Sitting of 29 March 2001

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Thursday 5 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked-
  TREASURY

    Euro
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the impact on the UK economy of the level of the single European currency [154596]
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the means by which he will evaluate compliance with his five economic tests for joining the euro. [154606]
    Mr. David Taylor: What assessment he has made of the impact of the UK's adoption of the euro on the prospects for the competitiveness of UK manufacturing industry. [154607]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Despite the euro-sterling exchange rate, exports to Europe have increased by 5.2 per cent. in the past year. Overall, manufacturing exports have increased by 12.6 per cent. as manufacturing productivity has risen by 5 per cent. Our position on the five economic tests for the euro remains unchanged since the 1997 statement to the House. So that British business is prepared for the introduction of euro notes and coins in 2002, I am today in consultation with business, authorising an enhanced small business information campaign. which includes an updated website, and bringing Treasury expenditure on business preparations for this Parliament up to £9 million, thus helping British business to compete effectively in the single market, whether we are in or out of the euro. I hope that there will be all-party support for this extra help for business preparation. Total spending on preparation across government in this Parliament is around £24 million.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Government have been involved in direct intervention to prop up the euro and the
    1088
    Chancellor has instructed the Bank of England that 30 per cent. of the proceeds of its gold sales must be invested in euros, and as the Bank of England is now issuing substantial eurobonds, will the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of the size of the mountain of euros now in our reserves? Does he think that that will be a good investment? Finally, in the light of what he said about the exchange rate mechanism, will he comment on the resolution passed at the Amsterdam summit, which states that
    "member states with a derogation can be expected to join the exchange rate mechanism"
    before membership?
    Mr. Brown: First, we have no intention of rejoining the ERM. Secondly, on the question of the sales of gold, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the National Audit Office report, which answers all his points and criticisms. Thirdly, on euro preparations—in other words, preparations for British firms to deal with the advent of notes and coins in 2002—I should have thought that the Conservative party would want to join business in making proper preparations. Am I to believe, however, that the whole Conservative party is not only against the euro in principle, but against assisting British business when it asks us for help in preparing for the advent of euro notes and coins?
    Mr. Paterson: What are today's figures for the five economic tests?
    Mr. Brown: The assessment of the five economic tests was made in 1997.
    Mr. Paterson: Today's figures.
    Mr. Brown: The assessment was made in 1997. We have said that we will make an assessment early in the next Parliament. We have said also that we will not provide a running commentary on the issue. The hon. Gentleman has a question that he must answer. He is opposed to any assessment and to considering the issue because his party has ruled out the single currency as a matter of dogma.
    Mr. David Taylor: A decade ago, the disastrous Tory currency experiment with the ERM bankrupted 100,000 firms and doubled unemployment. What does my right hon. Friend say to those who believe that sustainable British convergence with the euroland economies is a chimera? Will he confirm that a one-size-fits-all interest rate policy would assuredly bring about the boom and bust that he has so successfully banished?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend knows that it is precisely to deal with the questions that have been asked about the effect on employment, investment, financial services and the flexibility of the economy, and about the durability of convergence, that we have set the five economic tests. It is precisely to answer those questions that we will make an assessment of the five economic tests in the next Parliament. I have already said that we have no intention of repeating the Conservative experiment with the exchange rate mechanism, for which the Conservative party must accept full responsibility as it formed the previous Government. At the same time, given that we

    1089
    announced measures that will help business to prepare for the advent of euro notes and coins, it is now for the Conservative party to tell us whether it will move against business by refusing to support even those measures.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the strangest features of the current Parliament is the official Opposition's refusal to join the cross-party group on the euro, which I chair? The group meets regularly, monitors preparations and checks that no money is spent on promoting the euro. What sort of Opposition is it who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to take the empty chair in the preparations group of this House?
    Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker will know that we invited every political party in the House of Commons to join the group that would consider preparations for the euro. Every political party—including the Liberals, the nationalist parties and the Irish parties—accepted, except one: the Conservative party. It is hardly surprising that the deputy director general of the Confederation of British Industry said:
    "The Tory party's more Euro-sceptic view is not one that most CBI members would feel comfortable with. It's not in our commercial interests to have a Euro-sceptic government.
    Most businesses would take their hat off to the Government for getting Britain's message across better and for building alliances across Europe. The Conservative party is not only anti-Europe, but anti-business.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Chancellor seems to have forgotten some facts: since 1997, a third of a million jobs have been lost in manufacturing and 60,000 jobs have been lost in farming. The CBI and the National Farmers Union agree that much of the blame for that lies with the current overvaluation of the pound, and with Britain losing its share of international investment and trade and experiencing a rapidly increasing deficit. Yet the Chancellor does not include the exchange rate in his conditions for entry. Liberal Democrats say that on top of his conditions, there must be a more competitive exchange rate—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Chancellor.
    Mr. Brown: Some people would never join the euro because of dogma; others would join without considering the tests that we have set out. We will make a proper assessment of the tests. When I listened to the hon. Gentleman's description of the economy, I thought that he was referring to what happened in the Conservative years. Manufacturing productivity and output have increased; there are 1 million more jobs; and interest rates that were 15 per cent. under the Conservatives are now half that rate, with mortgages £1,200 a year lower. It is not surprising that business perceives the Conservative party as not only anti Europe but anti-business.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's assistance to British business and support our entry into the eurozone, will he
    1090
    consider that, besides the fives tests that he has set out, there is a possible sixth test: entry into the eurozone at a competitive rate? What are his views on that?
    Mr. Brown: We have set five economic tests, which will be applied. We will assess them and report the results to Parliament. If Parliament so decided, there would be a referendum whereby the British people could make their assessment. We are not in the business of speculating about the exchange rate.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: Will the Chancellor give a straight answer to a question that is on many people's minds? The Government will not want the euro to be an issue at the general election because they know that the moderate majority of people are opposed to their determination to scrap the pound. If the Chancellor continues to refuse to debate the issue between now and the general election, despite the fact that it is the most important question that confronts this country, will he promise that a Labour Government will put a fair and straightforward question in a referendum? What will that question be?
    Mr. Brown: Of course we shall put a fair question.[Interruption.]The problem with Conservative Members asking about a referendum is that they totally oppose it—
    Mr. John Bercow: Con man!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) make an unparliamentary remark. Will he withdraw it?
    Mr. Bercow: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw it immediately.
    Mr. Brown: The Conservative party asking a question about a referendum does not make sense to the British people. The shadow Chancellor said that a single currency would mean giving up government of the United Kingdom and that no British Government could do that. He is therefore against the single currency for reason of dogma. He would never accept a referendum or its result. He is against it on the ground not of economic interest but of ideology. I challenge him to confirm his statement.
    Mr. Portillo: I think that people will draw their own conclusions from the Chancellor's refusal to state what the question in a referendum would be. It is clear that the Labour party would not give people a fair and straightforward opportunity to vote on whether to scrap the pound.
    Will the Chancellor answer a second question? As the Government will not want to discuss the euro during the general election campaign, I presume that they will argue that people will have a chance in a referendum to have a fair say on the matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government have rigged the financing of the referendum so that the parties that wish to scrap the pound will be allowed to spend twice as much as the Conservative party will be allowed to spend on defending the currency?

    1091
    Will the Chancellor now repeat in this House what the Government said in the House of Lords—that they made no pretence of creating a level playing field?
    Mr. Brown: Following those remarks, I am happy for the general election campaign, whenever it comes, to be fought with a considerable amount of debate on the issue of the euro. The Conservative party has shown today not only that it is against the single currency as a matter of dogma, and not only that it is against any assessment of it while expecting us to call a referendum, but that it will not even support our business preparations to enable British businesses in or out of the euro to deal with the question of trading in the single currency area.
    I ask the shadow Chancellor this: does he now support our preparations to help British businesses cope with the euro, will he say that he is against dealing with the European issue as a matter of complete dogma?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that many people will conclude that the Chancellor is behaving disgracefully in not even attempting to answer the perfectly fair and perfectly serious questions that I have put to him. I cannot understand why he refuses to debate the real issues. I cannot understand why a man like he Chancellor has so little intellectual pride that he is willing, if he possibly can, to hoodwink the British people into giving up their own currency.
    Does the Chancellor agree that the position is as follows? His five so-called tests are entirely bogus. If Labour were to win the election, there would be no consideration of the constitutional and political issues. There would be no protection against an ill-judged decision from the so-called tests, because they are purely subjective and purely a matter of opinion.
    Will the Chancellor confirm that if there were a referendum, the question would be slanted and tendentious, and the funding would be rigged? Does not that itself merely confirm that those in this country—the vast majority: the moderate majority—who want to keep the pound will have to vote Conservative at the general election?
    Mr. Brown: I am even more happy to continue this debate on the issue of the euro, because ours is a reasonable position that we are presenting to the British people. First, we do not rule out the euro on the basis of issues of dogma. Secondly, we will conduct a series of tests—the five economic assessments—and we will report to the British people within two years of a general election and the start of a new Parliament. Thirdly, the tests will be applied rigorously, in such a way that people can see the effect on employment, investment, flexibility and financial services. What we will not do is rule out the euro on ground of dogma or of ideology.
    We will take no lectures from the shadow Chancellor, who was in the Treasury during the period when Britain faced an ignominious exit from the exchange rate mechanism, and who was responsible for 15 per cent. interest rates, 22 tax rises and the biggest borrowing requirement. When it comes to what the British people will believe about the economy, we should bear in mind that even the shadow Chancellor has said that the Conservatives must be apologetic to the British people about the way in which they mismanaged the economy.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend will know that in the last few days the euro has again begun to slide in value against the dollar to levels that it reached last autumn, when the G7 central bankers had to intervene to prop it up. Can he tell us whether the G7 bankers have any plans to do that again?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend was a Minister in the Treasury—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] He was a Treasury Minister in the 1970s, and he knows perfectly well that no Treasury Minister answers questions about speculation on such issues. What we do, as the G7 Ministers said in their statement at Palermo, is to continue to review these matters.
    What I will tell my right hon. Friend is that the European economy is growing by some 2.5 to 3 per cent. this year. That is a higher growth rate than that of the American economy. We expect the British economy to grow by between 2¼ and 2¾ per cent. In other words, there is growth in investment taking place in the European area. Employment is rising both in Europe and, of course, in the British economy itself. My right hon. Friend's prognostications about the European economy being in such a parlous state are not ones that he would want to follow up with detail.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Peter Brooke: What recent representations he has received on Government policy in relation to trends in UK competitiveness; and if he will make a statement. [154597]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): We are promoting UK competitiveness in partnership with business and trade unions through policies for stability, skills, investment and enterprise, all dedicated to closing the productivity gap with our competitors.
    Mr. Brooke: Does the Chief Secretary agree that a constructive resolution of the long-running Whitehall farce over the London underground, which has had an effect not just today but over the past four years, would do more for the competitiveness of this great city than any other single act?
    Mr. Smith: It is in everybody's interests—long-suffering travellers in London, the economy of London and the wider economy of the UK—that we achieve the modernisation in the London underground that is so clearly needed and that was so neglected when the previous Government were in office. The best way to do that cost-effectively, to time, to standard and with the high safety standards that we must secure is through the public-private partnership and through safety remaining in the public sector.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Chief Secretary accept that one industry in which international competitiveness is key is tourism? Does he also accept that Britain's international position is being undermined by the impression overseas that Britain is in crisis?

    1093
    Does he agree that one of the best ways to give the impression that everything is back to normal in Britain is to have a general election now?
    Mr. Smith: The timing of the general election, as we all know, is a matter for the Prime Minister. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the British tourism industry, the enormous contribution that it makes to the economy and the damage being inflicted on it by overseas perceptions of the foot and mouth crisis. The best way we can help the tourism industry and the agriculture industry is to eradicate foot and mouth through all the measures that we are taking to tackle it.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Why has the rate of productivity gone down since the Government took office?
    Mr. Smith: The rate of productivity is rising and, moreover, it is rising at twice the level that it was when the Conservative Administration left office. We are acting to raise the rate of productivity growth. After all, the Government introduced the 10p corporation tax starting rate for small firms, cut the main and small rates of corporation tax by 3p and introduced the research and development tax credit for small firms, which has been widely welcomed by the CBI and business. We are considering extending it to large firms. We also announced in the Budget wide-ranging reforms of VAT, which, again, were widely welcomed because of the simplification and the benefit achieved for business. Of course, there is more to do, but through our policies of stability, investment and promoting skills, we have set the platform on which productivity can further increase.

    Children's Tax Credit
    Mr. Desmond Browne: How many families are entitled to the children's tax credit. [154598]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Some 800,000 people have responded to our recent advertising campaign. An additional 500,000 have already claimed, making 3.4 million employees—and, with the self-employed, 4.4 million—already expected to benefit. To make sure that all eligible families can benefit as soon as possible, I shall write to MPs on both sides of the House enclosing material that they can send to organisations that serve parents in their constituencies, such as local schools, parent-teacher associations, child care providers and local charities.
    The Government are adding to the bounty pack given to 750,000 mothers each year information about applying for the children's tax credit. In total, we shall be investing £2.3 billion a year in the children's tax credit by 2003. As a result of increases over this Parliament, the Government will be spending an extra £1.1 billion a year on child benefit in this coming year.
    Mr. Browne: I welcome the initiative that my right hon. Friend is taking to disseminate information about the children's tax credit. It occurs to me that, if the pack that he mentioned is to be used with credibility by Conservative Members, it might need to include a statement as to why they now support a policy that they
    1094
    previously described as a gimmick. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the pack contains explicit material to show that ordinary working families will be substantially better off as a result of this tax credit? Will he also confirm that no child benefit book will go out from now on unless it contains a page that spells out the eligibility for children's tax credit?
    Mr. Brown: Every available source of information will be used to get the message across that the children's tax credit is up and running from the beginning of April. Many people will receive the credit in their pay packet at the end of April. This additional rate—the £8.50 rising to £10—will be made available in the May pay packet. I will take on board the suggestions that my hon. Friend made about the information that should be provided in the pack. He is absolutely right to say that the Conservatives called the children's tax credit a gimmick. They are completely wrong.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Has the Chancellor had a chance to view the work of the Childcare Commission, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and on which I had the honour to serve? Will the Chancellor address his attention to one particular problem? A family where both parents earn £30,000 a year is entitled to children's tax credit. However, there is no such entitlement for a family where the mother, say wants to stay at home to look after the children and the father earns £45,000 a year. Surely that is unfair. We should not dictate through the tax system how people run their lives. There should be an equitable decision between partners as to how they run their lives in their own way.
    Mr. Brown: That is exactly why we are integrating the children's benefits into the new integrated child credit in 2003, when the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised will be dealt with. I applaud the work of the Childcare Commission and the hon. Gentleman's service on it. However, he should look at why the problem has arisen. It is a function of the independent taxation introduced by the previous Government, and of the way in which it was introduced. The problem will be dealt with in 2003. Until then, nearly 5 million families will benefit from the children's tax credit, and I hope that his party will stop calling it a gimmick and start recognising that it is vital to improving the standard of living of millions of families.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: How many of the 600,000 families eligible for children's tax credit in the north-west does my right hon. Friend think will receive it? Is he satisfied about the progress of his general policy, which combines measures to make work pay with investing in local economies? Will he give us a progress report on his efforts to secure regional investment funds, in the discussions that he is having in Europe?
    Mr. Brown: Every family with children in my hon. Friend's constituency will receive child benefit. Almost every family that is eligible will receive the children's tax credit, and those who have not yet applied can still do so. That is why the information packs are going out. On the general question about the standard of living among families, the key to that is to create employment

    1095
    opportunities in my hon. Friend's constituency and region that were denied for so long. I think that she will agree that the north-west is benefiting from the increase in employment and will benefit from the Budget measures that target public expenditure and tax assistance to regenerate some of the high unemployment areas of this country. There should be consensus on the need for helping family prosperity in the way that we propose and on the need for increased work, including the new deal. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives want to abolish the new deal and the working families tax credit.

    Personal Service Companies
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on his policy on the taxation of personal service companies. [154599]
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will make a statement on his policy on the taxation of personal service companies. [154600]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): We want to make the United Kingdom the most competitive environment for business in the world. Our policy on the taxation of personal service companies helps to do this by making sure that the tax measures intended to support genuine businesses can be properly targeted at those businesses and do not, instead, go to those that are essentially no different from employees.
    Mr. Brady: Is the Minister not ashamed of having introduced a stealth tax on enterprise? Is she not ashamed of having introduced a tax that will drive skilled information technology professionals overseas? What is her estimate of the number of those professionals who have already been driven out of the country by her proposals?
    Dawn Primarolo: The legislation is fair, proportionate and compatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under EU legislation. There is no evidence to support the allegation that there is a flood of IT specialists leaving the UK. The hon. Gentleman should look at some of the various publications; for example, an article called "Contractor UK" by David Houston of Glow International Ltd. He warns IT specialists that despite the widespread press speculation concentrating on UK contractors post-IR35, it is a fallacy that they would be better off overseas. He reminds them that in western European countries where there are vacancies for freelance professionals, in every case taxation is higher than in the UK. The hon. Gentleman's allegation that thousands are leaving is not the case, and his suggestion that the tax proposals are unfair is not the case. He should bear in mind that the measure is to deal with an avoidance mechanism in the tax system whereby those working through personal services companies were paying tax and national insurance at the rate of 21 per cent., whereas an employee earning the same amount in the same circumstances was paying, on average, 35 per cent.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Nobody in this House, and certainly no independent IT specialist or anyone running a consultancy company outside this House, will be impressed by the verbose filibuster of the Paymaster
    1096
    General in response to the sensible question from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Does she deny that the Government are looking into changing the immigration rules to attract IT specialists and other high technology personnel, who could inject entrepreneurship in the UK? Is not it high time that this cretinous imposte was removed? Is it not thoroughly welcome that the Conservative party is proposing to do just that in its election manifesto?
    Dawn Primarolo rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, may I appeal for a shorter answer?
    Dawn Primarolo: I will, of course, do your bidding in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.
    It is true that the Government, along with the Governments of other European countries, are looking at visa applications. The people concerned are coming to this country knowing our tax regulations, and knowing full well that they will be very well off.
    Mr. Nigel Beard(Bexleyheath and Crayford): May I congratulate my hon. Friend on plugging this tax loophole? Does not the Opposition's attitude to this matter reveal them to be, as always, the tax dodger's friend?
    Dawn Primarolo: The proposals contained within IR35 are intended to close a tax loophole that meant that a huge amount of resources was being lost to the UK Exchequer. Opposition Members who so gladly say that they will abolish the measure need to explain to the House where they would find nearly —1 billion of expenditure, which would result from their actions.
    Mr. Brian White: My right hon. Friend will be aware that IT contracting has gone through ups and downs. particularly when the Tories changed the tax rules several times in the 1980s. The key area for those companies is investment in skills and continual reskilling. Will she give an assurance that she will look to provide investment in those areas for such companies?
    Dawn Primarolo: The suggestion that IR35 is targeted only on IT consultancies is not true. It is to deal with a mechanism for service companies where those involved were essentially employees. A legitimate business that is not caught by the regulations in IR35 can continue to be able to invest in training, as it could before IR35.

    Savings
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on his policy regarding the savings ratio. [154601]
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What recent representations he has received on the taxation of savings. [154605]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government's strategy involves creating the right environment for saving—sound money and low

    1097
    inflation—the right incentives for people to save and ensuring that people have the right information to make good saving choices.
    Mr. Robathan: But the Chief Secretary obviously does not know that in 1995 the Chancellor wrote:
    "We will never raise the level of investment in our economy if we do not encourage savings",
    yet in the past four years the savings ratio has been almost halved, so does the Chief Secretary think that the Government's policies are encouraging savings? They certainly do not seem to be.
    Mr. Smith: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that of course investment is increasing; it is now almost 15 per cent. of GDP. As for the savings ratio, that is increasing as well. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not see the latest figures which were released on Monday and showed that the savings ratio is up to 5.5 per cent.
    Mr. Winterton: Will the Chief Secretary admit that, despite what he has just said, and as figures that I have show, the savings ratio is as low now as it has ever been since records began and that the Treasury itself admits that any further weakening of savings would pose a serious risk to the United Kingdom economic outlook? Does he think that taking —200 annually, in the form of the Government's pension tax, from the average 30-year-old encourages or discourages savings? Surely we want to encourage savings, and that is what the Conservative party is going to do.
    Mr. Smith: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not checked his facts more carefully. As I said and as the figures published on Monday showed, the savings ratio has increased to 5.5 per cent. Moreover, in every quarter under this Government, the ratio has been higher than the depths that it reached, in 1988, under the previous Tory Administration. Furthermore, since the previous general election, personal sector net financial wealth is up by 31 per cent. We also have robust levels of long-term saving in the economy. The debt-to-wealth ratio is less than half of what it was in the 1990s, and individual savings accounts are attracting one third more in savings than TESSAs and PEPs were even in their most successful year.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: But is it not a paradox that, although the United States is the zone with a negative savings ratio and Europe is the zone with a positive savings ratio—the European ratio is more positive than ours—Conservative Members are fanatically anti-European? Is not one of the best ways of encouraging saving to allow employees to have a stake in their company through employee share ownership? After the general election, when he and every other Labour Member have been returned, will my right hon. Friend meet a delegation to take forward the idea of employee share ownership? A stakeholding, partnership economy is the one that we want—not the confrontational, anti-European one being offered by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Smith: Of course my hon. Friend is right. This Government have introduced the most ambitious and successful programme for employee share ownership that
    1098
    the United Kingdom has ever seen. I shall be very happy to meet a delegation at any time to discuss how we can build on that successful programme.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, prior to 1997, great numbers of people in the United Kingdom were excommunicated from savings? Will he comment on the viability of credit unions and the contribution that the Government have made to establishing those programmes in our communities?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, given the damage of boom and bust and instability and the 3 million unemployed, Conservative Members should be ashamed of their record when they were in government. As my hon. Friend said, that Government threw people on the scrap heap and did not give them an opportunity to save. As for credit unions, they make an invaluable contribution, and we are pleased to see the credit union movement growing. We are simplifying the regulation of credit unions and enabling them to expand their activities. That is greatly to the benefit not only of saving, but of people in our most disadvantaged communities because it gets them out of the hands of the loan sharks.
    Mr. Howard Flight: Does the Chief Secretary accept that the halving of savings—which is the halving of the savings rate, of which the Government are Well aware—has been the result of Government policies and presents a serious threat to the economy? As Ministers know, there has been a substantial increase in personal borrowings because disposable incomes have increased by only 1.6 per cent. annually whereas, in the previous decade, they increased by 2.75 per cent. annually.
    Do the Government not see, in the present climate of stock market weakness, that there is a serious risk of a volatile rise in savings, leading to a fall in consumption and the very bust that they seek to avoid? We are dangerously poised, as a result of the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have brief questions, as well as brief answers
    Mr. Smith: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman is predicting a rise in the savings ratio, when Conservative Members have been complaining endlessly that it was too low. The truth is that the best prospects for savings, as for the strength of the economy as a whole, is to maintain the platform of stability that the Government have put in place and avoid the £16 billion worth of cuts and the boom and bust threatened by Conservative policies.

    NHS Investment
    Angela Smith: if he will make a statement on his plans for future investment in the health service. [154602]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government are providing by far the biggest, most sustained growth in NHS resources in the history of the service. Taken together, the Chancellor's Budget and spending review plans provide for real-terms growth in

    1099
    NHS expenditure of 6.4 per cent, 5.2 per cent. and 5.4 per cent. over the next three years, compared with an average of 3.3 per cent. average annual real growth since the foundation of the NHS and only 3 per cent. annual real growth between 1978-79 and 1996-97.
    Angela Smith: At Basildon hospital, we are now seeing the effects of that, with three new wards, new theatres and a new breast cancer unit currently being built. However, we still face long delays for treatment after admission through accident and emergency. Those problems occurred in the past because of lack of investment in the future. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will have long-term sustained investment, because only if the public sector and the health service have confidence in the Government's continuing support can they plan their investment for the future?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. It is because of that record increase in resources that the Chancellor has been able to announce that we are to modernise every accident and emergency unit in the country that needs it. Moreover, thanks to the resources that we are providing, the staff will be there to meet the patients care needs, with the recruitment over the next three years of 7,500 extra consultants, 2,000 extra GPs, 20,000 nurses and 6,500 therapists and other health professionals.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Yesterday, in a shameless piece of cynical electioneering, the Health Secretary suspended the transfer of accident and emergency and paediatric services from Crawley hospital to East Surrey hospital in Redhill in my constituency, at the request of the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt)—a decision that he would not have been able to make in a week's time if we were in an election campaign, because it is politically controversial. The decision will cost the local health care trust money because of the delayed accrual of savings from the concentration of services. Will the Chief Secretary undertake to repay that money?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a consequence of the Chancellor's Budget announcements, extra money is going directly to every acute trust in the country. That will benefit his constituents as much as anyone else's.
    Mr. Phil Hope: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the investment will be in primary care as well as acute care? We all recognise the need for investment in hospitals, but it is vital also to invest in GPs and care-at-home services in the community. Can he also settle the debate that has been raging on these Back Benches over the past half hour: is the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) Mr. Boom or Mr. Bust?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right about the importance of primary care and the contribution it makes both to the quality of service to patients and to achieving better health outcomes. That is why, as the Prime Minister recently announced. 3,000 GP premises are to be modernised over the next three years and 500 new one-stop primary care centres are to be completed by 2004. With the recruitment of 2,000 extra GPs and other
    1100
    health professionals, that will enable us to continue the progress that we are already making in substantially raising standards of care, increasing the rapidity of treatment and cutting waiting lists.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Chief Secretary now admit that, whatever his future plans for NHS investment may be, in this Parliament his record is even worse than the Conservatives' record in the previous Parliament? Does he not realise that that poor record on NHS spending means that in my constituency there are severe shortages of nurses, bio-medical staff and doctors, and we have long and rising out-patient waiting lists? Will he not admit that, as a proportion of national income, average spending on the NHS in this Parliament is even lower than in the previous Parliament?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's figures are nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are your figures."] He would do well to remember that at the last general election the Liberal Democrats promised to increase health spending by a total of £3.5 billion across the Parliament, whereas this Government are increasing health spending by more than £5 billion, year on year. As for shares of GDP, when the previous Administration left office 5.7 per cent. of GDP was spent on health; this year the figure is 6.2 per cent.

