages of Kurds who give those members or supporters shelter. That is done with the connivance of ourselves and the United

181
States, which, by arrangement, permit Turkey to send helicopter gunships and other aircraft across the no-fly zones.
The PKK has clearly declared its intention to pursue its aims by political means. To proscribe it now, when it was not proscribed in this country during the period in which it engaged in armed resistance—it was tolerated by the previous government—is extremely odd to say the least. Perhaps my noble friend will explain why the Government choose to proscribe the PKK now. Is it perhaps—perish the thought—in order to please or placate the Turkish Government at their request in return for allowing our aircraft to use Turkish air force facilities at Incirlik? We used that as a base in our efforts against Iraq.
My noble friend can expect busy legal moves for "de-proscription" from the PKK and other organisations. I expect that the courts and the legal profession will have plenty of extra work as a result of the order.
8 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have waited until almost the end of this debate before contributing because it is regarded almost as an irritant to speak about terrorism in Northern Ireland. Speeches have been delivered with great passion and solemnity about terrorism or alleged terrorists in far outposts of the world.
I recall vividly that in August 1998, a few days after the Omagh bombing, the House met in sombre mood. I recall the speeches that were made then about the atrocity that had been carried out by the Real IRA. I recall that it was said that we would leave no stone unturned until we had apprehended those people and that we would use every endeavour to bring them to justice. The pages of Hansard are littered with such proclamations. Yet today the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made a simple request for the three organisations that are mentioned in his amendment to be included in the order.
We have heard today about atrocities that were carried out by the Iranian Government and about other activities that are alleged to have been carried out by other terrorist organisations. All last week and all this week, the national newspapers in Belfast have been reporting daily that someone has been murdered by one of the organisations or kneecapped by them and left disabled for the rest of their lives.
As to far-away places, I am inclined to think of Czechoslovakia just before the last war. However, we can do something about the situation in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. Although we express our concerns and disappointment about what is happening in other faraway countries, we have the ability to take whatever steps are necessary to inhibit the organisations that are mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
The noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Rogan, mentioned Northern Ireland and the Omagh bomb. Many of us from Northern Ireland met the relatives of
182
the Omagh victims last week. We were made aware of their great disappointment about the fact that no one had been brought before the courts in relation to the atrocity. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the Real IRA did it. Everyone in Northern Ireland, particularly the police in Northern Ireland, know the identity of the people who carried out the atrocity. We were told last week that governments cannot do anything to bring the perpetrators of the crime to justice and that it is not within the ambit of an elected government to support a private prosecution. All I can say is that the people of Northern Ireland, especially the relatives of those killed in Omagh, feel betrayed by the inaction of the Government. Not one Real IRA man has been brought before the courts in Northern Ireland and charged with the offence. But we find time to discuss what is happening in all these other countries. It is the Government's prime responsibility to do all that they can to attack the organised terrorists who act in our midst and to ensure that life is made extremely difficult for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned the fact that the Continuity IRA held a meeting in a pub in north London because it was collecting money for its organisation, which is allegedly an illegal organisation. The person who led that collection effort was none other than one of the Price sisters, who were convicted of murder in what is known in Northern Ireland as the Old Bailey bombing. Someone convicted of murder for an IRA terrorist offence in 1971 can now walk freely in London and support an organisation—the Continuity IRA—which is in open war with the Government.
When we say anything about the Provisional IRA, others say, "They are observing a ceasefire and are not murdering policemen or soldiers or carrying out major explosions in Northern Ireland or in this country. Don't be too critical of them because that may in some way harm the peace process". We hear repeatedly—I listened to it all weekend—"Do not say anything about the Provisional IRA members because they are on a cease-fire". That is the wrong attitude. We should continue to harass all sections of the IRA, whether it be the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA. Those people are still engaged in terrorist activities, not against the Army or the police on this occasion, but against ordinary members of the community, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. In that respect I cannot see any justification for the Government not accepting the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, supports the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on the proscription of certain organisations not mentioned in the schedule. But he will agree with me that the reason why nobody was prosecuted for the Omagh bombing has nothing to do with proscription and that the experience we have had with proscription in the past in Northern Ireland shows that it does not necessarily help to catch the criminals who perpetrate terrorist acts. The Omagh bombing is a good example of the difficulty we face;

183
that is, that the police in Northern Ireland know perfectly well who committed that offence, but for reasons which are not absolutely clear to me—they may concern the difficulties of obtaining sufficient forensic evidence—they have not brought proceedings against those concerned.
The same may be true of the other organisations listed in the order. We are satisfying ourselves that we are combating international terrorism, but we may not be doing a great deal to put the perpetrators behind bars. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, put his finger on it when he said that the trouble is that we have been friendly with a great many people in the past who have attended our party conferences. We are suddenly criminalising them and do not know how that can happen with people we know are not terrorists.
The fact is that any armed opposition group or anybody who supports an armed opposition group in whatever country in the world is ipso facto a terrorist. That is what the definition in Article I says. It was pointed out that if the order had been in force at the time, it would have caught people like Nelson Mandela of the ANC; it would have applied to the opposition parties which contested the Zimbabwe elections after the Lancaster House conference in 1980, and to Fretilin in East Timor after 1975. So the examples given could be multiplied almost indefinitely.
The West has not always taken such a rigid stance against armed oppositions in other countries combating repressive regimes. At one time the United States backed UNITA in Angola. Of course the outstanding example which we live to regret is the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. President Bush senior tried to persuade the Shi'a of Iraq to rise against Saddam in 1991 after operation Desert Storm. So there are plenty of examples in the recent past where states and our own governments have supported armed oppositions which are fighting repressive regimes.
The UN General Assembly repeatedly recognised that peoples under colonial or alien domination have the right to struggle and to seek and receive support in the exercise of their right to self-determination. It ruled that the use of armed force in those circumstances fell outside its definition of aggression. If we had been more careful to uphold the principles of international law, we ought at least to have excluded those cases from the definition. If that much is accepted, should we not at least have required the Secretary of State to consider whether, in each of the 21 cases listed here, the organisation could have sought its objectives peacefully through the political system in the state concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the PKK. The Kurds in Turkey had no chance, as a minority, to exercise the rights laid down in the OSCE's Copenhagen declaration because, as your Lordships are aware, the Turks do not admit the existence of any minorities other than those mentioned specifically in the Lausanne treaty of 1923—the handful of Christians who remained in the country at that time.
184
The advocacy of internal self-government is against the constitution and is prosecuted under their terrorism law.
The People's Mujaheddin of Iran cannot pursue its goal of a secular democratic state by peaceful means when the supremacy of the religious leader is the fundamental principle of the Islamic revolution and anybody rash enough to question that idea is a criminal. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the president himself said that that person is guilty of treason and 30,000 of the members of that organisation were slaughtered in cold blood in 1988 on the orders of Ayatollah Khomeini. Many other opponents of the regime like Dr Shapour Bakhtiar, the Shah's last prime minister, and Dariush Forouhar, a distinguished political peaceful activist, have been murdered by the agents of the mullahs.
On the other hand, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, like other Tamil political parties, could have worked through the political system. There is on offer in that state a substantial devolution package which gives wide powers of self-government, or would do, to a Tamil-elected agency in the majority areas which are generously defined. Whatever the faults may be of that scheme, once the government recognised the need for a kind of home rule, there was no excuse for continuing to use the gun.
None of those considerations affected the mind of the Home Secretary in deciding how to pick the 21 organisations with which we are dealing out of the many thousands which satisfy the Act's definition. He said that the factors he took into account, which were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, were the nature and scale of the organisation's activities; the specific threat it posed to the UK; the specific threat it posed to British nationals overseas; the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.
If one looks at the list and the helpful notes provided by the Minister, 11 of the 21 organisations have no overt presence in the UK or only one or two members who are being held already on extradition warrants. Those bodies are therefore untouched by the proscription and their inclusion seems to be a political gesture with no meaning—what the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, called a "badge of disapproval". For instance, the November 17 organisation is undoubtedly a vicious murder gang responsible for the killing of the British defence attaché, Brigadier Stephen Saunders, in Athens in June last year. But it has operated entirely in Greece. We cannot any longer send the navy, as we did in the days of Don Pacifico and civis Romanus sum; but we can strike fear into the hearts of those who attack our citizens by putting them on a list.
On that principle we should have proscribed a great many other organisations, such as the FARC in Colombia, a faction of rebels in Chechnya which was guilty of kidnapping and murdering British citizens, and the former junta of Pinochet in Chile and the Indonesian army, which murdered two British citizens in 1975. All those have wilfully killed British civilians.

185
Is it sensible to add them all to an omnibus list even larger than the 21 we have in front of us? In most cases the individual concerned should be prosecuted in the courts of his own country. If he came within our jurisdiction and there was enough evidence against him, he could be extradited to that country to be dealt with for the substantive offence of causing harm or killing a British civilian rather than for being a member of an organisation.
As regards fundraising, people do not go round saying that they want money for explosives and firearms. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, remarked, we do not see terrorists with placards saying, "Poor terrorist, RPG and two kalashnikovs to support". They operate under the guise of charities. Even the LTTE, which has its international secretariat in the UK, operates through front organisations which are ostensibly for the relief of hardship and suffering in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The Charity Commission is already seized of that matter. It is looking actively at one body, the Tamil rehabilitation organisation, and scrutinising two others.
The Charity Commission needs to be even more active in its inquiries into bodies which claim to be charitable where there are grounds for suspicion that their funds are being diverted into terrorism. But that will not be achieved under this order. In the case of the International Sikh Youth Federation, which has been mentioned, the Home Office states that it provides a base for fundraising. That implies to me that it does not itself raise money for terrorism. It would be useful to know how the Minister thinks it operates. The ISYF has vigorously denied to a number of your Lordships that it has anything to do with terrorism. Looking at its published objects, it is entirely peaceful. It points out that a prominent member was awarded the OBE. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, remarked, the president of the organisation met the Prime Minister, as did other senior members, on an occasion on which it celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Sikh nation. The fact that two members of that organisation were found to be a threat to national security—though for other reasons they were not deported to India, as the note states—poses two questions in my mind.
First, where any organisation has peaceful objectives but some of its members have engaged in violence, is it terrorist? If so, why do we make the distinction in Ireland between Sinn Fein, whose objectives are political but some of whose members have committed acts of terrorism, and the IRA, which is avowedly terrorist? Secondly, as has been mentioned by a number of your Lordships, what is our policy now concerning the people who have been given asylum here, partly on the basis of membership of or having links with one of the organisations on the list? Do those people automatically commit an offence immediately the order comes into effect, or would they have to renew their "subs" before they could be charged? The practice is that none of the bodies listed would have a formal record of membership. However, they have large numbers of supporters who take political action in support of their objectives. That is
186
illustrated well by the number of letters, from which your Lordships have quoted, from organisations which support the People's Mujaheddin in the UK protesting at its inclusion of the list. Presumably, none of the writers of those letters belongs to the PMOI, but they advocate a democratic sector in Iran, and its presence in the UK shows that it was unable to pursue those objectives in Iran.
Finally, I endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the oddity of listing the PKK here two years after it declared a cease-fire. That seems not just odd but perverse. We are discouraging people from declaring cease-fires if we say, "It does not really matter" because, as the note tells us, cease-fires have broken down in the past. Therefore, the PKK is still to be classified as terrorist, no matter, presumably, how long the cease-fire continues.
There is a balance to be struck between the preservation of our rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly on the one hand, and our commitment to the global fight against terrorism on the other. I agree with the Government that we should take steps to prevent the UK from being used as a base from which to plan, organise or finance acts of terrorism elsewhere in the world. However. I also think that since we cannot possibly proscribe all the thousands of organisations throughout the world which are concerned with terrorism within the definition of Section 3 of the Act, including some governments, we should have done better to go down this road cautiously, limiting the use of the power to states which have democratic, pluralistic governments.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thought long and hard over the weekend as to whether to move an amendment to have each group proposed and those put forward in the future to pass through a relevant committee for vetting purposes. Indeed, the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, might be ideally suited, and I wish that I had followed that through. For reasons that I shall explain, I believe that open debate is not the answer. On the other hand, we should concentrate on exacting certification of which groups would be proscribed and why.
The noble Lord. Lord Bassam, spoke of terrorism. Everyone tells me that it is well defined in the Act. However, I think it would be helpful to understand exactly what is meant by terrorism. A question occurred to me, particularly listening to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord McNally; that is, which of those organisations on our proposed proscribed list do not appear on the American equivalent designated list? Can we see the differences? It may well be that the Minister does not have that information immediately to hand, but if he does perhaps I may ask that he kindly considers placing the information in the Library. Ideally, we should all be working in a harmonised and co-ordinated way in the international fight against terrorism.
I have long supported the principle of a proscribed list. I am sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However,

187
for practical reasons, as existing provisions stand, I believe that it is right for the executive to make unilateral decisions about individual terrorist groups. No Minister—this point has been made over and over again this afternoon—can ever realistically be expected to defend in open forum and in detail evidence derived from intelligence briefings. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, was right to point to the appeals process.
One of the detrimental effects of debate in Parliament about a particular terrorist group's impending designation would be to alert the group concerned that it is about to be designated, thereby giving it more than sufficient time to move financial assets around. So, by extension, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Perhaps I may say with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord that not all his remarks about the electoral process in Iran were entirely accurate. It was the reformers who were the beneficiaries in the round to which I believe he referred.
I refer to the MPs and Peers who we have been told put their names to a list in support for the Mujaheddin. That list has never been made public. I would appreciate seeing who all the people were who put their names to that list. I know that those on our side who are engaged in the subject would also appreciate that opportunity.
Let there be no doubt; I abhor the complaint, if true, made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, about Iran. However—I make the point only—there is conflict between the differing governing factions. It should be noted that there has been the beginning of a change in that country. An example might be that the Stale of Iran is now a signatory to the International Criminal Court, on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has worked so tirelessly.
I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will be sensitive to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Glentoran. The ideal alternative to open debate would be confidential notification of the intention to designate a group to allow for expressions of concern or opposition. The process would be better informed but, as I suggest, is impractical.
In this less than ideal process, therefore, the Minister might assuage concerns by confirming that consideration includes extensive inter-agency review of the evidence of each group's involvement in terrorism. Suitable mechanisms must exist to ensure that inclusion or exclusion does not rely on any particular Minister's Bank-Bench prejudices, as one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, particularly when being pressed by constituents. I would hope that the Home Secretary would be sympathetic to receiving representations from Members of Parliament.
I was surprised and disappointed at the declaration by the Home Secretary that the list was,
"not driven by foreign policy considerations".
188
I believe that to be ill-judged. Our system for designating foreign terrorist organisations differs from that of the Americans, whose straightforward approach involves, for example, identifying a foreign policy priority, like the Middle East peace process, and then determining which organisations fulfil the criteria of being detrimental to that process, whether it be by murder and extortion or through financing or other relevant means.
Terrorist organisations often cloak their activities with good works. However, I take it from the Minister's opening remarks that any contribution to a designated foreign terrorist organisation, regardless of the intended purpose, is illegal.
What then is the rationale behind the list before us today? I should appreciate clarification. The interpretation of "terrorism" within Part I of the Act clearly permits consideration of foreign policy concerns and objectives. Indeed, foreign policy concerns by extension are domestic, as the effects invariably remain to haunt us in one form or another.
I therefore sense a degree of uncertainty about the driving forces behind the list, producing both coherence and anomalies. The Americans; for instance, rightly have the ELN and FARC of Colombia on their list. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was right to include them. We do not. I recognise that the United Kingdom has been and is being instrumental in encouraging particularly FARC to participate in the current peace dialogue and that to put its name on the list now might be to send ambiguous signals. While I appreciate the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about the IRA, the state of Colombia would want to encourage the process and would prefer their names to appear not necessarily immediately.
However, I wish to flag the following. FARC's willingness to enter serious peace negotiations is much in doubt. Both groups attack oil and gas infrastructure; heavily engage in kidnappings, with an average in the country as a whole of up to 3,000 a year; disrupt the democratic process through murder and extortion; and, what should worry the Minister as much as anything else, are at the centre of protection for the narcotics industry.
Large swathes of the "national interest" are under attack here. Their actions on occasions make the IRA look like amateurs. If they withdraw from the peace process, I urge the Minister to have the appropriate system thoroughly re-evaluate their status. I speak knowing of the terror caused by those groups in Colombia.
Having taken the welcome decision to proscribe terrorist organisations, surely it behoves the Government to eschew ambivalence in favour of clear-cut fundamental criteria for proscription. Why can we not, for example, state that we do not support violent means where other remedies are available and have not been exhausted? And why do we distinguish between the "military wings" of some groups but not of other—perhaps less sophisticated—movements? Are there "good works" associated with terrorist groups that are

189
more or less acceptable than others? Is this for convenience or political expediency? Why are all organisations with such detrimental effects on our national interest not proscribed by us? Is this merely a preliminary list? It suggests a hesitancy, as though our heart is not really in this exercise. In my view, greater consideration needs to be given to appropriate definition such that "foreign terrorist organisations" can be fairly and squarely pinpointed.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, indicated some hours ago when we began the debate, it was always going to be a difficult one. Of course there is the difficulty to which the noble Viscount referred of distinguishing terrorists from freedom fighters. They can be the same people at different stages in their lives. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that I do not have a view of Mr Menachem Begin's early terrorist activities which is different from the view I held some years ago. But I do not want to enter the question of Palestine tonight—we have roamed far enough geographically.
The other reason why the debate was always going to be difficult was that we all recognise the Government's problems in disclosing to your Lordships' House and then to the public the intelligence and full reasons behind the choice of the various organisations included in the order. I know a little about that. My direct experience of fighting terrorism came from a spell as security Minister in Northern Ireland. In that connection, I agree thoroughly with every word spoken today by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
However, some of the debate has related to the process in which we are involved, beginning with the definition of "terrorism". Those noble Lords who took part in the debates on the Terrorism Bill will recall that we struggled a great deal with the definition. Many amendments were tabled and there was a great deal of discussion. The Government listened carefully and the definition was modified in the course of those debates. I pay tribute to them for that.
The definition is now clear in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act. Summarising it, it is the use or threat of violence for political, religious or ideological cause. That is to say, it is the use of violence against the public—and that is in any part of the world and is not confined to the United Kingdom—intended to influence political, ideological and religious decisions. We firmly believe in democracy and that decisions should not be taken as a result of violence. To accept that is to say that if violence is to rule the decisions, the greatest violence will eventually decide who governs and who controls what.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that that decision cannot operate unilaterally? The violence must be eschewed on the part not only of the governed but of the government?
8.37 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, of course that is true and that is what drives the British Government in their policy best illustrated by Northern Ireland. Some criticise what they call "the restraint"—the holding back, as it were—of the troops and so forth at different stages. But we all know why that was done; it was because of thoughts such as the noble and learned Lord expressed.
As regards distinguishing between existing organisations in other parts of the world pursuing their objectives, we have had good illustrations today of the difficulties of making the judgment and none better than in the case if Iran. We heard a powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in support of the Government's decision on Iran. Other speakers made the opposite point from their knowledge of Iran. I do not have such knowledge but I had exiled Iranians living in my constituency and therefore learnt a little about it. However, I have never been there and I do not know as much as some noble Lords who have spoken today. We heard similarly powerful speeches on behalf of the International Sikh Youth Federation, which has written many letters to us.
That illustrates the difficulties of deciding which organisations should be included. However, I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I believe that the Government, with all the facilities they have at their beck and call, particularly as regards intelligence and so forth, must make these difficult decisions and they should do so. That is what they have done.
Of course that is not the end of the matter. We heard about the appeal process and the noble Viscount asked careful questions to which I hope the Minister will respond. During the course of the Terrorism Bill, we approved the mechanism for the appeal process and its conduct.
Some other speakers have asked why additional organisations should not be included. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, there are very many organisations that might be included. A day or two ago I was asked why the Shining Path and Tupac Amaru of Peru, which certainly have organised in London in the past and have been responsible for some terrible events there, were not included. All I say in connection with those organisations is that this list is not necessarily the end of it: no doubt there will be additions to and subtractions from it in due course and further orders of this character. I hope that the list will not be quite so mixed because it makes the debate very difficult. In that sense, I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and his amendment. My goodness, is it not a good thing that, unlike the other place, in this House we do not have time-limited debates? In the other place the time limit under Standing Orders is extremely strict and it is impossible to debate an order of this kind properly. We certainly could not have had anything like the debate that we have had in your Lordships' House.
More particularly, why not include the kinds of terrorists to which my noble friend Lord Mancroft referred earlier? The Minister said in opening that no