    Office for National Statistics
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on the work of the Office for National Statistics. [154603]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): This month is the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Office for National Statistics, and we are now making major advances in statistics. We have a new index of services, and we are the first country to update our national accounts to meet the new European system of accounts. We also have new data capture initiatives and initiatives to make small area data available for social statistics. In line with last year's White Paper, we have also launched "National Statistics".
    Mr. Mackinlay: As my hon. Friend is the Minister in charge of the veracity of Government statistics, I want to draw to her attention the fact that in countless hospitals throughout England and Wales, death certificates are not being completed in a proper and frank manner. Is she aware that for the past 20-odd years, although death certificates may mention pneumonia or septicaemia, there is often a cover-up of the fact that at least some contribution to death was made by MRSA. I shall attempt to pronounce that: methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus—[Laughter.] This is not a matter for levity—not hundreds but thousands of people die in our hospitals because of it, and the hospitals are contriving not to tell the truth. They are covering up because of political considerations, resource considerations, possible litigation—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman is asking.
    Miss Johnson: I will not try to emulate my hon. Friend's pronunciation; I will stick to the term MRSA.

    1101
    This is a serious matter, and I appreciate his raising it. Doctors are required to complete certificates showing the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief. Guidance is included at the front of every book of death certificates. Indeed, they are not available without it, and it stresses the need to complete the sequence of conditions that led to death, so death certificates are being correctly completed. However, I am sure my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Department of Health has decided to make all invasive forms of MRSA infection reportable by NHS trusts to the Department of Health, from April.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Will people be able to describe themselves as English in the coming census?
    Miss Johnson: People will be able to describe their place of birth by whatever means they wish, including ticking a box or writing in the word "English".
    Mr. Derek Twigg: Will my hon. Friend recognise the important work that my constituents do in the statistical office in Runcorn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall)? She will know that, because of the review that has taken place, they are concerned about their future. Will she be in a position to make a decision about the office in the not-too-distant future, and will she take into account the representations that the unions want to make to her soon?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know that he takes a keen interest in the concerns of his constituents who work in Runcorn. As he knows, I have been considering the matter for a little while and I need to give it further thought. However, as soon as I make a decision, I shall alert him.
    Mr. James Clappison: Was not the Economic Secretary right in her first answer that the Government have taken more initiatives on statistics than any previous Government? Is she not concerned about the growing number of statistics that provide clear evidence of declining confidence in the economy? Is not the only statistic about which we can be confident under a Labour Government the one showing that taxes will go up? Will the Economic Secretary please tell us whether national statistics show that the tax burden is higher or lower than it was when the Government came to office in 1997?
    Miss Johnson: We have published endless details of the tax burden. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, it is lower than it was under the previous Government's plans. On his point about the figures, through the framework for national statistics, we have set out new arrangements that guarantee the independence of statistics that are produced. That is in contrast to the previous Government, who fiddled the figures on unemployment statistics on numerous occasions—dozens of revisions were made to unemployment figures to present a picture to the country that was different from the reality of unemployment under the Tories.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: As the Government target more resources on disadvantaged areas, will my hon. Friend urge the Office for National Statistics to
    1102
    produce more statistical information at constituency and ward level so that we can better assess the difference that that investment is making?
    Miss Johnson: I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in the subject, which is shared by the Government. In response to PAT 18—the policy action team report—we have put in place an initiative with additional funding to produce local area, statistics on a ward-by-ward and, indeed, other area basis. I am sure that all hon. Members will find that extremely useful.

    Energy Taxation
    Mr. Nigel Evans: If he will make a statement on his policy towards energy taxation. [154604]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The climate change levy, which comes into effect next week, will help to deliver the reductions in carbon emissions needed for the United Kingdom to meet its Kyoto and domestic targets. I am delighted to inform the House that European state aid clearance was given yesterday for the package of negotiated agreements for energy-intensive users, including the full 10-year duration that we sought, and for exemptions for renewable energy and combined heat and power.
    Mr. Evans: Following the announcement yesterday by the President of the United States that he will not proceed to ratify the Kyoto protocol because it is not in the best interests of American industry, will the Financial Secretary put British industry first? Will he look again at the enormous cost of the climate change levy, regardless of the package that he has just announced? Throughout the country, including the north-west, the levy will do enormous damage to manufacturing industry which, in any event, is in general decline. The President of the United States is putting American industry first; is not it about time that the Chancellor started to put British industry first and scrapped the levy?
    Mr. Timms: It is the interests of every inhabitant of the globe that the Kyoto process proceeds and that the problem of climate change is addressed. It was disappointing that The Hague conference failed to reach agreement, but our aim is to work with the US Administration to advance the process. The climate change levy is a key element in meeting our Kyoto obligations and is revenue-neutral. All the proceeds will be recycled back to business, and the whole levy has been designed to protect the competitiveness of UK firms.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that the message of President Bush's deplorable decision to turn the Kyoto agreement on its head is that no Government anywhere should ever let themselves be compelled by vested interests and that our Government are right to put the environment first?
    Mr. Timms: I have certainly seen the press reports this morning. Our aim is to work with the United States Administration to take this very important process forward. It is in the interests of every citizen of the globe that we do so.

    VAT (Residential Conversions)
    Mr. Bob Russell: When the lower rate of value added tax on residential conversion works will be introduced. [154608]
    The Paymaster General: From the date of Royal Assent to the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Russell: Does the Paymaster General agree that the higher rate of VAT on existing buildings is a disincentive for urban renewal and that the nil VAT on new building encourages greenfield development? That being the case, why has it taken the Government four years to get around to sorting out this mess?
    Dawn Primarolo: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The package that was introduced in this year's Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on VAT on contaminated land and on development in disadvantaged areas builds on Lord Rogers' report. It is specifically targeted at the regeneration of contaminated sites in inner-city areas and has been widely welcomed as the right way forward for developing these policies. Indeed, the empty homes initiative welcomed those proposals as the Government recognise how to deal with these problems.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that a charity in Ilkley in my constituency may well have to pay a levy of £10,000 over and above the cost of building a bandstand because Customs and Excise does not regard a bandstand as a building? If a bandstand is not a building, what is it?
    Dawn Primarolo: I will not speculate on whether or not a bandstand is a building. However, I have noted my hon. Friend's comments, and I will certainly look closely at her point about the problems that her constituents seem to be experiencing with Customs and Excise.

    Unemployment (Kettering)
    Mr. Phil Sawford: What impact his policies have had on unemployment levels in Kettering since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [154610]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): In Kettering, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, we are continuing to deliver a platform of economic stability that will help us attain our objective of high and stable levels of employment. Since the previous election, claimant unemployment in the Kettering constituency has fallen by 35 per cent, long-term unemployment by 81 per cent. and youth unemployment by 83 per cent.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that more than 398 young people have
    1104
    taken part in the new deal in my constituency and that more than 200 of those have found full-time employment? Will he join me in congratulating these young people, the gateway provider and the jobcentre staff for the excellent work that they are doing? Does he have a message for young people in the Kettering constituency who were abandoned by the previous Government?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the young people concerned and to record the House's appreciation of all the efforts made by the personal advisers, the providers and, of course, the employers who have given them work opportunities. The message is very clear—the greatest threat to the progress that we have made in tackling youth unemployment and to the future of those young people would be the return of a Conservative Administration who would want to abolish the new deal.

    Pension Funds
    Mr. Eric Insley: What representations he has received regarding the fall in the value of pension funds. [154614]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): Pensions, by their very nature, are investments for the long term. Investors should not be deterred from making sensible provisions for their retirement by short-term volatility in the investment markets.
    Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Can she give any assistance to pension schemes such as that of the William Cook group, which is based in Sheffield? Its pension fund had a shortfall of some £4 million when valued in October last year, causing the pension scheme to ask its members either to increase their contributions or to change to a money purchase scheme, which will be to the detriment of those workers. Can my hon. Friend offer any advice to such pension funds?
    Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend was perhaps not aware of the previous difficulties. I am concerned to hear what he has to say, and I shall be delighted to meet him and discuss the matter further.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Has the hon. Lady received any recent representations from the pension funds about the cost of the withdrawal of payable tax credits? Does it amount to more than £5 billion a year, and is she proud of that record?
    Miss Johnson: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the reason for making the change was to increase and maintain investment in funds, rather than to encourage artificial withdrawal of money. At the same time as the change has taken place, stock market values have gone up and the values of the funds have increased.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for the coming week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords].
Consideration in Committee followed by remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
Proceedings on the Election Publications Bill [Lords]
Motion on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2001.
TUESDAY 3 APRIL—Second Reading of the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 5 APRIL—Remaining stages of the International Development Bill.
FRIDAY 6 APRIL—Private Member's Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 9 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 10 APRIL —Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment debate
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 4 April, there will be a debate relating to community postal services in European Standing Committee C.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
Wednesday 4 April: European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 10544/00, Community Postal Services. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 28-iv (2000–01) and HC 23-xxviii (1999–2000).]
The House will wish to know that, subject as ever to the progress of business, I expect that the House will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Tuesday 10 April and return on Monday 23 April.
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for all that information. After last week, it is a great relief to know that the Government have not cancelled Easter this year.
As business is clearly moving at a satisfactory pace, may we have a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister early next week about the tube? The public-private partnership completion deadline was March 1999. Today's tube strike, with the resultant gridlock in surface transport, shows clearly the urgent need for the House to be kept informed of the Government's proposals.
Transport for London was set up by the Government. It is not clear what it is meant to do if it is not to run the tube. We have seen the Deputy Prime Minister on the Treasury Bench this week. It would be a courtesy as well as a matter of urgency for him to allow the House to question him on that important subject.
1106
On the assumption that the county council elections will proceed, and given the problems around the country with foot and mouth, will the Leader of the House say whether the Government intend to make a statement before the Easter recess about arrangements for the elections? Will there be any consideration of the expenses of candidates who are farmers? I have three county council candidates in my constituency who are farmers restricted to their farms. They will want to contact the electorate by telephone, which will have a read-across into election expenses. Will arrangements be made for electoral returning officers to take it on themselves to distribute postal votes, perhaps even on a parish-by-parish basis? That is a matter of concern for the right of candidates to contact their electorate.
Now that the Leader of the House has kindly outlined when we can expect the Easter recess, will there be a statement on how Members of Parliament can be kept informed and have access to Ministers, especially at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, during the recess? The present national emergency is likely to be still with us during the Easter recess, and it is most important that hon. Members can continue to deal with constituency casework relating to foot and mouth on a day-by-day basis. Proper arrangements need to be made, and they should include officials at MAFF being aware of contact numbers for hon. Members if new outbreaks occur in their constituencies during the recess. That matter should be put in hand, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will tell the House early next week about the contingency arrangements that the Government have put in place.
Will the Leader of the House say whether it is the Government's intention to offer a full debate—not a statement—on foot and mouth in Government time before the House rises for the Easter recess? The two debates that have been held in the Chamber have been in Opposition time. We welcome statements from the Minister, but each day new problems and issues arise that hon. Members of all parties want to raise. It would be appropriate if the Government were to find time in their agenda for a much more detailed debate before the House rises for the recess.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall try to remember all of that. First, the hon. Lady asked for a statement on the London underground, and I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon.
Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. She will know that the Government have been striving heartily to get agreement about the future of the underground, but unfortunately it has not yet proved possible to resolve all the problems. Obviously, however, my right hon. Friend will continue to work on the matter.
The hon. Lady then asked, on the assumption that the county council elections will proceed, about the many arrangements that need to be made. I shall draw her remarks to the attention of the relevant Ministers. I hope that she is aware that electoral returning officers already have considerable powers, and that, even before there was any question of a foot and mouth outbreak, they had been advised to draw to people's attention the greater availability of postal voting. They are doing what they can in practical terms to make that option more genuinely available. In that sense. therefore, there is little need for further steps to be taken.

1107
I turn now to the general question of how the county council elections should be handled. It seems that the Conservative party has had its own thoughts on that, and made its own arrangements. Although it has called for the cancellation of the county council elections, the Conservative party has called no fewer than three county council by-elections—in Cumbria, Essex and Wiltshire—since the outbreak began.
Mrs. Browning: In the towns.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady screams that the by-elections will be held in the towns, but if I recall correctly the Opposition called for the suspension of all county council elections in Cumbria. They are displaying a somewhat selective memory in that respect, but I simply say that it is clear that Opposition Members will have given thought to the matter when they decided to call those unnecessarily early by-elections.
The hon. Lady asked me about access to Ministers, and about statements and information given to the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is considering the planning needed to keep hon. Members informed.
I understand the hon. Lady's point about casework, and it is right and proper for hon. Members to want to keep informed about problems in their constituencies, and to draw them to the attention of MAFF if they feel that messages are not getting through. However, although it is officials on the ground, such as vets, who primarily need to keep in touch with the situation, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is doing everything that he can to keep hon. Members informed.
I shall consider what the hon. Lady said about a debate on foot and mouth. She will be conscious, as I am, of the regular statements that Ministers have made, but I appreciate her point that debates and statements are not the same. However, the country will expect the Government to keep the House informed and information to flow freely between hon. Members and the Government. The Government are keeping the House informed, and I am not trying to make a party point when I say that I think that people also want Ministers to strike a balance between the proper discharge of their responsibilities to the House and their responsibilities in the country as a whole. We strive to keep those matters in balance.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not it strange that the Opposition want the Government to plough on, but raise no objection, when told that Parliament is to be away for the lengthy period of 13 days?
My question relates to the possibility of a general election. If one takes place on 3 May, Parliament will be dissolved about this time next week. Many of us have in the pipeline important correspondence with Government Departments that requires a response. If a general election is called, will special action be taken to ensure that we all receive replies by next Thursday, given that after then we shall no longer be Members of Parliament? I thought that, as a bald man with a funny accent, I had better ask a serious question.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot quarrel with my hon. Friend about his hair, but I do not think that there is anything
1108
funny about his accent. He is a very serious and effective Member of Parliament, as hon. Members on both sides will confirm.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the length of the recess. One of the reasons that lay behind my response last week to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) about the timing of what was then a potential recess was that the Government had been asked whether the recess and the school holidays would coincide. He might know that, yet again, there is quite a disparity in respect of when school holidays fall in different parts of the country. We came under pressure—not least in the upper House—to start the Easter recess earlier, because otherwise children might be on holiday when the House was sitting. The arrangements, in part, reflect that request.
My hon. Friend asked about correspondence in the pipeline. He has fought many elections successfully and will, no doubt, fight many more with equal success, so he will know that that situation arises whenever a general election is called. There is always correspondence and material in the pipeline and most Departments and Ministers do their best to ensure that Members receive responses, but it is not always possible to provide 100 per cent. of responses.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recall that four weeks ago, I raised questions about the practicality of getting information from candidates to electors in areas such as Cornwall? The correspondence that she has kindly made available to me shows that she has not been able to do anything about the problem facing county council candidates, who, in contrast to general election candidates, do not get free mail to their constituents. Is it still possible to examine that issue?
Will the right hon. Lady reconsider the answer that she gave me last week regarding the statement that was to be made in the other place by the Minister for Transport, Lord Macdonald, on the National Air Traffic Services Ltd. public-private partnerships? I understand that that statement is being made today, but we have had no statement in this House, let alone an opportunity to debate it.
I endorse the request made by the Conservative spokeswoman for a debate on the London underground. I always walk to the House and I am conscious that many other people in London had to do so this morning. A statement would not only be useful, but might provide guidance to some Members of Parliament about the healthiest way in which to get to the House. The right hon. Lady will have noticed that, by an admirable coincidence, a medical research report published this morning suggests that walking to work is much healthier than working out in the gym.
Will the right hon. Lady consider advising her Government colleagues to dispense with their ministerial limousines for the next six weeks or so and walk to work instead? Might that not be a good way to ensure that the Government are healthy? Would she care to make the same suggestion to the Leader of the Opposition, who is also provided with a limousine at public expense?
Mrs. Beckett: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant

1109
Ministers. Although I understand his point, I am not persuaded that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is likely to think that he can undertake to provide free mail for local elections.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the statement on NATS in the Lords. He will recall that during debates there, an undertaking was given that there would be a further statement in that House, and it is in response to that undertaking that the statement he mentions is being made.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned people walking to work and dispensing with ministerial and other limos. Of course, the leader of the Liberal party is provided with an official car, as I recall.
Mr. Tyler: No. Absolutely not.
Mrs. Beckett: If I am incorrect, I withdraw the allegation unreservedly and apologise for making it, although it was certainly my impression that a car was somehow provided for the leader of the Liberal party. Perhaps we will not go into that.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the report that suggested that it is healthy for people to walk to work. I observed to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, that while that might in general be good advice, I was not sure that it was in London with all the traffic fumes. That remains my view.
Mr. John Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing public concern about deep vein thrombosis and long-haul air travel? She will be aware that next Friday will be the Second Reading of my private Member's Bill, the Air Travellers (Provision of Health Information) Bill. If it should fail at Second Reading, will she ask her right hon. Friends to consider legislation to place a legal requirement on airlines to provide up-to-date information on the risks associated with long-distance flights?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has taken this subject seriously and takes a close and detailed interest in it. Indeed, I believe that he initiated a debate in Westminster Hall on it. I wish him well with his Bill. I undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that there are many calls for Government legislation on a range of issues. The public awareness campaign that is being run by people such as him will be just as effective as legislation.
Sir George Young: Next week's business does not include any provision for suspending the county council elections. Can we assume, therefore, that it is the Government's view that those elections should go ahead?
Mrs. Beckett: Certainly, it has been the Government's view for some time that to suspend the county council elections would give a strong and negative signal. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I have pointed this out to the House before, that the tourism industry—other industries are affected but it is primarily the tourism
1110
industry—has expressed strong reservations about that course. Obviously, all those issues remain under consideration.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to make a statement to the House? The continuing uncertainty about the underground is not helpful and people want a clear statement of how it is to proceed. It is important to realise that Bob Kiley is a most talented and remarkable man. His advice should be taken because it is in the interests of the passengers.
On a different subject, could someone urgently consider conference calls for candidates who are excluded from county council elections because they are in exclusion zones? There is no reason why we should not use modern technology to enable candidates who are trapped inside their farms to offer their views to the public. They could do so if they were given the necessary support.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I will draw it to the attention of the relevant authorities. While I completely understand that people will wish to take seriously all the precautions that they can, I understand that if people do take those proper precautions they can move from their farms. It is not the case that people ate confined to their farms, although I recognise the strong wish that people will have to avoid doing anything that might exacerbate any difficulties.
My hon. Friend mentioned the London underground and I personally undertake to draw her remarks and those of other hon. Members to the attention of the Secretary of State. However, I assure her that no one is more anxious to draw the issues to a conclusion than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Can the Leader of the House explain why when there is an exhibition in the Upper Gallery of bronzes of long defunct—but all male—servants of this House, we have no comparable memorials in this place to any of the women who have served the House? I acknowledge that one cannot have such a memento until one is past this life. Will she explain two things? What happened to the plaque of Lady Astor, which was commissioned by her family and was originally placed in one of the voting Lobbies? It has disappeared to some obscure place in the House of which I am unaware. Will the Leader of the House, using her influence with the usual channels, seriously contemplate memorials of some kind—this is a non-partisan issue—to those women who served the House and whose very election to the House was a major achievement on their part? When I take my guests around the Commons, I am ashamed to tell them that there is not one comparable memorial in the House to a woman, or even to a suffragette who fought for the enfranchisement of women.
Mrs. Beckett: There is an indirect memorial, at least, to one of the suffragettes in the broken sword in St. Stephen's Hall, which had to be broken in order to remove someone who had chained herself to it. However, I take the hon. Lady's point. I am afraid that I have not the faintest idea what happened to the plaque commemorating, very properly, the election of Lady Astor, or why it was moved. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock

1111
(Mr. Mackinlay) suggests that he believes that it is sited near the Admission Order Office, where more visitors might see it than would see it in the Division Lobby, where it was previously. I assure the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that none of these decisions are matters for me. I certainly understand her remark, and I suspect that part of the reason is that it is over such a comparatively short period that women have been able to be Members of the House. There may also be less inclination to raise resources to fund more permanent memorials to any of the women Members or women who have participated here. I share her view that that is regrettable, but no doubt it will be remedied over time.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for a debate on pensioners? Will she join me, as I am sure the whole House will, in sending our best wishes to Baroness Castle, who has been admitted to St. Thomas's hospital after a fall? We need a debate on pensioners so that we can assess the Government's good start, and address pensioners' continuing concerns, especially about ageism in the NHS, transport and crime?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be aware of the recent publication by the Government and one of the Select Committees on the subject of ageism. I understand his concern that we should have a wide-ranging debate such as he identifies. I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate on the Floor in the near future, but he may like to consider the advantages of Westminster Hall. I share his view and I am sure that the whole House would want to send its strong best wishes and affection to such a distinguished servant of the House as Baroness Castle.
Mr. Robert Syms: Many haemophiliacs have been infected with hepatitis C as a result of NHS blood products. So far, despite hon. Members on both sides of the House calling for some form of compensation, the Government have rejected that. Earlier this week, there was a case in the High Court in which, on consumer legislation, a number of people won their case. May we have a statement from Health Ministers on the Government's current attitude? Do they intend to appeal that decision or to accept it and perhaps negotiate with others who seek compensation, to make the position of those people and their families far more comfortable as they contend with a very nasty disease?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and he is right that the issue has been raised by hon. Members across the House. He will know that that pressure has hitherto been resisted by Governments of his party as well as of ours. I understand the concern of the individuals and families who have been affected in the way that he describes, although as he Knows, major steps have been taken, particularly since 1991, to test all donations of blood for hepatitis C. To some extent, therefore, we hope that the problem has been stemmed. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but I cannot give an undertaking that he will wish to make a statement so speedily, although no doubt he is considering the impact of the court case. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is questions to the Department of Health on Tuesday, and he may find an opportunity to raise the matter then.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the current situation were the
1112
same as that in March 1979, there would be no Tory call for postponement of the general election, foot and mouth or no foot and mouth? Have not the Opposition completely lost confidence in their ability to win the next election?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend may be right to attribute motives to the observations that are made by the Opposition. The Government are, as ever, seeking to take the right decisions and to balance the many pressures that are being brought to bear and the large amount of advice that we are being given with regard to the timing of the local elections or any general election.
Mr. Peter Brooke: First, as I am, improbably, going to be in Cuba next week, and as even I realise that this might therefore be my last business questions, may I thank the Leader of the House for her unfailing and well-informed courtesy to me in all such sessions? Secondly, I should like to join the all-party consensus on the London underground. Although I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister is straining every sinew to make a statement, I am concerned that gridlock in government during the past four years is paralleled today by gridlock on the streets of London. Londoners deserve to be informed of the Government's eventual conclusions on the underground before they cast their votes.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall add the right hon. Gentleman's name to the others. I am conscious of the concerns about the London underground, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been a most assiduous servant of his constituents in the House, not least by sometimes opposing his own Government. For example, I seem to recall that he and I were on the same side regarding the potential closure of Bart's. For a variety of reasons, I hope that this is not his last business questions and thank him for his courtesy and kind remarks. I am not sure what is going on with regard to his first point, as the other day I heard from one of our most distinguished servants, a senior Clerk, that he will also be in Havana shortly, after which he expects to retire. It appears that some sort of retirement expedition is going on. If that is so, perhaps the rest of us should be informed.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Can my right hon. Friend find time in the next few days for the House to discuss one of this week's most important news items? Tuesday's decision to appoint contractors to build the A650 Bingley relief road is fantastic news for my constituents because it will significantly reduce congestion. The previous Conservative Administration could never get the project off the ground.
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the enormous effort that my hon. Friend has put into lobbying for such improvements in his constituency. I am sure that his constituents will recognise that effort, on which I congratulate him, and be grateful for it. I understand that they might feel that the project is an important issue that should be considered by the House. I fear, however, that it is one of many similar matters that press for time, so I cannot undertake to schedule a debate on it in the near future.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House advise us on whether any arrangements have

1113
been made for a statement on—or any move made about—advancing the Northern Ireland local government elections, which are due on 16 May, to bring them into line with the local government elections here? Although many of us will welcome the announcement about the Easter recess, we are not too sure whether we will be able to spend it with our families.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that families will be seeing a little more of each other, whatever the circumstances. I recognise the serious point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am not aware of any immediate proposals to make a statement, but I recognise that important concerns have been expressed in Northern Ireland and I believe that the matter is being considered.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: As it is obviously business as usual, can I book Monday 23 April for the Standards and Privileges Committee, so that the House can debate our report, which includes our latest recommendations on the code of conduct? Such a debate would give us the opportunity to correct the many misunderstandings in the national media about what happens in the Committee and about the fact that we are bound by rules that are set in resolutions made by the House of Commons.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, at least on the misunderstanding about, if not misrepresentation of, the work of the Standards and Privileges Committee. I pay tribute to its members for the time and effort they have to put in. However, with all the good will in the world towards my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect, I fear that I cannot allow any hon. Member to book a day.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the right hon. Lady make time for a debate on the recently published Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which reveals that the British system of education is the worst in Europe? That is not the fault of our teachers, who do good work every day of the year and deserve our thanks and praise. The OECD makes it clear that a pivotal reason for the decline in teachers' morale is the excessive bureaucracy and red tape that the Government have imposed on them. We need a debate on that to expose the Government's frailties and failures well before a general election.
Mrs. Beckett: Oh dear—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question, but he may not be so glad. The OECD report does not state what he claims. Indeed, the organisation has regretted publicly the distortion of its report.
The hon. Gentleman calls for a debate to expose the Government's frailties and terrible record. I fear that the information in the OECD report was based on a survey that was carried out in 1996, when we were not the Government.
Mr. Nigel Beard: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on employment in the United Kingdom? Employment is currently at an all-time high and unemployment has dropped below
1114
1 million. Would not a debate on that be most instructive, to point up the contrast with the previous Administration's record?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. It is so difficult to get good news into the normal media outlets that it is understandable that hon. Members want to air it here. Although I sympathise with that wish, I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. However, there will be other opportunities, perhaps in Westminster Hall, to raise the matter.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Lady represents a Derbyshire constituency and will therefore know that the Staffordshire county show is one of the biggest in the midlands. However, does she realise that it has been cancelled for the first time in its 200-year existence because of the growing outbreak of foot and mouth in Staffordshire? If Parliament is dissolved, what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that Members of Parliament who seek re-election continue to be informed of outbreaks in their constituencies? The Ministry of Agriculture currently provides such information.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has fought more than one election, and he knows that if a general election is called, hon. Members become candidates rather than Members of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has insisted throughout that the mechanisms for keeping farmers, vets and others on the ground informed must be most robust. That is extremely important
I am aware that the county show has been cancelled. Such cancellations have happened in several parts of the country as people take precautions. Shows mean a specific concentration of movement in circumstances where precautions are wise
Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hon. Members should encourage their constituents to claim their legal entitlement? Did she hear the Chancellor state earlier that he would encourage hon. Members to work with schools so that families can claim the children's tax credit next month? Will she therefore read early-day motion 473, relating to the action of Plaid Cymru-controlled Caerphilly borough council, which condemned my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) for doing precisely that?
[That this House notes that the honourable Member for Islwyn sent a letter on House of Commons notepaper to all the schools in the constituency of Islwyn detailing the Government's planned children's tax credit; further notes with dismay, that such unsolicited letters were accompanied by a request for the same to be copied and distributed to all schoolchildren for delivery to their parents; questions the propriety of this action within close proximity to calling a general election; deprecates such behaviour as using already cash-strapped resources of schools for overtly political ends; and condemns the use of schoolchildren in this way to deliver details of a policy change which had already been in the public domain since last autumn.]
Could we have a debate on the children's tax credit and the other measures that the Government have introduced to help working families?
Mrs. Beckett: I am astonished that anyone should think it wrong of a Member of Parliament to keep constituents

1115
informed of matters that are to their advantage. Indeed, we have had an exchange across the Floor of the House about precisely that issue—the need to circulate information that is beneficial to people. I have no doubt, however, that my hon. Friend and others will do what they can to ensure that information is spread through the proper channels.
Mr. Owen Paterson: May I reinforce the question asked by the shadow Leader of the House, and remind the Leader of the House that so far there have been three debates on foot and mouth disease, all of them instigated by the Opposition? The right hon. Lady continues today to reflect the Government's attitude, which grossly underestimates the grotesque damage being done to the rural economy, beyond farming. It was clear from what was said yesterday, when the Minister for the Environment appeared before the Select Committee on Agriculture, that there had been a huge underestimate of the damage that has been caused—and caused disproportionately in rural areas.
It is good to hear that the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement, but can we have a full day's debate on the damage caused by the foot and mouth crisis to the whole economy?
Mrs. Beckett: There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the Government underestimate the gravity of the crisis. Of course it is perfectly right and proper for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to draw attention to the wider implications for the economy as a whole, not least—as I have said—the implications to the tourism industry. The Government must continue to take those issues into account.
We are very conscious of the damage that is being done to the lives and livelihoods of many people in all parts of the country, but we are equally conscious of the fact that two things must be done if we are to begin to stem the worst of that damage. First, we must do all that can be done to tackle the outbreak; secondly, we must do all that we can to support and encourage our tourism industry to prosper where that can happen without any effect on the crisis.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Government give urgent consideration to introducing a one-clause amendment to the Election Publications Bill to provide for delivery of one free election address for each candidate to each household, exclusively for the May local government elections? I thought that the Opposition would ask that question; I am sorry that I have had to do it for them.
Mr. Tyler: I did.
Mr. Mackinlay: I gather that the hon. Gentleman did. Anyway, it is important for all candidates to be able to send one communication to one household. I understand that the cost would be a maximum of £5 million. We do not need this in Tilbury, but it is needed in many parts of the country.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand, however, that apart from any
1116
other implications that my hon. Friend's proposal may have, it may well be outwith the scope of the Bill that he mentioned, which is very narrowly drawn.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Has the Leader of the House no shame about the fact that during the three months of the foot and mouth crisis, the Government have not found time for a single debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Tyler: Three months?
Mr. McLoughlin: The Leader of the House has announced business to be dealt with until almost the end of April, which will be three months after the beginning of the outbreak. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.
As the right hon. Lady will know, the Peak district attracts at least 20 million visitors a year, and as she will also know, the consequences of the outbreak are devastating for many businesses in the area. So far, we have heard just one statement in the House about that. Many people whom I meet—including members of the Hartington and Newhaven development association whom I met on Saturday morning—feel that the measures that the Government have announced so far are wholly inadequate. The Minister of Agriculture says that he will make more announcements, but my constituents, and those businesses, desperately need to know when the Government will come up with concrete measures.
Mrs. Beckett: I rather deplore the Conservative party's desperate attempts to create the impression that the Government are at fault, and that we are not doing all we can to tackle the many ramifications of the issues being raised.
I take the point that the debates that have taken place hitherto have been in Opposition time, but we have had those debates, and we have had repeated statements. The Government have fallen over backwards to keep the House informed, not least—as the hon. Gentleman will know—through exceptional measures such as the MPs' hotline and regular updates in the Library.
Let me say, with respect to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, that the best way of bringing about a resurgence in the tourism industry and other aspects of the local economy is to continue to keep the issue under control, while also encouraging people not to stay away from the countryside but to go sensibly into it. That would be far more helpful than any loan scheme, or any of the other ideas that people are proposing to help industries. A revival of custom is what those industries need, and, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, a debate in the House may not always be the best way of achieving that.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Carlisle is at the very centre of the Cumbria and Dumfries and Galloway foot and mouth cluster? If anywhere in the country is suffering from the impacts of the disease, it is that area and Carlisle in particular. Is she therefore not a little surprised to discover that the Conservatives have called a local council by-election not for 3 May, but for 19 April? Is not she further surprised that the seat is not Conservative, but Liberal? The Conservatives are so keen to hold a

1117
by-election in the centre of the area affected by foot and mouth that they have taken extraordinary steps. Does she agree that what we are smelling from the Opposition is frit?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the right hon. Lady recall the vehemence with which the Prime Minister, during the Ayr by-election for the Scottish Parliament, denounced the practice of homosexual role play in school sex education classes? Hon. Members will be receiving reports from the Christian Institute giving documentary evidence as to how widespread that practice now is. May we have a debate so that the Prime Minister can tell us precisely what he plans to do to deliver his pledge and stamp out that practice, particularly as press reports today suggest that he is making a pitch for the religious vote?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I do not recall the precise exchange to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He knows, however, that how such education is conducted is a matter for school governors. I presume that they will take on board the remarks that are being made.
Mr. Brian White: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the figures released last week showing the largest increase in police numbers for a decade, and my area commander has already described how the north Bucks villages in my constituency will get extra resources. She will also be aware of a problem in the south-east with recruiting key public sector workers. May we have time for a debate on that and on police numbers and recruitment in the south-east?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I understand that it is the first time in a decade that police numbers have risen in the Milton Keynes area. That must be a great source of gratification to both my hon. Friends who represent that locality. I understand, of course, both the pressure that he and other colleagues have applied to try to obtain that increase and his concern to have those other issues aired. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for such a debate, but perhaps I may draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that I believe it may be Home Office questions on 9 April. He might find an opportunity to raise those matters then.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: It appears likely that a general election is imminent and every Member of the House standing for re-election may be prepared for it, but can the Leader of the House find time for a debate before any election is announced to discuss why a general election might be called? This Parliament has at least a year to run and my constituents in rural areas are stuck in their farms, in real crisis, and businesses are going bust or are under real threat. My constituents ask me, "Why on earth should we have an election now?" What possible reason is there for holding one, except some perceived advantage to the Government?
Mrs. Beckett: The only scheduled elections that I am aware of are the local elections. As to whether any other
1118
election will be called, that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not a matter for me, nor is it one on which the House desperately needs a debate. I understand his wish to raise those issues, but I can only say that it continues to cultivate the impression that the Conservative party has something to fear.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House look at the business for next week and tell us whether we can have an urgent debate on foot and mouth in Government time, perhaps with the Minister of Agriculture and the rural taskforce Minister—the Minister for the Environment? I spoke to a farmer in my constituency yesterday who has not received any money for five weeks. Had it not been for an agricultural charity giving her some money, she and her family would have had no income whatsoever. Many farmers owe money to small businesses that have also been affected by the rural crisis. If money can be got through to the farmers, they can start to pay bills, which will start to get the rural economy going.
Will the right hon. Lady consider next week's business, because that debate is urgently needed? Those families have no money coming in now. Unless they can get some urgent action from the Government, they will not he able to continue in business.
Mrs. Beckett: I of course understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is a very serious point, and I understand the concerns of his constituents. I shall certainly give consideration to the point, but I cannot undertake necessarily to change the business for next week. However, I can—and will—undertake to draw his remarks urgently to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment.
Mr. Davidson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot call the hon. Gentleman again—he was bad enough the first time. I call Mr. Brady.
Mr. Graham Brady: Can we have an urgent statement or a debate in Government time on the Government's decision to reduce the number of transplant centres in the country? Those proposals will mean the closure of two of the three centres in Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham. I was fortunate to secure a short debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday this week, during which the Minister for Public Health gave out the dreadful news that the decision would be delayed, possibly for several months. That is causing real anxiety in the South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust and in the other centres. It is essential that we have an answer quickly and the Government must explain when they are going to make a decision, to set minds at rest in all three of those places.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on that issue, especially as the hon. Gentleman has so recently had a debate on it. However, I can certainly undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. John Beroow: My knee muscles are getting stronger by the day, Mr. Speaker.

1119
Can we please have an urgent debate on fawning sycophancy, shameful grovelling, unctuous toadying, ritual subservience and the Liberal Democrats? Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in the light of the proportional representation pact and of the overall record of that party, such a debate would allow many right hon. and hon. Members to explain that, in large parts of the country, the Liberal Democrats are a left-wing party scavenging for right-wing votes? Does she also agree that people who want to get rid of this ghastly, sickening, depressing, miserable, pitiful failure of a Labour Government should not vote for that bunch of opportunist misfits, but should instead, throughout the country, vote Conservative, Conservative, Conservative?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has not just triggered his election expenses. Given the mixture of what seems to be genuine discontent and, perhaps, a lack of tact—if I remember recent remarks by his hon. Friends—perhaps the Conservatives could do with a bit more fawning sycophancy in their party.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Leader of the House will have been aware for longer than the rest of us of the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on Members' pay and allowances. Given that many of those recommendations, particularly on allowances for new Members, are predicated on those allowances beginning in a new Parliament, would it not be appropriate for them to be put before the House, to give us the opportunity to debate and vote on them before the general election? Failing that, there will be complete chaos in the Fees Office, given the very large number of new Members that there will be in the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I note the hon. Gentleman's optimism about the large number of new Members—or perhaps it
1120
is pessimism? The last time there was a large number of new Members here, they were on this side. Of course, I understand the interest taken by the hon. Gentleman and all Members in the report, which proposes quite substantial changes in the handling of staff terms and conditions, and in the provisions for information technology in the House. The Government are mindful of those issues, but the hon. Gentleman will also know that they raise a number of substantial questions. At some point they will come before the House, but at present I cannot tell him when.

Personal Statement
1.20 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: I rise to make an apology to the House. In its report published earlier today, the Standards and Privileges Committee has upheld a finding by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that I failed to register my interest in some land and property in my constituency and that I had failed to declare that interest on several occasions. I unreservedly apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for these failures on my part, which I deeply regret.
My breaches of the rules of the House arose because I received no income from these interests and did not realise that it was necessary to register and declare them. I have not sought in any way to profit from my position as a Member of Parliament; I have sought to protect jobs in my constituency. I have not sought to conceal my interests from the House. This was an oversight on my part, for which I accept full responsibility.
I am grateful to the commissioner and to the Committee for the speed with which the matter has been resolved. I am grateful to the Committee for its recognition that I have co-operated fully with the commissioner's inquiry.

Points of Order
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House made a delphic announcement earlier that something called the Election Publications Bill would have its proceedings on Monday. This is rather unusual, because normally we would have the Second Reading of the Bill—giving an opportunity for Members to consider the Bill—and then a Committee stage. I hope that there is no suggestion of an attempt to ram the Bill through the House on Monday evening. Were that to be the case, could you confirm to Members what arrangements there will be for tabling amendments to the Bill—as many of us may wish to do—so that it is properly aired, debated, considered and, if necessary, amended?
I hope you will act, as ever you do, in the interests of the House and of its Members, Mr. Speaker. I hope that there is no attempt at a ghastly conspiracy or, even worse, an attempt by the Government to use a Bill such as this to repair their previous cock-up without the House being able to examine it properly.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the House accepted without any dissent a procedural motion yesterday. There is no accuracy in the suggestion that anything underhand is being done; the House has taken a decision to deal with the matter, and did so on the basis that the proposal was accepted as being in the interests of all parts of the House.
Mr. Speaker: To answer the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): the Leader of the House is quite right. Amendments can be tabled before Second Reading. I hope that that is of assistance to him.

Intelligence Agencies
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
1.23 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): These debates on the work of our intelligence and security agencies are one of the innovations of this Parliament and a welcome addition to the scrutiny of those agencies by this Parliament. I would like to think that they have also been a viable means of promoting an understanding in the wider public of the real role of the security and intelligence agencies.
I am conscious that the structure of the debate suffers from one flaw that I would suggest we review in the next Parliament. By convention, I open the debate and only subsequently does the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee address the House to present the annual report. I do not know whether this idea would cause apoplexy among the House authorities, but it is for consideration that, in future debates, we might invite the Chairman to open the debate and lay the report so the rest of us can comment on it. This would enable the Chairman to have the first word and enable the rest of us to respond.
I have great regret that his retirement from the House will prevent the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) from initiating that innovation next year. He has made a real and permanent contribution to the scrutiny of the agencies in his years as the first Chairman of the Committee. His service as a Cabinet Minister in two of the most sensitive Departments gives him a depth of experience that has been a great asset to the Committee. He has been diligent in overseeing its work and, as I can confirm to the House from my personal experience, assiduous in defending its rights of scrutiny. He has also demonstrated great responsibility in his public comments, which have often restored a balance in the media that might otherwise have been missing. He can retire with the respect of the who1e House for the way which he has performed his duties.
I am not sure whether four years is a sufficiently long period to qualify for the establishment of a tradition, but it has become a tradition of these debates that they are pursued in a tone that is free from the partisan spirit of other exchanges in the House. I am conscious that this particular debate occurs at an interesting point in the political cycle, which may test that principle to the point of destruction. Nevertheless, I hope that we can maintain an approach in the debate that rises above party politics. The intelligence and security agencies are not an appropriate matter for partisan exchanges. They need a consensus in the House that recognises their contribution not only to Government policy, but to the national interest.
For the past four years, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have been accountable to the House for the work of the agencies. It is impossible for me to do justice in the House to the immense value of the agencies which I have seen for myself in that time. It is impossible because to disclose it all would be to prevent the agencies from being able to continue to deliver a service that must necessarily remain, secret. However, I shall try today to put on the public record what I can about their success in defending national security and promoting the national interest.

1123
We should not imagine that the traditional challenges vanished with the Berlin wall. I regret to say that the dramatic end of the cold war has not produced the same dramatic reduction in the threat of espionage. The proportion of the agencies total effort in countering that threat to our security may have declined in the past decade, but the importance of that work has not lessened. However, the end of a bipolar world has multiplied the security challenges that we face.
Access to hard facts is crucial to taking the right policy decisions. We need hard facts now about the position in Iraq, the resources of Balkan extremists, and the intentions of rebels in Africa. Gaining access to those hard facts is every bit as challenging as it ever was to produce intelligence on our old rivals in the Warsaw pact. Yet, hard facts secured against the odds by the Secret Intelligence Service and Government communications headquarters have made a real contribution to the progress that we have made in foreign policy.
The House will know, for example, of the malign role of the illegal trade in diamonds from Sierra Leone through Liberia and of the reverse flow of weapons through Liberia to the rebels in Sierra Leone. We have just secured a Security Council resolution that brings sanctions and pressure to bear on Liberia to halt both forms of trade. We could not have built that consensus in the Security Council if we had not been able to share with the United Nations hard facts and reliable intelligence about the situation on the ground.
The Intelligence and Security Committee has already acknowledged the immense role played by the intelligence agencies in the success of the Kosovo campaign. They have since played a valuable role in restoring stability in the region.
Another sphere in which our diplomacy depends on the input of the agencies is in defeating weapons proliferation. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of the greatest menaces to global peace. The task of defeating proliferation becomes technically more challenging as the technology spreads and the cost declines. Nor is the problem confined only to warhead technology. The spread of missile technology has introduced a new threat of more sophisticated delivery systems.
Policy making on proliferation depends to an unusually large degree on secret intelligence. I sometimes find a common assumption that, in the age of satellite surveillance, we can acquire all the information that is necessary by technical means. Sadly, that faith in high technology is misplaced. Human intelligence is essential in identifying a threat of proliferation, especially of biological and chemical weapons, the production of which can so easily be disguised as industrial process. Without human agents, we could not take effective measures to disrupt or prevent proliferation.
There is one other way in which the product of our intelligence agencies is crucial to our foreign policy. We have a unique intelligence partnership with the United States. It would be hard to find any example in history of two sovereign nations that have co-operated so closely or so frankly in the intelligence field. As the Committee report notes, on one recent occasion, the US intelligence agencies were served for three days directly from GCHQ, after the National Security Agency equipment failed. Respect for the scope of our agencies and the reliability
1124
of their information is a powerful element in a relationship that makes Britain and the United States closest allies and strongest friends.
If we are to retain that respect and secure the best quality of intelligence, our agencies must be at the cutting edge of the new technologies, and that requires investment. GCHQ's new accommodation programme is the largest private finance initiative project. It will bring GCHQ together on one site rather than two. When complete, it will provide a modern, purpose-built environment for a signals intelligence agency fit for the challenges of the 21st century.
The Intelligence and Security Committee has strongly supported the programme, but has rightly drawn attention to the risks involved in such a large and complex undertaking. I can assure the House that the management team at GCHQ has been strengthened and is making increasing use of external specialists to help with the project management. I have asked for, and receive, quarterly reports on the project. I have meetings with the director of GCHQ—most recently, on Monday—to discuss progress.
I am pleased to tell the House that spending on the project in the current financial year is on track. Better still, construction on the new building is currently 12 weeks ahead of schedule. If that is sustained, it will provide valuable extra time for the transition to the new building, the complexity of which has rightly exercised the Committee.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the project will be delivered on time and on budget?
Mr. Cook: We are currently on track in this financial year. It is of course a private finance initiative project, so any overrun in the cost of construction will be borne by the contractor and the provider of the funds, not by the Government. I assure my hon. Friend that we are being vigilant and maintaining a close guard on the cost. That is precisely why I have asked for and receive the quarterly reports. I am pleased to say that, so far, the stream of reports has been reassuring. Clearly, we will respond if there are any signs that there is going to be an overrun, but at present I have no reason to suspect that.
I have spoken of the foreign challenges, and I will now deal with the domestic challenges with which the agencies deal. The threats to our national security do not come only from other Governments. The danger to the life and safety of British citizens is more likely, in practice, to come from terrorist groups.
Terrorist outrages command massive media coverage when they happen. Successes in preventing such outrages get nothing like the same coverage, but that does not make the crucial role of the agencies in preventing terrorism any less valuable. Since the Committee's report was published, the security services have twice participated in operations that led to the arrest of individuals who have since been charged with terrorist offences or conspiracy to cause explosions.
Some of the domestic challenges are new. They reflect the nature of the modern world. The revolution in communications technology is creating new opportunities on an exponential scale.

1125
This week. 360,000 e-mails will be sent in Britain every second—one fifth more than in January, and double the number sent last June. Computers now manage most of our critical national infrastructure for water, power and transport. With those new opportunities comes the risk of new threats: a computer-based attack on the national infrastructure could cripple the nation more quickly than a military strike. The intelligence and security agencies play a key role in our national infrastructure security co-ordination centre—an unforgettable mouthful to pronounce.
The Committee's report criticises the speed with which that centre reacted to the "love bug" virus last May, so the Committee will be pleased to hear that when the "Kournikova" virus struck in February, a national alert was issued within one hour. In the modern world, that speed of response can make the difference between stability and chaos. Other threats to our domestic security are the product of the dramatic increase in trade which is a feature of the globalised economy. Free and growing trade has been an immense stimulus to economic growth throughout the world, particularly for Britain, which is a major trading nation.
However, increased contacts and accelerating mobility throughout the world also provide cover for the enemies of our society, such as drugs traders. I have sat through totally pointless international debates on whether it is more important to disrupt the drugs trade at the point of supply or the point of demand. The truth is that we have no hope of success unless we attack the drugs trade at every point of the chain—at its production centres in distant countries such as Afghanistan or Colombia, when drugs are in transit through the Caribbean or the Balkans, and on delivery on the streets of our cities. That requires a joined-up approach by both the intelligence and the law enforcement agencies. I am glad that the Intelligence and Security Committee has paid tribute to the secondments in both directions that have produced operational teams with a wide range of skills and a culture of working together.
That has produced real successes. The agencies have helped to disrupt the networks that bring drugs into this country. They have contributed to the seizure of major shipments of both heroin and cocaine, as well as to the arrest of the drugs traders involved and the seizure of their assets. British agencies contributed to a recent operation in the Caribbean which resulted in a haul of drugs with a value of £70 million, from just one raid.
As the Committee has noted, all three agencies are closely involved in countering other forms of smuggling, such as the lucrative trade in cigarettes, which costs the British taxpayer £2.5 billion a year in lost duty.
I have tried to put on the record what I can about the valuable contribution of the agencies both to our foreign policy and to our domestic security. It is important that Parliament and the public should know the clear objectives of the intelligence and security agencies; but it is also right that we should explain to the public that the success of the agencies can be secured only by conditions of secrecy.
The penalty of disclosure of operational details for any of the agencies is the failure of the operation—but the penalty for loss of secrecy in the Secret Intelligence
1126
Service or the Security Service can be loss of life. We have given an undertaking to its agents that we will never reveal their identity or their role. We cannot compromise on that guarantee without losing the trust on which we rely for the recruitment of future agents. That requires us to be vigilant in resisting any threat to operational secrecy, whether it comes from foreign espionage or domestic cheque-book journalism. However, the secrecy of operational detail does not prevent the rigorous oversight of the policy and priorities of the agencies that is essential in a parliamentary democracy. All members of the Intelligence and Security Committee share the credit for the rigorous scrutiny that it undertakes.
As I see that the members of the Committee make up a large proportion of my audience in the House today, I shall add that the prospect of an appearance before the Committee keeps us all on our toes.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Yes.
Mr. Cook: I think that I carry my right hon. Friend with me on that point.
As the report details, in the preceding year the Committee held a formidable list of hearings, taking evidence on more than 50 occasions, with some of the witnesses, including my right hon. Friend and myself, appearing more than once. I would not want the members of the Committee to be under any illusion about the invigorating effect on both their witness and the machine of an approaching rendezvous with them in their spartan Committee room in the Cabinet Office.
I would not want the House to imagine that the relationship between the Committee and the Government is adversarial. We both share an appreciation of the importance of the agencies, we both share the same objective of safeguarding the national interest, and we both want the Agencies to work even more effectively. It is therefore not surprising that the Government share many of the Committee's conclusions and often find its recommendations helpful. There are many points in the report on which we find ourselves in full accord with the Committee. We share its view that Sir Edmund Burton could play an important continuing role in the new accommodation project—GCHQ has appointed him as a non-executive director.
We welcome the Committee investigator's report on the security of laptops and have already implemented the broad thrust of his recommendations. We agree with the stress that the Committee places on a co-ordinated approach to information technology and have created the post of an information technology champion within the Cabinet Office. We value the positive verdict of the Committee on the work of the agencies on serious crime. I am pleased to tell the House that we expect the intelligence gathered by the agencies on that threat to increase substantially over the next two years.
I welcome the Committee's sustained interest in the creation of a special employment tribunal for staff of the agencies. The Committee has waged something of a campaign on the need for progress on that issue. I hope that it will call a truce in that campaign, as the necessary regulations and rules of procedure were laid before the

1127
House by the Department of Trade and Industry this week. We have also taken to heart the Committee's stern comments on the time taken—
Mr. A. J. Beith: What a coincidence.
Mr. Cook: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should undervalue the effect of debate on stimulating activity. If it has had a beneficial effect we should welcome it rather than decry it.
We have taken to heart the Committee's stern comments on the time that the Government took to respond to its previous Report. I hope that it will welcome the improvement shown by the Government in responding to their current report within a month of its publication.
Mr. Tom King: I get the feeling that the right hon. Gentleman has come to the end of his responses to particular points raised by the Committee. I notice that he did not comment on the fact that the Ministerial Committee on the Intelligence Services, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and has overall responsibility for the intelligence agencies, has still not met. If there is an early dissolution of Parliament, the prospect is that it will never meet in this Parliament.
Mr. Cook: I am conscious of the paragraph to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I can assure him that the matter is very much before us. He will understand that it is not easy to arrange a diary engagement that can be attended by many people, including the Prime Minister, especially in present circumstances. However, all members of the Ministerial Committee are fully informed of the work of the security and intelligence agencies, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are in constant contact with them. I regularly see the directors of both of those for which I am responsible, and I know that my right hon. Friend acts similarly. I would not want the House or the public to imagine that there is a lack of oversight or engagement by the members of the Committee, even if they do not sit down in the same room at the same time.
Mr. Beith: Going back to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of secrecy, there are some matters about which the public could know more. The agencies have recognised that by increasing disclosure. That could be carried further in, for example, the area of broad budgetary figures to give an indication of how money is spent. Given that many things cannot be revealed, it is vital that some parliamentarians, as members of the Committee, are within the ring of secrecy, so that others can rely on them to see all the information necessary to make a judgment that all is well on a particular matter. The degree of co-operation from the Home Secretary on the Mitrokhin case illustrates that if the Committee is given the information, it can make a judgment and provide reassurance in areas where general disclosure is impossible.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman touches on a central and unavoidable question. It is not surprising that there will be different judgments on the bounds of secrecy between the intelligence community and the members of the Scrutiny Committee. It would be rather odd if that
1128
were not the case. I think that the frank dialogue between us has been helpful in trying to achieve the right balance, although we must recognise that we will never wholly agree on where that balance should be struck.
On the specific issue of the agencies' separate budgets, the Committee made a recommendation that we should publish one year's set of budgets by agency, but that we should not produce annual sets of figures because the revealing trend could be compromising to the work of the agencies. I have considered that very carefully. The Government did not see it as politically feasible to produce one year's figures without impossible pressure in future years to produce the annual figures. That would lead us back to the problem that the Committee correctly identified—that of the danger of revealing trends. Of course, we can continue to keep these matters under review, but I share the Committee's anxiety that an annualised set of figures would be too damaging. I find it hard to see how any Government could get away with producing one year's figures and then say for the next five years, "Sorry, we are not doing it again."
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has an instruction been given to civil servants at any stage in this Parliament to try and convene a meeting of the Ministerial Committee, or has not even that instruction been given?
Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that attempts have been made to do that. The civil servants who wrestle with the task are the diary secretaries in several very busy offices. It is no criticism of them that they have been unable to crack that task.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I will give way, but if the House will allow me, it will be the last time because I am conscious that there are many experts in the House who have much to say.
Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend very properly paid tribute to the close and long-standing intelligence relationship with the United States. He has not mentioned the European Union dimension. However, that may well loom larger as a result of the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy. What can he tell us about that? Are there any reservations about the new building in Brussels or the European Parliament's role? What problems does my right hon. Friend envisage the Committee tackling as these new policies develop?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the House that the European Parliament will have no role in the European security and defence policy. There is a very urgent need to ensure that we have a satisfactory building, from a security angle, for those who will be dealing with the European security and defence policy. It is very important that they should have a separate building so that they can maintain a culture of secrecy in that building. I do not think that that would be readily achievable in the general Commission building, where there is naturally quite the reverse of a culture of secrecy. That may not necessarily be consistent with the security that we want to see in place. I assure the House that we shall be very careful in