191
domestic organisations were included in the proscription. That may have been an indirect reference to the organisations to which my noble friend referred. However, that is not true. Domestic organisations are included; in particular, in the context of Northern Ireland substantially on the loyalist and IRA sides. I shall not develop the Northern Irish point because my noble friend Lord Glentoran spoke to that. But it is extremely important to proscribe organisations of that character, I hope that the Home Office is not in any way discouraged by either the length of the debate or anything that has been said this afternoon from looking hard at organisations of this kind in deciding whether or not to place them on the proscribed list.
This is a tough power which makes it an offence to belong to the organisation, to raise money for it and to organise meetings. Any money that is raised can be confiscated, and so on. Those in your Lordships' House and the other place gave this important power to the Government in the Terrorism Bill (now Act), which built on existing terrorist legislation, only a few months ago. We should support the Government in all they do in trying to implement the power and take these very difficult decisions because that is in the interests of democracy here and elsewhere in the world.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the sympathy and understanding extended to me in attempting to draw the debate to a close. I started the debate with a headache, which has become worse. I have been taking medicine throughout. I wish that the glass before me contained something else because it might be of some assistance, but my headache is not due to the quality of the debate but rather my general ill health.
I shall try to deal in turn with the four amendments to the Government's Motion. I shall probably dwell rather more on the first than on the other three amendments because much of the debate concentrated on the issues unlocked by the contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer when speaking to his amendment. My noble and learned friend started from a point to which others returned: the issue of definition. We had a very good debate on definition during the passage of the Bill. The Government listened very carefully to the representations made and took account of the views then expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who advised us in detail on the importance of getting the definition right.
Definitions are by their very nature not always perfect, and certainly they are not a perfect science. But I believe that we have a workable definition and that we must now turn our minds to how that definition is to be used and to how it will work in regard to proscription. Noble Lords will be aware that under Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000 the Home Secretary, in the case of international or domestic organisations, may proscribe any organisation which he believes is concerned with terrorism where he believes that the statutory criteria have been satisfied
192
in a particular case. He has discretion as to whether or not to proscribe. That is really at the heart of what we have been considering during this afternoon's debate.
In laying the draft order on 28th February, the Home Secretary confirmed that he was entirely satisfied that all of the 21 organisations listed, including the Mujaheddin e Khalq, which has been referred to extensively this afternoon, the PKK, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Rea, and the LTTE, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, fell within the terms of the criteria. Information on the terrorist activities of the Mujaheddin e Khalq, as my noble and learned friend Lord Archer will know, was included in a note sent to Members of both Houses on 28th February.
As to the procedures for use of the new legislation, I believe that we have set up a most transparent process to deal with the very difficult issue of terrorist organisations. As a government we have undertaken to put more information into the public domain than has hitherto been the case. That has enabled us to come to very clear, though difficult, decisions.
During the debate this afternoon your Lordships' House has been regaled with pleas for several organisations to be removed from the list or reconsidered. At all times we are in a position to do that, but we have come to a fixed view. I turn first to the Mujaheddin e Khalq which has excited most interest and a very passionate debate, perhaps best exemplified, on the one hand, by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and, on the other, by the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend, Lord Clarke of Hampstead. I have no doubt that the views expressed were based on those particular noble Lords' understanding of that organisation.
In the end, I must agree with most of the analysis of the Mujaheddin e Khalq offered to your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. From all that we know of it, it is a terrorist organisation. The MeK claims to be a democratic party which fights for a different and better Iran, but its terrorist actions are not consistent with that claim. I do not believe that we can see it as a democratic freedom movement. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, argued, the MeK has no popular base in Iran because of its support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. The MeK headquarters are based in Baghdad. My understanding is that the organisation is still one of Saddam's most trusted supporters. As to that, I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said.
The MeK was also responsible for the assassination in August 1998 of Asadollah Lajevardi, a former Minister of Prisons. In April 1999 the Iranian Deputy Joint Chief of Staff of Iran's armed forces was killed in Tehran by MeK operatives. The MeK also claimed responsibility for a series of mortar bomb attacks during January and February 2000 against the southwestern town of Ilam and in early 2001 against Karaj and Ilam.
The British Government remain firmly opposed to the violence practised by the MeK. Her Majesty's Government have condemned acts of terrorism by that

193
organisation, just as they condemn all acts of terrorism wherever and whenever they take place, whatever their motivation. That should not be read or understood as saying that we justify the behaviour or approach of the Iranian Government. That is far from the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in his contribution, recognised that there are many concerns, even though there have been some welcome moves on human rights issues in Iran. The UK and the EU co-sponsored a UN resolution on the subject as recently as 4th December last year. We are also supporting a commission of human rights resolution in Geneva.
The Government have been vigorous in progressing human rights concerns. When my right honourable friend Mo Mowlam visited Iran, she was not backward in coming forward on precisely those issues. She forcefully made known her views.
There are the beginnings of an improvement, not just in UK-Iranian relations, but also on some of the issues of concern expressed very effectively by a number of noble Lords. We do not condone human rights abuses. We remain very unhappy about many of the approaches to governments adopted by the Iranian Government. We shall not withdraw or stint from being critical where that is right. But if we engage that government in constructive dialogue and discussion about these matters, we believe that we can make some progress in those areas.
A number of questions were raised about who we had consulted in putting together the list. We consulted the security services and the police. We had internal consultations and, importantly, we consulted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In all those consultations human rights issues were of concern.
It is important that we go through some of the issues that have been raised not least by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I asked him specifically whether there were any consultations with human rights organisations.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we did not think it appropriate to consult human rights organisations. That is not really part of the process of proscription. However, I recognise that the noble and learned Lord has a point. No doubt that is a point on which we can reflect carefully over time. The Government are seized of the importance of human rights and recognise that ultimately human rights considerations will play a part if proscription is challenged through the POAC route and perhaps even at Court of Appeal level.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, raised questions about proscribed organisations and their ability to fight proscription. Those concerns are well understood. It could be argued that any individual who seeks "deproscription" by way of application directly to the Home Secretary or by appeal, either on behalf of a proscribed organisation or as a person
194
affected, might be discouraged from pursuing either course by the risk of prosecution for certain offences; namely, the offences under Sections 11 to 13, the membership support sections; under Sections 15 to 19, on fund-raising, use and possession of funding arrangements, money and disclosure; and under Section 56, on directing a terrorist organisation. Section 10 ensures that evidence of anything done in relation to the application proceedings, including any documents submitted for those purposes, will not be admissible in evidence for those offences mentioned above. Therefore. we feel that organisations wishing to challenge proscription will not be inhibited in the way suggested by the noble Viscount and other noble Lords.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I apologise for my intervention. It is intended to be helpful, which the Minister may find very surprising. Can the Minister add to the point that he has cogently been making that the Act provides that there shall be a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on the ground that a decision—and it may be a decision to deny "deproscription"—is flawed in the light of the principles that apply to judicial review? Does the noble Lord accept that the principles which apply to judicial review boil down ultimately to fairness or unfairness? So, written into the Act, there is the concept which has to be applied by a court outside the structure provided by the Act of the commission and so forth, of looking at the matter in terms of whether the decision is fair or unfair. Is not that a unique and certainly new safeguard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is the case that there is nothing in the Terrorism Act which would prevent—this is probably a view that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, shares—a judicial review of a POAC decision.
I was going to come on to that very point because it was an issue raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville: POAC rules are and were subject to an affirmative resolution procedure and were debated and approved by both Houses. The POAC process is very robust. It mirrors SIAC to which the noble Viscount. Lord Colville, referred. So far as I am aware, there has been only one appeal to the Court of Appeal for judicial review of a SIAC decision. We take the view that similar opportunities will arise if at the end of the POAC process there is dissatisfaction, the issue of fairness is raised and the decision of POAC challenged.
In that case—this comes to the heart of the noble Viscount's point—there was no formal role for a special advocate in the SIAC Court of Appeal case involving Rehman, but it went into closed proceedings. There was no formal role for the special advocate as with POAC. Instead the Court of Appeal relied upon its inherent jurisdiction and appointed an amicus to represent the appellant in closed session. That process satisfies the concerns relating to the European Convention on Human Rights and those with regard to national security.

195
National security is most important in the debate. While I take the challenge raised to the Government by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that in this area we need to be careful of just simply claiming that the Government know best, it is important to reflect carefully on the advice given and made available to government from the security services. Those matters have to be carefully balanced. But, given that consideration, we have ensured through POAC—it will be ensured though any challenge to a POAC decision— that considerations of fairness and the appropriateness of using the courts are well understood, so that the quite proper concerns of those who wish to appeal against proscription can be properly recognised and heard.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I strongly welcome what he said about the use of an atnicus curiae to put the case on behalf of the appellant—that goes some way to answering the point about fairness raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—but will he say a few more words about the issue of disclosure, which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, raised with him earlier and which I raised during my remarks? Can he tell us whether all the advice that will have been given to the Home Office in making the decision to place an organisation on the proscribed list will be made available to the Appeal Court should the decision come before it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, when POAC considers cases, the advice that is made available to the Home Secretary will be available. I would take it as read that any further appeal to the Court of Appeal would have to consider those matters as well; but very sensitively and in closed session. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate why that might be the case.
Many other points were made during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue generally of combating international terrorism. We recognise that the United Kingdom alone cannot combat international terrorism for good, but the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 and our intention to proscribe foreign terrorist organisations are important demonstrations of our commitment to fight against international terrorism. We have to take our international responsibilities most seriously. We also take a leading role at the UN, in the EU and with our G8 partners in international efforts to fight terrorism. As a direct result of the Terrorism Act coming into force, the UK has now been able to ratify all the UN conventions relating to terrorism.
Perhaps I may refer to some of the other organisations that were mentioned during the debate. This is an important opportunity for noble Lords to discuss and look at some of those organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the PKK. We welcome the reduction in violence in south-east Turkey since the PKK declared its ceasefire in summer 1999. But we still believe that the PKK is a terrorist organisation. We believe that the most effective way to work to improve the human rights of the Turkish
196
population as a whole, including the Kurdish community, is our approach of constructive dialogue, bilaterally and at the EU level. To answer his specific point as to when we proscribe and why, we did not proscribe earlier as the power to add foreign terrorist organisations did not come into force until the Act was commenced on 19th February.
Other organisations were mentioned during the debate—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to be present for the earlier part of the debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, especially as I suspect that he is longing to take home his headache. But perhaps I may pursue the issue of the PKK for a moment. An organisation which specifically and publicly abandons violence, as since the arrest and subsequent imprisonment of Mr Oçalan the PKK has done, is surely somewhat discouraged by then being proscribed as a continuing terrorist organisation. Can the Minister say anything about what kind of period of non-violent activity would be required before the Home Office would recommend that such an organisation should no longer continue to be proscribed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be wrong for me to opine at the Dispatch Box on the period for which an organisation should have given up its commitment to violent means for securing change. We have to judge each case very much on its merits. The PKK has a long history of violence. It is certainly the case that over the past couple of years it has eschewed that route. I think that we need to see some more progress. But if effective representations are made by representatives arguing for the PKK in the future, we shall have to listen to those. As I said at the outset of the debate, it is open to government to proscribe and deproscribe at any stage. That is a consideration, but a consideration certainly for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, raised the issue of the International Sikh Youth Federation. The terrorist activities of that organisation, established, as the notes say, in the 1980s, have continued since then. The ISYF's attacks have included assassinations, bombings and kidnappings. Mostly, those have been directed against Indian officials and Indian interests. As the notes make clear, the Special Immigration Appeals Committee found in July last year that two ISYF members were a threat to UK national security. There is still a problem here. Despite what the noble Lord said about his contact with those who support the ISYF, we believe that it fits very much and very firmly within the criteria that we have carefully considered and carefully established.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the case of the two Sikhs who were alleged to be members of the ISYF, Mr Peter Wrench, the dleputy director general of policy at the Home Office, told the Security and Intelligence Committee, only eight months ago, that the security services in the UK had

197
no problems with the activities of the ISYF? Can the noble Lord say what has changed in the past eight months?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was not aware of those comments. I shall study carefully what the noble Lord said and reflect upon it.
I turn to some of the observations made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, before I move on to look at the other amendments which were spoken to during the course of the debate. I say to the noble Viscount that decisions that we reached included and reflected close consultation within government—other Ministers, agencies and so on—and, as I said at the outset, included the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was contacted and discussed all these matters. They have been given very careful consideration.
The noble Viscount raised the issue of the potential cross-over between our own proscribed list and that of the US government. There is a cross-over, and a number of terrorist organisations are shared by both lists. Probably the safest thing I can do for the purposes of clarity is to provide the noble Viscount with a definitive list. I shall share that with your Lordships' House and ensure that a copy is placed in the Library so that it is there for all to see.
Perhaps I may move on to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his amendment to the Motion. I understand the point that the noble Lord seeks to make here, but I shall say this to him. We have been debating the 21 organisations for some three-and-a-half hours. If we had tabled 21 separate orders, I imagine that the House would have had to sit for several days in an attempt to consider all of those organisations. We have established a standard practice so that a number of items to be added to legislation can be grouped together, not least for the convenience of your Lordships' House and for ease of debate. Imperfect though the process may be, this debate has given ample voice to the fact that this is an effective forum.
We need also to consider that, outside our debate on the proscribed organisations, there is the proper opportunity for individual consideration of each of those organisations through the process of application and appeal to the Home Secretary. I believe that, over time, that process will be understood and will come to be widely respected.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that, out of the 21 organisations that we have been considering, there is no dispute between us about 19 of them? One of the more interesting aspects of today's debate is that consensus has been reached on much of what the Government have done here. However, where there is disagreement, a process should be in place so that the more controversial questions can be aired separately. I believe that that is
198
the point that, quite properly, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has sought to raise in his amendment to the Motion.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that consensus had been reached on 18 of the organisations. However, I do not wish enter into an argument on that point.
As I have said, this debate has provided a valuable opportunity to conduct a full discussion, during which the position of a number of organisations has received a fair airing and a number of important points have been made. Imperfect though the process may be, I think that it has provided us with a useful opportunity to consider all of the issues.
I should like to turn now to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. We have considered very carefully the issue raised in his amendment. Like the noble Lord, of course we utterly condemn the violent and disruptive attacks carried out on individuals and businesses by animal rights extremists. We recognise fully the severity of those activities and condemn such shameless acts. The police have the full support of the Government and of the public in their efforts to track down the criminals involved.
We considered at length whether to include what I would describe as "domestic extremists", but decided that, at this point, it would not be right to do so. However, if circumstances change and we feel that the situation justifies it, we shall not hesitate to use the route of proscription. But, acting very much on police advice, we decided that it would be unwise to take that further step and bring into the remit of proscription the Animal Liberation Front, the Hunt Retribution Squad and the inaptly named Justice Department.
We believe that criminal law is in place to deal with such organisations. The noble Lord knows that we have brought forward a number of measures further to strengthen the law through the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. The police will be given additional powers to deal with protestors demonstrating outside people's homes—the noble Lord touched on that issue—so that they will be able to direct such protestors to disperse or move away. Failure to comply will be a criminal offence. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 will be amended to enable us to replace the subjective defence presently available to the accused—that they believed that their behaviour was reasonable—with an objective test.
The Department of Trade and Industry is well under way in its aim to produce measures which will allow the addresses of company directors to be withheld from public access. That issue has been of particular concern to Members of your Lordships' House. Several Questions have been tabled on that issue.
We understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. Like all noble Lords, we totally condemn the mindless acts of criminality and attacks on people perpetrated by extremists in the animals rights movement over the past few months.

199
I shall turn now to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The amendment invites the Government to list in the schedule of proscribed organisations the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. This point was debated during the passage of the Terrorism Bill and was discussed again more recently during the debate in the other place on the draft order now before noble Lords. I am happy once again to put our position on the record.
We take the view that the term "Irish Republican Army" captures the Provisional IRA. the Real IRA and Continuity IRA. Each claims to be the standard bearer of the republican movement known as the "IRA". During the debate on the draft order in the other place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary confirmed, very much on the advice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that,
"The Real IRA is covered, as is the Provisional IRA, by the description 'the Irish Republican Army', which appears at the beginning of schedule 2 … of the Act".—[Official Report, Commons. 13/3/01; col. 951.]
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to the 32-County Sovereignty Committee. The point here is that we have to see that organisation and the Real IRA as opposite sides of the same coin. In saying that, it draws a distinction between terrorism and political wings in the same way that we currently draw a distinction between PIRA and Sinn Fein. Of course I can confirm that the Real IRA is caught, as I said earlier.
We take very careful note of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and by the noble Lord, Glentoran., and I can assure them that the order before us does nothing to affect our position on the proscription of Irish organisations. Again in that context, I can also confirm that deproscription of any of those organisations would be very carefully considered indeed. It is a step on which we would want to consult extensively and widely.
I hope that I have covered some of the main issues raised in this very long and thoughtful debate. I know that I will not have satisfied all Members of your Lordships' House. I shall study Hansard very carefully and concentrate, if I can, on the issues that I have not covered. I shall try, if and where necessary, to respond to those points in writing to the noble Lords who have raised them.
This has been a very useful opportunity for noble Lords quite properly to air their concerns. We believe that, in relation to both the provisions of the Terrorism Act and the organisations recommended now for proscription, we have got the balance about right; we think that we have struck a proportionate approach. The action that the Government have taken is very fair and right in the circumstances. It is right in its attempts to ensure that people within our country are protected from the threat of terrorism and to offer a measure of protection to British citizens overseas. We have been
200
very mindful of our international obligations and we have taken careful account of a range of concerns, some of which have been expressed during the debate.
Lord McNally: My Lords, to ensure that we do not fall into error, is the Minister recommending that the House resist all four amendments?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should have said that I cannot commend any of the amendments standing in the names of the noble and learned, Lord Archer, and the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Glentoran and Lord Mancroft. I hope that the House will approve the order as it stands on the Order Paper.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is customary at this stage to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I do so, and not only formally; I really am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated, even to those who have disagreed with me. This is a subject on which it is quite possible to have legitimate different opinions. I hope that at this hour I shall be forgiven if I do not refer to specific contributions or to specific noble Lords by name.
It seems to me that the significance of the de bate is that it has taken place within parameters that we all share. No one who has taken part supports terrorism, just as no one is indifferent to state tyranny and torture. We all support effective measures against terrorism, just as we all look to the Government to promote international human rights.
But there is always a danger of injustice. We know how horrifying miscarriages of justice have taken place, even where everyone concerned had the best of intentions. We still do not subscribe to a doctrine of Home Office infallibility. We cannot resolve all the problems by dismissing them as unreal; we cannot say that individuals do not matter; we cannot say that some injustices are inevitable and therefore that we should not try to rectify them; we cannot even say that the House should not be bothered with such matters because one day POAC will put it all right. There is no perfect answer, but we are not excused from doing the best that we can.
I sympathise with my noble friend, who has a headache. With his demanding job he needs all the rest he can get. I hope that he will not think me unkind when I say that I hope that he loses some sleep tonight. We should all be losing sleep over this problem and the dangers that it poses. However, this is not the moment to seek the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill
9.20 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

201
Although the Bill is short, that does not make it unimportant. The Bill proposes to allow serving and former ministers of religion to become Members of Parliament where previously some of them were disqualified, but it continues the disqualification of any bishops who sit in your Lordships' House as Lords Spiritual.
The Government believe that the current situation on clergy disqualification can no longer be justified. If a person wishes to stand for Parliament, it should be a matter for the electorate to decide whether they want the person to become their representative if relevant qualifications are met.
The current position is that some ministers of religion would be debarred from taking their seats, if elected, by virtue of the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 and others by Section 9 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. The Bill will repeal the 1801 Act and the relevant section of the 1829 Act, and do away with a number of other provisions, which will become consequentially redundant.
Certain people are not affected by the present legislation or by the new Bill. These comprise Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and other religious groups, including most non-conformist denominations, whose arrangements for ordaining ministers do not involve ordination by a bishop. It is the latter point, the ordination by a bishop, that is the critical one and I shall return to this later.
So far as concerns the Church of England, it is the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 which prevents its clergy from becoming MPs. Former ministers, however, can divest themselves of their clerical responsibilities by means of a procedure set out in the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870, and can then, if the electorate so chooses, take up a seat in Parliament.
One particular difficulty is that no such procedure is available for ordained clergy of other episcopal churches: for example, the Roman Catholic Church. If a Catholic priest wishes to give up his ministry, whether temporarily or permanently, and then stand for Parliament, he would be unable to take his seat if elected. He could not turn to the equivalent of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 because an equivalent Act does not exist, and he would be debarred by virtue of the 1801 and 1829 statutes. That is the current position.
I am sure that some of your Lordships are aware of the case of Mr David Cairns, a former Catholic priest, who is intending to stand as the Labour candidate for the constituency of Greenock and Inverclyde at the next general election. If elected, he could be prevented from taking his seat in the other place. His case has re-emphasised the rather absurd position that continues today. I hope that this House will agree that it is obviously right that this matter should be attended to in the run-up to a general election, whenever that happens to fall. This is when a change in the law is relevant, and I am sure that Mr Cairns would hope
202
that Members of both Houses would deal with this matter with understanding, regardless of their political persuasion.
One man will certainly benefit from the change, if he is elected. But others, whatever their politics, could benefit in the future. We seek to change the law to right the injustice where, if he or she were to be elected to Parliament, a candidate could not take the seat. Noble Lords will know that individual cases have driven change of this sort in the past—changes such as allowing the then Lord Stansgate to sit in the other place. Individual cases have provided that catalyst for change in the past, and will no doubt do so again in the future. We explored whether there were other ways of dealing with this issue rather than primary legislation, but we concluded that a Bill was required.
In September 1998, the Home Affairs Committee on Electoral Law and Administration recommended at paragraph 127, Volume 1, that,
"all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for, and serving as, Members of Parliament be removed; the exception would be in respect of all serving bishops of the Church of England who, for so long as places are reserved for the senior bishops in the House of Lords, should remain ineligible to serve as Members of the Commons".
The Government broadly agree with that view. In a moment, I shall discuss in more detail the second part of the recommendation relating to bishops.
In June 1999, Siobhain McDonagh, the Member for Mitcham and Morden, introduced a Private Member's Bill in another place, which would have rectified the position. That Bill had cross-party support, but failed to make any progress at Second Reading. The Government were sympathetic, but wanted to consult the Churches before changing the law. The Government subsequently consulted the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Churches in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. All were content for the restrictions to be removed. It is already open to ministers of the Church in Wales, which is disestablished, to become MPs by virtue of the Welsh Church Act 1914, which overrides the 1801 Act disqualification.
I hope it is obvious that we do not envisage that there will be a long queue of clergy wishing to become MPs. In the case of serving ministers, this is a matter between the Churches and the individuals concerned. In the end, as I said before, it is for the individual to decide whether to stand and for the electorate to determine whether he or she should sit in the other place. We believe that there should be no bar in public law to prevent clergy from becoming MPs. But it is important to make clear that it is for the Churches and their clergy to consider whether their duties as ministers or priests can be properly carried out if they are also sitting as Members of Parliament. I understand that the Pope does not agree to serving priests being active in politics, so we are unlikely to see serving priests as Members of another place.
It may be asked, why not introduce legislation simply to put Catholic priests on the same basis as Church of England clergy, and allow them to divest

203
themselves of their clerical responsibilities? There are two points here. First, we should expect Parliament to be cautious about whether it has the right to legislate on matters of doctrine or discipline within the Roman Catholic Church, even if indirectly. Once a priest has been ordained, our understanding is that the Catholic Church considers that he remains a priest all his life, even if he no longer practises as one. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we should leave the Roman Catholic Church to run its own affairs, and not try to regulate the relationship between that Church and its priests.
The second reason not simply to put Catholic priests on the same basis as Church of England clergy rests on a Privy Council case from 1951. In Re MacManaway, the Privy Council decided that the 1801 Act not only disqualified persons ordained in the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, but also all persons ordained by a bishop in accordance either with the order of the Church of England or with other forms of episcopal ordination. In the particular case of the Reverend James G. MacManaway, this included ordination in the Church of Ireland. Thus, broadly, any clergy who are ordained by a bishop are subject to the disqualification, whereas clergy and ministers of religion who are not ordained by a bishop are not subject to the disqualification. Current restrictions therefore apply more widely than only to Roman Catholic clergy.
I turn now to the part of the Home Affairs Committee recommendation that deals with the position of bishops. There are about 40 Church of England bishops who could qualify to sit in this place as Lords Spiritual. At any one time, only 26 are summoned to be Lords Spiritual. It is the Government's view that it is these bishops who should be disqualified from membership of another place, as they already have a voice in Parliament. I should perhaps add that, if, as a result of proposals for reform of this place, that number were to change, the number of bishops who were disqualified would also change. However, the general principle would not be affected.
The Home Affairs Committee's recommendation was to continue prohibition on all bishops from the other place. Although we consider it extremely unlikely that bishops would wish to become MPs while they perform their duties as bishops, the Government feel it right to lessen the statutory restrictions except, as I say, for those bishops who already have a voice in Parliament—the Lords Spiritual.
Already, there is no bar to clergy or bishops being elected to the European or Scottish Parliament, to the Northern Ireland Assembly or to the National Assembly for Wales. Nor is there any bar on their being elected as local councillors or mayors. This has worked satisfactorily and there have been no problems recognised in such arrangements. I think that one can reasonably argue that the position at Westminster. therefore, is out of step with all others. This Bill will rectify that anomaly.
I believe that the Bill will be a useful one. It will remove some archaic and anachronistic restrictions which are no longer appropriate. I hope that your
204
Lordships will agree. This is not a controversial measure and it received a large measure of support from across all parties in another place. The disqualifications I have referred to are no longer relevant to our times and it is appropriate that the legislation be repealed. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
9.31 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I appreciate the complexities which the Minister has described and I sympathise with the dilemma the Government face. I am glad that the Minister said the Bill owes its origin to the hard case of the Roman Catholic priest who wishes to stand for Parliament at the next election. I am sorry for that: it is a hard case. But the fact is that that priest knew when he took orders and took his vows the position of his Church as regards election to a legislature.
The Roman Catholic Church in its canons of 1983 forbids priests to stand for a legislature. It has a long tradition in that regard which goes back to the turn of the past century in Italy and France. Further. that priest knew when he took his vows at ordination that the Vatican does not easily allow its priests to abandon their orders and to become laymen. All that he knew about. In contrast, as the Minister pointed out, Church of England priests have an easy ride. They can legally and very easily renounce their orders and, as the right reverend Prelate knows, take them up again later—I have a colleague who did just that—if their political ambitions fail or if they decide to abandon them. I have to say that Father Cairns took his vows and he knew the altar on which he laid himself.
I want to point out, because it is relevant to this debate, why the Roman Catholic Church took that view. The Roman Catholic Church forbids its priests to sit in legislatures. It considers that it is inappropriate for a parochial priest with pastoral responsibilities to adopt a political career since as a pastor his job is to achieve unity and minister to all. I hope that the Minister is listening to what I am saying as he seems to be involved in a conversation of his own. To be an active priest and to be a politician is contradictory. Politics are by nature adversarial. To be a priest in a pastoral role and to be a politician is quite difficult. It is noticeable that the right reverend Prelates traditionally are expected to remain apart from partisan politics.
As noble Lords know, I am a clergyman of the Church of England. I can assure your Lordships that I would not have accepted a life peerage, certainly not the political peerage that I accepted, if I had been in any pastoral position whatsoever.
I do not wear my dog collar in this House for obvious reasons. I do not claim to speak for the Church. I believe that any Christian can be a member of any political party in this House without betraying his religion. But one must consider the position. If we open another place to clergymen, their Churches could

205
not force them to abandon parochial responsibilities. The Roman Church will excommunicate Father Cairns but the Anglican Church does not indulge in excommunication. So we have to face the problem.
The other factor which was not mentioned by the Minister is the nature of the unique situation in the United Kingdom: that we have two established Churches. In an established Church the bishops, the Lords Spiritual, sit in the House of Lords. They represent the Church. The right reverend Prelate will agree that in this House I make no claim to represent the established Church. But Anglican parochial clergy could claim in another place to represent the Church. There could be a contradiction in the role of the established Church.
There are further problems with regard to Scotland. Traditionally, the Presbyterian Church, the established Church in Scotland, has had its own general assembly. Whereas the general assembly has had Members of this House and another place as lay members, until recently the clergy have always remained detached from the secular Parliament. There has been a long tradition in the Scottish Church of maintaining its independence from the secular Parliament. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has an honourable tradition in maintaining freedom from the secular Parliament. There would be some dilution of that hard-fought independence if members also sat in another place.
The Minister mentioned the devolved assemblies. I agree that, lightly, they have admitted their clergy. They have not given thought to issues of establishment, the nature of the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy. As a sovereign Parliament, we should give more thought to the matter.
Hard cases made bad law. I agree that the case of Father Cairns is a hard case. However—I repeat—once he knelt for ordination in the Roman Catholic Church, he knew what he was taking on. To expect an Act of Parliament to alter his situation seems to me strange. I suggest to noble Lords that this is not an easy Bill. There is the question of establishment. There is the fact that the Anglican Church could not stop people with pastoral responsibilities sitting in another place if they decided so to do. The Roman Catholic point is that a minister has to be a symbol of unity: an active politician cannot be so. I repeat: I would not have accepted a life Peerage if I had been a parochial parish priest.
On a point of principle, I believe it is wrong that the Bill should be hurried through in the shadow of an election for one particular hard case. I agree with the Minister; the situation is very hard for Father Cairns. He made his decision and now wants to reverse it. He will most likely be excommunicated anyhow. But it is not our job to solve a problem of his own making. There is the problem of the nature of representation of the established Church. I do not believe that the devolved assemblies are an example for us.
I hope that noble Lords will take great care over the Bill. I am not prepared to advocate an easy passage before an election.
9.40 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his stamina. I hope that I shall not make too many demands on it. I was persuaded to intervene in the debate by my colleague Robert Blackburn, from the law department of my college. Anyone who has read the excellent brief prepared by the House of Commons Library will appreciate that he speaks with such authority on the subject as to make me appear a rank amateur. I am therefore all the more pleased to find that he, I and my noble friends are united in the welcome that we extend to the Bill.
As the Minister said, the Bill arises from an individual case, but it has been needed ever since the case of Mr MacManaway. I followed that case when I was a 13 year-old and concluded that something must be done. It never occurred to me that 50 years later I might have a walk-on part in helping that to come about.
I did not realise then that, given the speed of our political system, the case is proceeding at the rate of greased lightning. If there had not been an individual case, this would not have been done.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, had to say about that case. I understand that the position of the Roman Catholic Church is, "Once a priest, always a priest", just as it also holds the position. "Once married, always married". I respect both those views, but in neither case should they be binding on the state. I agree with John Locke that a Church is a voluntary society. The definition of a voluntary society is that one may voluntarily leave it. There is a bigger argument than the noble Lord suggested.
The state of the law is thoroughly confused. We have had a great whittling down of general disabilities and restrictions on sitting in Parliament for religions. When I took my seat here, I exercised my right to affirm. That right is only 100 years old—barely yesterday in terms of parliamentary history. When I did so, I received a warm and welcoming smile from the Episcopal Benches. That was my first experience of House of Lords manners and I welcomed it warmly.
However, there has been no corresponding change in the rights of clergy to take their seats. There are anomalies everywhere: between the treatment of the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales; between the treatment of episcopally ordained and non-episcopally ordained ministers; and between the treatment of Christian ministers and non-Christian ministers, which ironically bears much more harshly on the Christians, because the law goes back to the days when no others were envisaged.
Given that odd series of situations, it is worth stopping for a moment to ask how we got here. The present law got here for three reasons, of which two are no longer operative and the third we can no longer regard as Parliament's business. The first was the separate representation of the clergy in convocation. The key to that is that in the early days of Parliament—in fact, for several centuries—the clergy used to pay separate taxation, voted by their own representatives

207
in convocation. It was therefore not proper for them to have representatives voting taxes for other people that they did not pay. That first reason for the separate treatment of the clergy is clearly out of date.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, suggested, there were serious problems in applying that doctrine of an established Church to the Church of Scotland, where it did not really fit, but that is just one more reason for getting away from the old pattern and passing the Bill.
The second reason for the specific disabilities against Roman Catholics dates back to past centuries when there was a nationalist hatred expressed against the Church of Rome, which is now strictly confined to the Treaty of Rome. As one Member said in another place in the 17th century, they are members of the body of this land who have studied to be incorporate with others.
Those attitudes have disappeared very rapidly during my lifetime. We owe a great deal to Pope John XXIII. I remember vividly a moment in 1962 when he threatened to put South Vietnam under an interdict for persecuting Buddhists. One can imagine how rapidly the weak certainties in which I was brought up crumbled in the face of that experience. My mind went into a revolving door and remained there for some time. As this has changed and as I do not believe that a single person in the Chamber would query the loyalty of any other Peer on the grounds of their faith or their lack of it, I believe that the disabilities are totally out of date.
The third reason concerns views about the office of the ministry. As expressed in the 17th century:
"It is of such importance that it will take up the whole man".
We heard that view expressed by Miss Widdecombe in another place and we heard it expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, just a few moments ago. I do not argue with that view; I simply argue with the propriety of the state in deciding it on behalf of the Churches. We must now say "Churches". There are many Churches and they do not all take the same view on this question. Therefore, if the state were to take a general view, it would be imposing that view on Churches which did not share it and yet would have to follow it.
I very much prefer the view expressed by the then Archbishop of Westminster to the MacManaway committee:
"It ought riot to be for Parliament to debar people from becoming candidates as far as the church is concerned; that ought to be for the ir ternal discipline of each church".
I agree strongly with what the Minister said about not intervening in any question of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Apart from any question of theological propriety, the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is not a national matter and not proper to any national assembly.
In 1982. the General Synod of the Church of England voted by a narrow but clear majority in favour of the proposition that clergy should be free to sit in Parliament. I do not want to enter into argument
208
about how far Parliament could override that constitutionally. I want to say simply that in my opinion Parliament should not.
It is now for Churches to decide for themselves what limits they should place on the freedom of action of their clergy. I hope that the Minister will confirm that nothing in this Bill can possibly be construed to restrict the freedom of Churches to discipline their own members. In a free country and in a plural society that must be for the Churches themselves. It is not our business. The Bill recognises that and I welcome it.
9.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches similarly welcome the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has just reminded us, it responds to a long-standing wish of the General Synod and of other Churches. He reminded us of the motion that was passed in the General Synod in 1982, which said:
"This Synod believes that clergymen of the Church of England should be free like other citizens to take their seats as elected Members of Parliament and, in accordance"—
reminding us of some earlier work—
"with the recommendation of the Church and State Report 1970, asks the Standing Committee to request Her Majesty's Government to introduce appropriate legislation to enable them to do so".
We have taken rather a long time to get here.
We see no reason why a person should be disqualified from standing for election to the House of Commons simply because he has received episcopal ordination. It should be for the electorate to decide whether they want a priest to represent them in the other place.
Some noble Lords have discussed whether we are dealing with hard cases. I remind the House that every single step in the history of this matter has been formed around hard cases. As has already been outlined, in 1553 Prebendary Newell was excluded from Parliament on the old constitutional ground that the clergy were taxed by convocation, so it was not appropriate for a priest to be in the House of Commons. The 1801 Act similarly arose because Home Tooke wanted to be a Member of Parliament and Parliament quickly legislated to exclude the clergy on the ground that a great number of benefices were in the gift of the Crown or the nobility and that the admission of the clergy to the Commons on that basis would diminish the purity and impair the independence of the House.
It is not for me to comment on the purity of the other place. However, it is a fact that a priest of the Church of England cannot sit in the other place but, as has already been said, a priest of the Church of Wales can do so. A priest of the non-established Scottish Episcopal Church cannot do so but a minister of a non-established Church in England can do so. Similarly, as has already been said, a Roman Catholic priest cannot stand for election simply because he has received episcopal ordination. In other words, we have a total muddle in the law.

209
Furthermore, in our judgment the arrangement infringes the rights of the people in a democratic society. If in all other respects except that relating to a person's clerical status people are qualified as citizens to become Members of Parliament, is it right that the law should prevent the people making the relevant choice if they so choose? It is high time that that anomalous legislation was repealed; the clergy should be given the same opportunities as all other citizens. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for whom I have great respect, that he has not been required to stand down from his orders in order to sit in this place. That is the crucial point in this context.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, my point—I stress it again—is that I would not have accepted a life peerage if I had had pastoral responsibility. The right reverend Prelate will agree that the Anglican Church could not enforce that but that the Roman Catholic Church can.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, my point was about the noble Lord not having to stand down from his orders. In my diocese, I have quite a large number of priests who are in secular employment. We have priests who teach in schools and who work in the City of London or—dare I say so—in the defence service. We have priests who work in all sorts of contexts. They are called ministers in secular employment. They are in holy orders and they are set in those contexts. I cannot for the life of me see what is so impure about the House of Commons that it is impossible in principle for a priest to sit in it.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt twice; I shall not do so again. The Roman Catholic position in canon law is that politics are adversarial. Being a teacher might be somewhat adversarial—I was one for 40 years—but it is not like sitting in this place or the House of Commons. That is the difference. A pastor is the centre of unity.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I take the point that it is for each Church to decide its own discipline around its own clergy. We are talking about the law as it applies to the state and about what we should do as a state. I have friends in holy orders who are members of local authorities. They are deeply involved in adversarial politics and believe with integrity that they can do so. I have never believed—I should not sit in this place if I did—that politics are such a corrupt and difficult exercise that it is impossible for Christian people, be they in orders or otherwise, not to participate in them.
We on these Benches fully take the point that, because as bishops we are Members of your Lordships' House, it would not he appropriate for a Lord Spiritual to stand for election to the House of Commons. But perhaps the Minister can clarify a point. Many bishops are not Lords Spiritual. What is their position? Forty-two bishops qualify to sit in this House, 26 of whom do so. Will the Bill exclude all
210
bishops or only the 42 who are qualified to sit in this House as Lords Spiritual? I did not quite understand the logic of that argument and perhaps the Minister can tidy up that point for me.
We support the provisions in the Bill for dealing with the point in relation to Lords Spiritual. We welcome the Bill. We have waited a long time in the Churches for it. It puts right an anomaly and I hope the House will give it a fair wind.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, as a layman, I hesitate to get involved in this discussion.
9.51 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I am next on the list and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will be able to speak in the gap.
I too welcome the Bill and I do so because I believe that no discrimination should be taken against anyone who wishes to stand for public office. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred to the case of David Cairns. It is fortunate that that case arose because it brought this issue to the fore. It really is time that we removed the archaic and discriminatory restrictions which are placed on some ministers of religion, and so bar them from becoming Members of the other place. It was unfortunate that this matter was not followed through when the Select Committee on Home Affairs took its decision three years ago.
We are discussing a piece of legislation which is over 200 years old and which has long outgrown any purpose or value. I cannot give the historical analysis that was so eloquently put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is no longer in his place. But we should look briefly at 1801 and examine the origins of why that legislation was introduced. It arose following a single hard case, as the right reverend Prelate said. A Church of England priest, the Reverend Home Tooke, won an election for Old Sarum. The question was whether or not he should be allowed to take his place in the House of Commons.
It is interesting that that piece of legislation had stood for 150 years, and it was only 51 years ago that the Privy Council decided that the 1801 Act not only disqualified persons ordained in the Church of England, but also all persons ordained by a bishop in accordance either with the order of the Church of England or with any other forms of episcopal ordination.
The Minister and others identified many pieces of legislation which brought us to the situation we are now at. I do not apologise for trying to spell them out again in order to show some of the inconsistencies and how irrational they are. For example, mention was made of devolved parliaments and assemblies, and I remind this House that that was a piece of legislation that went through this place. I cannot remember anybody tabling an amendment which said that ordained ministers of any religious denomination should be disqualified from those legislative bodies.