1129
our approach to the spread of intelligence. We have been quite explicit that there is no presumption that intelligence held by Britain will necessarily be available to partners.
I have paid tribute to the work of the Committee, and on that I hope that I carried its members with me. However, I hope that I carry the whole House with me in paying tribute to the role of the men and women who work in the agencies. They serve their country well. The success of the agencies is possible only because of their professionalism and their belief in their job.
GCHQ employs some of the best minds in computer technology in Britain. Indeed, it could muster a team of experts to match the staff of many university computer departments. Many of them could command much higher monetary reward in the private sector, and we are fortunate that they are attracted to GCHQ by the intellectual challenge of the work and the value of their jobs.
Some of those who work in the agencies accept a risk to personal safety that I suspect many of us would not. Those who undertake work against terrorists or drugs traders are dealing with an enemy every bit as ruthless, if not more so, than their old opponents of the cold war. The rocket attack on the headquarters of the Secret Intelligence Service last September was a stark reminder of that ever-present threat.
The staff of the agencies do not get much opportunity for public recognition. It is part of their contract that they cannot claim public credit for secret work. The debate gives us an opportunity to put that right. I hope that the whole House will use that opportunity to recognise the skills and courageous work of the staff of the agencies and the immense debt owed by Parliament and the public to them.
1.50 pm
Mr. Francis Maude: May I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for the fact that I have to leave soon after the Front-Bench speeches for an engagement of long standing that proved immovable?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is it a secret?
Mr. Maude: It is very much a secret. I would be prepared to account for it to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but unless we are prepared to go into secret session at this stage, it would be inappropriate to go further.
I should like to add a tribute from the Opposition Benches to the men and women who work in our intelligence and security services. The Foreign Secretary rightly observed that it is in the nature of their job that they work behind the scenes and by and large without public recognition. Their work is frequently dangerous. Unable, as we hope they are, to talk to others about what they do or to take the credit that they so frequently deserve for what they do, their burden must be and often is a lonely one.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee and especially its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for
1130
Bridgwater (Mr. King) Last year, this debate took place rather later in the year so I was induced to believe that it might be the last such debate in this Parliament. I am delighted that the debate has been brought forward so that the report is slightly fresher, but owing to my misapprehension, I paid an elaborate tribute to my right hon. Friend last year. I am happy that last year's debate was not his swan song, but he has been kind enough to say that he is happy for me to pay tribute to him again, which I am delight to do.
My right hon. Friend really will be missed by the House. That is not just a conventional tribute. I learned much of my politics—I was going to say at his knee, but that would be overstating the case—around his ministerial table in the early 1980s. A Committee such as the Intelligence and Security Committee absolutely depends on the personal qualities of its members and especially those of its Chairman. The Foreign Secretary mentioned my right hon. Friend's relevant experience as a Minister, which gave him a unique insight into the work of the agencies. Beyond that, the Chairman needs to be absolutely trustworthy, able to command consensus in the way that my right hon. Friend has, and able to carry serious and effortless authority.
Under my right hon. Friend's chairmanship, the Committee has won and retained the confidence of the services, to a great extent as a result of the sensitivity and discretion with which the Committee conducts its scrutiny and the obvious commitment of its members to the work of the services. The whole House will want to express its warm appreciation of my right hon. Friend's work and its warm wishes for his cheerful and extremely busy retirement, as I suspect it will turn out to be.
I also said a word last year about the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has been a member of the Committee from its outset—
Mr. Campbell-Savours indicated dissent.
Mr. Maude: Well, for a good part of its time. I think that I said last year, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it as a compliment, that he is one of the least comfortable Members of the House of Commons. The House should not contain comfortable people; it should contain people who go in for the task of scrutiny and holding Ministers and others to account. That is what we are here for. He has always been an honourable, upright and absolutely tenacious Member, and we shall miss him.
The creation of the Intelligence and Security Committee was the parliamentary manifestation of the programme to place all of the agencies on a statutory footing, to make proper assessment of the work that they do, and to introduce a measure of accountability. Bringing the agencies out of the hidden places that they occupied previously into the light of day has been a gradual process. We must, of course, be vigilant about the agencies' roles, but we should always exercise that vigilance against the background of our understanding that they exist and operate as the servants of liberty, not as its enemy.
In last year's debate, the Foreign Secretary referred to the intention of the Department of Trade and Industry to consult on the introduction of draft regulations. The Committee expressed in its November report its disappointment that that had not happened. Given that the

1131
absence of an employment tribunal was a major gripe of Richard Tomlinson, the disgraced former Secret Intelligence Service officer, it is an unhappy circumstance and a pity that it took the imminence of this debate to prompt the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to lay the regulations. We are delighted to hear that he has now done so, but it would have been better if he had done so quite a lot earlier.
The report also expresses concerns that the process of making the services more transparent, which began under the previous Government, may be beginning to slow down. The Committee has again asked the Prime Minister to publish confidential annexes to the intelligence services commissioner's report. The commission is an important innovation to improve public confidence in the accountability of the services, and it may be that it is in the public interest that conclusions are made known more widely. I am sure that the sensible discretion of the Committee is a sufficient safeguard.
I was interested in the Foreign Secretary's explanation of why it had apparently proved impossible to convene the Ministerial Committee. He contended that it was impossible to get all the Ministers in the same place at the same time. I concede that that is very difficult to do, but his contention is about as plausible as the argument put forward this week that the Minister for Europe had not visited the Balkans because there were no suitable flights available.
Ms Rosie Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Government were not very assiduous about holding the meetings either?
Mr. Maude: I can take no responsibility for that, as I was not even in Parliament then, let alone in that Government.
Today's debate provides a welcome opportunity for me to commend in particular the work of the SIS and of Government communications headquarters, the agencies that fall within the portfolio that I shadow. We should recognise that the excellence of the SIS's work, and the height of its reputation, is one of that unique set of international assets—and not the least among them—that gives Britain a global reach, and which should give Britain a disproportionate influence in the world.
My dealings with those agencies as a Minister gave me a profound admiration for those who formed the service, and who demonstrate dedication, public service, resourcefulness and simple raw courage. Part of what the agencies give the country is the ability to help other, friendly countries with the intelligence input that they would otherwise lack. That gives us a greater influence that other countries simply do not have.
The agencies need proper resourcing, and proper commitment to their capability. Continuity is crucial, as they operate in a world that is not notably safer since the end of the cold war. There was a dreadful stability during the cold war, but the world was more predictable than it is today. Today's greater unpredictability, instability and turbulence means that there are greater opportunities for prosperity and peace, and great threats and risks. The Committee's interim report and the report published last November both give a glimpse of the types of threats and challenges that the services continue to face today.
The Committee noted that the observation by the Director-General of the Security Service that there is still a significant Russian intelligence activity in the UK.
1132
That is of particular pertinence, given the recent US expulsions of Russian diplomats following the arrest of Alan Hanssen in Washington.
During his first year in office, Mr. Putin—a former KGB operative—is said to have been keen to place more emphasis on the gathering of foreign intelligence. Several of his closest associates, including the head of the Security Council of the United Nations, are also KGB veterans and favour a very hard-headed approach to the west. We must maintain our vigilance and not threaten that which already works well. As the Committee says, it is appropriate that the Secret Intelligence Service has
"continued to devote significant resources to Russia and the Balkans."
The November report raised, and the interim report returned to, the important question of the co-ordination of our intelligence efforts through the Joint Intelligence Committee and other forums. In times when international crime and terrorism are increasingly global and complex, the need for better co-ordination is stronger than ever.
Any notion that we do not need the services in a post-cold war world should be dispelled by the reports and by the Home Secretary's recent publication of a list of proscribed organisations to be included in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. The information on and assessment of those groups is the visible tip of an iceberg of painstaking secret work that is largely and properly hidden from our view. The quickest skim through that list reveals the complexity of the climate facing all our intelligence services as they work together.
Britain has always had a reputation for tolerance and as a refuge for those who have, down the centuries, faced persecution elsewhere. After all, most of us contain a large admixture of immigrant and refugee blood. The Opposition are glad to see that that warm welcome does not mean that this country can become a bolt hole for those who use violence and terror to achieve their ends, whatever those may be.
In recent months, London has been struck several times, apparently by a splinter group of Irish republicans who, although a tiny minority, want to disrupt the efforts of those who want peace. The Foreign Secretary mentioned last autumn's attack on SIS headquarters, and the recent car bomb outside BBC Television headquarters, both of which suggest an approach that is coldly discriminating in the perpetrators' search for publicity, but wickedly indiscriminate in the methods that they are prepared to use. We should all condemn those outrages, which can only strengthen our determination to banish that scourge for ever and to ensure that its perpetrators are tried and imprisoned.
The Committee expressed concern about the rise of cheque-book journalism in the agencies. The services appear to be adopting its recommendation that best practice solutions be adopted to screen out those who might be most likely to have recourse to telling their story in public. However, that task is made all the harder when, on the horizon, they see the impending publication of the memoirs of the former Director-General of the Security Service.
All members of the agencies accept on entry that their own knowledge of the value of their work has to compensate for the periodic frustration of not being able to talk about their job or their achievements. That self-discipline is a crucial virtue that underpins the

1133
effectiveness of the agencies. For years, retired officers of MI5 and MI6, as the agencies once were, have taken it for granted that catharsis in print is simply not an option, not least because it will almost certainly prejudice the work and safety of their former colleagues and make intelligence gathering harder. After all, who will want to help his country, sometimes at great personal risk, if he fears that his identity might be revealed in a subsequent memoir?
It is hardly surprising that senior members of all the agencies are concerned that the book will have a negative effect on their ability to function safely and productively. I hope that Dame Stella Rimington and the Government will bear that in mind before publication. As I told the Foreign Secretary last year, any action that the Government choose to take to prevent publication will have our unqualified support.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given the proliferation of those who want to sell their memoirs, it is surprising that the programme of work of the Committee does not include recruitment policies, which have in the past apparently proved incapable of identifying those who subsequently sell state secrets?
Mr. Maude: That is a fair point. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that one should try to spot impending memoir writers at the outset, that is a selection process that might even defeat the fine minds of the agencies. I think that I pointed out that we should pay attention to that matter and I suspect that the Committee may well want to return to it.
All those threats, together with the many others to which the Foreign Secretary referred, are clear warnings that Britain must not drop its guard. We need our intelligence networks to maintain our first-class capacity to acquire and assess information from all over the world. Britain cannot work alone.
The greatest intensity of the special relationship between Britain and America lies in intelligence. That relationship has been built up over many years. Trust can be lost in a single day, but it takes decades to restore. In that regard, the relationship between GCHQ and the United States National Security Agency at Fort Meade is crucial. The UK-US arrangement is a powerful symbol of the closeness of our joint interests in the wider world.
The Committee noted:
"The quality of intelligence gathered clearly reflects the value of the close co-operation under the UKUSA agreement. A recent illustration of this occurred when the US National Security Agency's … equipment … failed and for some three days US customers, as well as GCHQ's normal UK customers, were served directly from GCHQ."
That is an important two-way relationship. There is little doubt that the intelligence budget would have to soar were we not able to rely on the information provided by our transatlantic partners.
I regret that I must depart from the atmosphere of congenial consensus that has prevailed in debates on this subject. We hope that that close co-operation between the intelligence agencies will be secure. However, I must say—and this is the right occasion to say it—that the
1134
Government's agreement to move towards a European army may well threaten that capability.[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary has started to emit low noises, but this is an annual opportunity to talk about the work of the intelligence agencies. It is essential to their work that the special, close and intense relationship with our transatlantic partners in the United States should remain intact and fruitful. If we see that there is a potential threat to that working relationship, it is our duty to raise it in the House and we will do so. If that means departing from the peaceful atmosphere of harmony that has prevailed, then so be it. We will not be deterred from raising those matters.
An overt sign of the potential dangers, although very low key perhaps, was the fact that the European Parliament last year opened an investigation into Echelon—the intelligence-sharing network of which the UK and the US are vital parts. As the declaration made after the Franco-German summit in December 1999 made clear, European defence will require intelligence sharing. The declaration stated:
"As far as intelligence is concerned, which is a core element of the European Union's independent assessment and decision-making capacity, we are determined to federalise the existing or future means, including in the space field, in order to create common European capacities."
The Government may say that there is nothing incompatible between the UK-US arrangement and moves discussed at Helsinki and given effect to at Nice to create a
"more effective Europe in military capability"
and the
"reinforcement of our"—
Europe's—
"capabilities in the fit Id of intelligence, strategic transport and control".
The Foreign Secretary cannot be unaware of the strong strand of opinion—perhaps the dominant strand, particularly among the ruling class, if one can call it that, in France—that believes that Britain has to choose between the transatlantic relationship and a full commitment to the European defence capability. We do not believe that we have to make that choice, but others do.
Recently, a French official was quoted as arguing that the British would not be able to play a leading role in the EU unless they jettisoned their special intelligence links with the US. The direct quote was:
"Britain must choose Europe or betray it."
I have recently been told by a very senior French journalist—[HON. MEMBERS: "A journalist?"] Yes, a journalist. He may be a maverick and he may not reflect any current of opinion in France at all, but I doubt it. All the evidence is that he is not a maverick and that he strongly reflects opinion in France. He said that Britain must choose whether it is to be pro-European or pro-American.
Mr. Denis MacShane: What was his name?
Mr. Maude: I cannot remember the journalist's name, but his comments were all made in public. If the hon. Gentleman is so excited about the name, I undertake to find it and send it to him, but he will not be much the wiser when I have.

1135
The Foreign Secretary knows that what has been created is a European Union military structure which is autonomous vis-à-vis NATO. It has its own separate military and planning committees. After all, the Foreign Secretary has claimed, with typical modesty, that he wrote most of the documents himself. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister continue to claim that the new arrangement is anchored within NATO, but the documents that the Foreign Secretary claims to have written belie that claim.
If there was any doubt about that, the French chief of defence staff confirms it. He said recently:
"European politicians need to know what is going on. They need to be able to select options and then conduct operations. Why should we have to go through NATO?"
Yet the Government have stuck doggedly to their flimsy line that NATO has the right of first refusal.
Mr. Donald Andersonrose
Mr. Maude: I shall finish the point, if I may, and then I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Foreign Secretary must have been a little dismayed to read further remarks yesterday by the French chief of defence staff, who said:
"There is no question of a right of first refusal. If the EU works properly, it will start working on crises at a very early stage, well before the situation escalates. NATO has noting to do with this. At a certain stage the Europeans would decide to conduct a military operation. Either the Americans would come, or not."
The Government continue to peddle the idea that the arrangement is anchored within NATO and that NATO has the right of first refusal, but that simply does not stack up. The documents belie it.
Mr. MacShane: It is in the treaty.
Mr. Maude: I have seen the treaty. That is not in the treaty itself, but in the presidency conclusions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have continual interruptions from a sedentary position.
Mr. Maude: Everything is clearly set out. The reason why a specific military and planning staff and a military committee are set out, and a military headquarters is already being set up, is to make precisely the point that the French chief of the defence staff is amplifying: that the arrangements are designed to be separate and to be able, at any rate, to pre-empt NATO. I acquit the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of wanting it to pre-empt NATO. What I am saying is that the way in which it has been set up allows NATO to be pre-empted.
Mr. Robin Cook rose —
Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
Mr. Maude: I give way first to the Foreign Secretary, then to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Cook: I would not want the right hon. Gentleman unwittingly to mislead the House about what was said by the French chief of defence staff. The right hon.
1136
Gentleman is obviously not aware that the French Ministry of Defence has protested at the way in which the chief of defence staff's remarks have been used, and is complaining that what was not quoted was his remark that the European Union force would not duplicate NATO assets; that European ambitions were limited to the Petersberg tasks; that in a major crisis the EU would depend on NATO planning; and that the US should be involved whenever it wished. That puts an entirely different light on the matter.
Mr. Maude: I shall deal with that before giving way to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. What the Foreign Secretary says is not at all inconsistent with what I said. I was speaking about the Government's contention—I used their exact words—that the arrangement was "anchored within NATO" and that NATO has a "right of first refusal". Both of those things are specifically not true. The documents make it clear that the arrangement is not anchored within NATO. It is specifically set up to have autonomous, separate organisations and structures.
The French chief of defence staff has not complained about being misquoted. He stated bluntly:
"There is no question of a right of first refusal."
That may be open to misinterpretation, but I have yet to hear it.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not the argument a little flimsy if the right hon. Gentleman relies on a French journalist who is so senior that he cannot remember the man's name, and on the chief of the French defence staff, as quoted yesterday in The Daily Telegraph, which has its own agenda on this issue? The quote was repudiated in the "Today" programme this morning. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to get the transcript, he will see a view that will not annoy him in quite the same way as the article in The Daily Telegraph may have done.
Mr. Maude: I am not relying for my argument on that French journalist. I merely used him as yet another illustration of that strand of thought. The Government may want to shut their eyes to the fact that there is a strain of anti-American opinion in France, but that does not mean that it does not exist. It does exist, and if we are realistic, we accept it. That does not mean, of course, that we do not work with our French partners, but we should be aware that such opinion exists.
On the right hon. Gentleman's other point, the words that I quoted from the French chief of defence staff have not, as I understand it, been repudiated. He may have said other things as well, which were not quoted. I accept that that may be the case. If the words that I quoted, including the blunt statement that
"there is no question of a right of first refusal"
have been repudiated, I am willing to hear it, but I have not heard it yet.
Mr. Beith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman in danger of losing the plot, so interested has he become in the European defence relationship and his misgivings about it? What is the likelihood that two countries, Britain and the United States, which have found an intelligence relationship so fruitful and so mutually beneficial over so many years, will give it up simply because there are some

1137
people in Europe who have anxieties about it, but who have their own intelligence agenda and carry out their own activities in that field? Is it not much more likely that the relationship will survive in the future, as it has already survived even the complications of limited intelligence sharing within NATO, not to mention the various other circumstances that it has had to face over the years?
Mr. Maude: My point is that we currently have arrangements which are based much less on formal structures than on an atmosphere of deep trust and close personal relationships and a cultural affinity between the institutions which has been built up over decades. That basis of co-operation can quickly be put at risk.
None of us has ever said that we should hold back from any European defence co-operation. For heaven's sake, the Conservative Government were pressing for it back in the 1980s and 1990s. Our point was that that should be done within NATO, because NATO is the umbrella under which those relationships have been nurtured and fostered. We should hesitate for a long, long time before we embark on measures which may jeopardise a relationship that is potentially very fragile. The trust can be broken in a day and may take decades to restore.
Right hon. and hon. Members are challenging my contention that there exists in France a willingness to jeopardise the NATO relationship, yet the Prime Minister said just the other day:
"Well, 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."
I do not know exactly who the Prime Minister was referring to—
Mr. Straw: French journalists.
Mr. Maude: I do not think that even the Prime Minister would have expected a French journalist to have charge of the European defence operation.
We are concerned, and we are right to be concerned, that the natural and important links between Britain and the Echelon group, based, as they are, on a long period of continuity and trust, are at risk from the lurch to a European army deliberately being set up as autonomous from NATO.
The decision to appoint as the first chairman of the military committee a commander from outside NATO was an act of extraordinary insensitivity. Outstanding though General Hagglund certainly is—and despite the great respect in which we all hold the Finnish armed forces—the signal that was sent out about how closely the European army will work with NATO was profoundly depressing. The right course was for the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who is always a European, to hold that position. That would have sent a strong and reassuring signal about the closeness with which the new arrangements and NATO would work together. That did not happen, however, because those who want Europe to become a superpower that can compete with America and challenge transatlantic links would have prevented—
Mr. MacShane: Finland.
Mr. Maude: I am not suggesting that it was Finland. I do not criticise our Finnish partners for wanting such arrangements. After all, Finland is not a member of NATO.
1138
Of course, we depend on our intelligence agencies for much information about what is going on in places where Britain has vital interests, but we also depend on Ministers to take the trouble to see for themselves what is happening and to speak to people on the ground. The House might have assumed from the lofty tone in which the Foreign Secretary spoke to me on Tuesday that he and the Minister for Europe were never out of the Balkans. It was, therefore, surprising to read the next day a report published by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which lambasted them for failing to make such visits. I have visited the Balkans, however, and my remarks about the danger that is created by the west's vacillation on the long-term final status of Kosovo were based on long discussions with Kosovo's political leaders. I may say that they derived also from a visit to Macedonia, where I met both the Prime Minister and the leader of the main Albanian party. I suspect that the Foreign Secretary's position is based less on some superior understanding of the Balkans than on a slavish adherence to a received wisdom that is shown to be false by discussions with people in the Balkans.
Let me close my remarks by commending the Intelligence and Security Committee and its Chairman for the excellence of their work. I also commend those in the intelligence agencies for their outstanding work for the country. I think that all members of the public would want to echo those remarks.
2.21 pm
Mr. Tom King: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary's remarks, and I think that his suggestion regarding the restructuring of such debates—as he said. I shall not be able to take advantage of such proposals—makes sense. I have discussed the matter with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who agrees that the proposal may provide the easiest way of handling reports such as those produced by the Intelligence and Security Committee.
This debate is not a busy one, but the House will appreciate its quality, if not the quantity of those who are present. My Committee greatly appreciates the attendance of two Secretaries of State who represent two of the busiest Departments and carry some of the heaviest responsibilities in government—the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary Their attendance also demonstrates due respect for the intelligence agencies, for which they take personal responsibility. Indeed, that explains why they do not delegate the work that they do to their more junior Ministers.
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for mentioning the sheer enjoyment that he felt in appearing before the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope that he will pass that message on to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as it is clear that he has not yet received it. Our successor Committee will expect to see the Chief Secretary in the new Parliament. We are charged under statute to oversee the finances of the intelligence agencies. The Chief Secretary has a specific role and is taking a close interest. As both Secretaries of State will know, he has a co-ordinating role and a special report group is reporting back to him on co-ordination between the agencies and on opportunities for such co-ordination.

1139
The challenge of this debate, and the problem of having been accused of too much secrecy, is how to attract the interest of our colleagues when we appear in the daylight. I suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that if the Order Paper had stated that the House would sit secretly for this debate, we would have had a full House, if not a full Gallery. That might have made for a more stimulating debate, but, as I said, the quality is here.
There are one or two absentees. I undertook to apologise to the House on behalf of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is a member of the Committee and chairman of our Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation, for his absence. In earlier days, the knowledge that a senior member of the Intelligence and Security Committee had left for Cuba might have caused some excitement or invited security Alarms. Such is the change that has occurred, however, that that senior group has been able to make the visit. Indeed, it is extremely senior, as only hon. Members who are not standing for re-election had the nerve to go to Cuba. I think that those involved left last night.
As the possibility of ever getting the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister in the same room together, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer also in attendance, seems completely beyond the reach of the Government machine, I give two cheers for the timing of this debate. One can say only that it is a lot better than last year, although it is occurring at the very last gasp in respect of a report that was delivered to the Government at the end of the summer. Indeed, the Government laid their response before the House when Parliament reconvened after the summer recess. That was so long ago that the Committee has since produced an interim report. Without any especially valuable intelligence, we formed the impression that this Parliament might not last much longer, so we produced that report to cover our work to date. I should like to add a personal point in that respect. I shall not be standing again, and neither will three other members of the Committee. The next Committee must, therefore, have a new Chairman and some new members, regardless of what happens in the election.
One aspect of the Committee's role is to maintain continuity of oversight. Its work suffered a serious interruption after the last election. I make a plea, which is supported by my colleagues on the Committee, for every effort to be made to establish the new Committee as soon as possible after the new Parliament is formed.
This debate marks the end of a chapter. I have had the privilege of being the Chairman of a Committee that did not exist for most of my years in Parliament. It was created in 1994, and a number of hon. Friends have served on it with me since then. New members joined us in 1997. I am grateful for the personal comments made by the Foreign Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. I am grateful also for the comments made in the Government's response to the report about the work that I have tried to do as Chairman. All hon. Members will understand, of course. that the work of any Committee is only as good as its members. I am grateful both to the hon. Members who served on the Committee with me originally, many of whom since have continued to serve throughout its existence, and to those who have joined since—in particular, the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who are present in the Chamber, and the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).
1140
The Committee suffered a tremendous upheaval as a result of the change of Government, but I am grateful for the way in which its new members have carried on its work. Indeed, they added a new impetus in some directions, but they maintained its ethos, which I hope is respected by the intelligence agencies. The Committee started from scratch with the simple blueprint of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which required the establishment of a Committee to oversee the three intelligence agencies. Apart from wording on the extent to which secret information could be withheld and the remit within which it could work, the Committee was set up on pretty bald terms, so we had very much to write our hymn sheet and to develop our own operational practice.
I believe that we can claim that oversight is now firmly in place. It is always easy when something starts to ask why it did not happen years ago. It was not very long ago, however, that people would have believed that such a proposal was unthinkable. In fellow member states of the European Union that are a short distance from Britain, it is still unthinkable that parliamentarians could oversee the intelligence and security agencies. The intelligence agencies were undoubtedly nervous when the Committee started out, and such nervousness remains in some quarters. However, in general, a gradual development of trust and confidence has occurred. There has also been a gradual acknowledgement of an obvious point: we cannot form a fair and true opinion unless we are as fully informed as possible. That acknowledgement is shown by the presence of two Secretaries of State in the debate. The Security Service and GCHQ have also accepted the point, and I paid tribute to them in the foreword that I wrote to the major annual report.
I commend a recent event: Sir Stephen Lander, Director-General of the Security Service, had the courage to appear in public at the Royal United Services Institute for the first conference the Intelligence and Security Committee supported and with which it was greatly involved. In my foreword to the annual report, I stated that the Secret Intelligence Service finds matters more difficult. The Committee has sympathy for that point of view and realises that there are reasons for that.
However, the Foreign Secretary knows that some matters might have been less of a problem. He kindly paid tribute to the work of the Committee, and said that he appreciated the occasions on which I made public statements, which were not appropriate for him or the heads of the agencies to make. As spokesman for the Committee, I can sometimes say things that give the public confidence about some situations, when the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary cannot confirm or deny the endless diet of allegations that surrounds the agencies.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am leaving the Committee. The role of the Chairman could be reinforced. The Security Service and the SIS should seriously consider the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. There are many occasions on which it is imperative for them to make statements but they cannot do that. They should use the Chairman of our Committee to do it when they can assure us that the information is absolutely correct.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who knows the occasions on which it has been possible to say

1141
something. Sometimes, I have been approached to make a statement, which would have been helpful, but we did not have the requisite information. On those occasions, I was not prepared to compromise the integrity or the value of our Committee. One of the valuable roles of the Committee is giving the public confidence in the agencies.
One incident is graven on my heart. An editorial in The Times was widely believed to have been written by me—it was not—after the Mitrokhin investigation. The matter had been blown up out of all proportions in some quarters. We were able to investigate it because we were given access to all the information. We made one or two tough criticisms. I paraphrase the editorial, which said that although the agencies might feel a little bruised about some of our comments, they gained from the exercise because they were seen to be subject to a system of independent scrutiny by independent parliamentarians who had generally given them a good report and paid tribute to them where it was due.
We stated that the retrieval of the Mitrokhin archive was an outstanding achievement. Our praise was qualified by specific criticisms of some of the subsequent handling. However, the praise and criticism encouraged public confidence.
We have evolved a unique oversight system in this country. We take some interest in the systems that other countries operate, and we are especially familiar with the exhaustive American system. We are also familiar with the systems in Germany, France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and our other allies. We recently visited Moscow, where oversight of the intelligence agencies is at an early stage. We visited the Duma security committee, several members of which had considerable experience of security arrangements in the former Soviet Union and Russia. Clearly, developments are occurring, and they will lead to increased democratic oversight of the agencies in future. As both Secretaries of State know, there is a genuine willingness in Russia to seek further co-operation with this country on subjects of common concern such as international organised crime.
We do not claim perfection, but we have a unique system. The Executive authorises, the judiciary verifies and our Committee, made up of parliamentarians, oversees. We have developed our role and our operating practices, which are not set out in legislation. There is no point in considering only the three agencies; we must consider the whole intelligence community. There is no point in considering GCHQ without ascertaining out its customers' view of its performance. If the Defence Intelligence Staff of the Ministry of Defence constitute its biggest customer, it is important that it is in our ambit. We regularly have sessions with the Chief of Defence Intelligence and his colleagues.
We are also involved with Customs and Excise and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which are also of interest to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Work on serious organised crime is increasingly being co-ordinated.
We have lengthened our reach by appointing an investigator with Government agreement, which was given readily and is appreciated. I pay tribute to John Morrison, the investigator for our Committee, for the work that he already done and that he will continue to do. He has been a valuable addition to the Committee.
1142
I spoke about the brevity of the legislation and the extraordinarily limited nature of our blueprint. The greatest part of it details the reasons why we should not be given information, and the powers to withhold it from us. I am glad that that is being increasingly ignored for reasons that I mentioned earlier. The heads of the agencies and their colleagues increasingly appreciate that if they want us to have a sensible and full understanding, we need the most comprehensive information. We have tried to secure that build-up of trust, and to ensure at all times the security of the information that we receive. There has hardly been an incident that could lead the agencies justifiably to claim that we had not kept information properly and securely.
Overseeing the agencies' finances is one of our responsibilities. When I was a Minister, there were extraordinary limitations. There was a single intelligence vote, a single line and little proper understanding of the agencies' finances. I would like to claim that we have made a major contribution, ably supported by an arrangement, which was not scheduled in the legislation, with the National Audit Office. Its representatives sit in and advise on our hearings and investigations into the agencies' budgets and finances.
The schedules in our reports are impossible to read because they are full of asterisks. However, they set out the range of financial matters that we cover. All the details are given to the Committee and they are also available to Ministers.
We have taken a great deal of interest in international aspects. If I were to make a comment that is not in our reports—we are currently conducting our annual reviews, which include a review of the agencies' budgets—I would convey to the Secretaries of State a concern felt by the Committee about something that applies not just to the agencies but to every Department in which I have been involved.
The finance function tends to be included in part of the administration of a Department. Someone who is promoted in administration is suddenly told, "You are now the principal finance officer". No one would appoint the chief scientist on the grounds that he was a spendid layman with no scientific experience whatsoever. I think we are entitled to be concerned about the financial qualifications and experience possessed by people who are responsible for financial matters at very senior levels.
That is a firm impression that the Committee has recently formed. I think it important to put it on record because we are dealing with substantial sums of public money, and it is felt that there is on occasion something of a layman's approach to financial issues.
That brings me to the biggest construction project that the intelligence agencies have ever undertaken. The Foreign Secretary referred to it, and we have drawn attention to it. Progress has been pretty mixed so far, as the Foreign Secretary will know: he will be aware of some of the embarrassing events that are mentioned in our report. He will know, for instance, of the extraordinary gyrations in the sums—substantial sums—involved in the costs of the transition to the new building.
We hope, and believe, that project management is much stronger than it was, but we know that the task is still exceptionally challenging. Neither Thames house nor Vauxhall Cross represented the happiest of events in terms of financial control; then the new GCHQ

1143
accommodation building came over the horizon, dwarfing both those earlier major construction operations in terms of cost and complexity.
The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee unkindly suggested that we had taken no interest in the recruitment processes of the agencies. In fact, we have taken a keen interest. During almost the whole period the Committee has been in existence, we have felt disappointment and regret about the difficulties and concern that can be caused by just one or two disaffected personnel. Such people can cause considerable problems for the agencies—and, I suspect, a considerable amount of work for Secretaries of State. I shall not comment in detail on two specific events, but Members will know that I refer particularly to Messrs Tomlinson and Shayler.
We were greatly concerned by the issue of recruitment, and the challenges and difficulties that would be caused by the appointment of the wrong people.
Mr. Donald Anderson: My remark was not meant to be unkind. I was referring to paragraph 8 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's interim report, published this month, which refers to
"issues that would form the basis of this ye Les programme."
Recruitment was not mentioned, which I thought a little surprising in the light of the events, involving Shayler, Tomlinson and others.
Mr. King: Sadly, those issues have been with us for a long time, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at our earlier reports. People who left the agencies some time ago have been causing difficulties, and giving rise to concern, for a long period.
An abiding theme of our considerations has been recruitment, along with the issues of vetting—including review vetting—and general security Admittedly, there is a sense in which we could take pleasure in that. During our time, there have been some appalling breaches of security; but they have taken place in the United States, not here.
A deadly comment was made by Mr. John Deutsch, who used to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He said, "It is a terrible thing to find a spy in your organisation. The only thing worse is not to find a spy in your organisation". We have continually emphasised the importance of establishing the tightest possible vetting and security scrutiny, but we live in a world in which the same pressures exist. According to the newspapers, the Prime Minister recently made representations to President Putin about the amount of Russian espionage activity in the United Kingdom. I do not know whether that is true; but our Committee has expressed concern about the degree of Russian activity in earlier years, and about the number of intelligence officers believed to be operating in this country.
In any event, there is no doubt that we shall be exposed to the same pressures as the United States. The ambitions of Russian intelligence services will be the same here as they are in the United States—in the shape of Mr. Aldrich Ames, Mr. Harold Nicolson and Mr. Hanssen.
We in the Committee have observed the way in which the role of the intelligence and security agencies has changed. The Foreign Secretary mentioned the challenges faced in Sierra Leone and the Balkans. My hon. Friend
1144
the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), speaking of military intelligence, said that in the old days of the cold war he hardly needed a map when he had to take part in military exercises on a German plain. When today's forces are put in harm's way, in territories that they have never been near before, high-quality advance intelligence is essential, and the promptness and relevance of such intelligence has certainly increased.
The agencies have an increasing role in dealing with organised crime. In the foreword to our main report, I referred to the Committee's visits to Dover, where we spoke of the fragile nature of our controls. We discussed illegal immigrants, and drugs. We saw something of the arrangements that were in place, and agreed that they were fragile enough anyway and, without intelligence, would be virtually non-existent. We said that before the terrible tragedy involving a container-load of dead Chinese immigrants. The traffic in immigrants was not fully identified until that tragedy, of which we knew nothing, was revealed to the British people. It underlined the scale of the challenge presented to intelligence agencies—that they must try to combat the sophistication and determination of big international gangs.
We also referred—as did the Foreign Secretary, in graphic terms—to the problems of information warfare. It is possible to shut the country down with no need for a bomb: a good computer hacker can often wreak, or at least threaten, far greater damage. I do not want to become involved in an argument about whether the Government coped better with the Anna Kournikova virus than they did with the love bug—that is the sort of language now creeping into our discussions—but as we pointed out, the House of Commons, ancient institution though it may be, was more on the ball with the "love bug", and gave earlier warning, than the great UN1RAS—unified incident reporting and alert scheme—which was supposed to warn every Department. The Committee went to America shortly afterwards and we observed that the slowness of the official system to warn the United States meant that people had got out of bed and switched on their equipment only for the virus to get into it as well before the British warning arrived. I am pleased that when a further major virus attack came, it was dealt with much more promptly.
The role of the intelligence agencies and the continuing importance of their work in the world is recognised and accepted in the Committee. Changes are occurring in international terrorism: there is an on-going threat from and serious concern about breakaway elements in the republican movement and the continuing heavy burden that they represent. The Security Service thus has a role to play in respect of the continuing need to acknowledge the threats posed by foreign intelligence services.
I was interested to read today's announcement that Mr. Sergei Ivanov, who some of us met recently, has become Russian Minister of Defence after being transferred by Mr. Putin from his position as secretary of the National Security Council. He is a former KGB colleague of President Putin's, so the influence of the intelligence community in the new Russian Government is real.
We have discussed the importance of agencies working together on different issues, organised crime in particular, and such developments and changes mean that, although they are separate, they must co-operate more closely. The Government are encouraging that and we also support it. That is one reason why my Committee attaches

1145
importance to the Ministerial Committee. I know that there is full access and that all the Secretaries of State attach proper importance to the work of the agencies for which they are responsible, but we are looking for more joint, co-operative working.
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary would pay tribute to the work of the Security Service, but it is important that the role played by the agencies be fully considered; and we believe that, as a minimum, there should be an annual ministerial meeting chaired by the Prime Minister so that the agencies' work in their combined role as our intelligence community, which plays an increasingly important part in the uncertain and thus more dangerous world in which we live, can be pursued and recognised at the highest level.
I shall leave to my colleagues who want to pick up individual points our concerns about the Official Secrets Acts and the need to ensure that we have relevant protection in place. There are secrets that need to be kept and the Foreign Secretary put it very well: nobody will entrust us with their secrets, which they may risk their lives to give us, if they believe that we are not a trusty and secure home for those secrets.
There is interest in freedom of information and a feeling that there is unnecessary and excessive secrecy. There are good arguments to be made on both sides, but we must not go so far as to say that there is no longer any need for the basic protection of essential secrets. It would be enormously damaging to the security of our nation if it was thought that we no longer regarded any information as secret and put it all in the public domain.
We have had the opportunity, which is given to few, to launch a new function of parliamentarians, set up a new Committee, and build a new relationship with our intelligence and security agencies. I place on record my personal thanks to the Clerks who have served our Committee. When one goes to the United States to meet the House Intelligence Committee, one sees that it has a 30-strong staff. One then meets in the Senate another 30-strong staff, as well as the 30 staffers working for the Congressmen on the Committee and the 30 staffers who serve the Senators. One begins to realise a sense of scale.
I offer my personal gratitude to two individuals, Jonathan Alden, our first Clerk, and Alistair Corbett, who took over from him, and the teams that have worked with them, which are minute compared with those in the United States. I know that the whole Committee will join me in expressing appreciation for the work that they have done.
Mr. Mackinlay: Although I have been absent, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have been following all he has said with great interest and admiration. I also realise that all my colleagues here are distinguished parliamentarians.
I want to make a narrow but important point of principle about the status of the Committee. The selector of its members is the Prime Minister, who is the head of the security services. He chooses those who are there to scrutinise him. I know that hon. Members work diligently, but is it not time selection was undertaken by the House rather than by the Executive branch of government, namely, the Prime Minister?
Mr. King: If we introduce a system of secret ballot for membership of Select Committees, we may be able to
1146
draw a real distinction between the way members of those Committees and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are chosen. I believe that the Liaison Committee has made a suggestion along those lines. However, the point that I am obviously making is that if it is being suggested that who serves on Select Committees is decided by the free, unfettered will of the House and individual Members, then I must have missed something. No one is under that illusion. Personally, I think that such a distinction is vanishingly small.
I have described the work of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire was Chairman of the Defence Committee for many years and other Members have served on the Public Accounts Committee and other Committees. Obviously there are differences in the ways we work. Our Committee meets in secret, although, as I have said publicly, I hope that we shall move on. I am sure that our style of operation will evolve under a new Chairman with a new approach and we may meet in public, although it will not be possible to do so in respect of all matters. That could be helpful.
There are those who hold to a point of principle, saying that there are too many asterisks in our reports and that there is too much secrecy over information. However, some Defence Committee reports contain many asterisks because information has been withheld. Some of us have worked on nuclear matters on which evidence has had to be given in secret. A considerable amount of information is excised from reports.
This is a process of sending for persons and papers. I have used the example of the Chief Secretary, who, so far and unfortunately, has is failed to appear, but in the main, people have been willing to appear. We have received every paper that any Select Committee would have had and we have also received a considerable number of papers that no Select Committee would ever have got its hands on.
I know why the Committee was set up, though I was not privy to the information at the time: there was a fear of the agencies and departments; there was also a fear of giving the Committee powers that might have led to the Director-General of the Security Service being summoned to the Bar of the House for refusing to give us a paper. There was perhaps a sense that an impossible situation would arise over the ownership of material, but we have ignored all that. We carry on as effectively as any Select Committee would, and the only difference is that we work within the ring of secrecy. If some people want to change that, they may be able to do so, as they are now familiar with members of the Committee and Members of Parliament.
We have made a lot of comparisons with experience overseas. That is no secret, as I have said it in public. In Australia, a decision was made to have oversight of intelligence, and to set up the first oversight committee. Someone went up to their Chief Whip, or whoever it was, and said, "We're going to have this committee. Whom are we going to put on it?" Someone else then looked up everyone who had ever asked a question about intelligence agencies. They were all members of what I call the awkward squad. They were put on the committee because it was thought that they were interested in intelligence.
The result was that the committee was a complete shambles and collapsed within about nine months. The agencies knew that those people had asked a lot of

1147
unhelpful questions—I am not pointing at the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who would never fit into that category—and the result was that the agencies clammed up and told the committee as little as possible; the exercise was a shambles. The committee has now been rebuilt on a much more sensible basis. We avoided that kind of hiccup by setting up the Committee in the way that we did.
I have taken up too much of the House's time, but I would like to thank both Secretaries of State who attended the debate, and the Prime Minister, for their courtesy in relation to the work that we have tried to do. I have seen both Secretaries of State on behalf of the Committee, on private occasions and on different matters. We have not always agreed, but we have tried to preserve the integrity of the Committee. However, they have taken a genuine interest in our oversight work and genuinely believe that our function is not just a nuisance to be borne with as much good humour as possible, but positively helpful to the functioning of the agencies, the respect in which they are held and the value in the public eye of the matters for which the agencies have a serious responsibility.
I want to thank every member of the Committee who served with me. I am a pretty intolerable Chairman at times, but they have borne that with good grace, and this has been an interesting and—I hope they will feel—worthwhile experience for all of us. There is a feeling in the agencies that our report was a bit negative, because we are always reporting on issues and problems on which we have comments to make. That can give a flavour of our not having a real appreciation of the good work that the agencies do. I shall therefore end with the words that I wrote at the end of the foreword to our annual report about the agencies:
"In particular it has been a privilege to work closely with those who serve in our Intelligence and Security Agencies. Mistakes are made and we will criticise failings as we find them, but these should not detract from the recognition of the generally high quality and commitment, and at times, great courage of those who serve our country in these essential tasks."
3.3 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am pleased to pay a genuinely warm tribute to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), under whose chairmanship I have served since the Committee was set up. He may say that he is an intolerable Chairman, but I do not think that that is quite the word that I would choose. He may occasionally be a stern Chairman, but he has been a very effective one and he has enhanced the Committee's ability to do its work by the way in which he has conducted its meetings. By our own choice, he has represented the Committee externally. We made the decision that he should be the person who, on almost all occasions, spoke for the Committee, and he has always taken the various views in the Committee into account when he has done so.
The right hon. Gentleman has achieved the results that he has through consensus on the Committee. I cannot remember the Committee ever taking a vote, except, on one occasion, to decide whether we should travel by plane or train between two European capitals. That was a pretty closely contested vote. However, I cannot remember any others, because the Committee does not proceed in that way. We make unanimous reports, and are usually able to accommodate the occasional element of dissent, or regard
1148
it as less important than the overall recommendations that we intend to make. It is no small tribute to the right hon. Gentleman that he has achieved that.
I also want to pay tribute to my other colleagues on the Committee. It is not apparent, because the record is not public as it is in other Committees, that the members of the Committee share a very high level of commitment. Some Committees of the House have difficulty maintaining a quorum for their meetings; that does not happen in ours. Members attend every week and are heavily committed to the various visits that we undertake. They take their responsibilities very seriously and apply a great deal of effort and energy to them, in the full knowledge that hardly anyone will notice what they have been doing, except those who are aware of the Committee's importance and are closely involved in the work of the intelligence agencies.
There is no shortage of threats and tasks for the agencies. The most obvious example, perhaps, is the continuing activity of the Real IRA and the various dissident republican groups. A major responsibility for our agencies is tracking down and preventing terrorist outrages whenever possible. Further examples include the work of other terrorist groups, and activities such as drugs smuggling and people smuggling, into which the agencies have been drawn in addition to their traditional roles. Serious organised crime also falls into that category.
A major area of activity for the agencies, involving a great deal of detailed work and specialised knowledge, is dealing with arms trafficking, chemical and biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. An enormous amount of unseen work goes on in that area. The agencies are also involved, more obviously, in support for our troops in dangerous conflicts, such as those in Kosovo and Sierra Leone—examples that the Committee referred to in its reports. That is vital work.
In addition, the espionage being carried out against this country continues to require the efforts of counter-intelligence. The Hanssen case in the United States—as well as the earlier Ames case—demonstrated vividly how much intelligence activity is still going on, how much money can be involved in luring people into such activity, and the extent to which people's lives can be threatened by the activities of people such as Hanssen and Ames. As our Chairman pointed out earlier, such cases are a reminder of the vigilance that we have to show, and a great deal of effort goes into that.
Intelligence cannot do everything, but it can make a huge difference to the vital tasks in those areas. Sometimes, there is a danger of exaggerating what intelligence can do. However much intelligence we gather on drugs, it remains an issue that can be resolved only by combining intelligence, law enforcement and work within society to persuade people not to endanger their lives by taking drugs. It is important that our intelligence resources are used to catch some of the dangerous and unscrupulous people operating in that area, and to break some of the supply lines. It is also important that our law enforcement agencies can bring those people before the courts and present evidence that will convict them. However, we can deal only with a minority of the suppliers, and as long as there is a high level of demand, supply routes will be found. As the Foreign Secretary pointed out, all the activities have to be combined. Intelligence cannot do all sides of the work.

1149
Intelligence is obviously increasingly important to securing our borders against unwelcome traffic of various kinds. It is increasingly widely recognised that mere border checks do not solve such problems. There was a tendency for a few years to say, "We're an island and therefore we can keep out all sorts of unwelcome things." My experience on the Committee has demonstrated to me that it is through intelligence that we are able to interdict unwelcome movements into the country, whether they involve people, tobacco smuggling or drugs smuggling.
To the extent that we are successful, we depend heavily on intelligence to be so. That is partly because we could not conduct trade, or allow the movement of people in the way that most people want to be able to travel from one country to another, if every person was strip-searched on every overseas journey, or if every cargo was searched at every border point that it crossed. That is not the world in which we live. Intelligence, therefore, attracts a greater importance, whether we are talking about the work of intelligence agencies or about the intelligence component of the work of law enforcement agencies, which is directed more towards bringing people to justice than towards identifying traffic movements.
Our intelligence and security agencies work on those various tasks, but we must remember that intelligence can be wasted, ignored—especially if it does not accord with the prejudices and preconceptions of the person on whose desk it falls—used for the wrong purposes or misdirected. The Committee exists to monitor those matters and to try to ensure that mistakes are not made. The Committee has followed trails, trying to establish that intelligence was not wasted or misused. There have been earlier conflicts—going right back to the Falklands—where there was plenty of evidence of available intelligence not being used as it should have been to avoid conflict and to save lives.
The Committee can help to monitor and prevent the misuse of intelligence and the use of techniques for the wrong purposes. In a semi-public speech, the Director-General of the Security Service indicated that there is a tendency now within the agencies to ask what the Intelligence and Security Committee would think if they embarked on a certain course of action. That argument could be used in the future against Ministers who want intelligence in areas that the agencies do not think fall within their remit.
Intelligence can be expensive and it is relevant to ask whether resources are being committed to the right issues and whether too much is being spent on particular areas. The Committee, with the aid of the National Audit Office, is alone in its ability to question the order of priorities.
Intelligence can compromise civil liberties. It is a natural interest of a Liberal Democrat member of a Committee to want to attach importance to raising those questions. Many intelligence techniques—particularly those used at home in counter-intelligence—can pose a threat to civil liberties. We have various techniques through which we try to protect those liberties. These have become topical following the passing of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The Act has a bad name, but perhaps we should put on record that it greatly widened the recognition of surveillance and what ought to be subject to regulation.
1150
The Act did so to comply with the European convention on human rights, but it has brought the activities of many Departments—MAFF, for example—within the ambit of broad regulation. All sorts of Departments must use some kind of surveillance to prevent things from happening or to discover what is happening. We cannot open our newspapers without being reminded of that. In the last couple of days, there have been questions about meat imports and whether we should have examined more carefully the imports that might have led to the foot and mouth outbreak. That would involve some kind of surveillance by Departments that we might not have thought would be involved.
The area that caused the greatest worry was the extension of surveillance powers to electronic communication and e-mail. The first and major anxiety was that of large secions of the industry in Britain, which were led to believe that it might impair their ability to produce material for export and to trade in such equipment if this country had a harsh regime. I hope that there is an increasing recognition that we cannot avoid applying in those areas the surveillance techniques that we apply to telephone communications. We would simply shift the traffic from one to the other if we did not have techniques that could be used properly by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. However, that makes it even more important that the powers of control are strong and effective.
That has led my party to argue that it would be better if the key decisions on matters that intrude on individual liberty were made judicially and not by the Executive. That view has not been accepted by the Government, but it is one that we will continue to press. We have Executive approval, but with an area of subsequent judicial examination. That is a problem to which we referred in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the interim report, which deal with the support available to the commissioners and the tribunal. The new amalgamated tribunal deals with a wide range of public complaints about security and intelligence issues. The several bodies involved are dependent on a tiny support structure which is quite incapable of carrying out the job. As we reported, there was not even anybody to open the mail, let alone process it, for many months. That was ludicrous.
The sort of mail that the tribunal will get requires some scrutiny, because some of it bears a resemblance to the mail sent to Members of Parliament. A number of our constituents believe that they are under daily surveillance from the security agencies, who are up the chimney, in the garage, or inside the television set. Such delusions give rise to a great deal of correspondence, but hidden among that may be a serious case involving an intrusion on civil liberties. We are in a ludicrous position if there is nobody to process that.
We have been advised that urgent steps have been taken to remedy the present situation, but we have not yet had the chance to check on that. The new Committee, when it is appointed, will have to do so at an early stage because great reliance is placed on the mechanisms. They are Britain's defence in relation to the European convention on human rights, so that an individual who believes that his civil liberties are being damaged has a mechanism through which he can appeal. If those involved in that mechanism cannot even open his letter—let alone process it or put it in front of the judicial authority who is to adjudicate upon it—we are not providing a safeguard that should be there.

1151
That was not a failing of the agencies, but of the Government, as was the delay on the regulations on employment tribunals. We are talking about the civil rights of people employed in the agencies; they, too, have rights that we must safeguard. The absence of an employment tribunal is clearly something that we should not allow to continue, particularly as that is increasingly cited as an excuse for behaviour which it does not excuse—namely, giving away our official secrets, obtained in the course of previous employment, to further one's own case. Nothing excuses or justifies that. Nevertheless, that was a gap that needed to be plugged. The change was only introduced in a late stage of an earlier piece of legislation, but it way not entirely to our satisfaction in the form that it took.
As has been pointed out, the regulations have been laid before the House this week, so the debate has—as the Foreign Secretary conceded—had a real, practical value in concentrating somebody's mind somewhere. But how long will it be before the necessary vetted staff and tribunal members are in place? We could have another year of delay if we are not careful. There must be early action on that matter, which need not wait on the parliamentary process. If the regulations have been laid, we can get on with the job so that the tribunal is available within a matter of weeks, rather than months or years.
These civil liberties failings are Government failings, not agencies' failings. There is a real awareness in the agencies that they are working to defend our liberties as a nation. Those involved are the beneficiaries of those liberties; they want to live free and civilised lives. They have a consciousness in their work, which must be set against the demands placed upon them and their difficult task in dealing with some pretty unscrupulous people about whose activities we need to know.
It should not be assumed that the agencies are staffed by people who have no concerns about civil liberties; they do, including concerns about their own. That issue came up in the whole question of trade union rights at GCHQ some years ago. Part of the pride that those people have in their work is that they are defending the liberty that we enjoy as citizens of the UK. Many are exposed to danger, difficulty and challenge as they seek to defend those liberties.
As a party, the Liberal Democrats believe that the Committee that scrutinises these services should be a Select Committee. That is the appropriate model, but I share the view of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, who said that this is an evolving matter and that it would have been difficult to start from that point. I recognise that the way in which the Committee began was probably the best way to win the confidence of all concerned.
I believe that if the Committee operated as a Select Committee, we would not behave significantly differently from the way in which we behave now. Our work would continue in much the same manner, and we would have to establish pretty much identical procedures to the ones that we have now, probably including the presentation of a report to the Prime Minister and then to the House. We would certainly still meet in secret and require secure premises in which to do so. Therefore, it would not make a great difference to the way in which the Committee operates.
Such a transition would probably help in a small measure to remove an argument against the Committee and enhance public and media confidence in it.
1152
Confidence in the Committee has grown regardless, and we have had glowing comments from some parts of the media on our work in the past year or so. Nevertheless, such a change would have some symbolic value.
Committee members have to serve as guarantors of democracy and liberty. By using that mechanism, Parliament is effectively sending inside that ring of secrecy a group of Members in whom it has some confidence, thereby allowing them unprecedented access to information. I think that Parliament also assumes that those Members' instincts, political background and awareness of colleagues' feelings enable them to act decisively in dealing with anything that might be wrong inside that ring, to set boundaries and parameters, and to ensure that money is not being wasted and the job is being done properly.
There used to be some very odd attitudes to intelligence and security. There was a left-wing attitude that all of it was unnecessary and that all such activity should be stopped. There was also a right-wing attitude that our boys are doing a grand job, so do not ask any questions. Neither of those views is sustainable. We need our intelligence and security services, but they need to be scrutinised. Probably the only way of scrutinising them is to entrust a very limited number of people with the task of getting in there and examining the services very carefully.
That group of people has to be given the necessary information. The Committee does not need to know everything. We do not need to know a specific agent's name or location, but, sometimes, we may have to know an operational detail so that we can determine whether the right or wrong action has been taken. Currently, we have relatively little difficulty in obtaining the information that we think we need. However, just occasionally we do have difficulty, and some outstanding issues have to be addressed.
The Government have to recognise that the Committee cannot make authoritative statements to the effect that "nothing wrong has been done" or "the matter has been pursued properly" unless we have the necessary information. The Committee will not make that type of statement or give the assurances that the House requires unless those statements and assurances are based on the necessary information. If we have that information, we can give the assurances.
Committee members will have to be in place if they are to do the job. I endorse the remarks of the retiring Chairman, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, that it is vital that the Committee is appointed quickly after the general election. The new accommodation project at Cheltenham will still be a major issue, as will many of the very topical matters mentioned today by hon. Members. It would be a travesty for those matters to be unsupervised for the next six to nine months. I therefore hope that someone, somewhere—including the usual channels, the Cabinet Secretary, the Prime Minister's office and anyone else who is involved—has received the message that the Committee requires an essentially continuous existence to do a very necessary job.
3.23 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I shall be very brief as I am hoping to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair after the Easter recess, on Monday 23 April, when I hope we shall have a debate on privileges. I hope to participate in that debate prior to the next general election.