211
The Clergy Disqualification Act 1870 enables members of the clergy of the Church of England to renounce their position so that they are free to stand for election and take a seat in the other place after a period of six months. But there is no parallel procedure for the clergy of other religions.
Roman Catholic priests, Orthodox priests and Church of Scotland ministers cannot seek relief and be excused. Retired Orthodox priests cannot offer themselves,, but imams, shamans and rabbis certainly can. Presbyterians in England are in a different position from those in Scotland and retired Anglican vicars in Wales are in a different position from those in England. Again, as the right reverend Prelate said, there is a complete lack of clarity and there is muddle in the law as it stands. It is anomalous, inequitable, inconsistent and discriminatory.
I go even further. An active nonconformist minister could stand in a constituency in which his church is situated, but a retired ordained priest who no longer has any adherence would be disqualified from taking his seat. Further, as has been mentioned, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 states that no person in holy orders in the Church of Rome should be capable of being elected to serve in Parliament as a Member of the House of Commons. As has been said, that presupposes that once a Roman Catholic priest has been ordained, he will remain in holy orders, whether he continues in priesthood or not. So, resignation is clearly not the answer.
However, it is not even as simple as that. It is not the case that all former Roman Catholic priests cannot offer themselves to the House; they can if they have been defrocked. We are saying that a defrocked priest can become a Member of Parliament, irrespective of the reason for being defrocked, but a retired priest cannot. Somehow, that seems even more anomalous.
I must also take up the point made about the argument as to whether one can be a good priest and a good Member of Parliament at the same time. Ann Widdecombe, in the other place, said that that was not possible. That says that those who already hold public office and are members of the clergy do not carry out either of their functions very well. Currently, there are MPs who are ordained ministers. On 6th February, the Reverend Martin Smythe, MP for Belfast South, outlined his position in the debate in the other place, at col. 832 of the Official Report. He stated that as an ordained priest in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, when he became an MP he was relieved of his pastorate, but that he was still able to perform duties to help his colleagues carry out pastoral work, which he does.
This antique statute has no place in parliamentary proceedings and legislation. We cannot expect to promote a more tolerant, multi-faith, multicultural and fair society while we allow such distinctions to exist on religious grounds. The Bill is not about conscience. It is not even in a sense about religion; it is about equal rights, the democratic rights of citizens to stand for public office and to take their seat in
212
Parliament. I believe that there are no grounds for continuing to distinguish between clergy of different religions under the law.
It is also important perhaps to look at another little piece of history and to remind ourselves that Catholics campaigned to be able to stand for Parliament, as did Jews in the 1860s because they were debarred. Charles Bradlaugh, who represented Northampton, was four times refused the right to sit in the House of Commons because he had no religious views. That, and other reasons, is why we have to ensure that this legislation goes through. It is another stage in that process.
I think—I would like the Minister to tell me—that to allow the current situation to continue must surely be a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 14 of the convention refers to religious discrimination, which this clearly is. Article 9 refers to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and Article 3 to the right of free elections. It seems to me that unless we do something about this legislation we shall find ourselves in breach of that Act.
There should be no discrimination against anybody who wishes to stand for public office. As has been said, that view is supported by the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Church of Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales and the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and Ireland, which have given support to this legislation.
I believe that the arguments in favour of change are irrefutable. It is clearly right that there should no longer be legislative grounds for distinguishing between clergy of different religions. As was so rightly said, the matters we are dealing with are matters for the person and the Church concerned and they are matters for the electorate. They are certainly not matters for the legislature and I hope that the Bill will receive an easy passage through this House.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, it may be thought by some that repealing the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act may be one of the early steps leading to the creation of a theocracy in Britain. There are other straws in the wind that lend some credence to that view.
In the first place, religious revival in the form of fundamentalism is to be seen across the globe and that has certainly become an important influence upon governments. Indeed, in some cases, religious fundamentalists now form governments.
Secondly, Britain itself has not been immune and has seen an upsurge in fundamentalism in recent years in some of its own religions; notably, Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Thirdly, very recently, echoing the sentiments of President George W Bush, Government Ministers and their Conservative shadows have spoken of the possibility and even the desirability of inviting faith communities to join in partnership with government to administer such tasks as the health and social services.

213
Such musings risk stirring up sectarian divisions such as those that have now become an endemic feature of Northern Ireland.
Then again, commentators seeking to give some flesh to the Prime Minister's "Third Way" approach to policy making—not that the term is mentioned much nowadays—suggested that Mr Blair was aiming to introduce Christian Democracy of the kind common to many of the states of mainland Europe. On hearing that, one staunch Labour intellectual retorted, "Christian Stalinism more like, to judge from the Government's propensity for control freakery!".
I do not possess the historical perspective of my noble friend Lord Russell, but I hope to illustrate the fact that I possess some limited powers of predicting the future. As long ago as 1985 I anticipated some of the developments which I outlined in a satirical essay I wrote entitled "White collar, blue collar, dog collar: speculations on the coming ecclesiastical industrial complex".
Following what I took as axiomatic—the collapse of democracy in Britain—the nation had to be saved. My chosen hero was an Anglican worker-priest, who became a tycoon bishop and ultimately Prime Minister/Archbishop, spending weekdays at No. 10 and weekends in Lambeth Palace.
In the course of his rise to ultimate power, I wrote that it had been found prudent to repeal the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act, so I claim some intellectual property rights in respect of today's Bill. What started as part of a piece of political science fiction is now about to become reality.
The denouement I contrived was that my Prime Minister/Archbishop restored the fortunes of the country so successfully that the Church of England felt confident enough to proclaim saints. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, however, corporations could be considered for sainthood along with individuals. The ever-versatile Civil Service obligingly adapted the totting up procedure for driving offences so that five Queen's Awards for Industry or Export established a prima facie case for beatification and 10 a case for canonisation. And thus it came to pass that Marks & Spencer actually became St Michael.
The present Government have shown a marked penchant for cosying up to fat cats and big business. While their exaltation of tycoons has bordered on the reverential, it has fallen short, thus far, of sanctification. Nevertheless, the future scenario which, having let my imagination run riot, I sketched out 16 years ago captured some of the elements of contemporary political reality perhaps too closely for comfort.
To come back to earth to address the immediate business of your Lordships' House, I support the passage of this Bill. Such discrimination against the priestly caste, be it Anglican, Catholic or orthodox, by debarring its members from election to another place is wholly unwarranted in this day and age. Repeal may
214
be a necessary step if anyone was so foolish as to want a theocracy but, thank goodness, it is not a sufficient one.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I strongly support the Bill. During the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill I proposed a set of amendments which were disallowed by the Table on the grounds that they fell outside the scope of the Bill. Those amendments would have amended that Bill so as to repeal the disqualifications which the legislation that we are debating this evening now removes. Following that, with the indispensable help of my friend Professor Robert Blackburn, who is one of the leading experts in Britain on electoral law and practice—the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already referred to him—a Private Member's Bill was drafted. I had intended to lay that Bill before the House until the Government, quite rightly, decided to promote their own Bill, of which I am very strongly in favour.
Why did not the Government include that measure in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill? The answer is a very honourable one; namely, at that time they were engaged with the Churches in consultation which was not complete. I can vouch for that because, when I submitted my amendments to the Table, I also sent them to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for their comments. The response from the Roman Catholic Church was that it was heavily involved with the Government in consultation which was not then complete. Therefore, there are very good reasons why the Government did not include the legislation in the earlier Bill. That is one of the arguments against the view that this is somehow being rushed through. It is not. There was a process of consultation and proper concern about whether it could be brought forward earlier. However, the process of consultation made that very difficult, if not impossible.
Why is the Bill important? As other noble Lords have said, it removes a long-standing anomaly in electoral law which has gone relatively unnoticed. From the debate this evening it is fairly easy to see why that is so: it is quite complicated, the roots of the legislation to be repealed are historical and many people do not understand the complexities of that history. Some of the issues, such as the definition of what it is to be in holy orders, are rather arcane, and in addition it affects very few people. There is an anomaly here which has been hidden for a very long time, and I believe that this is a good moment to try to rectify it.
The Acts which are to be repealed in whole or in part have a long history and their provisions are entirely anachronistic or not part of Parliament's business. I very much agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his description of those provisions. I do not bore your Lordships by going through them again. I am wholly in agreement with the noble Earl. But I believe that the effect of the Acts is discriminatory, because people who have taken holy orders in the Roman Catholic Church are disqualified for life, even if they abandon

215
or repudiate their priesthood. Whether they choose to join another Christian denomination, another religion or become atheists, as I understand it they are still regarded as priests for life. Anglican clergy, however, can remove the disqualification via the Clerical Disabilities Act.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it would be improper for Parliament to go down the same road as was trodden in the passing of the Clerical Disabilities Act. It is not a matter of providing some mechanism for Roman Catholic priests to abandon their orders in a way that would infringe the rights of the Catholic Church: rather, it is for Parliament to remove the disqualification which priests who are held still to be priests then suffer. That is entirely proper for Parliament, whereas the former would not be. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton that the existing legislation is quite possibly a breach of the Human Rights Act in respect of free elections, non-discrimination and freedom of expression.
It is worth reiterating two points made by the Minister in his opening remarks: first, that the removal of disqualification was recommended by the Home Affairs Committee of another place; and, secondly, that the present Bill was given a Second Reading in the other place by a vote of 196 to 15.
What, if anything, might be said against the measure? There is the point about vocation made by Miss Widdecombe and also this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that in a sense priesthood is about a complete way of life and commitment. It is a calling which is quite different from politics. That may be so, but surely that same point applies to ministers of religion in other denominations and indeed other faiths. I cannot see that episcopal ordination makes a difference to the point that the life of a minister of religion involves that—if it does—complete engagement of a person. That applies across faiths. I do not see why it should be invoked particularly in relation to episcopally-ordained ministers as opposed to the generality of ministers of religion of whatever kind.
In a free society that should be a matter for the Churches themselves. If they do not wish to see their priests who are currently in orders involved in politics they can take action against them through the canon law or through the other devices open to Church authorities.
At one point in the debate in the House of Commons it was suggested that the Bill might open the door to religious maniacs becoming Members of Parliament. I find it difficult to take that argument seriously because it assumes that all potential religious maniacs must be in holy orders in the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church. That is a rather dubious proposition. If we took it seriously, it would be a case for general disqualification of clergy of all religions, not just those episcopally ordained.
It might he argued that this is a basic constitutional change and that it should have been given more time by the Government. I have already said that I believe
216
that there has been a process at work here. Unfortunately it has emerged only with the Bill, hut it has been going on for quite some time. It was occasioned by the case of Mr Cairns and his desire to stand in the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. However, the Bill should have been promoted even if there was no one currently disadvantaged by it. Indeed, how could we ever know if anyone was disadvantaged? There may be, or may have been, priests who have been deterred from seeking political nomination because of the law. They anticipated a reaction and did not seek a political career or involvement because of that.
There is no case for arguing against a constitutional change because it relates to a single individual. As the right reverend Prelate said, the 1801 Act was occasioned by the election of Home Tooke, and there will be a nice symmetry in repealing an Act of Parliament which was enacted to deal with one case in order to deal with another single case. I do not see that there is any harm in that. Indeed, the case of Bradlaugh and the case of Tony Benn, also known as Viscount Stansgate at one time, give good reason for thinking that constructive constitutional change can arise out of individual cases.
I have not covered all the arguments. I agree with the general account of the Bill given by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I hope that the Bill will be supported and that it will have a swift passage through your Lordships' House.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House and, in particular, to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for appearing at an earlier stage to attempt to jump the queue. My only defence is to say that the error was due to the fact that I had been in the Chamber almost continuously since 2.15 p.m. and that I had entirely forgotten to check the speakers' list. That lapse may be attributed to old age. I am 80—almost 81.
I have repeatedly informed your Lordships that although I am a communicant of the Church of Ireland, which was disestablished in 1870, I was educated at a Roman Catholic school. So your Lordships may feel that I have a right to be somewhat neutral in this matter. I hope that this short debate will provide an opportunity for editors of newspapers in Northern Ireland to undo the damage they did to community relations and religious attitudes in Northern Ireland by reporting on the debate in the other place, summarised in headlines like:
"Westminster lifts ban on Roman Catholic priests".
Unfortunately, their recklessness and irresponsibility had the intended effect in certain quarters. I deplore that very much.
I just want to say that my first encounter with the existing problem was in the case of an Eighth Army Anglican chaplain, who I think was not always a non-combatant, the Reverend JJ MacManaway, who was elected to Westminster in 1950. I was closely acquainted with him for most of the post-war period.

217
Certain politically motivated persons drew that anomaly to the attention of various persons here in the Palace of Westminster, with the inevitable result that the Privy Council, no doubt acting on sound advice on the law as it then stood, unseated my friend.
We owe it to the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church to give our support to this limited Bill. They are all affected by the generally rather muddled situation that remains at the present time. We all concede that the present situation is out of date, but I make a plea to those newspaper editors for moderation. The law has long needed modernisation and I fully support the Bill and the Minister.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the rules for the disqualification of priests and ministers of religion from membership of the other place are archaic and confusing. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has pointed out the anomalies. Disqualification does not apply at all to priests and deacons of the Church in Wales and does not apply to priests and deacons of the Church of England who have drawn up a certificate of relinquishment, whatever that may be. On the other hand, priests and deacons of the Roman Catholic Church, of the Church of Ireland, of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, of the overseas provinces of the Anglican Church and, it seems, of the Orthodox Churches and the smaller Christian Episcopal Churches, such as, I believe, the Armenian Church, are all disqualified for life without the possibility of parole, although I have to say that I do not expect many Armenian priests in any event to seek membership of the other place.
By contrast, the ministers of non-episcopal Christian denominations are not disqualified, with the sole exception of ministers of the Church of Scotland. No priests, ministers or holders of other religious offices of non-Christian religions are disqualified. I know of one rabbi who stood for election on behalf of the SDP in 1983.
The probable reason for the exclusion from the House of Commons of the established Church in England and Wales has been explained by my noble friend Lord Russell and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. However, that cannot be the reason for the exclusion of ministers of the Church of Scotland. Disqualification of Roman Catholic priests is expressly provided for by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and is now one of the very few remaining handicaps imposed on Roman Catholics. I seem to recall that, about a year ago, we passed an Act allowing a Roman Catholic to become Lord Chancellor.
Of course the disqualification of clergy does not extend to your Lordships' House where we have at least five life Peers, including the noble Lord—I wish that I could describe him as noble and reverend—Lord Pilkington, who would be disqualified from sitting in
218
the House of Commons because he is an ordained priest of the Church of England or, in the case of Archbishop Eames, of the Church of Ireland.
Speaking as a non-believer of mixed Jewish and Anglican background, I have to say that none of this makes much sense to me. As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, remarked, the role of an active priest and the role of a Member of Parliament may well be incompatible. However, that is a matter for the Churches to decide. If a priest or former priest decides to stand and is elected, it may be contrary to the rules of his Church and may lead to disciplinary action under the rules of that Church. Again, however, that is no reason why the state should intervene. Indeed, it may well be contrary to the human rights of priests to exclude them from the right to stand in elections.
The last parliamentary election that I fought was in Oxford West and Abingdon in 1992. My Labour opponent on that occasion was Bruce Kent, formerly Monsignor Bruce Kent. I am not sure whether he had been formally defrocked, but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, may well be wrong in saying that a defrocked priest can take a seat. At any rate, that is the view of Professor Blackburn, as set out in the House of Commons Library guide to this matter. As it happened, Bruce Kent finished a distant third in that election, but had he won, he could well have been disqualified from taking his seat. I have to say that I disagreed with many of his views, but I formed a great respect and liking for him during the course of the campaign and I believe that he would have made an excellent MP, although perhaps for another seat. I believe that it is totally wrong that perhaps he would have been unable to take his seat if he had been elected.
In spite of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, I believe that the purpose of introducing this Bill at this time is specifically to ensure that David Cairns—who has a better chance of winning his seat than did Bruce Kent—will not suffer the fate that Bruce would have done if he had won Oxford West and Abingdon. I regret that only now is this Bill being introduced to enable one particular candidate to take his seat.
However, my party has long supported disestablishment of the Church of England and we believe that archaic rules concerning disqualification from membership of the other place should have been swept away long ago. For that reason, while I am unhappy that the Bill is being introduced now for what appear to be self-serving reasons, it would be wholly inconsistent for us to oppose the Bill on that ground.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have enjoyed the debate, especially the welcome and humorous contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Smith. It was particularly welcome for those of us who have been in the Chamber for some hours longer than we expected.
We have to be very clear about what we are being asked to do. The Minister explained the Bill as a kind of tidying-up measure to enable priests and ministers of the Church of Scotland to be members of another

219
place—"priests" being defined as those ordained by a bishop. Primarily, of course, we are talking about Anglican and Roman Catholic priests.
As we have heard, some Anglican priests are not disqualified from membership of another place. The clergy of the Church in Wales are specifically allowed by the civil law to be Members of Parliament under the Welsh Church Act 1914. Church of England priests can take advantage of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870.
I remember Ivor Clemitson, who was elected to another place at a similar time to myself. He was a priest of the Church of England and became MP for Luton East for a number of years. He had, of course, relinquished his orders at that time under the available mechanism. So there is not really a problem so far as concerns inactive Church of England clergy—that is, "inactive" in the sense of their clerical responsibilities—who are prepared to go through the necessary hoops.
However, that is not the end of the matter so far as concerns Anglicans. The Welsh case clearly indicates the constitutional connection between the provisions in this Bill and the establishment by law of the Church of England. It was on disestablishment, when the Welsh bishops left this House, that the Welsh clergy were permitted to become Members of another place. So the whole subject matter of the Bill so far as concerns Anglicans clearly reads across into the position of the English bishops in the House in addition to the specific mention of them in the Bill.
Their position is of course being considered in the context of House of Lords reform, as we know. The logical context in which to consider changing the rules for other clergy in relation to another place is when we change the position of the bishops' place in this House, if that is what finally emerges from the discussions about its future. We are asked to change half the law, in a piecemeal fashion, while consideration of the other half is still proceeding.
I turn to Roman Catholic priests. The Roman Catholic Church, like others, takes a strict and solemn view of priesthood. It requires a long period of instruction and preparation; it wishes to be certain of the individuals' vocation; and, when a man comes to be ordained, it insists on a full and real lifelong commitment. As has been said, once ordained a man is a priest forever.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that I understand that it is legally possible under canon law to be relieved of the obligations and duties of a priest—that is, to be "laicised"—but it is deliberately difficult. If the promises of ordination could easily be disposed of, the commitment would be that much weaker, not only for the priest concerned but for every other priest too. In other words, it would devalue the priest hood itself world-wide. That is why canon law is framed and operated as it is.
220
But, in any case, "laicisation" does not mean that a man is not still a priest—he is. It means only that he is relieved of the obligations and duties of a priest. I am not a Roman Catholic but I respect the view that the Roman Catholic Church takes of its priesthood.
As we have heard, the Roman Catholic Church does not permit its priests to take part in the civil government of any country and therefore to become members of legislatures. Canon law specifically forbids bishops, priests and deacons from sharing the exercise of civil power. I understand that the present Pope has emphasised that government and politics are in the sphere of the laity.
So this Bill is therefore about those who want to become politicians against the promises that they made when they were ordained. However, as has emerged from the debate, the Bill has not been brought forward at this time because of the principle of the issue but because of one particular case. The Minister mentioned it himself, as has practically every other speaker. The reason for advancing the Bill at this time is that David Cairns is a prospective Labour parliamentary candidate. As has been said, he is a Roman Catholic priest and was active as such until some years ago, but more recently he has renounced his vocation and no longer wants to undertake the duties of a priest. I do not know whether he has been "laicised" and thereby relieved of his obligations and duties by his Church. But whether or not that is the case, he remains a priest forever and so under the civil law he cannot sit in Parliament.
Mr Cairns was selected last summer by the local party to be the prospective Labour candidate for Greenock and Inverclyde. I have heard that at the time of his selection he did not tell the public, his constituency Labour Party officers or the members of the party who had to decide on the choice of a candidate that he was disqualified from being an MP, although he presumably knew that perfectly well. I do not know at what stage Mr Cairns's true position became known to the Labour Party's national authorities; nor do I know when they agreed to try to get the Government to change the law to help him.
It would assist the House to understand Mr Cairns's position if the Minister would answer three questions. First, did Mr Cairns know that he was disqualified when he put his name forward for selection? Secondly, did the constituency members know that he was disqualified when they selected him? Thirdly, when did the Labour Party's national authorities know that he was disqualified under the law as it stands?
There is another aspect to all this. We are told by the newspapers that the Prime Minister has been planning for a long time to hold the general election on 3rd May and still wishes to do so. If that is what happens, the Bill cannot complete its passage through this House under our normal rules. There is simply not enough time. That is the Government's choice. Provisions of this kind were recommended some time ago by a Select Committee of another place. But the Government did not conclude their consultations and arrange for the responses to come forward early enough to take the

221
opportunity to propose this measure to Parliament when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act was being debated—the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said that he tried to insert a provision into that measure—or during debate on the Representation of the People Act or the Disqualifications Act. All three measures have completed their passage through Parliament since the Select Committee made its recommendations. Above all, the Government did not cause the Bill to be mentioned in the Queen's Speech; nor did they introduce it early enough in this Session for it to be considered in the normal way if the election is to be held on 3rd May. Other Bills—
Earl Russell: My Lords, most of us on this side of the House have criticised governments at one time or another because their consultations were too cursory. Is it consistent to criticise the Government now because their consultations were too thorough?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, all I am saying is that had the consultations—which took several years—allowed them to do so, they could have taken advantage of the other measures, or they could have introduced the Bill earlier in this Session. Other Bills have been considered in this Session and have received Royal Assent. This afternoon alone we finally passed the Vehicles (Crime) Bill and cleared it for Royal Assent after full discussion. It has only a very small hurdle to cover now. By leaving this Bill so late, if the election is to be on 3rd May, the Government have in practice denied to any other priest or former priest the opportunity that they seek to give to Mr Cairns; that is to say, the opportunity to go to a constituency to seek selection as a candidate and put themselves before the electorate.
If the election goes forward on 3rd May, we may be asked to facilitate Mr Cairns's prospective membership of the House of Commons—if he is elected—despite the fact that he apparently deceived the local Labour Party members at his selection when he appears to have concealed his disqualification; and the fact that he seeks to become a Member of the other place, contrary to the promises that he gave his Church—some of the most solemn promises that it is possible to make. I wonder what value the constituents will now place on any other promises that he has made to them, either in the course of seeking the candidature or that he may make during the forthcoming campaign.
If the Bill were to be rushed through Parliament, we could also be asked to bend some of the most central clauses of our constitution, even while consideration is being given to wider, related changes. The qualifications for membership of the legislature are a central matter in the constitution of any country. The constitution in many countries cannot be changed, except by a more elaborate procedure than for other changes in the law. But if the election is to take place on 3rd May, we may be asked to accelerate our procedures for the sake of this one man.
222
That course would deny us proper Committee and Report stages in which to consider, for example, whether we should confine the permission to Roman Catholics priests who have been "laicised" and so avoid assisting in the breaking of canon law; what we wish to do about the establishment of the Church of England, and the future representation of the faith communities in this House; and whether all bishops of the Church of England should be disqualified, which is what the Select Committee recommended, or only those who are already Lords Spiritual and Members of this House, as suggested by the Bill. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate referred to that point. We should also need to consider any points on legal drafting that may arise. This House rightly prides itself on its detailed consideration of Bills, particularly when, as in this case, they concern alterations to ancient laws of a constitutional character.
The part of the Bill that refers to Anglicans is unnecessary to a considerable extent and is divorced from its proper constitutional context. The other part that refers to Roman Catholic priests is, at this stage at any rate, for the benefit of one man and one political party. Apart from his position, it can in no way be described as "urgent". I hasten to add that I do not believe that we should deny the Bill a Second Reading tonight; indeed, that would be against the normal custom in your Lordships' House. In any event, that would amount to saying that the matter should not be further discussed. I take the opposite view; namely, that the Bill deserves further consideration and will need further discussion. If other events mean that that incommodes Mr. Cairns, that seems to me to be his own fault. He set up the situation when he put himself forward as a candidate and, apparently, concealed his true position from the local party in Greenock. He cannot presume that Parliament will simply bend its rules to his convenience.
10.43 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall respond briefly to the debate. I shall not go into great detail, because I believe that we have had a fair hearing of some of the issues involved. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, I think it would be fair to say that there has been broad agreement on the Bill, though perhaps I should also mention the noble Lord. Lord Cope. in that respect. Before the noble Lord spoke, it was my understanding that, broadly speaking, the Opposition were in favour and rather supportive of the measure. However, heaving heard his speech, I am rather rapidly reviewing that assumption. Having said that, I believe that we have had a useful debate. As ever, I am grateful to all speakers who have taken part.
A number of quite interesting points were raised. I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, expressed the most clearly-stated opposition to the measure, based around the principle of "once a priest, always a priest". He echoed the concerns raised in another place by Ann Widdecombe that this was a calling and a vocation and that we should not in any way undermine it by passing this piece of legislation.

223
The noble Lord also argued that hard cases make bad law. On some occasions that may well be the case. However, there are examples of hard cases which have made good law. I mention the case of Tony Benn when he sought to become a Member of the House of Commons. That case made good law. It did not just assist the Labour Party but also the Conservative Party when it wanted to appoint a new Prime Minister on the demise of Harold Macmillan.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made some important points in an entertaining speech. As ever, he gave us a history lesson. He reminded me of several pieces of legislation which I had forgotten since the days of my A-levels and reminded me why I so enjoyed history at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, persuaded me that we were living in a form of science fiction, otherwise known as political science. I thought that that was a very entertaining contribution.
I was grateful for the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I shall try to answer the precise question that he asked. He asked what would be the position of the bishops who are not Lords Spiritual. They will not be disqualified from membership of another place. I thought that I had made that point clear in my opening comments.
In conclusion, I address an issue which I think the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised. I think that he asked whether the Bill would inhibit the ability of Churches to discipline their members. It does not do that; it focuses solely—as I believe Members of your Lordships' House are now aware—on the right to stand for election. I think that that clarifies that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, asked whether the current situation constitutes a breach of human rights. The reform is undertaken not to set right a breach of human rights. It is undertaken because we consider that the present law is in breach of a fundamental right; that is, the right to stand for election. We believe that the reform is right in principle. The current situation could well be challenged under human rights legislation. However, I should not like to speculate on that point as it is not a point for me to consider. However, I believe that we can all recognise that the measure adds another passage to extending the rights of all people in this country to stand for election if they wish. As I believe the noble Baroness argued forcefully and effectively, it gets rid of discrimination and anomalies—things that we want to see the back of.
I was grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield. He reminded your Lordships' House that some consideration had been given to the issue during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Some thought was certainly given to rectifying the anomaly during the construction of that piece of legislation. However, it was felt at that stage that it was outwith the scope of that Bill. I think that that was probably the right conclusion to draw. However, this issue has been around for some time. The case of Mr Cairns has brought it sharply into focus.
224
While I as ever respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, which he always expresses with great sincerity and clarity, I do not think that it is for your Lordships' House to consider whether or not Mr Cairns has in any way, shape or form misled his local party. That is an issue for Mr Cairns, and perhaps for the local party, to consider. I do not believe that it was irresponsible of Mr Cairns to seek selection. I believe that he undertook that in good faith and in so doing he has valuably reinforced and highlighted an issue which it is important for us to tackle by way of getting rid of this long-standing anomaly which I do not consider has any relevance to our modern society or to our modern day constitution.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will think again about some of his comments. I had hoped that the House would move forward with a fair degree of unanimity. I respect the point that hard questions should always be asked about legislation; and that legislation should be properly and effectively scrutinised. But I think it would he better if this legislation were accepted and adopted in good faith, with a good heart and in good spirit. Although it satisfies one individual and, peculiarly in this instance, one particular party, it is not brought forward in partisan terms. It has been brought forward to deal with discrimination and anomalies and to set right a situation which, it could be fairly argued, should have been tackled long ago.
The Government are firmly of the view that current legislation which prevents ordained clergy from being elected to serve in another place, and which prevents Catholic priests from having a similar status, is wrong. It is a short Bill but it is a significant measure. It will remove an unfair and archaic piece of legislation which prevents both serving and former ministers of religion from taking their seats if elected as Members of Parliament,
On that basis, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill fulsome support at Second Reading and throughout its stages in this House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Alterations to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
10.51 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brightonrose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 5th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was first introduced in 1964. The scheme provides payment at taxpayers' expense to blameless victims of violent crime. For the first 32 years, the scheme was non-statutory. Compensation was assessed individually in each case based on common law damages—in other words, what the applicant might have expected to receive in damages in a successful civil action.

225
The terms of the original scheme were modified in 1969, 1979 and again in 1990. But the scheme was changed more fundamentally with effect from 1st April 1996 with the introduction of a statutory scheme under the previous administration. This scheme broke the link with common law damages and moved away from individual assessment. Compensation is now assessed on the basis of a tariff or scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity.
All successful claimants get an award from the tariff, ranging in 25 bands from £1,000 to £250,000. More seriously injured victims may receive additional payment for loss of earnings/special care and, in fatal cases, loss of dependency/parental support can be paid. The maximum amount payable for any one claim is half a million pounds.
The old scheme was administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB). The current scheme is run by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). There is a two stage appeals process. An applicant who is unhappy with a decision by the authority can apply to have that decision reviewed by a senior member of the authority's staff. If still unhappy with the reviewed decision, an applicant may appeal. When the board was wound up on 31st March 2000, the remaining old scheme cases were transferred to the authority for resolution by legally qualified members of the panel.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the distinguished chairmanship of the CICB by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. Indeed, since the board was wound up on 31st March 2001, the noble Lord has continued to serve as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel, dealing with the remaining old scheme cases.
Some of your Lordships may recall that the tariff of injuries was amended in March 1999 to add a number of injuries that had not been included in the original tariff and to amend some others in the light of experience of running the scheme for three years.
At the same time, the Government published a consultation paper entitled Compensation for Victims of Violent Crime: Possible Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The paper sought views on how the scheme might further be improved. However, the Government made it clear at the outset of the consultation exercise that any changes must be within current legislation and existing planned financial provision for the scheme.
The consultation paper was sent to individuals and organisations with an interest, to the media and to members of the public on request. Respondents included victims' organisations, academics, trade unions, the legal profession, police, charities and individual victims. With such a wide range of respondents, there were many differing, often conflicting, views on what should be done. However, it became clear that there were four main areas for change that had widespread support: increasing awards for rape and child abuse; reflating the tariff
226
levels; increasing awards for serious multiple injuries; and extending eligibility for fatal awards to partners of the same sex.
In addition to those main areas of change, the Government took the opportunity to consult the authority and appeals panel on how the layout of the tariff of injuries might be improved. The result of that work is a comprehensive package of improvements to the scheme. The package will increase the compensation paid to victims of violent crime by £20 million in a full year and will make the scheme easier to use. I shall comment briefly on each of the changes.
The first change is increased awards for sexual assault and child abuse. Many respondents thought that compensation for rape and child abuse was too low, although none really tackled the thorny problem of by how much. The Government have looked carefully at this complex area and propose a significant increase in awards for rape and sexual assault and for serious sexual and/or physical abuse of children. For example, minimum awards for rape will increase by almost 50 per cent, from £7,500 to £11,000. The maximum payable for serious physical child abuse will more than double. The Government also propose to introduce additional compensation payments for victims infected with HIV/AIDS.
The second main change is an uprating of the tariff levels. Some respondents argued that the value of the tariff awards had been eroded by inflation since their inception in 1996. However, across the board reflation of all tariff bands would be very expensive and the Government do not consider that that is necessary or represents the best use of the available resources. Awards at the top and bottom end of the tariff are still broadly consistent with damages typically awarded by the courts, but there is more divergence in the middle bands. The Government therefore propose to uplift tariff bands 7 to 23 inclusive by 10 per cent. That will significantly increase the compensation payable to many more seriously injured victims.
The third main change is increasing awards for serious multiple injuries. Compensation for serious multiple injuries is calculated according to a formula. It is currently 100 per cent of the tariff award for the most serious or highest value injury, 10 per cent of the second and 5 per cent of the third. Many respondents thought that the formula was too low, although it was based on practice in civil courts. Experience of running the scheme supports that view, so we propose to increase the formula to 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 15 per cent.
The fourth main change is extending eligibility for fatal awards to homosexual and lesbian partners. Currently, only parents, children, spouses or longterm heterosexual partners of homicide victims can qualify for a fatal award. We believe that there are no grounds for continuing to exclude long-term homosexual or lesbian partners. The appalling bombing in 1999 of the "Admiral Duncan" pub in Soho highlighted that issue in a distressing way.

227
There are other detailed changes that I shall not go into here. The authority and appeals panel have thoroughly reviewed the scheme, bringing to bear all their expertise and experience of running the scheme since 1996. In the light of their advice, the Government propose to refine many of the injury descriptions and change the layout of the tariff to make it clearer and easier for victims to use. The Government also propose some textual changes to the scheme to remove possible ambiguities and provide greater clarity where experience has suggested that that will be helpful. If approved by your Lordships' House, the revised scheme would come into effect on 1st April 2001. Provision was made for the estimated cost of the improvements in the 2000 spending review.
I hope that, from what I have said, noble Lords will agree that the proposed package of changes will greatly improve the scheme for the benefit of victims of violent crime and that the wide-ranging changes proposed will make the most effective use of the available resources. For those reasons, I commend the draft alterations to the House.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 5th March be approved.—(Lord Bassani of Brighton.)
11 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresfordrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert "but that this House regrets that the Government have failed again to bring compensation for injury and death caused by criminal activities back up to the level of common law damages for injury and death caused by negligence, as was paid for many years under the original scheme".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for 30 years successive governments of both Labour and Conservative administrations acted with reasonable generosity towards the victims of violent crime. They provided through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board compensation based upon what the victim would have received if he or she had successfully sued the criminal in the civil courts—the common law basis for damages for personal injuries.
The proposals to sweep away that system in 1994, introduced by the then Conservative administration without parliamentary debate, and to replace it with assessments based not upon the individual needs of the victim but on tariffs met with harsh criticism. Mr Tony Blair, then the Shadow Home Secretary, said that nothing so exposed the government's claims about law and order as the scrapping of the current system of compensation. In speaking during the consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill of that year, he said that thousands of people would be worse off under the new arrangements and many would be substantially worse off.
In the Queen's Speech of that Parliament, he pointed out that the new system would cause manifest injustice because huge variations in individual circumstances would simply be lumped together. Thus, an elderly man blinded in a criminal attack
228
would receive the same compensation as someone with his working life ahead of him. That was Mr Tony Blair in his Opposition mode.
In this House on 2nd March 1994, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as he then was, quoted Article 4 of the European Convention on Compensation for Victims of Violent Crimes, which this country ratified in 1990. That article read:
"Compensation shall cover according to the case under consideration at least the following items: loss of earnings, medical and hospitalisation expenses and funeral expenses, and, as regards dependence, loss of maintenance".
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that, as he read Article 4, every case was an individual one which had to be considered on its own facts. He continued:
"The current compensation scheme treats every case as an individual case. It has regard to particular circumstances of each individual crime and the loss that he or she has suffered arid will suffer".
The awards cover, in just the same way as in personal injury awards in these cases, what is called "special damages for past losses"; for example, earnings, medical expenses and general damages, and compensation for pain and suffering caused by the injury itself, together with compensation for future loss of earnings.
That was the criticism at that time. In response, the Conservative government introduced the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill in 1995. When he introduced the Bill, Mr Michael Howard said that the reason for doing so was that the number of unresolved cases under the old scheme had risen inexorably to over 100,000 and the costs had escalated rapidly. I understand from the most recent figures available to me that outstanding cases now stand at 90,000—that is, a difference of 10,000 compared with the position as it was prior to the introduction of this scheme.
However, a concession was made that earnings after 28 weeks and the costs of special care for incapacity which exceeded 28 weeks would be met. Payment for dependency after death would also be made, subject to an upper capped limit. The figures quoted in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill were that, without the change being made, the costs of the existing scheme by 2001, which is where we are today, would be £460 million.
The attitude of Mr Straw, as Shadow Home Secretary, was to move an amendment to the Bill in 1995. The amendment read:
"This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill because it is based on cutting the cash available to compensate victims".
I like the alliteration in that. Mr Straw had it absolutely right. The amendment went on,
"because its proposals fail adequately to reflect society's obligations to assist victims to recover from their experience of crime: and because it fails to place victims at the centre of the criminal justice system".—[Official Report, Commons. 23/5/95; col. 741.]
Mr Straw said that the then Labour opposition's primary objection was that the government had no