1153
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is in the Chamber, and I should like to reply to his intervention on a matter that, as he knows, has been discussed by some of our hon. Friends—the nature of the process by which Committee members are appointed.
The truth is that, if I were a Chief Whip, there are some hon. Members on both sides of the House whom I would not appoint to the Committee. That has nothing to do with whether one has been a rebel in the past or has asked hundreds of questions that may have been embarrassing to the security services. I remember a time, in the mid-1980s, when I would go to the Table Office to table questions that included names. When I was not looking, the staff would ring someone to check whether I was allowed to do so, and I always presumed that they were ringing the services to find out whether the name would identify someone who was active. But we have moved on from that.
We could never allow a system whereby someone could be appointed without great consideration. Ultimately, the whole system survives because of the relationship between the services and the Committee. The problem is that one Committee member could completely destroy the Committee's integrity and credibility. Even so, I am in favour of having on the Committee people who are questioners.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock would make a particularly good Committee member. I believe that he would adopt the same type of attitude to its work as I have had, and I know that he has the interests of the state very much at heart. The fact that someone is a maverick should not necessarily prevent their membership. It is a matter of where their loyalty lies. That is the issue. As a Committee member, one very quickly discovers that that is critically important.
Outsiders who consider our activities may wonder how far we have come. We have moved on from the 1980s, when it was very difficult even to ask a question and one certainly never received an answer. Although I was not able to go on the trip, some Committee members have been to Moscow to meet all types of people, some of whom I presume probably had the closest contacts with former regimes in the former Soviet Union. That is a measure of the change that is occurring.
It is a measure of the trust that the services have in the Committee that they felt that they could add their support for such a visit—in the knowledge that nothing would be compromised, and that we would be helping the process of creating and generating international relationships which in the longer term may benefit both the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. There are matters of common interest, such as the fight against drugs and international organised crime. There would also be, to some extent, a matching of views on Islamic issues.
I now want to deal with the critical shifts that I think have been made during my membership of the Committee. When I joined it, having spent 12 years on the Public Accounts Committee, one of the things that struck me was that—although we knew that the National Audit Office was in the background—prior to the appointment, in 1997, of "the new boys and gals", the Committee never took evidence from the NAO. One of
1154
the first things that I, and other hon. Members, did on being appointed to the Committee was to press for the development of that relationship.
I have always regarded the NAO's role as critical to monitoring what is happening inside any Department. It is the NAO, on behalf of taxpayers, that follows taxpayers' money. I think that the public might be very interested to know that the NAO can go as far as examining the detail of a particular investigation by officers in the services, pass comment on that operation in relation to financial accountability, and if thought to be necessary and appropriate, make that information available to the Intelligence and Security Committee. If the NAO believes that there has been a misuse of public money, for example, it can draw that to our attention.
I confess that we have not been presented with operational information of that nature. However, it would be within the Committee's power to have access to such information if we felt that that was necessary. Although obviously we would not have access to the details of the operation or the personnel involved in it, access to the other information demonstrates the level of intensity that the NAO can apply in its investigation if it chooses to do so.
I believe that the compromise arrangement on an investigator—it was a compromise to some of us—was also very important. I was taken by the idea of an inspector general when the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) returned from their visit to Australia and were so enthused by what they had found. Subsequently, some of us argued most strongly for the establishment of an inspector. However, we compromised on an arrangement that was proposed, I think, by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates,) which has proved to be an excellent arrangement. It has introduced the principle of someone outside the Committee, but acting on our behalf, having the right to go in and find out precisely what is happening in greater detail than we can, reporting to us within the remit set by law.
Stephen Lander talked about something at the Royal United Services Institute lectures that I thought would never be referred to in public. He said that, on occasions, he felt able to go further than the law required in terms of providing information to the Committee. To outside students of our activities, that should be very interesting, because it shows that our remit extends further than the legislation and that we are therefore more effective than might be supposed. We can go further, on occasions, without compromising any element of national security.
I have been struck, on visiting the agencies, by the number of young people there. The agencies offer a career that must be unparalleled in our public service. It may not be the best-remunerated career in the world, although reports show that there are developments in that area, but it must certainly be the most exciting.
It is quite wrong for people outside to presume that the agencies are riddled with people on the right wing of politics, who fly the flag and are incapable of considering libertarian principles. In fact, they contain people of all political persuasions. I have had some fascinating discussions about politics with people whose name I did not know. I cannot emphasise enough how acutely aware they are of the civil libertarian arguments that take place

1155
here. They would never allow their politics to interfere with their judgments in carrying out their public duties. It is very impressive.
I understand from my sons, and I have discussed it with agency personnel, that there is much discussion in universities about applying for intelligence work, particularly at GCHQ, which must be having one of its finest periods for recruitment. Many people on relevant courses are being attracted to and applying for jobs at GCHQ. That is good news and bodes well.
A young man in his mid-30s in one of the agencies—I am not breaching security in saying this—told us about his work, within the limits of what he could say. His sense of commitment was remarkable. We could tell that he had the national interest absolutely at heart. I must not say too much, but I want to emphasise how impressed I was by our conversation. If he has the opportunity to read Hansard, I hope that he will be able to identify himself, because there are many such dedicated people in the agencies. I told him that many people in the House of Commons would be most impressed if only they had the opportunity to talk to him.
I do not want to labour the arguments about Select Committees—I have done so repeatedly over the years, in the Committee, on the Floor of the House and outside—but there is one very important matter that the House should take into account. We are moving into a century that will be very different from the previous one. Throughout this century, there will be more and more attempts by Governments of all political persuasions to compromise our civil liberties, not because they want to but because they feel that they have to if the wider freedom of all individuals in society is to be preserved. It is a tremendous dilemma to decide how far we can allow the state to go.
National identity cards are an example. Some see them as an invasion of individual freedom. I do not. There is a division of view within the Conservative party. Some Conservatives—right-wingers such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—regard them as infringing civil liberties. I am not making a party political point here, because the same is true of the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) would be completely opposed to them, preoccupied as he is with civil liberties, whereas I take the opposite view and regard them as necessary for the future.
I believe that national identity cards are inevitable, and will come regardless of which party is in power. I remember when closed circuit television cameras were introduced on our streets. Civil libertarian groups in my constituency were outraged and saw them as an intrusion, but now I never hear any criticism of them at all. People want them. There was an element of principle to begin with, but compromise was inevitable. Every time we move the debate on and allow such principles to be compromised, we must have a check in place with which the public can identify. There has to be effective public scrutiny, and that has to be through this institution.
If we are to allow such intrusions to take place—which we will; in the end they will be accepted, or at least acknowledged as being for the wider good—we need
1156
them to be overseen by an institution that is identified with elections and has the imprimatur of Parliament. That is why I want the structure to change.
Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend flagged up something that has exercised me since last autumn. I abhorred and found anathema the actions of those people who tried to hold the country to ransom over fuel, but if surveillance was used on them, as we are led to believe, I am in a dilemma. I wonder how my hon. Friend feels about it, given our mutual belief in democracy and liberty. Is it right for the state, for economic reasons, to use the machinery of surveillance that we would normally use in relation to national defence, on people who are trying to frustrate the state and exert pressure on the Government in relation to fuel prices—or perhaps on other malevolents? Where is the fine line?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is a category in which the state would have some interest, and that is what we would call economic well-being. That is where we come in, because we can ask questions about such matters. During the course of our inquiries we can bring the heads of the services before us—in this case, the head of the Security Service. We can ask Stephen Lander about developments in this or that particular area, and he will have to reply.
Of course, our report would go through the Prime Minister before it filtered through to Parliament, but there is a mechanism for dealing with such issues. My hon. Friend should not remain interminably suspicious that such matters cannot be controlled. There is also the role of the Home Secretary, who has responsibilities in that direction; we know that the present Home Secretary takes those responsibilities extremely seriously. I hope that I have put my hon. Friend's mind at rest slightly.
I know that there has been lots of banter in the Committee about Select Committee status, particularly between the hon. Member for East Hampshire and me. I have always thought that when we are on a platform together, as we were last week, the people who watch us like that. They know that even within the present remit, there are divisions of opinion, and we can argue them out, even in a public forum. That is helpful to the process. I know it is helpful to the services, too, because people in the services are fascinated by those arguments. Within the services themselves there are people who want the Select Committee structure to be set up. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will know about that.
I have said what I had to say, and unless I have the opportunity to speak in the debate on privilege on 23 April, this may well be my final contribution in the House. Thank you.
3.43 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who made what could be his last contribution in the House. I would be happy to cross swords with him again on 23 April, because I, like him, think that a general election would be a distraction at the moment—but I shall not go into that now.
All this business about a Select Committee is an old chestnut by now. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have crossed swords about it before. I have never

1157
heard the case so persuasively put as it was by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who has just stopped on his way out to hear me say that. However, persuasively as the case was put, I have to tell him that I am not persuaded.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, I had the honour to chair the Defence Committee for six years, and I have now been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee for six years. He was right to say that there is a distinction rather than a difference, but there is an enormous distinction.
We dealt with very sensitive matters; for example, we examined the Trident nuclear submarine programme, year after year, almost from its inception to its end. However, when a Government Department—or, particularly, one of the intelligence agencies—gives evidence to a Select Committee, that evidence then becomes the Committee's property. That is the distinction. That is the only difference between us.
Once somebody gives evidence to a Select Committee, that evidence is the property of the Committee and of the House, and at the end of the day the Committee can do what it will with it. The difference that was—rightly in my view—built in to the structure of the present Committee, is that the evidence does not become the property of the House until it has been filtered through the Prime Minister. I am certain that without that filter, we would not have been privy to even half the growing amount of information that we have been given over the years. We must remain exclusive and different.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, it is a distinction that need not bother us, because our work is very similar to that of a Select Committee. I say that for the benefit of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), too. It is simply that the ownership of the highly sensitive information that we have been given has to remain within the ring of secrecy until such time as the Prime Minister and his advisers allow it to be reported to Parliament.
I do not think that there is a difference in the confidence that the House and the general public have in the Intelligence and Security Committee, as opposed to a Select Committee—although there may have been a difference for the first few years, when we were a new Committee. I think that that feeling of confidence will grow. In four or five years' time, whether there is a change or not, and I do not think that there will be—[Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Workington that I have the last word at the moment, which is a nice position to be in.
I do not think that by that time there will be any difference perceived, either outside or inside the House, between the level of accountability of the intelligence and security services, and that of the other Departments to their respective Select Committees. That argument is academic, and is becoming more academic as the days and years go by.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have raised many of the relevant points, so I can be quite brief. First, I want to amplify what the Foreign Secretary said about the inherent dangers of technology and information warfare. As has been said, an enemy could do far more damage by bringing down computer systems than by dropping bombs. That gets truer every day.
1158
I remind the House of something that may have slipped people's minds. Three or four years ago, an 18-year-old computer hacker brought the entire US air force in the United States to the ground by hacking into the air traffic control system for military aircraft. The authorities were bemused. They knew that this was not a friendly hacker, and he was so clever that he made it appear that the attack on the computer system was coming from India. For two days, until they sorted it out, all they could do was to ground the entire United States air force. I do not need to tell hon. Members what would happen if that took place even in a period of low-level conflict, as we have had in the Balkans all too recently. There would have been chaos.
I shall give another example, because the danger needs highlighting. A couple of years ago, an IRA plot to use bombs to disable the electricity generating sub-stations around London was discovered. It would have crippled the electricity supply of the capital, but by careful intelligence and very good work by the police and the intelligence services, the attack was prevented.
How much more effective would that attack have been had the terrorists moved somebody into the London electricity generating control centre and left him there for years? At the appropriate moment, they could have told him to destroy the computer system. That would have been more devastating, it could have been done much more quickly, and mere would have been less chance of discovery, because the IRA would not have needed garages in back streets full of cars and explosives.
That is an important factor, and I hope that the Committee will look into it if I have the honour to serve on it again—if, indeed, I have the honour to get back here and serve on the Committee in the next Parliament. I hope that the Committee will take the matter up to help the Government go forward into an ever more complex and dangerous area.
That is why we will need more intrusive inspection of computer communications—to prevent just such a threat. I know that I am repeating what has been said before, but I thought that it would be helpful to illustrate the point, so that people who do not understand intelligence matters could grasp the size of the problems caused by the ever increasing pace and sophistication of technology.
My last point is about the growing problem of serious crime—smuggling drugs, illegal immigrants, false asylum seekers and all that. This week I visited Dover and went across to the other side with the customs officers, because I could not be there when the rest of the Committee went two or three months ago.
I saw the new scanner. With X-ray cameras, officers can now scan a container lorry as long as this Chamber in five or 10 minutes. I could see how effective that was. One sees the contents immediately, and can spot differences, and whether there is anything irregular. I commend the Government for having introduced the scanner and I hope that they will further speed up its introduction. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater said, without intelligence there is no way that we can interdict such activities at the moment.
If everyone has to go through the scanner routinely, the smuggler will face a much harder problem. The Treasury Committee looked at that in its second report and recommended that 13 scanners were needed very soon. I do not suppose that anybody will oppose that except

1159
the Treasury, as scanners are expensive items. I urge the Ministers concerned to tackle the Treasury about that, because it is one way in which—I hesitate to use the phrase—at a stroke they could improve the detection of a huge amount of smuggled contraband, especially cigarettes. The Treasury is now losing hundreds of millions of pounds, but it is difficult to explain to it that it will eventually make a profit. It does not see the matter that way, but it has always worked like that.
I saw the highest-tech piece of kit imaginable, which is mobile and looks a bit like a Heath Robinson device; it goes over the top of the lorry and moves along it. The plan is to move in fixed technology whereby the lorry drives through and is scanned, rather as one's suitcase is at the airport. Although more expensive, the sooner that that happens, the better. Despite all that wonderful technology, the approach to lorries is back in the age of the quill pen and dependent on the observational ability of Customs and Excise.
I raise that point for the benefit of Ministers, who may not be aware of it. It is a question of the British and French Governments organising matters so that information, which is available on computer, can be transferred. Our customs officials in France and, indeed, the French customs officials at Dover, would therefore have access to low-level intelligence, such as manifests, number plates and so on, before the lorries arrive. They could add that to the intelligence produced by our own intelligence sources, and identify suspicious lorries in good time, as opposed to the three or four minutes that they have at the moment.
When one sees millions of pounds worth of new technology alongside a chap trying to look down a handwritten list that changes twice a day, one realises that we have not yet got that right. In the battle against smugglers—of people, drugs and so on—we need to address that problem and get it right quickly. That is a matter for the two Governments and the organisations that run the cross-channel ferries, the tunnel, freight trains and everything else. I very much hope that that will be taken to heart and acted on quickly, as it is frustrating, especially for customs officials, to have wonderful kit, but to have one link missing in the chain.
It is time to thank everyone. I am happy and grateful to have been on the Committee since it started. If I survive, I hope that I may serve on it in the next Parliament. I shall miss the hon. Member—I was about to say "hon. Friend"—for Workington. I shall miss him as a maverick and a member of the awkward squad whose presence adds a little ginger to our proceedings even if, alas, as everyone else has said, they are rarely seen by the public.
The House will have gathered from the speeches of Committee members—there are still one or two to come—that not only do we work happily, but effectively and well. We work without party politics as a team.
3.54 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: May I tell the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) that he does not have the last word on the status of the Intelligence and Security Committee? It seems that that has become part of our annual debate; we do not have to justify it, but give our own opinions about its status.
I was particularly interested in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on my hon. Friend the Member for Workington
1160
(Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is a member of the Committee. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has attended previous debates on the matter, but I believe that our entire debate is a distraction from the fact that we should be debating the Committee's annual work load, as far as that is possible in the public domain. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) talked about the symbolism of the Committee. I am not greatly into symbolism; we should consider whether something is functional and practical. The way in which members of the Committee are assembled by the Prime Minister and the Executive, who, it is true, have prime responsibility for national security in this country, needs to be set alongside the way in which other Committees in the House are assembled.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that, after the 1997 election, I was offered, by telephone, the chairmanship of a Select Committee, which I declined. The offer was not the general will of Parliament; it was made by the Executive. About two and a half years ago, I was asked by telephone to sit on a pre-legislative Select Committee, which examined the Bill that was eventually passed by the House to set up the Food Standards Agency. Not only was I asked to sit on that Committee, but I was asked to be Chairman. I must tell my hon. Friend that it was not the will of Parliament that that offer was made; the call came from someone in the Executive. To a large extent, therefore, our debate is a distraction from what the Intelligence and Security Committee is about.
I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for East Hampshire said about what would, or would not, be seen if the Committee was a Select Committee, as opposed to a Committee of parliamentarians assembled by the Prime Minister. I am not arguing that the Committee should never be a Select Committee; we should get down to what it does, what it makes public, and how that squares with what happens in society, with Parliament and with our perception of people's attitudes towards the intelligence services in this country.
In that context, I want to say a few words in our debate. What has happened to British intelligence agencies in the past two decades is unique. First, it is only in the last 20 years that there has been a public admittance on paper that those agencies exist. In the past decade, the Executive and the Prime Minister set up a Committee of parliamentarians, on which I have served since 1997. Members of the Committee who had not signed the Official Secrets Act had to do so, and look into sensitive areas of the agencies' work inside and outside the country.
Every speaker has paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), but I want to do so in the context of those two unique decades. During that period, he has performed a singular role. He has been a Secretary of State, with direct responsibilities for signing off, at least annually, the budget of an agency which, in theory, did not exist; its existence was not acknowledged. Yet he sat in Cabinet signing off its annual budgets and, presumably, not wanting to take responsibility for some of its capital projects. In 1994, he then took up the chairmanship of the Committee. I had little parliamentary contact with him, other than across the Floor of the Chamber, until I joined the Committee in 1997, but I believe that he has been an extremely good Chairman. He has not caused trouble, as people often do when they chair committees, as he said himself.

1161
I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his ministerial experience and chairing of the Committee. I recall his saying on numerous occasions in the Committee that although he had held ministerial responsibility for the intelligence agencies, he only really got to know about them when he became chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I probably should not be saying that, because people might think that I am out to cause trouble. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be writing his memoirs when he retires from Parliament. However, I genuinely want to thank him for the work that he has done, as have other speakers before me, including my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The work of the Committee is evolving; there have been further developments since we discussed the last annual report. It has not been quite 12 months, as the last one was produced quite late. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke about the leader in The Times and the press reports about the publication of our report on the Mitrokhin archive. The right hon. Gentleman said that someone had suggested that he might have written the leader himself. At the conference held two weeks ago at the Royal United Services Institute on oversight, security and intelligence issues, when the Director-General of the Security Service sat down, having spoken for the first time ever about the relationship that the service has had with the Committee over the years, we could have been forgiven for thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had written that speech as well. It went into detail about the evolving relationship between this Committee of parliamentarians and the agencies.
The right hon. Gentleman can be proud of how he has steered this ship. It could have got into troubled waters; it might, once or twice, have got a bit near the coastline at low tide, which might have been unwise. However, by and large, the Committee has kept away from troubled waters, certainly for the years I have been a member. That is due in no small part to the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship.
I was reminded of the director-general's speech when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said that the director-general had said that sometimes more had been done than the law required. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members here today, those who will read this debate in Hansard, and members of the public will recognise that this debate covers only a part of the work that we have done over the past 12 months. I suppose that the iceberg metaphor is the correct one inasmuch as the report is indeed the tip of the iceberg—a lot of other work has been done. Some of it is asterisked in the report; some has not been included but remains in the confines of our office.
I turn to the investigator who has worked closely with the Committee over the past few months. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater paid John Morrison a compliment, which I would like to do as well. However, considering the work that has been done, a few other people should also be thanked.
We were not sure how the investigator would work with the Committee. He reports to us, and we task him in relation to going into the various agencies to look at matters that we could look at if we had the time. His ability to concentrate on specific issues has been very valuable.
1162
We have had three reports in the past 12 months. The report on the agencies' security policies and procedures was eventually sent to the Prime Minister. There was a report on the use of laptop computers. No one will be surprised at our decision to look at that issue. It was not simply about laptops going missing or being left in taxis, although that is an important aspect. That report went into detail, some of which has been included in our annual report. When there are multi-use laptop computers in organisations, they should be wiped clean when an individual has finished with a particular issue. When laptops are for the sole use of an individual, we should ensure that there is no build-up of sensitive information. If the laptop went missing and fell into the wrong hands, a lot of material could obviously be lost.
The third report deals with information technology systems and strategies in the public sector. That has nothing to do with the agencies; sadly, massive amounts of taxpayers' money have been misspent in many areas of the public sector, including health, on the procurement of IT systems. The investigator was tasked to look at the issue on that basis. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that we now have an IT champion looking at some of these issues.
The Government's response to the reports that we sent to the Prime Minister, as well as their response to the investigator's reports on the agencies, showed a mature attitude to what some people thought was an uneasy path for us to take. The period from 1997 until now may seem quite long, but we hope that it will in fact be a very short time in the life of this oversight Committee in the United Kingdom. Everyone's attitude to the investigator's report has been very important.
An ever-increasing part of the intelligence agencies' work is serious crime. The action taken on human smuggling and its awful consequences has been mentioned this afternoon. I refer not only to the deaths in Dover but to human, trafficking around the world. We, along with many other countries, must deal with the problem of people exploiting others for money. That is a developing area which is highlighted in our report, and I am pleased that something is being done about it.
Serious crime is also a major issue. Drugs have been mentioned, as have the intelligence products that some of our agencies use in the international field to stop the movement of drugs around the country. Many of them are targeted on the misery in our communities and constituencies, where people are hooked on drugs. Such products are invaluable in trying to stop drug trafficking.
There is greater use of the agencies' products to deal with Customs and Excise evasion or fraud. I have an interest in public health matters, tobacco in particular. Tobacco smuggling into this country costs the Exchequer somewhere in the region of £2.3 billion to £2.5 billion. It is argued that tobacco is smuggled because of our high taxes: it is not. European Union countries such as Italy and Spain have lower taxes on tobacco products, but smuggling is as big problem there as it is here. So the reasons go wider than that.
I am concerned not simply about the loss to the Treasury, but about the fact that much of the smuggled tobacco reaches the under-15s, who cannot buy cigarettes in legitimate outlets. They are cheaper, and as a consequence people get hooked on cigarettes at an early age. A lot of work is being done on that, too.