229
mandate whatever for what they were doing and that they had been dishonest with the electorate. He said:
"The Bill cuts the total projected budget by more than £700 million, or 40 per cent., over a five-year period. Such cuts are bound to result in much lower awards for many victims, despite the concessions that have been forced out of the Home Secretary and which are contained in the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/95; col. 744.]
Mr David Maclean, replying to the debate for the Conservative government, said that in five years' time—that is, now—the amount expected to be paid out was £260 million under the new tariff scheme. Again, the most recent figures that are available to me suggest that £200 million is the current level, and that that is a cap within which the scheme is, by policy, kept.
One might have thought that the Labour Government would have done something during the past four years, having regard to those statements of principle that three of its principal proponents had made in previous years; not a bit of it. Scandalous inequalities have surfaced from time to time. Noble Lords will recall the case of the Austrian tourist and mother of two who was gang-raped by eight youths and thrown into the canal near King's Cross. She was awarded £10,000: £7,500 for the first rape plus £2,500 for the remaining seven rapes; that is, £330 a rape. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place tonight, said of that case that there is something wrong with a system which gives less compensation to victims of crime than those who suffered some sort of psychological problem because of alleged harassment in the workplace. He said that it needs to be looked at closely. I do not often agree with him, but I agree very much with the sentiments that he then expressed.
At that time—in 1998—a teacher in Coventry brought a civil action for common law damages after she had been chasing a nine year-old boy in a class and had suffered a whiplash injury. She was very properly awarded the sum of £82,500 for the injury that she sustained and the consequent trauma thereafter. Lisa Potts, on the other hand, who was slashed many times with a machete by a violent adult male, which is a rather worse experience than chasing a child around a class, received an initial award for her injuries of £8,000. She had to appeal it, and it was increased on appeal to nearly £50,000, although she had hoped for very much more. Of that sum, £20,000 was for post-traumatic stress disorder—that is, for something that will permanently disable her—and £28,784 for loss of earnings. Then she received, in addition, £750 for damage to her arm and £250 for scarring. Infinitely more would have been given by a court, having regard to that lady's dreadful injuries. Until today, only 10 per cent of the normal level is allowed by the CICA for the second injury in the same attack and 5 per cent for a third attack. Those are the derisory figures that she was awarded.
The Minister referred to the changes to the present scheme. The generosity that is expressed in that scheme would have benefited Miss Potts because the
230
proportions would have been 30 per cent and 15 per cent respectively, which would have increased her award by a miserly £2,000. Instead of very nearly £50,000, she would have received £51,000.
I go along with the Salvation Army War Cry of 24th February last, which stated,
"In a land fit for heroes and heroines, justice must be seen to be done. The system is not being fair to Lisa or other victims of crime. The criminal injuries compensation scheme must reflect more fairly the value of human life. Today a group of young children owe their lives to Lisa. This country still owes her".
We gave her the George Medal, but we did not give her adequate compensation for the dreadful injuries she suffered. A six year-old child who was injured in the same attack and severely scarred across the face received £7,950. Due to the tariff system, she received precisely the same for that horribly disfiguring injury as if she had been in her eighties and not a young girl of six with the whole of her life to lead.
Again, the Government may be impressed by the Trades Union Council motion passed in 1988—they used to be impressed by motions passed by the TUC. Motion 96 was in these terms:
"Congress calls upon the General Council to contact all constituent unions for the purposes of obtaining information regarding the disgraceful tariff system employed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The victims of criminal acts should be at the forefront of the Government's concerns. Since the introduction of the current tariff system by the previous Government, victims of crime are too often being denied adequate compensation, thus denying them acceptable quality of life".
Mr Straw indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, announced in September 1998 to the Superintendents' Association in Bristol that he was ready to review the system in the light of the recent cases of Lisa Potts and others that had attracted enormous adverse publicity to this Government. But he stressed that no new money would be made available. It is only now, in the dying days of this Parliament, that there is any move to raise the tariff, and that is only by the figure of £20 million—10 per cent. It does not even keep pace with inflation over the period since the introduction of the tariff scheme on 1st April 1996.
What else is being done for victims? When we were considering other legislation, we heard that this Government had victims close to their heart. We are told the Victims Charter of 1996 will be reviewed. That is a good thing; it does not cost a penny. There is now a new buzz word—attrition—which we have never heard before. The money that is being put into the criminal justice system is for two purposes, said Mr Straw last month; that is, cutting crime and catching more criminals. He said,
"To show victims that something can be done we have a new target to bring more offenders to justice, the attrition target".
That new buzz word means nothing.
As for the measures to protect vulnerable witnesses which we passed in 1999, they are to be introduced in the Crown Court during 2001–02 and in the magistrates' court in 2002–03. What is to happen for victims? There will be better services; £4.6 million will be spent on introducing victim personal statements so

231
that victims can tell the court what happened; £4.2 million will extend witness support services to magistrates' courts and the Crown Prosecution Service will spend an extra £3 million on making direct contact with victims, either by letter on in face-to-face meetings to explain decisions to drop or alter charges. That is the Victims Charter. By their alterations to this scheme the Government have gone along with the tariff system which, instead of providing £460 million by 2001, as was thought Five years ago, now produces £220 million. So they have saved more than half the possible cost of that and are spending £11 million on services that victims generally do not want and which are completely valueless for victims of crimes that are never solved.
Are this Government going to be dishonest with the electorate, a phrase which Mr Straw used about the Conservatives? Are they really going to claim that they have done something for the victims of crime by the introduction of this scheme today when the reality is that they have connived to maintain the tariff system that they once condemned and thereby, as I have said, to cut criminal injuries compensation by half the projected figures? If they attempt to claim credit for this miserly increase in the scheme, the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor. the Home Secretary and the Labour Party will do their reputations a grave disservice. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end insert "but that this House regrets that the Government have failed again to bring compensation for injury and death caused by criminal activities back up to the level of common law damages for injury and death caused by negligence, as was paid for many years under the original scheme".—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
11.15 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as someone who, for the past 10 years, was the part-time chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board until its demise in April last year and who, since that date has, as the Minister said, accepted to sit on the board of the new authority for the purpose of clearing up those cases which the board had not dealt with but which still have to be dealt with under the provisions of the old scheme. I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks.
Yesterday I voted against the ban on hunting because I do not believe it is cruel and I do not believe in cruelty. Therefore, knowing that the Minister has sat here from 2.30 this afternoon, solidly answering every debate, I shall try to be reasonably brief in my remarks on the draft scheme, some of which are critical, some welcoming.
I start by referring to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who was a distinguished member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. There is no doubt that, from the point of view of the victim, the previous non-statutory scheme paying common law damages was far more favourable than the scheme we have today, for two reasons. First,
232
as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas said, the level of common law damages is higher than the figures that we see in the tariff today. One only has to look at the JSB guidelines, which are now treated as a bible by those who work in the courts, to see that at almost every level the figures of awards advised as suitable for common law damages are higher than those given in the tariff. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, of its very nature the tariff cannot take account of the different effects of similar injuries on different people.
I have slightly different quotes to those used by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. However, I share his view of the real hypocrisy of the Government who, having attacked the introduction of the scheme as they did in opposition, now put it forward as a scheme of which they are proud and which they claim to improve. They are now putting forward a scheme which they opposed and voted against, not only at Second Reading, but at Third Reading in the House of Commons. Having looked back on those debates, the basis on which they voted against it at Second Reading was, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas said, that it was accused of being based upon cutting the cost of compensating the victims of crime and at Third Reading because it provided for a tariff system in respect of criminal injuries without flexibility to deal with special cases. They criticised in particular the fact that the Government were introducing a scheme with awards which were three years out of date by inflation terms without any arrangements for updating, with the implication that it should be updated on an annual basis.
Yet the Government are now introducing a scheme which in reality, as regards the figures in the tariff and despite today's increase, is lower in value than the awards given for individual injuries when the scheme was introduced. However, one must be realistic and face the fact that it is not possible to return to the original common law damages scheme.
The reason I say that is to be found in Annex B of the consultative paper put out by the Government on this issue. It relates to the volume of applications made to the board. Perhaps I may give one or two examples. I became chairman in 1990. In the year 1990–91, there were 51,000 applications at a cost of £109 million in compensation. By 1995–96, when Mr Michael Howard introduced the Bill in another place, there was an increase in the number of applications to 75,000 and in the amount of compensation to £179 million. Today the number of applications is still higher and the amount of compensation is £205 million. I accept that the Government are entitled to examine the cost of the scheme.
Going back to 1980, there were 24,000 applications and £21 million was paid in compensation. In 1970, there were 7,000 applications and £20 million was paid in compensation. In the scheme's first year in operation, in 1965–66, there were 2,500 applications and £403,000 was paid in compensation. I realise that with that growth in the volume of applications it is

233
impossible to assess each case individually in the way we were assessing them: each being examined individually by a qualified lawyer.
Although I have no doubt that the scheme gave greater benefit in the end to the victim, I accept that changes had to be made. That is why, unlike the Government, we did not oppose the scheme which was eventually put before Parliament. What we as a board opposed was Mr Michael Howard's initial proposals. They were defeated legally on appeal before the Law Lords in the House of Lords. The scheme which he proposed would have made savings entirely at the cost of those who had been worst injured.
Eventually, when the scheme presented to Parliament by the government of the day avoided that effect, it was inevitable and necessary that we should move at least in part to a tariff scheme.
Here I join forces with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Having moved to a tariff scheme and cut the link with common law damages, both we and victims are entitled to expect that the Government will not preside over a scheme where in real terms the value of awards to individuals for injuries steadily decreases. That is the effect of the Motion that is before us tonight. Although the scheme was introduced in 1996, it was accepted that the figures provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's computer in 1994 were already two years out of date. Since then there have been four or five years of inflation. The 10 per cent increase in overall expenditure by the Government, which I accept for the purposes of the argument, does not begin to match inflation over the period. In terms of value, the amounts proposed are less than when the scheme was introduced under such criticism from the then opposition, now the Government, in 1996.
Further, tonight we are debating figures which the Government intend should last for the next few years. Therefore, as inflation continues, the value of awards will drop. The answer is that in real terms we are spending less, and intend to spend less in future, without any assurance from the Government that the scheme will be reviewed and revalued. Nor do I understand why the lower levels of compensation—any award up to £2,500—have been left out of any increase. Clearly, the value of awards at that level has dropped in real terms since 1994. The awards tend to be for temporary rather than permanent injuries and relate to the very people who miss out because the Government. do not compensate for the first 28 weeks of any unemployment. Therefore, in making an increase to take account of the fall in the value of money over the period, which is presumably the intention, it is wrong to leave out a large proportion of those people who receive lesser awards. I have no doubt that that is because of the Government's desire to reduce the cost of the scheme.
I turn from my critical remarks about the proposals for the tariff to one or two changes to the scheme itself. Some are simply clearing-up measures which are obviously welcome. I believe that three of them are of importance. I entirely welcome the proposal to make
234
it clear that in future the authority has the right to make a non-exhaustive trust where a large sum of money may be given for the future care of a person who, sadly, dies. At the moment the money goes to dependants irrespective of their relationship to the individual rather than back to the state, which I believe is perfectly reasonable.
I welcome that in part the Government are to put right the total nonsense or iniquity, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, of the situation that arises in multiple injury claims which led to the publicity in the case of Miss Potts and others. The scheme provides that, for multiple injuries, the individual receives 100 per cent for the first injury, 10 per cent for the second and 5 per cent for the third. Therefore, one ends up with the ridiculous situation where for serious scarring of a person's face there is an award of £750 because it is the second injury, so one receives only one-tenth of its value. The Government have increased the scheme payments from 100 per cent, 10 per cent and 5 per cent to 100 per cent, 30 per cent and 15 per cent. Frankly, I still do not believe that that is enough. I believe that for the second injury one should have gone to 50 per cent. But I ask more than that. I ask why, where there are injuries which are totally discrete and which do not relate to one another, is there a case for having any reduction at all?
Perhaps I may put it to the Minister that one matter that might be considered seriously in the longer term is to review the working of the scheme to see whether certain cases which raise problems of this kind can he referred directly to the panel, who are all experienced lawyers and well conversant with personal injury work, as against being decided first under the tariff. If one could get some hybridity into the scheme it would be to the great advantage of victims of crime.
Funnily enough, no comment has been made about the third point that I want to raise. As the Minister knows, tucked away in the scheme is a new power. That is a right to withdraw or reduce an award where the member of the staff—that is what it is in the tariff situation—believes that the excessive consumption of alcohol contributed to the circumstances which gave rise to the injury and therefore that should lead to a reduction in the award made.
I hope that the Minister will explain to this House how that power is intended to work. At the moment the scheme provides that one is entitled to take into account the conduct of an individual. Therefore, if someone because of his alcoholic state chooses to pick a fight or get involved in an argument with someone which when sober he would not do, then that is clearly conduct which can be, and is, taken into account, in deciding whether he has justified any award at all, or at least a reduced award. But what does it mean when, totally unconnected with a person's conduct, the board is entitled to reduce or refuse an award because the person is affected by excessive consumption of alcohol? Does that mean that the happy drunk—if I may use that phrase—going perfectly quietly home without causing trouble to anyone who is then mugged

235
on the street should have his award reduced although he himself in his own conduct has done nothing wrong?
That issue needs to be thought through. We looked at it on many occasions. The fact is that alcohol which leads to an individual causing or putting himself in a situation where he is in part responsible for what happens can be covered by conduct. All we are doing here is saying that one need not give an award to anyone who is thought to have had too much to drink although that drink has had nothing to do with the injury which he has sustained.
I accept that the tariff scheme means that the Government decide what the country can afford to spend on compensating the victims of crime. The Government must accept that the scheme that they are putting forward tonight does not, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has pointed out, enable them to claim that they are increasing the volume when in practice, in real terms, they are reducing that volume.
What is being done is a move in the right direction. It should have been done earlier. There were four years in which some obvious anomalies could have been corrected. I believe that we should have an undertaking from the Minister that in future the scheme will be reviewed on a regular basis rather than merely just before the date of an approaching general election. We should look further than that and see whether we can make changes to the scheme which, by making it basically a tariff scheme but with a hybrid side that allows some cases to be looked at individually—it could be contrived in that way—would enormously help the average victim of crime.
I apologise to the House. I have spoken for far longer than I should. I apologise for the cruelty that I may have caused to the Minister.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for speaking with such clarity and expertise. I am also grateful for the length of his speech because it enables me to say that my noble friend asked all the important questions that needed to be asked of the Minister and asked them with much greater understanding and clarity than I could have managed. My noble friend showed quite early on in his speech that when those in opposition find themselves in government they find that the dead hand of the Treasury squashes all their fine aspirations.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, drew attention to the anomalies of the system and referred in particular to the award to Lisa Potts. Do the Government think that that award was fair? They have come forward with a scheme. Have they done so because of that award? Some newspapers assume that that is the case. Was that one of the reasons? Can the Minister give an assurance that the kind of anomalies that have happened in the past will not happen following the introduction of the scheme today? Will raising the tariff by 10 per cent achieve what it is meant to achieve? From what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and by my noble friend, it is clear that
236
it will not. It is not enough money and it will not make a large difference. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
I want to ask one more question. However, before I do so, I should like to say something on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young. If my noble friend were present she would be somewhat surprised and perhaps horrified by paragraph 38 of the scheme, which extends the awards to same sex partners.
As your Lordships will know, Dr Shipman was convicted of a number of murders and the police and the Crown Prosecution Service consider that there may be many more cases. There is a difficulty in bring further prosecutions. Where the police consider that there is a case but for various reasons do not proceed. those affected are having difficulty getting compensation. There is a problem in obtaining evidence and corroboration of that evidence. The Minister may not be able to deal with that detailed point today, but I should be grateful if he could look into it and perhaps write to me.
From this Bench, as in another place, we give a general welcome to the scheme. However, as always, I have to say that it is not quite enough and it is a little too late.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the points raised and I shall try to respond as fully as I can. We consulted closely with those involved in the scheme and have taken account of their views. The changes that the Government are inviting Parliament to make represent some far-reaching improvements to what is already probably the most generous scheme in the world. Experience of running the tariff scheme has demonstrated that it is achieving its twin objectives of making costs more consistent and predictable as well as providing a better service to victims. Victims get their money more quickly, with greater transparency. Furthermore, there is less scope for misunderstanding about how much money they might get.
For those reasons, the tariff scheme is here to stay. I do not believe that there is any real prospect of going back to the old arrangements. Indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, agreed with that, much as he may have disagreed with the way in which we are approaching this matter. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, also sees little prospect of our returning to the old arrangements, even though he saw them as being far more generous than the current scheme. He predicted that that would be the case. However, it would be far too costly for a state scheme funded by the taxpayer. Furthermore, a system of refined, individual assessment dealing with as many as 80,000 applications a year would require a greatly inflated bureaucracy to achieve acceptable levels of speed and efficiency.
Any compensation scheme dependent on public funds must strike a balance between the needs of the victim and the interests of the taxpayer. It is inevitable that there will always be a measure of argument and

237
dispute as regards where that balance should be struck. However, a state compensation scheme funded by the taxpayer cannot reasonably be expected to match the damages awarded in the civil courts where personal or corporate liability has to be established. The state is not liable for the criminal acts of others and a victim can always sue an offender if there is a reasonable prospect of securing damages.
The scheme no longer aims to provide individually tailored compensation covering each and every element of damage that might be awarded in a successful civil suit. That said, awards made under the tariff in many areas are broadly consistent with the guidelines drawn up by the Judicial Studies Board, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for the assessment of personal injury damages in the courts. Furthermore, victims are free to pursue their attacker if known and if it is worthwhile.
In truth, with hand on heart, I do not believe that there ever can be a right amount of compensation. People often comment that no amount of money can compensate for the hurt, loss or damage that they have suffered. One suggestion put forward in the consultation paper was that the lower tariff should be cut out altogether so that larger compensation could be paid to the more seriously injured victims. However, I have to say that there was very little support for that proposition.
The simple fact is that, last year, the scheme paid out over £206 million to over 43,000 victims. The average award was over £4,700. As I have mentioned, our scheme is probably the most comprehensive and undoubtedly the most generous to be found anywhere in the world. We pay out more than all the other schemes in Europe added together. It is worth reiterating that point. Those who criticise our scheme perhaps should bear in mind that, under many schemes abroad, victims receive far less or even no compensation at all for their pain and suffering.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made the point that, when in opposition, we opposed the introduction of the tariff scheme. But we and others, including Victim Support, have since changed our minds about its merits. That may not be a defence that people will readily accept, but it is frequently the case that when an opposition comes to government and has full command of the facts and circumstances surrounding key issues, they take a different view. We are entitled to do so from time to time and it is important that that is recognised.
Noble Lords made a number of points. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that there was a cap on spending. As far as I am concerned, there is no cap on spending, but we obviously provide an estimate in the expenditure plans of what we expect to spend on the scheme. It is worth saying in response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that in 1999–2000, 85 per cent of tariff scheme cases were settled within 12 months compared to only 44 per cent within 12 months in the
238
last year of the old scheme. That demonstrates one of the important changes in the scheme to bring greater efficiency and speed of resolution.
It is also worth saying to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that loss of earnings and special care dependency are assessed individually within the scheme, and the issues of pain and suffering are covered by the tariff. So those issues are reflected in the way in which the scheme works.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised a more general issue about victims, and, I think, tried to chide the Government by criticising our approach. He suggested that some of our promises on behalf of victims were rather more wordy and vacuous than was the reality. I cannot accept that. We have a very good record on supporting victims and ensuring that they get justice within the criminal justice system. Since 1997, we have doubled the grant to the voluntary sector organisation, Victim Support, from £11.7 million to £25 million per year. This has enabled Victim Support to introduce a national telephone helpline for victims and a witness support service in the magistrates' courts to complement the service already provided in the Crown Courts. In addition, it has provided many other improvements to services generally.
In October 2001, victims' personal statements will be introduced to enable those who have suffered from crime to explain more personally its effects, in their own words, to decision makers within the criminal justice system. That is a welcome reform and has attracted widespread support.
The changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme we have been debating mean that about £20 million more each year will be paid to the victims of violent crime. On 27th February, the Home Secretary launched a consultation paper to review the Victims Charter and to seek improvements. The paper seeks views on the issues, among others, of the establishment of a statutory right for victims and the introduction of a victims' ombudsman. All of those proposals have been widely welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made reference to the settlement for Lisa Potts. It is perhaps worth reflecting that Lisa Potts would have received some 19 per cent more under the revised scheme. That is a reflection of the seriousness with which we take these issues and the way in which we want to achieve further improvements.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said. His comments were very helpful. In fact, both noble Lords who have a long involvement in the running of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme made important points, which I shall study at some greater length.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said that three of the four main changes to the scheme were very welcome. I am grateful to him for that. He suggested that we should perhaps have a more regular review of the way in which the scheme operates. Certainly, we shall undertake to review the scheme—it will require to be reviewed at fairly regular