1163
While we have the ear of Ministers, I draw attention to the interim report of the Committee, which has been published in the past few days. Paragraph 32 says on the subject of tobacco smuggling:
"The Committee was concerned to hear that large consignments of cigarettes continue to be exported from the UK. only to be smuggled back into the country via a staging country or countries."
I know that an independent Department of Trade and Industry investigation is taking place. It looks at what happened in the past, but the quotation makes it clear that the Committee has received evidence that such smuggling is still happening now. The Minister may want to pass on the Committee's concern expressed in that part of the report. I believe that the Government should have a look at it.
In both of the past two years, we have commented on the absence of legislation to give people who work in the security agencies the right to go to an industrial tribunal. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary say that orders to that effect had been laid in Parliament this week. That was fortuitous, given that the debate was scheduled for today. We shall be pleased to see the orders passed. I am not sure whether anyone in the agencies could have usefully used the legislation in the years since we have been lobbying for it, but it is good that the machinery is being put in place. We hope that it will not be needed. Two years ago we sought to ensure that there was a good system in each of the agencies to enable people who did not feel that they were being looked after properly to seek redress internally. The system should be able to handle that; we did a fair amount of work on it.
We have included a deliberately short comment in our interim report on the future of the Official Secrets Acts. I will not go into the detail of that paragraph, but I genuinely believe that the Act needs to be re-examined quickly. We say in our annual report that the future of the Act should be considered by any follow-on Committee, if there is to be a general election in the next few years—[Interruption.] That might be wishful thinking, not on my part, I hasten to add. If there is to be an election in the next few weeks, a new Committee should be set up more quickly than in May 1997 and it should look at the operation of the Act.
The context of the Official Secrets Act is changing—if in no other sphere, then in that of the internet and its effect on people's ability to put information in the public domain. That can form a case for the defence in any judicial action. The situation needs to be addressed.
Our compliments to the professionals who work in our agencies are in our report for all to see. On every visit, on some of which we have given staff a rough time by questioning what happens in their departments, I have never ceased to be amazed at their professionalism and courage. They do jobs in our democracy that most of us who are democratic representatives would shy away from because of the personal danger. I cannot emphasise enough the fact that, in the years I have served on the Committee, which I have thoroughly enjoyed, I have always been amazed at their professionalism. The people who work in the agencies ought to be given recognition by everyone. They look after not their own interests but the interests of the country, and they do that job well.
4.14 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: Unlike other Back Benchers who have spoken so far, I am not a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope to have the indulgence of the House in doing what I usually do, which is to talk primarily about intelligence and security issues rather than the work of the Committee. However, I shall touch on one aspect of the Committee's work before I conclude.
The topics that I wish to address are MI5 and subversion, with reference to some recent and on-going developments; some historical topics relating to the retention of files and the examination of foreign archives; and oversight and the problems of reconciling it with the needs of security.
On 12 January 1998, a prominent story in The Times was headlined "MI5 decides that democracy is safe." The reporter, Michael Evans, said:
"The once-thriving F branch of the Security Service, which in its heyday investigated the extreme Left and the extreme Right, is now reduced to 'half' a desk officer who concerns himself with the pensions of former employees…
An acknowledgement that this line of MI5 business has gone out of fashion will be made clear in the third edition of the Security Service booklet to be published in March".
Indeed, the booklet "MI5—The Security Service" was published in March 1998. It stated on page 19:
"Subversion in the UK is essentially an historical phenomenon … The Security Service currently has no investigations in this area. During the financial year 1997/98 only 0.3 per cent. of the Service's resources were allocated to the remnants of this work, predominantly to pay the pensions of retired agents."
That came back to me on 21 June 1999, when the Home Secretary made a statement in the House about the demonstrations in the City of London. There had been some violent demonstrations, and the right hon. Gentleman said:
"I want to place on record my appreciation…for the way in which the City of London police, supported by the Metropolitan police and the British Transport police, dealt with this wholly deplorable outbreak of violence which was plainly premeditated…
At the moment, I have no firm information to suggest that a recurrence of those demonstrations is likely in the foreseeable future. However, I intend to hold further consultations with the Commissioner and the police service, to ensure that everything possible is done to protect the safety of the public and the businesses in the City and elsewhere in London…
The London police … have a fine record of co-operating fully with peaceful demonstrations. But the refusal of the organisers of that demonstration even to discuss with the police how the event was to be handled was wholly irresponsible, and showed a contempt for peaceful protest and for democracy."—[Official Report, 21 June 1999; Vol.333, c.778.]
Hear, hear, we may all say to that.
In the questioning that followed that statement, I pointed out to the Home Secretary that perhaps we were having a problem with non-co-operation of demonstrators taking part in mass and illegal action because F branch of the Security Service had effectively been closed down. I urged him to recognise that that was a mistake and that, when such riots were being surreptitiously organised, the counter-measures that were required were those which that part of the Security Service had specialised in, but no longer carried out.

1165
I was evidently wasting my breath, because the same thing happened all over again the following year. On 2 May, the Home Secretary once again made a statement to the House about demonstrations in London and Manchester. He said:
"Yesterday's shameful violence was the culmination of a loosely organised series of events that took place from Friday to Monday. Although all the events were broadly described as a protest against capitalism, they were organised by a number of wholly disparate groups.
None of the organisers was willing to discuss preparations in advance with the police, who therefore had to make their plans on the basis of the best information obtained by them."—[Official Report, 2 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 21.]
A number of times in the statement and in the questions that followed it, the Home Secretary referred to the "benefit of hindsight" when hon. Members said that mistakes had been made in the way in which the London demonstration had been handled. However, I do not believe that it was a question of being wise after the event. It was wholly to he anticipated that, with demonstrations of that sort being organised in a clandestine manner by people who had no intention of obeying the law or demonstrating peacefully, a level of disruption would be caused that could have been dealt with only by the normal methods of the Security Service functioning as F branch of MI5 used to do.
I raise the matter of those two demonstrations because a third is in the pipeline. On 18 February, The Sunday Telegraph carried the following report.
"Thousands of anarchists plan to take over London streets on May Day in a violent version of Monopoly, seizing hotels and company headquarters in an effort to disrupt the general election expected on May 3.
Police have uncovered plans for more than 15,000 extremists to converge on London from all over Europe on May 1."
The article quotes one of the plans, which states:
"This year we want to celebrate May Day by playing a game of Monopoly on the streets of London on May 1."
The plan advises activists to "consider the possibilities" and to
"seize the headquarters of companies involved in debt, privatised railways and utilities such as gas and electricity."
The plans also instruct activists to target
"above all the streets and areas in which the daily business of capitalism continues normally unhindered."
A number of speakers in the debate so far have wisely referred to the increasing importance of the role of the internet and of methods of communication by that means. The information that I have may or may not be reliable, but it suggests that the information that the police have managed to gather so far has primarily come from a study of websites such as www.mayday2001.org, or www.maydaymonopoly.net. Those sites include information that the organisers of the forthcoming riots have chosen to make available on the internet. I gather that details about how they are really proposing to organise their events are contained in encrypted e-mails. That encryption is easily available via a commercial firm—I will not name it because I do not wish to give more publicity to its activities—which has recently recruited a senior US encryption expert.
1166
My information is that it would take the most powerful computers of the American National Security Agency or our own GCHQ at least 24 hours to break such a code. We are therefore facing the possibility of quite major, planned disruption that could well spill over into the day on which the general election may be held. However, our police are having to make do without the advice of the Security Service that they would have had in the past if the decision—erroneous, in my view, and in that of others with an interest in this subject—had not been taken to destroy the counter-subversion arm of MI5.
I have been interested to note that some of the events of past subversive activities still have knock-on effects today. A letter published in The Guardian yesterday was headed "Log on to keeptheToriesout.com, the democratic way". It encouraged people to visit the website of something called "tacticalvoter.net".
I visited the website, to see what it was all about. Naturally, I had a degree of personal interest, given what the site might have contained with regard to my constituency. The site's home page revealed a commendable degree of honesty in stating that the aims of the organisation are to
"promote anti-Conservative tactical voting at the General Election … To demonstrate the need for electoral reform … To raise interest in the election and improve voter turnout."
In a section called "Background", the website states:
"At least 25 Tory MPs lost their seats to tactical voting in 1997. A further 127 are vulnerable."
I think that that figure is calculated on the basis that hon. Members who won anything under 50 per cent. of their constituency vote are, in principle, vulnerable to tactical voting.
The site continues
"Websites that allowed Greens and Democrats to swap votes received ½million hits and nearly kept Bush out of the Whitehouse … Web-inspired tactical voting could make a big difference to the shape of parliament and the tone of politics after this election."
So far, so good: we live in a free society. However, an item at the bottom of the page caught my attention. It stated that
"tacticalvoter.net is a company limited by guarantee … We are funded by grants from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Limited and the New Politics Network".
It is then stated, in bold type, that
"tacticalvoter.net is not affiliated to or funded by any political party".
Well, yes and no: the organisation is being a little too modest in saying that it is funded by the New Politics Network. A visit to the network's website reveals that the telephone and fax numbers and the address of the New Politics Network are the same as those of tacticalvoter.net, which it funds.
I thought that the name New Politics Network rang a bell, and I was reminded of an excellent article that appeared not in a right-wing or reactionary magazine but in the New Statesman, that journal of progressivism, on 23 October last year. The article was by Nick Cohen, an investigative journalist of the left with a commendably independent spirit. The article was headlined, "Up for grabs: £3.5 Million of Stalin's gold; New Politics Network funded by smuggled Russian gold."

1167
The article began:
"You may think that the Communist Party and its heirs is of no importance. But their wealth could still have a profound political influence.
I doubt if one person in 100,000 has heard of the New Politics Network. The all but unrecognisable remnant of the once militant communist Party of Great Britain has been rebranded and repackaged like a flagging line of groceries … The network matters because it has money—£3.5 million, to be precise—the residue of the Moscow gold smuggled from the Kremlin to the British communist Party. To socialists, £3.5 million is a fantastic sum. Outside the trade union movement, no organisation on the left can match the network's wealth."
Putting together those few bits of paper and snippets of information might have been routine for MI5, if it had retained its counter-subversion role. It appears that an organisation that is avowedly trying to influence the outcome of a democratic election is doing so on the basis of funds supplied by the KGB—illegally—to the Communist party of Great Britain. That party is the direct ancestor of the organisation to which I have drawn attention.
In the course of this Parliament, a number of other interesting cases have arisen out of cold war history. The case that has interested me a great deal is the targeting by the Stasi of certain activists and individuals in the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary, whom I am delighted to see back on the Treasury Bench, will remember our pleasant debate on the retention of MI5 files. In the early days of this Parliament, it looked as though those files might not be retained—indeed, some quarters on the left exerted a great deal of pressure to destroy the cold war files of the Security Service. Having secured a half-hour Adjournment debate on whether the files should be retained or destroyed, I had the experience—intriguing to me, as a relatively new Back Bencher—of being fortunate enough to have none other than the Home Secretary himself responding to that debate.
I am not sure whether any other Back Bencher has been so fortunate as to have a Cabinet Minister respond in person to an Adjournment debate chosen by ballot, but I certainly felt duly privileged. Furthermore, I was delighted with the outcome: the Home Secretary took it on himself to refer the question of whether or not the files should be retained for future use by historians or destroyed to a proper committee of academics working in conjunction with the Public Record Office. Although it will be many years before those files ire open to academic historians, I am sure that the Home Secretary concedes that it is as a result of that chain of events that a substantial part of the MI5 archive is now to be retained.
A similar process went on in the former communist East Germany in respect of the Stasi files held in Berlin. A large quantity of files was retained and has gradually been worked through by scholars, historians and some intelligence agencies. I shall not rehearse the revelations that have emerged during the course of this Parliament about the role of various people in British public life acting as agents for the Stasi, although as recently as September 2000, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and I were intrigued to be identified as people who had attracted Stasi attention because of our work combating unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 1980s.
During the course of that controversy, I became concerned that it had taken a British academic, Dr. Anthony Glees, to go to Berlin, to investigate the
1168
contents of the files and to bring into the open the role that had been played by some people in British public life in serving the Stasi, and that, at the time that Dr. Glees made his investigations, it was clear that no similar investigation had been carried out by our official intelligence agencies. I believe that since I raised that issue in the House, progress has been made. Dr. Glees has been consulted by the Security Service—I can say that openly, because I received a letter from a Minister confirming that.
My final point arises from those positive developments. Early in the debate, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) seemed to suggest that the question of who was appointed to the Intelligence and Security Committee should be a matter for a simple vote by parliamentarians. I was greatly impressed by the comment by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—I am often greatly impressed by his comments—that one member of the Committee could completely destroy its integrity. I have always been concerned to ensure that, if we are to have oversight of the intelligence and security services, we are satisfied that those who undertake the job are themselves as thoroughly discreet and reliable, and have been vetted in a similar way, as those who are privy to the secrets of the agencies themselves. Otherwise, we build a weak link into the agencies' operational security. Although I hasten to emphasise that, in my following remarks, I shall not say anything to identify any individual, I should like to speak in support of the view expressed by the hon. Member for Workington as to a potential danger.
Among the papers that Dr. Glees found in the Berlin archive was a Stasi report in which the agent tasked with reporting on the activities of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament noted the following:
"In the execution of the strategic orientation of goals, the CND will, in the future, more strongly exploit its position within Parliament using MPs. In this way, the CND members and MPs"—
here the agent names two people whom I shall not name—
"had been elected into the Parliamentary Defence Select Committee and would have access to confidential NATO materials which are marked 'Top Secret'. They would not have access to documents marked `COSMIC'."
As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I can confirm that I have not seen any document marked "COSMIC".
The point we should bear in mind is that the people who made those reports to a hostile foreign intelligence agency regarded the possibility of getting sympathetic Members of Parliament on to a sensitive Select Committee as a potential opening for the obtaining of classified information. I am happy to say that I am not aware of any document in the archive that shows that any such breach of security ever took place.
Mr. Barron: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the press reports about another case emerging from the East German Stasi files, that of Professor Vic Allen, who was based in west Yorkshire at the university? He had been on the central committee of CND, had been spying on the organisation, and had reported back to the East Germans. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's interests before entering the House, does he approve of Professor Allen's actions?
Dr. Lewis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he tempts me to take a path that I had been

1169
rigorously resisting. No, I do not approve of what Professor Allen did and I have raised that matter in the House. It gives me little satisfaction to have to point out that back in the mid-1980s, I was one of those who publicly identified Professor Allen as one of the most prominent pro-Soviet activists in CND.
However, on the specific question of membership of Select Committees and access to classified information, I am not aware that there was ever a case of a Member of Parliament leaking such information. From the files, I have learned that certain individuals, such as Professor Allen, Dr. Robin Pearson and others, behaved disgracefully. I think that some of them should have been prosecuted, but the Government, in their wisdom, have decided that that should not be done. None the less, I believe that the document from which I have quoted confirms the importance of the comment made by the hon. Member for Workington, namely, that we have to have some safeguards to ensure that the people who are appointed to sensitive parliamentary Committees are reliable.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I became a member of CND in 1978—I am not sure whether I still am a member—and I am a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The idea that someone might think that they had an interest in me because I have been a member of CND is utterly ludicrous. The problem is that the hon. Gentleman compartmentalises people: he presumes that because one had a view on nuclear weapons in the 1970s and 1980s, one falls within a group who would necessarily be targeted because they were somehow disloyal to the state. He is completely wrong and he misunderstands the British Labour movement.
Dr. Lewis: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads carefully what I said in Hansard, he will see that I am not making that mistake. I am saying that we have to expect that people who were attempting to find out illicitly sensitive, classified and, if possible, "COSMIC" top-secret information, hoped that by working through Members of Parliament who were sympathetic in some respects—although not necessarily all the important respects—with their point of view they might progress their nefarious aims. That is why the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need for some protection with regard to those appointed to such Committees are apposite.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Speaking as a member of Scottish CND and of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, whether I am on the files of MI5 or the Stasi or not, I have never heard of any approach by SCND to Scottish Labour Members of this House of the sort that he suggested a few moments ago, before he started on his qualification.
Dr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to do what I hoped I would not have to do. I am delighted to be able to say that a lady who is the president of Scottish CND, Marjorie Thompson, is a close personal friend of mine. We have always disagreed about nuclear weapons. She has stated publicly—this is why I am prepared to state it in the House—that one reason why she withdrew from
1170
the national CND and now confines herself to SCND was that she was so distressed by the extent to which sincere nuclear disarmers such as herself, who would never have dreamed of doing anything to favour the Soviet Union, had to fight off some senior communist sympathisers within the organisation who were trying to use it to those ends. Those are my views, but they are hers, too, and she would be happy to confirm them because she has stated them in public.
I will end as I began. A Security Service that does not have a counter-subversion capability is incomplete. In two successive years—I do not think that the Home Secretary was present when I pointed this out—we have had serious riots in the capital. On each occasion, the right hon. Gentleman has felt it necessary to bemoan the fact that those riots could not be contained as they should have been because of a lack of intelligence about what was going to happen.
We are not living in an age in which the police alone can hope to penetrate the electronic communications that are being used in encrypted form to organise such demonstrations. Therefore, I renew —possibly for the third year in a row—my plea to the Home Secretary to think again about the closing down of F branch and about the need for a counter-subversion arm to the Security Service, MI5.
4.44 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: The money may or may not have come from Stalin's gold, but it is interesting that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), with his decades of magnificent, or otherwise, obsession, seems to think that the definition of subversion would include a body that asks people to vote tactically in elections, including those in the New Forest. That same obsession runs him close to the danger of smearing all those who have been linked with CND.
The hon. Gentleman and I come from the same city of Swansea. Indeed, he claims that as a boy in a local school he sat at my feet when I gave a lecture. He is a most assiduous researcher, but even his researches have not discovered that, for a brief period when I was an undergraduate, I was press secretary of Swansea CND. Shortly after, I was recruited into the senior branch of the Foreign Service and I have a higher security classification than he has had. Therefore, he must be a little careful when he nears the boundary of smearing people who have taken a certain interest in nuclear disarmament. Along that road lies the investigator and matters about which any democrat would have to be very wary indeed.
The hon. Gentleman and I have one thing in common. I think that we are the only two hon. Members to have spoken who are not in the ring of secrecy—that charmed circle. The debate has been rather like a nostalgic goodbye party. We heard the excellent valedictory dispatch from the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the helpful personal pilgrimages and observations of those who have served on the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman used the words "initial nervousness" to describe the attitude of some of those in the security establishment. I pay him this tribute: if one were devising an identikit CV for someone to chair that Committee, his background and the senior offices of state that he has held would offer the exact description of

1171
someone who would soothe the anxieties of anyone who suffered that nervousness. He has prepared that Committee for what I hope will be a rather more relaxed future. He has served democracy extremely well as he, perhaps, glides along the Corridor to another existence.
The only discord was in the speech of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). I would dearly love to comment on and answer his obsession with Europe and the European army. I will not do so, save to say that he mentioned the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the Balkans after Milosevic, which was published this week. He was quoted yesterday as saying that the report was "an indictment" of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). In a serious report of 190 paragraphs, it contained but two sentences on my hon. Friend in one paragraph. In that context, perhaps we may put the right hon. Gentleman's judgment in perspective.
I shall make one further comment before I come to the main part of my speech, which relates to the Foreign Affairs Committee. As the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said in his excellent speech, the threat has changed. When I was being recruited for another organisation many years ago—as it was 40 years ago, this is probably outside the limits of the Official Secrets Acts—we were given an introductory lecture on security.
At that time, the lecturer would choose a text and sermonise on it. The text was something about the devil thine enemy roaming about seeking to devour whom he might find. The person giving us the lecture said that in one's first posting overseas, one would never know who the senior Soviet agent would be. He continued "In my first posting overseas, the senior Soviet agent was my head of chancery, Donald Maclean."
To show how times have changed, a couple of years ago I met General Klaus Naumann, who was then the senior European officer in NATO, who told me that following the founding Act, one member of the Russian group at NATO headquarters was caught involving himself in—let us call them—clandestine activities. General Naumann called the head of the Russian delegation to him and said, "That behaviour is quite unacceptable, but this is the material that your colleague was seeking. Do have leave to open it and see what it is."
Times have indeed changed, and the threat, as the hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned, comes from various terrorist organisations, asymmetric warfare, such as that conducted by the hacker, and so on. It is a turbulent and multifaceted threat that our people face.
I shall now put on my hat as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and speak about our activities and our relationship with the security services. Although the Committee has found over the four years of this Parliament that the Government are co-operative with its inquiries—I pay great tribute not only to the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office, but to diplomats overseas for the way that they have helped the Committee in its inquiries—there has been one notable area where that has not been the case.
Requests for evidence on intelligence matters have not been met forthrightly. The Committee is appointed under the Standing Orders of the House to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and any associated public bodies.
1172
The Secret Intelligence Service is an associated public body of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Affairs Committee has asserted its right to take evidence from the SIS when the circumstances warrant it and when such evidence is relevant to a specific inquiry being carried out within the Committee's remit. There have been a number of such inquiries, notably those in respect of Sierra Leone, weapons of mass destruction, and the Kosovo conflict and its aftermath.
Dr. Godman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that when he, as Chairman of the Committee, requested such meetings, those requests were supported by every member of the Committee, Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour?
Mr. Anderson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that observation. We are indeed an all-party Committee. We have worked on a consensual basis and, save in respect of the Sierra Leone report, we have always produced unanimous reports. The quality of the reports that we produce can be affected by access or lack of access to intelligence material. Our focus can be misdirected if we do not have access to some of that material, so the effectiveness of the Committee's reports could be adversely affected.
For example, as part of the Committee's inquiry into Sierra Leone and the Sandline affair, we asked the Foreign Secretary for access to relevant intelligence reports and assessments. The request was refused on the basis that intelligence information was not normally released to Select Committees. We also sought to hold a private evidence session or, failing that, an informal meeting with the head of the Secret Intelligence Service. Both options were refused by the Foreign Secretary, who told us that the Intelligence and Security Committee was the appropriate Committee to examine the work of the SIS.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what he thinks is the highest level of security classification to which his Committee should have access?
Mr. Anderson: It is difficult to answer that without serious consideration. I should have thought that, at the very least, we should have access to the level marked "Secret". I remind my hon. Friend that members of the Committee that has been chaired so well by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater have a distinguished parliamentary past. Comparing person with person, we have on the Foreign Affairs Committee several individuals who have been Ministers in the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Person to person, I think that our background is at least as distinguished as that of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is, therefore, rather sad that we are not considered trustworthy in this context. I may revise my view on the "Secret" classification, but I believe that we need all relevant information that is consistent with national security.
Mr. Tom King: I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but the level of classification is not the point. There is no question about the integrity of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Of course, classification of information as secret depends on the issue that is involved. If a particular issue falls within the purview of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but is classed

1173
as top secret, it is likely that details can be provided by arrangement. As I understand it, however, the argument lies in the need to avoid overlap and to decide what is within the purview of each Committee, rather than in a need for absolute classification of the information that the right hon. Gentleman's Committee can receive. In the right circumstances, I would have thought that there would be no limit on such information.
Mr. Anderson: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for providing a rather better answer than I did on the definitions that are at stake. Certainly, it is partly a question of trust. I am pleased that, as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he has broken down some of the aura of lack of trust. I hope that that will allow those involved to be a little more flexible in their relationship with Parliament.
There is not all that much overlap between the two Committees. Much of the recent Intelligence and Security Committee report deals with the future intelligence and security programme in terms of administrative matters such as the financing of the new headquarters and so on. There is no overlap between such work and that which is done by the Foreign Affairs Committee. Equally, on Sierra Leone, I understand that the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee focused on secret communications and on the fiasco that occurred, about which I shall not go into detail. That matter would not, of course, have been within the remit of the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, some information might have helped my Committee in another direction. Certainly, we would have been assisted by having access to the reports, or at least by being told that no reports were relevant to our work. That might have ensured that our report was more properly centred.
During the inquiry into Kosovo, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, and I wrote to the Prime Minister asking to hear evidence from the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Chief of Defence Intelligence. The Prime Minister refused to allow the Joint Intelligence Committee to give evidence to either of our Committees. He was willing for the Chief of Defence Intelligence to appear only before the Defence Committee. Like the Foreign Secretary before him, he cited the Intelligence and Security Committee as the appropriate forum for hearing such evidence.
Paragraph 8 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's annual report for 1999–2000 states that the Committee
"examined the intelligence contribution to the Kosovo campaign, taking evidence from the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Defence in their role as customers".
The report contains a series of unhelpful paragraphs that are filled with asterisks, such as paragraph 64 and those that immediately follow it, which relate to Kosovo. Paragraph 66 states:
"GCHQ provided a flexible and in-depth service of intelligence, including ***
***
***
It provided intelligence on ***
***
1174
GCHQ monitored the situation *** and helped to provide reassurances that ***
***
***
GCHQ stated that some *** of the intelligence that went to UK customers was *** in origin."
That paragraph is not helpful.
Dr. Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) informed me before he left the Chamber that, in his inimitable fashion, he had totted up the asterisks. They totalled 720 in the main report and 4,005 in the annexes.
Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is as assiduous as ever.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps the matter is not as simple as it appears. The number of asterisks shows the level of the information that we received. They show that the Committee has access to information that perhaps Parliament did not realise it received.
Mr. Anderson: I am sure that that is true. However, it is also true that we were denied any of that information for our work on Kosovo. Access to it might have led us to modify or even abandon some of our conclusions. Information, to which we did not have access, was available to the Government. Perhaps we did not receive it because the Foreign Affairs Committee is not trusted in the same way as the Intelligence and Security Committee. We have always kept secure any information that we received from the Government, and there is therefore every reason to trust our Committee.
The Foreign Affairs Committee has stated its regret about the Government's refusal of its request for limited access to germane intelligence. I stress the words "limited" and "germane". We also stated that such obduracy had inhibited the Committee's work and was inimical to the Government's best interests. We emphasised that the Committee had a long history of receiving confidential and classified documents from the Foreign Office and that it had always handled them with the utmost discretion. I refer colleagues who want to follow up the references to that part of our report on Sierra Leone that considers the history of the relationship, and covers the Crown jewels, the Belgrano affair and other matters.
It is therefore regrettable that the Foreign Office does not regard the Foreign Affairs Committee as sufficiently trustworthy to have access to intelligence material or personnel. I concede that the attitude has modified, but only in a limited way. Proper scrutiny of Government sometimes requires access to such information.
One argument has been used to deny the Committee access to information for the Sierra Leone and Kosovo inquiries. The Government claim that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the only
"appropriate forum for oversight of the agencies by parliamentarians".
What is, therefore, the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee? The Foreign Affairs Committee welcomed its establishment; we respect its work,

1175
its Chairman and its distinguished members. However, it is not an adequate substitute for the departmental Select Committees.
The Intelligence and Security Committee is appointed by the Executive, not the House; it reports to the Prime Minister, not the House; its secretariat is responsible to the Government, not to Parliament. The work programme that paragraph 8 of the Committee's latest report outlines shows little overlap with the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Lord Hurd was Foreign Secretary when the Intelligence Services Act 1994 received its Second Reading. He gave an assurance to the House that the Intelligence and Security Committee would not
"truncate in any way the existing responsibilities of existing Committees."—[Official Report, 22 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 164.]
In my judgment, hon. Members should resist any attempt to renege on that commitment. The Foreign Affairs Committee, and other Select Committees, must have access to requisite intelligence and security information, and to officials in the intelligence services, when such access is germane to our inquiries.
Mr. Mates: The right hon. Gentleman has just made two remarks that should not go unchallenged. He mentioned the fear that Lord Hurd's undertaking would not be adhered to, implying that he was receiving less intelligence information than the Foreign Affairs Committee had received before the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I venture to suggest that the information is no less and no more: there was not any then, and there is not any now.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's second remark, can he really suggest with a straight face that the Executive and the Chief Whip had nothing to do with his appointment to the Committee?
Mr. Anderson: I have never had much contact with the Chief Whip, but I will say this in mitigation, if I may. As a member of the Select Committee on Liaison, I invite the hon. Gentleman to consult "Shifting the Balance" and subsequent reports. Those who chaired the Select Committees were unanimous in suggesting that if we were to perform our role as a legislature properly, the task of appointing Committee members should be transferred from the Whips to another body—a proposal that I gladly accepted.
Dr. Godman: The intervention of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) was certainly blunt.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and I were recommended to the Foreign Affairs Committee by the Chief Whip; that is a matter for conjecture. I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), however, that our investigation of circumstances surrounding the Sierra Leone affair was sustained and complicated, and that we were not helped by the obduracy of the Foreign Office when we requested general information.
Mr. Anderson: Given the sturdy independence of members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, if we were all there at the Whips' behest the Whips seem to have done a pretty bad job, and their intelligence seems not to have been very well founded.
1176
Traditionally, foreign affairs in the United Kingdom have been very much the domain of the Executive. Only rarely has the legislative body been allowed to intrude. The situation has become even more difficult lately, given the speed of communications, the potential for secrecy, and so forth. To some extent, that total dominance by the Executive changed with the appointment of Select Committees at the beginning of the 1980s, but we still have a long way to go in comparison with the United States. That is an obvious comparison, although I concede that the constitutional relationship between the Executive and branches of the legislature is different in the United States, and that that causes differences between our arrangements. However, the same can be said in respect of some of our European Union partners.
Some advances have been made in the current Parliament, but not enough. We could end up with reports that were not entirely in focus, which would be bad for the House and bad for democracy. Paragraph 92 of the Liaison Committee's last report, "Shifting the Balance", states:
"Parliamentary accountability of the intelligence and security services is a major issue, to we which plan to return".
We shall indeed return to it, fortified by what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his Committee have done in preparing such an excellent platform. This is not an ending point but a process, and that process has been helped by the right hon. Gentleman's work. It is certainly clear from the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee—on which I am delighted to serve, with my two colleagues who are present—that the current position is unsatisfactory, and I look forward to returning to the matter in the next Parliament if I, too, am re-elected.
5.9 pm
Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak because, as many Members have said, this may be our last debate before the general election and, with the retirement of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and others including my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), we have reached a watershed in the Committee's development.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made several comments about the Committee and improvements that could be made, but I am sure he agrees that, since the Committee's inception in 1994, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, an incredible trust has been built up between parliamentarians on the Committee and the intelligence and security agencies. That trust would have been unimaginable 10 years ago.
I understand that the Director-General of the Security Service said at a conference recently that he cringed at some of the matters that he and the Security Service felt unable to share with members of the Committee when it was established. He paid tribute to the trust that has been achieved and the work of parliamentarians on the Committee in building up that trust, which has enabled the agencies to become more transparent and more open. That is the aim of the Committee and the agencies in this process.
It is particularly important that we maintain the move towards openness and transparency in this new era, especially because the agencies work in closer co-operation