239
intervals—to ensure that it accurately matches the demands and rigours of the criminal justice system and gives fair consideration to victims. That relates to the earlier point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that victims are entitled to expect that a government will not preside over a scheme which is devalued over time. That is an important issue and one of which we must take careful cognisance.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised a specific point about the Shipman cases. In fairness to the question, I do not think that I can give a reasoned response across the Dispatch Box. However, I take the point. I undertake to try to ascertain what difficulties are being experienced. Obviously, it is distressing to those involved and I do not want to see that distress continued if there is something that the Government can do to ensure that those who are caught up in the horrific murders perpetrated by Shipman are properly and fairly treated.
It is important to bear in mind that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is one of the most generous and comprehensive in the world—a fact that is often overlooked, particularly by media critics. There is no right amount of compensation. The Government have listened carefully to the comments and criticisms made in relation to the scheme, and we have listened throughout the process of consultation. We want to ensure that we make best use of the available resources to provide more compensation where it is most needed. It is for those reasons that we have made specific changes to the scheme.
It would be wrong of me not to pick up the reflection made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I know that if the noble Baroness were present she would make the point that he made across the Dispatch Box. I should say to her, as I say to the noble Viscount, that I profoundly disagree with her view. I believe that the way in which we are extending the scheme to cover homosexual and lesbian partners is right in modern times. The appalling attack on the Admiral Duncan pub gives expression to why that should be the case.
I commend the proposed improvements to the House. They have received support—and criticism; I acknowledge that. I invite your Lordships to approve the draft alterations to the scheme.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response to the points made by myself and other speakers. I commend the noble Lord on his tenacity in "sticking it out" until this time, clearly suffering from the same kind of cold from which I am suffering. We shall not allow our germs to mingle across the Chamber, not even through the air.
I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, for his wise and considered counsel, derived from many years of experience. The noble Lord reminded me that I should have declared an interest as a member of the board until 1993. I resigned on the day the tariff scheme was introduced. I have always regarded it as a matter of principle and I hope I have reflected that in my remarks.
240
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, made reference to the gap that is opening up between the £260 million projected five years ago and the £205 million that is actually paid at the present time; and to the gap that exists between the projected £460 million of general damages and that same low figure today. The noble Lord was saying that the value of the awards is going down and down. I should like in particular to pick up his point that the revision of the scheme now is lo last for however many years in the future, while inflation continues to weaken the value of the awards. Therefore, we have a scheme that is not even static; it is moving downwards.
Perhaps I may also support the comments that the noble Lord made regarding the need for a regular review. It was in September 1998 that Mr Straw said that he was going to review the scheme, but that was in response to pressure from the press as a result of the Lisa Potts award, and other matters that were publicised at that time. It has taken until now for anything to be done. If the Government were to give us an undertaking that the scheme will be looked at on a regular three-year basis, they would do a great deal to rehabilitate themselves in my eyes. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Detention Centre Rules 2001
11.55 p.m.
Lord Aveburyrose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 6th February, be annulled (S.I. 2001/238).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my warm gratitude to those who have stayed until this late hour to discuss a vitally important subject; namely, the new detention centre rules that were laid before the House at the end of February. I take it that it is common ground between us that asylum seekers who are not accused of any criminal offence ought not to be held in prison; and that they should only be detained where removal is imminent, to clarify the applicant's identity or the basis of his claim, or, indeed, where there is a reasonable belief that the person will abscond; and that, where a person needs to be detained, that period of detention should be for the shortest possible time.
On the basis of those principles, the Government rightly decided to provide a network of purpose-built detention centres for asylum seekers, and others, who need to be held under the immigration Acts, and to design a set of rules for those establishments that would take into account the very different circumstances of asylum seekers from those of ordinary criminals.
It is extremely unfortunate that we should he considering these rules at a time when the number of people in detention has reached an all-time record. There were 920 in prison at the end of January, as well

241
as another 414 in detention centres. The Government say that that is a necessary short-term measure to achieve an increase in the number of people deported from 12,000 in the current year to 30,000 in the year 2001–02. In order to achieve that aim, they calculate that they need a total of 2,700 places in the detention estate.
In the early summer of this year, Yarl's Wood near Bedford, the new Harmondsworth and Dungavel in Scotland will be completed, thus providing an extra 1,490 places. The Minister, Barbara Roche, has said that the need to allow these centres to build up to their full complement means that,
"the Prison Service has had to provide a further 500 places for immigration detainees until October 2001".
I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking that, as soon as the three new centres are in full operation—by 1st October at the latest, the date mentioned by the Government—the maximum number of detainees in prison will revert to its former level of 500.
Another 300 places were to be provided at Aldington, which is on hold because of cases in the Judicial Committee on the compatibility of the planning inquiry process with the Human Rights Act. I suggest that it might be wise to use the A ldington land for another purpose, such as housing, and to look for an alternative site for this centre elsewhere; for example, on surplus Ministry of Defence land to which there might be no objection. Indeed, there are many places along the south coast where such land might be found. With another 300 places, can the Minister say whether the Government still consider that they will be able to eliminate the use of prisons, except for occasional short-term detention and those being deported at the end of a prison sentence? Further, can the Minister say on what total number of applications a year the calculation is based?
I turn now to the rules. It is a pity that we did not have the discussion promised by the Minister on the Floor of the House on 30th November last. We were to have a discussion with the agencies and officials to consider the latest draft, which was to be the final version. Although I acknowledge that changes have been made in response to the representations made by the agencies, there were still many points that ought to have been ironed out before presenting the rules to the House. If that had been done, we might not have needed the debate this evening. I reject the Minister's excuse that such a meeting would have caused further delay because in the 15 days that it took him to reply to my letter we could have had that meeting. The rules were in fact not laid before Parliament until nine weeks after I had responded to the Minister's invitation to call his office to arrange that meeting.
The points which the agencies would have liked to raise, if a meeting had been possible, were numerous and important. I have made available to the Minister copies of the papers we had in preparation for this debate from the Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation and AVID. I shall only be able to mention a few of the points that they raised. I hope that the
242
Minister will be good enough to let me have a response to all of the matters that are not covered in this debate in due course.
I gather that Mr David Wilson, the former governor of Highdown, is to be the new director of detention centres. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm his appointment. When will he assume responsibility for Haslar, which at present is a prison, and the immigration wing of Lindholme? Will Oakington come under his jurisdiction and will it be subject to the new rules? How do the Government intend to fulfil the undertaking given in paragraph 12.13 of the White Paper to ensure that where prisons hold significant numbers of immigration detainees in specialist units, the facilities mirror the more relaxed regimes in detention centres?
The most unsatisfactory feature of the consultation on the rules is that many important matters are left to be dealt with by the operating standards, a form of tertiary legislation over which Parliament has no control, any more than we do in the case of the prisons. But in the prisons there are existing mechanisms whereas the standards for detention centres are all to be determined from first principles. I am glad that the Minister has promised the Asylum Rights Campaign that he will consult on the standards and I should be grateful if he would also agree to put copies of the drafts in the Library so that, where appropriate, your Lordships can also make observations on them.
There are several key areas where it would have been desirable to spell out what is intended in the rules: the rights of detainees to information in a language they understand; the need for access to medical care including external medical services; the conduct of proceedings which may lead to loss of privileges or removal from association; the facilitation of religious practices and the regulation of members of visiting committees to take a few examples.
The visiting committees are the equivalent of boards of visitors in prisons and many of the provisions of the prison rules have just been read across verbatim. For instance, the members in each case are required to undergo training laid down by the Secretary of State, but the scope and length of the training are unspecified. In the case of the prisons there is only minimal training in the Human Rights and Race Relations Acts which are particularly important in the case of detention centres where, by definition, the vast majority of the detainees will belong to ethnic minorities.
As in the prisons, the visiting committee has the duty of hearing any complaint or request a detained person wishes to make, and presumably its members would take up with the manager any complaint or request they think justified. It is not clear whether the committee has any role in regard to forfeiture of privileges which may be imposed by the manager in his absolute discretion where an inmate has not met specified standards of behaviour which are to be defined in a "compact" written by the Secretary of State. In the prison rules, forfeiture of privileges and cellular confinement are described as "governor's

243
punishments" and they are only meted out after the prisoner has had a chance to contest any allegations made against him. Whether Article 6 of the Human Rights convention would come into play on these penalties for minor disciplinary offences has yet to be tested by the courts, but a more serious question mark arises over the practice of shipping a detainee from a detention centre to a prison without any due process whatever. I suggest that the visiting committees should be given oversight of these decisions because the power is capable of being abused. We know of cases where it has been abused.
Under Rule 19(2) it would be possible for the manager to add arbitrarily to the rules of behaviour and then to withdraw privileges from any inmate who failed to observe these additional standards, apparently with no procedural safeguards whatsoever. The manager also has power to order a detainee's removal from association in the interests of security or safety and his confinement in special accommodation where he is violent or refractory. The visiting committee is given a power equivalent to Rule 48(2) of the Prison Rules to give directions in writing ordering the confinement to extend beyond 24 hours. This is one of the few departures from the prison model. In the prisons, a person who is not satisfied with the response to a complaint that he makes to a board of visitors can take up the matter with the Prisons Ombudsman. Has the immigration detainee that right? If not, is there any other authority to whom he can apply outside the detention system?
The other day we agreed that the triennial review system for the boards of visitors was severely flawed. We were looking forward to the report by Sir Peter Lloyd on the regulation of boards of visitors. In these rules, we have exactly the same provisions regarding the termination of appointments of members of the visiting committee either at the triennial review or at other times. But whether the procedural safeguards about which we spoke in relation to Haslar, PSO 1300 or DC4/99, operate as regards visiting committees is not clear. I shall be grateful if the Minister will say what procedural standards will apply with regard to termination of appointments of visiting committee members either during their term of office or at the triennial review.
I was glad to note that the rules acknowledge the need to ensure that,
"the practice of religion in detention centres shall take account of the diverse cultural and religious background of detained persons".
They place the onus on the detainee, however, to come forward and declare that he belongs to a particular religion whereas under Section 10(5) of the Prison Act the governor has to ascertain every inmate's religion and keep a record of it. Many asylum seekers would not be aware that by not making a declaration under Rule 21 they could be deprived of the spiritual and pastoral care which is everyone's right.
The Secretary of State has the power to appoint a visiting minister of a particular religion to a detention centre where the number of detainees justifies it. That is a copy of Section 10(1) of the Prison Act and is an
244
example of the problems which can arise when those provisions are adopted without thinking about the differences between the two types of institution. The population of detention centres will vary more widely from time to time than the equivalent in the prisons. Therefore, visiting ministers should he appointed to cover all the religions of the main countries of origin at each centre whether or not there happen to be any detainees of a particular religion there at any one time.
The method of appointing visiting ministers is not defined. The "manager of religious affairs" presumably acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, but he obviously should take advice from the authorities of each religion. If this is to be in the operating standards, the wording should be agreed with those authorities, and a consultative mechanism similar to the prisons' Advisory Group on Religions should be established. Unfortunately. even this does not solve the problem of irritating and arbitrary differences between one establishment and another about what religious objects prisoners are allowed to have in their possession. It would be useful to ensure that the practice is uniform through the detention estate.
This, like so many other important questions about how the centres will be run, is left to operating standards which are not subject to parliamentary approval. In an ideal world, there should be scrutiny by a Select Committee of all operating standards in closed institutions—prisons, YOIs, special hospitals, detention centres and secure units. As it is, we can look at the standards only after something has gone wrong. In the hope that some of the problems that may otherwise occur in detention centres may be avoided, I urge the Minister to pay greater attention to the concerns expressed by the agencies and by your Lordships in this debate, and to see that the consultations on the standards are as wide and as open as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 6th February, be annulled (S.I. 2001/238).—(Lord Avebury.)
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we last debated the immigration detention centre rules, and in particular the check-list, in November 1999, during the final stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. On Report, several of us argued for full written reasons for detention. In his response, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said:
"that detailed check-list will be tailored to individual circumstances and to relevant exceptions".—[Official Report, 20/10/99; col. 897.]
I registered concern on Third Reading that, despite that assurance, the new form, now known as IS91R, supplied in the Immigration Service publication, New Detention: New Forms and New Procedures, did not even allow space for a specific reference to the special needs of the individual.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave a further assurance in his reply that he accepted the points made. He said that the instructions

245
would be reviewed and he hoped that the form would be amended. I acknowledge that, as a result of our amendments, the Home Office has attempted to improve the rules, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, but the advice of those officially consulted on the form has thus far been ignored. It is hard to believe that nothing has happened since the passing of the Act and the consultation, which closed on 21st January last year.
The form is the only document that is made available to the detainee at the moment of his or her detention. It is crucial to that person's future that the form contains the correct information, yet, as it is only a check-list, it does not even give the real reasons, let alone the circumstances of the individual. Research shows that even immigration officers find it difficult to take the form seriously and have tried to adapt it by including relevant information themselves. Combined with the initial fears and language problems usually encountered in first interviews, that often means that the true circumstances of a person's asylum and even their physical condition may be concealed. If asylum seekers are denied that critical opportunity on arrival, no wonder so many of them and their representatives have struggled to demonstrate their case in the months that follow. They may also be conditioned by officials in the country of their persecution to accept forms at face value without questioning what they contain.
In many, perhaps most, cases, asylum seekers do not understand the reasons for their detention. Evidence suggests that, perhaps because of the form, those reasons are not explained to them. In other words, form IS91R is not just inadequate, it prevents understanding and circumvents any meaningful exchange about the genuine needs of the detainee. I shall discount any argument that the Home Office is deliberately creating a Kafkaesque regime to deter asylum seekers, or even that it is pleading, as it has, stretched resources leading to difficulties in producing a form. There is no doubt that even at this late stage it can be improved within the operating standards if the Home Office takes proper account of the evidence from the relevant organisations. I fully support what others have said about the need for proper communications, especially on health issues. Those arguments have been clearly expressed by specialist agencies such as the Medical Foundation.
The rules still do not set out the rights of detainees to have oral interpretation in their dealings with detention centre staff. Nor do they allow for medical consultations where clear communication is essential for the doctor to understand the problem and for the patient or detainee to understand and accept the treatment prescribed. Will the Minister confirm that there will be specific provision in the operating standards for the appropriate training of medical personnel and other staff who can address the relevant health issues in every individual case?
I understand from a new survey of asylum seekers by the Medical Foundation that evidence of torture is not always picked up by medical examinations and that, even when such evidence is found, asylum seekers
246
continue to be held in detention after several months. As we have heard, many are detained in prison and are therefore not subject to the rules, which means that they suffer more deprivation than their rather less unfortunate colleagues.
I remind the Minister that the detention of asylum seekers for long periods, whether in prison or detention centres, is unacceptable to a large number of people in this country. It is regularly and specifically denounced by Ministers, including in the Government's White Paper. In his Written Answer to me on 8th March (WA 35) the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, gave no assurance that detention would not last longer than 12 months. In fact, he implied that it could continue for much longer. When, a few days ago, I looked at col. 216W of Commons Hansard of 21st March, I learned that the longest period in detention is now more than 600 days. As to the average length of detention, the Minister could provide no information.
For a Labour Government who espouse ethical standards, that reply is astonishing and appears to contravene all international conventions, let alone the advice of successive inspectors of prisons. Therefore, I hope that today the Minister can give us assurances on those points.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall be brief. I rise in support of the Prayer moved by my noble friend Lord Avebury which seeks to annul the Detention Centre Rules laid before the House on 6th February. My reason for speaking in this debate is that I have serious concerns regarding the interpretation of some of the rules and the difficulties that a number of organisations have had in their consultation with the Home Office.
First, I want to say clearly that, although we remain fundamentally opposed to the detention of asylum seekers, we accept that detention may be necessary in exceptional circumstances if the legal process of claiming asylum has been fully exhausted, including appeals as well as judicial review, and if there is prima facie evidence that an asylum seeker may abscond. In such cases, obviously detention should be used only for short periods of time when removal is fairly imminent.
The UNHCR has consistently condemned what it calls the UK's "routine use of detention". It believes that the detention of asylum seekers is inherently undesirable. Detention for reasons other than those outlined in the detention guidelines, such as part of a policy to deter future asylum seekers, is, according to the UNHCR,
"contrary to the norms of refugee law".
Detention is obviously very expensive. The Government estimate that a policy of detaining all asylum seekers on arrival, ignoring the legal and moral arguments as to whether that is possible, could amount to £2 billion in start-up costs, with annual running costs of more than £1 billion.

247
However, the detention of people who have fled persecution and have committed no crime also carries a high mental welfare cost for detainees. A number of studies have been carried out, particularly projects in relation to the mental health implications of the detention of asylum seekers. It has been found that the most stressful aspect of detention is the information vacuum. I believe that that is where some of the rules that have been set out could be more helpful.
We should bear in mind that the longest period of detention—that of an asylum seeker who is currently detained under Immigration Act powers and has been detained since his arrival in the United Kingdom on 30th July 1999—is more than 600 days.
A matter of concern to me was a press release which I picked up this morning, issued by the Home Office. For a moment, I believed that it answered the prayers of my noble friend Lord Avebury. Unfortunately that was not so. First, the press release talked about effect returns of 30,000 failed asylum seekers. Then it talked about voluntary returns at the end of the asylum process. Then it talked of creating 1,800 new detention spaces to facilitate removals.
There are some good aspects of the press release and we welcome them, especially the mention of an anti-trafficking unit to crack down on criminals involved in the illegal smuggling and trafficking of people. We certainly welcome the process of faster decisions, provided they do not breach the rules of natural justice. More importantly, we welcome the development of strategies to help successful applicants to integrate into our society. But where, I ask, are the reforms of the detention rules?
The impression that we get is that asylum will be a hot issue in the coming general election. The emphasis on detaining and deporting asylum seekers, rather than on examining some of our practices, could damage our civilised values. I draw the Minister's attention to some anomalies and the lack of consultation that there has been on some of the changes. I draw attention in particular to the Government's White Paper, which states:
"The Government has welcomed the views of Her Majesty's Chief inspector of Prisons and others and, as resources become available, is committed to pursuing a strategy of detaining in dedicated detention and holding centres, not prisons".
We should examine the situation in Haslar Prison, which we debated recently. Although Haslar holds only immigration detainees, it continues to be designated as a prison and still runs under prison rules. A similar situation applies elsewhere. Such institutions are being used as prisons and operate under prison rules. In November, the Government announced their intention of increasing by 500 the number of those detained in prison under the Immigration Act; now we know that the relevant figure is more than 1,800.
When will the Government redesignate Haslar Prison as a detention centre? When will they designate the detention facility at Lindholme as a detention centre? How will they ensure that all those who are detained under the Immigration Act will be treated in accordance with the standards that are set out in the rules?
248
I do not wish to cause the Minister embarrassment, but I was grateful to him for being good enough to admit to a couple of errors when we last debated the situation in Haslar. First, I welcome his assurance that immigration detainees in prisons will no longer be subject to drug testing. I hope that that it so; the practice would break all rules governing the treatment of immigration detainees were it to continue. A second point on which the Minister was at fault, but through no fault of his own—perhaps he had misread his information or the brief with which he was supplied—involved the position of the members of the hoards of visitors. He said that one of those members had been appointed to another board, but in fact he was appointed to a probation committee. That does not matter very much, and I thank the Minister for giving us the information and for correcting it at the first available opportunity.
I want to raise another matter with the Minister. It involves the forms and guidance notes, which have already been discussed by noble Lords. We are concerned about the contents of the special needs section of form IS91 and about the guidance that is given. Statement 1.3 says:
"Careful consideration should be given before using this categorisation as the resources used in monitoring such detainees are expensive".
That appears to be irresponsible in respect of some of the categories that are listed as special needs, notably suicide risk, those with medical problems, the disabled, minors, pregnant women and those refusing food and fluids. There has been an inordinate delay following the consultation period and we should like to know when the Home Office intends to amend the forms and guidance notes. At the very least, it should write to those organisations that raised objections and explain why the documentation has not been changed.
Noble Lords have already discussed other rules, so I shall not delay the House further. I hope that the Minister will take into account representations that have been made by various bodies and that the Government will deal with them. I hope that he will place a copy of his reply in the Library so that we can refer to the action that has been taken.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion that was moved by my noble friend Lord Avebury on the issue of detention rules. I want to underline some of the questions to which we should be grateful to have replies from the Minister.
My noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Ave bury drew attention to the disturbing tendency of increasing the number of detainees held in prisons. My first question is about whether it is correct that substantial numbers of detainees will be sent to Winchester Prison and to Cardiff Prison, both of which are relatively overcrowded local prisons. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government expect to continue to use such prisons during the next six months or so as the new detention centres are built?
Secondly, in that respect, in relation to the commitment in the White Paper as regards substantial numbers of immigration detainees being held in

249
prison, will the Minister confirm that they will be subject to the detention centre rules rather than to the much tougher prison rules?
In a letter from the Minister dated 14th March, Paul Boateng specifically says that asylum seekers are detained,
"only as a last resort and for the shortest possible period".
The Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture, in a special survey of a group of people about whom it was concerned as possible victims of torture, showed that the average length of stay of members of that group was of the order of seven-and-a-half months. My noble friend and others quoted periods of over a year-and-a-half that at least one or two detainees had spent in prison. That clearly contradicts the recommendation of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the indication laid down in the draft directive proposed by the European Union for a common asylum policy. In our view it would be extremely embarrassing if the United Kingdom was not able to meet even the minimum rules that are to be applied to other EU countries under the draft directive. Those clearly indicate that detention should be a last resort for asylum seekers in any EU country. Yet in this country it seems clear that the proportion of detainees being held in prisons or detention centres for long periods of time is steadily growing and not declining.
One of the great worries about detainees who have committed no offence of any kind recognised in English law is that they are subject to prison rules which, for example, severely limit the amount of their association with others; indicate that the amount of time they can spend outside their cells is much less than the average 11.5 per day quoted by Mr Boateng for detention centres; and, most disturbingly, in some cases means that they do not have access to lawyers, or to telephones or other means of obtaining legal representation. That puts them at a huge disadvantage when it comes to being represented at appeal or for other purposes. It means that in many cases appeals are dismissed because the appellant is not present and there is no legal representative. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to say—if he cannot tell us now, perhaps he will write—what proportion of people who appeal have their appeals dismissed simply on the grounds that they or their legal representative are not present.
I want to underline the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. When will the new forms, about which consultation continued until 21st January this year, be issued and how far will they reflect the representations made by the non-governmental organisations? In particular, the noble Earl raised the issue of the information to be made available to detainees in their own languages and asked whether, where no assurance had been given, that lacuna will be dealt with in the operating standards which are not subject to accountability to Parliament in the way the rules are. I mention in particular the issues of information; the presence of interpreters, not only when the original basis for questioning detainees
250
arises, but also to explain such issues as the need for an initial examination; and the specific medical requirements that may exist among detainees.
In that respect perhaps I can ask the Minister two direct questions about the rules as they currently stand. Can he explain, under rule 33(4) how far the medical confidentiality of conversations and treatment between doctor and patient is protected? The Minister will know that the new phraseology is somewhat less tight than the original phraseology. Can he assure us that where a detainee wants to see a doctor other than the one at the centre, whatever the reason, that it is not possible for that request to be vetoed? Again, it is not clear from the discussions whether or not that is the case. Time after time we on these Benches, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, have repeatedly asked for and received reassurances from Ministers that wherever possible where there is clear evidence that people are victims of torture they will not be detained. Can he assure us that that will continue to be respected?
Rule 35(3) indicates that cases of victims of torture, or those who allege that they have been tortured, should lead to a report to the manager of the detention centre or the prison, as the case may be. However, Ministers who were subjected to the endless debates on this issue during the passing of the original Act of Parliament in 1999 will know that we were given many assurances that evidence of torture would be treated as a prima facie reason why detainees should not be detained for longer than the minimum necessary to establish their cause.
Finally, I draw the attention of the Minister to the deployment of refugees around the country. It is troubling that in many cases detainees are moved from one place to the other—sometimes from a detention centre to a prison, as has happened with a number of cases we know about where people have been sent to Belmarsh or Rochester from a detention centre—and quite often their legal advisers (which in some cases are organisations such as the Refugee Legal Centre, or the Immigration Advisory Service) are not informed of their movement. Consequently the link with them is broken and quite often they are not in a position to make representations at the appeal of the detainee against the refusal of the right to stay. Therefore, the appellant does not show up; the case is dismissed and the issue is regarded as concluded. Yet in some cases, indeed, in many cases, the detainee has no knowledge of all that because he has been moved and the change of address has not been made known to him, his lawyer or the immigration organisations.
I do not wish to detain the House but I should like to ask two final questions. First, when are the automatic bail provisions of the 1998 Act likely to be implemented? That would relieve the strain on prisons and detention centres. Secondly, I refer to a point raised by several noble Lords; that is, what is the length of detention of people in the first stage when they are originally being considered for leave to remain or asylum; what is the position with regard to those waiting for appeal and what is the position after appeal? Our understanding has always been that

251
people will be detained after appeal for fear that they might depart when deportation is the only alternative before them. We are disturbed by the fact that increasingly people are being detained on arrival and in some cases not being released for some months afterwards and before their case has been determined.
12.30 a.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we welcome the publication. of the rules. The Government are committed to this matter and it is helpful that the rules are published. I do not have any particular comments on them. The Minister has been asked a number of questions, which no doubt he will answer.
At present, a fundamental problem in this country is the fact that we are beset by a wave of economic migrants who all seem to wish to come to this country. Indeed, we also have a large number of refugees, many of whom are genuine.
The situation is made difficult because previously refugees were considered as such on reaching their first safe country. However, it appears that once they enter Europe they are not happy to stay in the first safe country. Instead, they show a determination to come to this country. Anyone who has seen what happens at ports and airports will accept that. We can all speculate on the reasons but we appear to have a problem in this country because of that determination. As we are beset by a wave of economic migrants, it is all the more difficult to see who are the genuine refugees and who are not.
I must give the Government some credit for recently increasing the speed of processing applications. There was a muddle not too long ago and the situation is improving. I believe that there is an argument for holding asylum seekers on arrival for a short time in order that their applications can be dealt with more quickly. I do not believe that they should be held for a long time but there should be a way of increasing the speed of processing applications. That is important because once they are dispersed in the country it is more difficult to deal with their cases. The important criterion is the speed of processing applications.
I have only one question to ask the Minister at this extremely late hour. It relates to those who have had their applications for asylum turned down and the rate of deportation. Previous figures have been depressing. Can the Minister say what progress is being made to improve the rate of deportations? Many people are still here who should have been deported and they are a strain on the welfare system and on resources.
I said that I should be brief and I have been. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in the debate and shown their usual level of expertise and a keen interest in an important policy relating to my department. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, indicated, we have agreed the principles of what should underlie the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. I welcome his comments and the way in which the noble
252
Baroness, Lady Williams, reinforced his contribution. She emphasised that from those principles certain consequences flow in terms of the desirable way in which we may succeed in pursuing our policy.
Many questions were raised but I want first to indicate our view that we have carried out a full consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that additional time would have been advantageous. He also pointed out that he could see more useful ways in which the past few weeks might have been used. However, decisions had to be reached on the development of the new rules and he will recognise that substantial progress was made on the original draft, which was based on a set of principles more related to prison detention. There has been movement towards greeting asylum seekers within a framework of detention centres with special categorisation. That is entirely right.
I cannot provide reassurance about the speed at which we move towards a situation in which no one is held in prisons, for the simple reason that it is related to the adequacy of the accommodation as it comes on stream. But I believe that noble Lords will give the Government full credit for the fact that what is being developed is a range of new facilities which will ensure that an increasing number of places are available. It means that, regrettably, for a number of months people will still be held in prisons. The noble Baroness mentioned two specific prisons. I understand that that particular accommodation will continue to be used while the new facilities come on stream.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I shall not interrupt again. Since the Minister has told us very honestly that Cardiff, Winchester and other prisons are likely to continue to be used for this purpose, will the Home Office reconsider its own pledge in the White Paper to the effect that if a substantial number of detainees who have not committed any offence are kept in prison it is possible to apply detention rules, not prisons rules, to that group of individuals?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, where we have the ability to use specific wings of prisons to create separate facilities that is a principle to which we shall adhere and seek to develop in practice. That does not obtain across the whole range of provision at the present time, desirable though that would be. I believe the noble Baroness recognises that in circumstances where it is not possible entirely to separate the two categories, inevitably prison rules will obtain. I re-emphasise a point which I made, perhaps in a slightly inarticulate fashion, when we discussed these issues in the first debate. There is a difficulty with regard to prison rules which we all recognise are not appropriate for people who are not detained for breaking any law in this country. Unfortunately, where such detainees are obliged to be located in a prison, we cannot, because entirely separate facilities are not available, see a way to dilute prison rules which operate for the majority of people in that establishment. But the noble Baroness will recognise

253
that we seek to move as effectively as we can to reduce the number, against the background that we are not entirely masters in our own house, given the fact that the numbers of people who apply for asylum, as the noble Viscount indicated, put pressure on the system with all the strains that that imposes in terms of availability of accommodation.
However, we believe that we have made considerable progress in the development of the rules. Although I understand the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, at certain aspects of the outcome, perhaps others have responded more warmly to the changes and recognise that advances have been made. The noble Lord referred to UNHCR, which noted that many changes had been incorporated in the latest version of the rules as a result of the consultation process, and that those changes were on the whole commendable. In particular, the express inclusion of the purpose which underlies the whole document and specific rules will help to foster a more humane and balanced approach to implementation.
The UNHCR also commented favourably on the notable modifications to the language and phrasing of the rules. Their effect is to emphasise that the humanity, security and safety of detainees should be the primary consideration for the implementation of the rules. That is, therefore, a recognition of progress made, although I take on board the reservations which the noble Lord identified.
The noble Lord addressed a number of other specific points. I shall do my best to answer them. I hasten to reassure the House that, given the volume of direct questions which have been enumerated, where I am lax and fail to answer any directly, either through just missing the point or not having sufficient knowledge, I shall of course write to noble Lords. The noble Baroness very kindly indicated that in one or two areas she did not expect me at this stage to give a direct answer. I shall make sure that the information is available.
However, I do have some answers to some of the questions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the name of David Wilson. He is the deputy director. The new director is to be appointed shortly. I do not have a date for that appointment, but it is imminent. The new director will take up his responsibilities. Haslar will not come under his jurisdiction but Oakington will. He will be responsible for specific detention centres.
The noble Lord also asked a series of questions with regard to religious provision. We entirely accept the burden of his representation. It is entirely right that we seek to provide pastoral support appropriate to the needs of the detainees. It is recognised that the past rather more uniform provision is not appropriate with the present diversity of people. We are seeking to get as much flexibility and appropriateness as we can in that facility. That is entirely consistent with the principles that the noble Lord was adumbrating.
On the question of medical care, the issues which came out most strongly—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, emphasised this matter—were: first, the
254
question of early examination so far as concerns torture. If the effects of torture are clearly proven, that is a very important factor to be weighed in favour of early release, because the individual concerned has clearly identified an important aspect of potential refugee status. So early medical examination is important.
Secondly, there is the issue of language and the accuracy with which such a medical examination can be carried out. I have to make the obvious point that language is a problem. We have a vast diversity of people seeking asylum who present themselves to us. The diversity is such that the language issue is very acute. We can ensure that we have interpreters to carry out the first appropriate interviews which identify potential status. We have few reservations about our ability to meet that obvious essential requirement. The issues raised today are certain stages beyond that, particularly healthcare and the choice of the individual with regard to access to other medical care and so on. That is much more difficult to arrange in two respects. We have lost a vast number of general practitioners with a competence in certain languages. How we improve the general quality of linguistic training in the UK so that more people are able to display these skills is a genuine problem. But they are not called down overnight. We are recognising problems that have not perhaps received the attention that they might have required in the past. It takes time.
Provided that the officer is assured that there are good grounds for additional medical examination and if no exorbitant cost is involved, asylum seekers can avail themselves of additional medical facilities. They can make arrangements or someone may be prepared to pay on their behalf. But it is a different matter if one says that it is automatically available against the obvious pressure on limited resources. I make the obvious point that the initial tests and examination are a firm obligation and are met as fully as we are able. I hope that I have been able to give reassurance on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the new forms that will come into use. We recognise—the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made this point—that IS91 and IS91R have their limitations. There are advantages in a clear, almost "tick box" approach towards identifying certain aspects of the asylum seeker. Therefore, there will always be aspects of these forms that have that distinctly bureaucratic nature to them. However, we are committed to introducing a more refined version in the light of the discussion and the representations that have been made. We expect to have those in place in the very near future. It is an entirely legitimate point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, returned again today.
The noble Lord was kind enough to mention from the press releases he looked at today some aspects of the policy that represent some degree of progress. All noble Lords would share our general objective of seeking to clamp down as strongly as we can on trafficking in human beings, which everyone finds reprehensible. We do not need to quote the most extreme case of recent times, which horrified us all, but

255
we know that it goes on to a degree. It is enormously important that we get a grip on it. I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome to that aspect of our policy.
I tread on thin ice again this evening—I have no doubt that I have fallen through it at some stage—but the noble Lord indicated that he did not hold me in too much disregard because I had made a mistake during the Haslar debate about what had happened to the member of the board of visitors. In fact, he had not taken up a place on another board but on a probation committee. I take this opportunity to express my feeling of being remiss in making that mistake on that occasion. I hope that I avoid such horrors today. However, given the length and the detail of the questions that have been asked, I cannot guarantee to be wholly accurate.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who raised a number of issues regarding facilities in prisons. Detainees held in prisons have access to lawyers and to telephones, although those telephones are used in the main for incoming calls. The amount of association varies according to the regimes operating in individual prisons. For that reason, I take on board her point that there are constraints as a result of prison rules which we would wish to see lifted as more appropriate accommodation comes on stream and where the rules that we are discussing this evening properly can be applied.
I wish to respond to the debate this evening by recognising the salience of all the points that have been made. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for putting into context the issues here. It is a fact that we are not dealing with a steady or declining rate of applicants, but rather with increasing pressure in this area. The rate of increase has moderated significantly, but that does not alter the fact that the demands imposed on us in the effort to meet those needs are extensive. Over recent years, there has been a rapid increase in applications, a situation which has been common to the whole of Europe. Britain stands in mid-stream in terms of the burden which it shoulders.
However, that does not alter the fact that we need to address ourselves properly to allocating resources to match the needs presented to us. Because those needs are so extensive, no one can pretend that all the problems can be solved overnight. Nevertheless, we are engaged in a continuous process of consultation. I should add that we recognise that much work still needs to be done. If we needed any further confirmation, it is reflected in the value of debates such as that which we have held tonight. We value greatly the contribution of expertise from bodies outside the Home Office as represented in the speeches made by noble Lords this evening. Their insight into these issues is extremely important.
As I have said, there is no doubt that a great deal of work still needs to be done. But I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we have made sufficient progress
256
with regard to the rules that he will not feel that he needs to press his rather negative perspective on their value.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe that a great deal of progress has been made and I am immensely grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken to answer the whole range of questions which have been put to him by noble Lords in the course of the debate. I am also grateful for his assurance that any points that have not been picked up will be answered in writing. If he is able to include in that his responses to the specific questions raised in the briefs we received from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and the Asylum Rights Campaign, I shall be even more grateful.
At the risk of trespassing on the patience of noble Lords, perhaps I may raise one or two points. I was disappointed that the Minister could not comment on the length of detentions and the shocking information given by both the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia, that people have been kept in detention for as long as 600 days. I think that that is a blot on our record and something which is far outside the norms laid down by the UN HCR Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that he should think carefully about how limits could be placed on the maximum length of time that anyone should be held in detention. I cannot believe that, even in the most extreme cases, it is necessary to hold someone in a detention centre or in prison for as long as that.
Secondly, the Minister was not able to offer any reassurances on the speed of movement towards a position where detainees are no longer held in prisons, but rather that all should be held in detention centres. That was one of the objectives set out in the White Paper three years ago, and yet we are further away from that position than we were at the time. We are cramming more and more people into the prisons. My noble friend Lady Williams mentioned two—one of which was Winchester—which are entirely unsuitable, and there are others which are even more so. Belmarsh—where there were 67 immigration detainees at the last summary in January—is grossly inadequate for meeting the needs of the detainees, who are held in the same wing as remand and convicted prisoners.
I was also slightly worried about the two conflicting statements made by the Minister. He said that where separate wings are used, detention centre rules would be applied; he then went on to say that Haslar would not come under the new director's jurisdiction although Oakington would. There are no criminal prisoners in Haslar and I do not understand why it is not possible to redesignate that institution as a detention centre. If it can be done with Oakington, why is it impossible with Haslar?
The Minister also did not respond to the question about Lindholme. Perhaps he can deal with that in his written reply because, after all, in Lindholme, Immigration Act detainees are kept in a separate wing and there is no reason why the detention centre rules should not apply there.

257
I was grateful to the Minister for the reassurance that he gave that torture was an important factor in favour of early release. It is good to have that on the record and I am sure that the medical foundation will be glad to read the words used by the noble Lord today.
Finally, I was grateful for the Minister's assurance that the process of consultation would continue. I am sure that the agencies and your Lordships would like to be involved in the process of looking at the standards, because, as I mentioned, that is even more
258
important than what is in the rules themselves. There is also the question of the compact which is to be written by the Secretary of State which will govern the behaviour of detainees in the centres.
Having said that, I should like to express my warmest gratitude to all those who have spoken this evening and to the Minister for staying until this very late hour. With the assurance that we can continue with the consultations, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at two minutes past one o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Public Funding for Representation at Coroners' Inquests
  Northern Ireland: Public Funding for Representation at Coroners' Inquests
  Museums and Galleries: VAT Refund Scheme
  Museums and Galleries: VAT Refund Scheme
  Scottish Executive: Expenditure Allocation
  Scottish Executive: Expenditure Allocation
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Valuation of Slaughtered Animals
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Valuation of Slaughtered Animals
  Wythenshawe Hospital Heart Transplant Unit
  Wythenshawe Hospital Heart Transplant Unit
  National Cancer Research Institute
  National Cancer Research Institute
  Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Response to Select Committee Report
  Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Response to Select Committee Report
  Kosovo, Serbia and Macedonia: Albanian Incursions
  Kosovo, Serbia and Macedonia: Albanian Incursions
  Russia and Former Soviet Union: Religious Freedom
  Russia and Former Soviet Union: Religious Freedom
  Treaty of Nice: Ratification
  Treaty of Nice: Ratification
  Azerbaijan: Council of Europe Membership
  Azerbaijan: Council of Europe Membership
  BBC World Service, British Council and FCO Funding
  BBC World Service, British Council and FCO Funding
  Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Industry Personnel: Contacts
  Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Industry Personnel: Contacts
  Entry Clearance Service
  Entry Clearance Service
  European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
  European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
  Minister for Veterans' Affairs
  Minister for Veterans' Affairs
  Depleted Uranium: Screening
  Depleted Uranium: Screening
  Prisons: Multi-faith Accommodation
  Prisons: Multi-faith Accommodation
  Rural Businesses: Rate Relief
  Rural Businesses: Rate Relief
  National Air Traffic Services: Public/Private Partnership
  National Air Traffic Services: Public/Private Partnership
  Special Educational Needs Children: Inclusion
  Special Educational Needs Children: Inclusion
  Disabled Children's Siblings: Support
  Disabled Children's Siblings: Support
  Electronic Written Answers
  Electronic Written Answers
  Motor Car Sport, Motor Cycle Sport, Road Racing and Off-road Sports: Differentiation
  Motor Car Sport, Motor Cycle Sport, Road Racing and Off-road Sports: Differentiation
  UK Sport and Sport England: Membership
  UK Sport and Sport England: Membership