1177
with law enforcement agencies on operational matters. As that relationship becomes closer, it is important that there is accountability and openness in it. Openness and transparency mean proper scrutiny not only by the Committee and the parliamentarians on it, but by Ministers.
The meetings—or lack of meetings—of the ministerial committee have been mentioned. At least the Government gave a commitment in their response to our report that an attempt would be made to make the committee meet annually and that it would meet shortly. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can confirm that that remains the Government's ambition, because it also remains an important part of maintaining democratic oversight. We must maintain too public confidence and trust in our security agencies. People must feel that someone is making sure that the agencies are properly accountable.
These debates always provides an opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work, professionalism and enthusiasm of those who work in the agencies. They want a proper system of parliamentary oversight to be achieved, so that if they are suspected of any wrongdoing, they can prove that proper accountability and oversight are in place.
We rely on those who work in the agencies to protect us and to enter dangerous situations on our behalf. That is why it is only right that they receive recognition for the work that they do, and in that work they should also have proper employment rights. That is why the Committee emphasised in the 1999–2000 annual report the recommendation that those who work in the agencies should have
"a dedicated and specially cleared Employment Tribunal … to hear Agency staffs' cases … when they could not appear before a normal Employment Tribunal for national security reasons."
I am glad that the Department of Trade and Industry has now moved to make that a reality. It is a pity that it has taken so long because that sends the wrong message to the people who do a lot to protect us. However, let us hope that that provision can now be enforced quickly.
Scrutiny is also important for reasons relating to public resources and to the agencies' budgets. The single intelligence vote is about £900 million, which is a lot of money. Other right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Committee's concerns about the new accommodation project at GCHQ. The Committee has played an important role in ensuring that such projects are accountable, and that there is proper reporting to Parliament—including the Prime Minister and other Ministers—through the Committee, about that issue. That is a huge project, and it is important to keep Parliament informed about it.
It is also important to ensure, in relation to the budgets and general working of the security and intelligence agencies, that the agencies' work does not overlap. The appointment and work of the efficiency adviser is important in that context. I hope that the Home Secretary will give us an assurance that efforts will continue to be made to ensure that there is no overlap between the work of the agencies, or between the work of the agencies and the law enforcement authorities. We are also considering whether increased joint working is possible. We need to ensure that there is no repetition of work undertaken by the agencies.
1178
Many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the work that the agencies undertake on tackling organised crime. As we said in the interim report, we took evidence from Keith Hellawell that showed greatly improved co-operation on that issue. That evidence also showed that the agencies were fully integrated into the Government's anti-drugs strategy, and that additional funds are now going into tackling the problem. I hope that the Home Secretary will reassure us that he is still considering whether more can be done to use the agencies to help in that work, and to help to tackle the disturbing new aspect of organised crime, mentioned by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), involving criminal gangs bringing illegal immigrants and so-called bogus asylum seekers into this country. The tragedy that can result from such activities was demonstrated by the deaths of the 65 Chinese people in June last year. We must see if there is more that we can do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to the Official Secrets Acts-something that the new Committee should look at. In our interim report, we pointed out that the traditional threat of espionage from hostile foreign Governments has not receded, while other matters, such as cheque-book journalism, have increased. Disclosures are increasingly being made—sometimes anonymously—through media such as the interner with no obvious means of redress for the UK authorities. The injunctions taken out by the Government are civil matters and tend only to prevent disclosure in the UK. Obviously, this matter needs additional work and the new Committee must look at it closely.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater said that we might consider his chairmanship to have been intolerable. I would certainly disagree. I thank him and all members of the Committee who have helped and supported me since I joined it last year. One of my enduring memories of the right hon. Gentleman was of our recent visit to Russia, when we had a number of unusual meetings with people with whom, I suspect, he would not have expected a few years ago to be indulging in friendly conversation.
The Committee' visits to other countries, and our meetings with other parliamentary oversight committees to advise them on what has worked and what has not worked in this country, have been important. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bridgwater on the way in which he led those visits, which have led to important links with other countries. I also wish to thank Alistair Corbett and his team for the help that they have given to the Committee and to me.
We have heard many arguments about turning the Committee into a Select Committee or whether it should remain as it is. Following the general election, there will be an opportunity, with the establishment of the new Committee, to review how it has worked so far. It will be important for the Prime Minister and the ministerial committee to draw on the expertise of those who have been on the Committee since its inception and of those senior members who may be retiring.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater wondered whether some of the Committee sittings could be held in public. This will be the time to discuss that, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will agree that we should review the system. The Committee should be re-established quickly and should continue to evolve

1179
positively, to maintain the trust of the services and to operate in the effective way in which it has operated in the past.
5.25 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Although I am not a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and am perhaps to bat last before the Front Benchers wind up, I hope that the House will be a little patient with me if I do not use quite the conversational tone that has characterised this very fine debate and trespass into some spheres that I think are germane to it.
First, however, as one who hopes to be a survivor and return after the general election, I should like to express my great respect for both the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savotirs). I first knew of them from newspaper reports of by-elections. The right hon. Gentleman won one, whereas, initially, my hon. Friend was a casualty of one. They are distinguished parliamentarians. I hope to be able to say that, in a week or two, to other hon. Members, but I say it particularly to them. It has been an honour and a pleasure to serve in Parliament with them. I have learned a great deal from them and from other colleagues who may soon be leaving. I hope that they will have a resurrection in the tranquil waters of another place.
My next point might sound like a matter of levity, but I make it most seriously. There is both a light and a serious aspect to it. It has become almost a badge of office for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to be able to boast that, in years past, they were the subject of scrutiny by the security and intelligence services. I deeply regret that I was not so scrutinised. However, although it is amazing how people can become a part of the establishment, and things have moved on, those events are still within living memory. I remain to be persuaded that I can be confident that—among those who freelanced in our security and intelligence services 30-odd years ago—there is no residue of the contempt and arrogance that allowed them to dip into the private lives of people who posed no threat, but who are probably loyal and committed public servants with pride in their United Kingdom citizenship.
Therefore, although I am not a Committee member and accept that things have moved on—a process in which the Intelligence and Security Committee has been an important element—I am concerned that, within living memory, there has been a capacity for people to delve into the lives of students and, I believe, to try to undermine the Labour Government of 1966 to 1970. I have spoken at some length to Lady Castle about that matter and I know that she shares that view. Some very deep forces which were not unrelated to the security and intelligence services had a capacity to try to undermine that democratic Government.
I should like to make a point that touches on the way in which I approach Parliament. When some hon. Members were involved in the 1968 demonstrations, I was working and earning a crust. I did not go to university. I remember being summoned by the deputy clerk of Surrey county council, for which I worked. His summons was equivalent to a papal summons because, although I had worked there for three years, he had never spoken to me.
1180
Basically, I was called in and asked to spy on the students at Guildford art school who were participating in a sit-in with students at Hornsey art school. I think that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs might have been one of them. I am also told that the Home Secretary said that he was organising them. However, the serious point is that the establishment was making a concerted effort to deal with the students.
I was required to telephone students to entice them to reveal the names of the principal organisers of the sit-in. Although the request caused me great trauma, the next day, I went back and politely but firmly told the deputy clerk of Surrey county council that the answer was no. I deeply resented the request, but the incident has always been a lesson to me and served as an example when I have had to stand up to those who were trying to lean on me, both outside and inside this place.
We have dwelt for some time on the nature of the Committee itself. One Conservative speaker said that whether it was a Select Committee or a body appointed by the Executive was a distinction without a difference. I listened very carefully to both the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on the subject. It might surprise them to learn that I am not too exercised by the matter, in that I understand their point, which was also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Workington and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), that there is a dynamic—things are moving on—and we need to show some confidence.
I hope none the less that in the next Session the House will dwell on the fact that, human nature being what it is, Prime Ministers, no matter how fine, always feel the need to appoint someone who is not a maverick, a loose cannon, eccentric or bloody-minded—someone who is not, as one distinguished Prime Minister put it, neanderthal. If we could remove responsibility for that appointment from the Executive, it would be a healthy constitutional development.
Of course, we are all on Committees by patronage, perhaps from the Whips Office or party groups. Many of us want to minimise that patronage. Whatever mechanism we have for appointment, common sense must ultimately prevail. We must have confidence in our capacity, collectively, not to appoint those who are reckless and undisciplined, as distinct from those who are inquisitorial and determined to promote and protect the rights of Parliament without fear or favour.
We have a special responsibility because, almost uniquely among democratic legislatures, we neither sanction nor even retrospectively authorise the commitment of our armed forces abroad. I think that that is a deficiency in our constitution. I know that that is a minority view, so I shall not labour the point, but as we do not have such parliamentary endorsement—the equivalent of the United States War Powers Act or similar legislation that, as I understand from parliamentary answers, applies throughout NATO—we have an especial responsibility to be confident that we do not have arbitrary government and that there is proper prudence in our foreign and defence policy. This must not be the end of the tale: it must be the beginning of trying to promote parliamentary scrutiny in this field, as in many others.
Mr. Tom King: We have had a mini-debate about the Liaison Committee report, in which the Intelligence and

1181
Security Committee was mentioned. The hon. Gentleman has made the point well that the issue of patronage and who is appointed to Committees is not confined to the Intelligence and Security Committee but applies to all Select Committees. That issue needs to be tackled. The more I listen to the debate, the more I understand that there is a compromise over our Committee. I do not want to be unkind to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but he provides an instance of paralysis. He kept asking for things and being told that he could not have them. The Committee was supposed to be all-powerful in sending for persons and papers, but it did not get any.
Our success, if I may be allowed to claim it, is that we get all the material. One could say that we get it by virtue of a different structure, but it is a measure of confidence in who is on the Committee. We are getting over the problem. The awkward squad often attracts Back-Bench support, and there are Conservative as well as Labour Members whose appointment to the Foreign Affairs or the Intelligence and Security Committee I would not recommend. There needs to be some control there.
Mr. Mackinlay: I do not, I think, demur in principle from anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but his intervention invites me to amplify my remarks. Clearly, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has broken new ground during this Parliament, to the intense irritation—there is no point in disguising it—of both the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
We have not succeeded in everything, but I think that what we have done has been well worth while, and I do not regret it. Probably one of my proudest moments in the House was securing the continued investigation of our involvement in Sierra Leone, despite repeated attempts—both direct and, I have to say, indirect—by the executive branch of Government to close down that inquiry. One day I shall write about it, because there is more to come out— [Interruption.] I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who is the Foreign Secretary's Parliamentary Private Secretary, not only that there is more to come out, but that one day it will come out. I hope that he will not provoke me, because what might follow would probably not be the most prudent thing I have done in my life. We pursued that matter, and the test will be what happens when our applications to be reappointed are submitted. It will be interesting to find out how they are treated. We shall see.
I was talking about the Official Secrets Acts, and how I have probed the Home Secretary during this Parliament about how our existing legislation can be squared with our obligations under human rights legislation. I am referring in particular to the fact that, as I understand it, we do not have a defence in law whereby a person who has disclosed information can argue that it was done in the wider public interest.
In a sense, that is where the French courts were superior. I hold no brief for the man who absconded to Paris—Mr. Shayler—but the French courts said, in effect, that the English legislation was flawed because he could not advance the defence of a wider public interest. We should remedy that, because the public interest should be an important test.
1182
Something that has surprised me about the Home Office over this Parliament is that when Ministers ask the advice of then lawyers, the lawyers seem to be consistently wrong. Ministers then have to eat their words, and I say, "I told you so", but no one gives me a badge for merit.
One example concerns the electoral franchise for the people of Gibraltar. The lawyers are consistently wrong. The Home Secretary ought to look into the deficiencies of the Official Secrets Acts and, early in the next Parliament, seek to remedy them in the context of human rights and the capacity to advance a defence in line with our European obligations and our obligations to justice.
In an intervention I asked a question to which I do not know the answer; it has not been answered in this debate. I mentioned my misgivings about how to draw the fine line between people or organisations that clearly pose a threat to the security of the state and prejudice the whole existence of the United Kingdom and its sovereignty, and people involved in industrial or economic disputes. We might find either or both sides in such disputes abhorrent, repugnant, irresponsible or disloyal; nevertheless, as democrats, surely we are prepared to take those disputes on the chin time and time again, because the wider interests of democracy are paramount.
We know that the security services have been used over the decades—I guess that they are still being used in this decade—in connection with trade union leaders, industrial disputes and so on From what we can ascertain, there was some activity concerning the people who stopped the movement of essential fuel last autumn. Clearly, I do not identify with those people; I think that they were grossly irresponsible and had a hidden political agenda. None the less, in a democracy, we should strain to the very limits to allow such things to happen, without using the machinery of the state to subvert what we might find an unpalatable stance.
Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend mentioned the fuel protest. What bothers me is that that consisted primarily of people protesting against the level of taxes on fuel. I thought that tax and spending were matters for the ballot box and the general election. If those people managed, as they nearly did, to shut the economy down for a time, could they not equally decide to do so because they thought, for example, that nobody with blue eyes should live in this country? Would we not then be moving towards a different type of democracy—or rather, a dictatorship, which is something that people in this country have fought against for many centuries, and given their lives in that fight?
Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend did not listen to me sufficiently closely. Perhaps I was expressing myself inadequately. Of course, I hold no brief for those people and deprecate their actions. However, his words are almost exactly the same as those uttered by the Opposition on other disputes.
Mr. Straw: Does that make it wrong?
Mr. Mackinlay: I am posing a question and trying to demonstrate to the House that there is a difficult line that we should be cautious about crossing. I do not want to make any point but that; we should be extra vigilant because of the dangers of a slippery slope concerning our liberties.

1183
I was interested in paragraph 85 of the annual report, the content of which features in other documents. The Committee identifies considerable work on combating organised crime, and there is common ground between it, the Government and other hon. Members on the need to combat smuggling, bootlegging and especially the terrible trade—which, I fear, will increase—in trying to smuggle human beings into the United Kingdom, which is surrounded by tragedy and wickedness.
On a minor point, I hope that the Home Secretary will keep an open mind when his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions conduct their inquiry into the future policing of our ports. I hope that he will consider that there is a powerful case for having a dedicated police force in our ports, as many other countries do. It should complement, not he used instead of, the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office, the secret branch in our ports and Customs and Excise.
Not having such a force is a flaw: there should be a dedicated force like the British Transport police in all our ports, and the cost should be borne by a small top-slicing of port fees. It would greatly assist the primary agencies that combat organised crime, illegal smuggling, bootlegging and so on. I invite my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look at the port of Tilbury, Dover harbour, Felixstowe and Teesside, where police are taking such action. Comparable forces do not exist in many other British ports; the ports that Canada polices are a particularly good model.
I have a constituency interest in our debate. My constituent Michael John Smith is serving 20 years in prison for breaching the Official Secrets Act. I hold no brief for him; I visited him once and he has never disguised his offences from me. He disclosed secrets, which the courts found were of extreme importance to the United Kingdom. Some of his trial was held in camera, and I believe that some evidence was not disclosed to the defence. I do not want to trespass on that today, other than to say that he was largely found guilty on the evidence of a defector, Victor Oschenko, who featured in "The Mitrokhin Archive" and is well known.
When the Home Secretary makes his wind-up speech, will he give us some assurance about how we treat the evidence of defectors, many of whom are brave people? I do not take that away from them, but if one is on the other side one does not look on them as brave. Indeed, when the defection is in the other direction, we do not look on people who defect from us as brave. Arguably, defectors have a vested interest in exaggerating the importance of the information that they can impart. Again, that is human nature. I am concerned that there are probably not sufficient guidelines, nor is there a sufficient review of the evidence and information volunteered by people who want to defect or have defected. I am nervous about how we handle that.
Finally, I shall refer to another constituency matter. On 31 October, I raised in Westminster Hall the case of my constituent John Redgrave, a senior Metropolitan police officer who was involved in Operation Nightshade. That operation had three elements—a planned cocaine shipment from Venezuela, money laundering and an illegal arms deal using Sierra Leone as a trans-shipment point. John Redgrave was the principal police officer investigating these criminal operations. He headed up a multi-disciplinary team, including the Houston branch of
1184
United States Customs, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Branch of the US Treasury Department.
A man from a Texan gang, Roger Crooks, who runs the Mama Yoko hotel in Freetown, Sierra Leone, had approached people in the United Kingdom about supplying weapons, including M16 assault rifles, grenade and rocket launchers, plastic explosives, mines and ammunition.
During the operation, there was considerable liaison between the Metropolitan police and their United States counterparts. Then things went terribly wrong. Despite the fact that Roger Crooks was at one stage expelled by the Government of Sierra Leone for arms trafficking—their official website says that it was for trying to smuggle arms to and from Northern Ireland—he has somehow been rehabilitated. Operation Nightshade was closed. My constituent was suspended; when he came up before a stipendiary magistrate, all charges against him were dismissed. He has been on suspension for three or four years without any reconciliation of his position.
I think that my constituent got in the way of a wider security operation. I do not know the detailed circumstances of Roger Crooks, the Mama Yoko hotel and the attempt to bring weapons from Sierra Leone to the United Kingdom. However, my constituent is in limbo. That is wholly unsatisfactory; no matter how difficult the circumstances, people should not be treated in this way. There has been no resolution of his case, unless it has happened in the past few days. If so, my right hon. Friend might know about it.
The few disciplinary matters outstanding have not been resolved, through no fault of my constituent but because of the inability either of people whose names and organisations I know not or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to deal with this case. I am sorry to have to raise it on the Floor of the House, but I have not imparted anything that was not disclosed in Westminster Hall. There is a bit of a hum about this and I hope that it will be looked into.
I am sorry to have delayed the House on a number of issues but I hope that I may have opened up one or two that were not directly featured in the report of the Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater. As I said earlier, although I have not known him intimately in the House, I have always respected him as a parliamentarian and held him in very high regard.
5.48 pm
Mr. David Lidington: This has been a good debate. Quite rightly, most of the contributions have come from members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. There have been three exceptions to that general rule. The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) reminded the House that there remained an important role for departmental Select Committees in scrutinising the work of the security and intelligence agencies. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) seemed, between them, to be auditioning for the soon-to-be-vacant role of the awkward member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Which of them will have done most to impress whoever is in a position to make such appointments, I will not risk guessing.
Everyone who has spoken has paid tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for

1185
Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I start by doing the same, although I am conscious at this stage of the evening that it must seem at times to both of them, especially when listening to the hon. Member for Thurrock expressing hopes for their future resurrection, that they have been granted the exceptional privilege of attending their own memorial services, without the trouble of crossing the road to St. Margaret's.
The hon. Member for Workington has shown all hon. Members, but especially those more junior in service than him, what can be achieved by way of persistence, awkwardness and a determination to insist on answers to questions, even when those answers are being resisted by a Government of whatever party happens to be in office.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has brought to his chairmanship of the Intelligence and Security Committee his experience of serving as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and as Secretary of State for Defence. In both offices, he learned a great deal about the work of the agencies that we are debating and about the real, pressing and permanent nature of the terrorist threats which those agencies devote a great deal of their time and energy to resisting.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) summed up the work of the Committee by saying that he had worked happily but very well. The fact that that description can be applied is in large measure due to the skilful chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater. It is in large measure due to his leadership that the Committee has, from an untried beginning, earned itself within a few years a formidable reputation within the House and a reputation for persistence and trustworthiness among the senior members of the agencies whose work it scrutinises. The House has every right to be proud of and grateful for the work that both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Workington have undertaken during their time on the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Tribute has also rightly been paid to the members of the various security and intelligence agencies. The security of our country and its citizens depends in no small part on their vigilance and professionalism, and we are all in their debt.
The debate has ranged widely over the contents of the reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall confine my remarks to three or four matters. I hope that the Home Secretary may be able to provide some answers to questions raised not only by me but by other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon.
The first matter is recruitment and retention of staff. Getting the right calibre of officers is clearly essential if we are to have agencies of the quality and professionalism that we have come to expect. The hon. Member for Workington spoke encouragingly about what he had seen and learned of recruitment efforts in our universities. In paragraph 27 of its 1999–2000 report, the Committee reported that although the agencies were able to recruit staff for their mainstream work, they were experiencing difficulties in the recruitment of specialist staff such as IT and electronics specialists. The Security Service reported that it was experiencing problems retaining officers after they had served for about three or four years.
1186
That is worrying, especially given what the Foreign Secretary said in his opening speech, and what my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said later. They both referred to the way in which electronic communications are becoming ever more important in intelligence and counter-intelligence work. The Foreign Secretary referred to the exponential growth of e-mail traffic, and to the threats to this country's interests that could be posed by a computer-based attack on them. I hope that the Home Secretary, therefore, will be able to give the House some assurance that the difficulties identified in the Committee's early report are being addressed, and that the agencies are now managing to recruit and retain the specialist staff that they need.
Secondly, I want to refer to the agencies' expenditure programmes. The hon. Member for Workington commented trenchantly on the importance of the National Audit Office in supporting the Committee's work. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's comments about the new accommodation project at GCHQ, and the news of the appointment of Sir Edmund Burton as a non-executive director. However, I hope that the Government will take account of the strictures levelled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater at the quality of the financial management and accountability in the agencies.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I question the Government's reluctance to disclose to the Committee figures for individual agency budgets. The Committee notes in its report that the only criteria for non-disclosure would be the risk of compromising national security or prejudicing the continued discharge of the agencies' functions.
I accept that it is clear that there must come a point at which the detailed disclosure of finances would let in too much light on the operation capability of the service concerned. However, I hope that the Government will at least reflect on the comments made by members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of all parties, and consider whether it is safe to let in a little more light than previous Governments, including Conservative Governments, were willing to let in. I also hope very much that the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary will be able to persuade the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to reconsider his reluctance to give evidence in person to the Committee.
That leads me to the broader question of the accountability of the security and intelligence agencies. The balance is incredibly difficult to get right. In the end, I believe that Parliament must trust the Ministers appointed to take responsibility and be held accountable for work that must, by its very nature, remain secret. The key and overriding; priorities must be to protect the integrity of secret intelligence work that is vital to the defence of this country and its interests, and to protect the lives and safety of those who serve in the field as agents on behalf of those services.
There has been quite a lot of discussion this afternoon of the tribunal system set up under the previous Conservative Government and continued by the present Administration. I welcome the way in which the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has simplified the structure by creating a single investigatory tribunal and getting rid of the some of the duplication that would otherwise have complicated matters. However, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked whether the tribunal had the capacity to process the

1187
complaints that are brought before it, saying that, for much of 2000, the tribunal did not have enough staff in the right place even to open the post regularly and at the right time. I hope that the Home Secretary can state how much progress has been made since the Committee first reported its concerns.
The debate has also covered the question of possible disclosure to the Committee of confidential annexes to the commissioners' reports to the Prime Minister. I understand the arguments advanced by members of the Committee that they need access to those annexes to judge whether the tribunals and the agencies have responded properly and in full to complaints that may have been justified. However, as I said in respect of finances, at the end of the day Parliament has no option but to trust the judgment of Ministers. None the less, I hope that Ministers will keep the issue of further disclosure under close review. As members of the Committee have said, the Committee has built up over the years a relationship of trust between its members, members of the agencies and—I hope—the Ministers to whom the agencies are accountable. The extent of disclosure is a matter that any sensible Government would review from time to time.
Certain matters are more directly relevant to the Home Secretary's sphere of responsibility as the Minister to whom the Security Service regularly reports. Organised crime and the role of the intelligence and security services in combating it are themes that have run though the debate and featured in speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. In his introduction to the 1999–2000 report, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater cited the opportunities given to international serious organised crime as
"one particularly unwelcome consequence of the end of the Cold War",
and added:
"In the face of the volume of traffic entering this country the chances of preventing criminal activities are not good. The briefest study of Heathrow or Dover reveals immediately how fragile our present defences are, and without intelligence they would be virtually non-existent."
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) all alluded to the challenge presented by organised crime.
The Security Service website states that, in 1998–99, about 7 per cent. of Security Service Expenditure went on operations against what was described as "serious crime". The definition of that excludes terrorism, which forms a separate heading. Is the Home Secretary able to tell the House whether that percentage has increased since those figures were reported, and if so, by how much; and what plans there are to enlarge further the resources and effort directed against organised crime by the Security Service and other agencies? That too is an issue on which there was consensus among hon. Members on both sides. The Government have said that they look to increasing the efforts made against organised crime by the agencies. I hope that the Home Secretary can give us a little more detail.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, Central pointed out the need to secure better co-ordination between the work of different agencies that are engaged in combating organised crime. The Committee's report refers to evidence that it took from Customs and Excise and the
1188
Security Service about tobacco smuggling. It also commented on the role that the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are playing in helping to lead the work to combat the international traffic in human beings.
The Home Secretary could answer one question. The Committee recommended in its earlier report that both NCIS and Customs should be given a place among the members of the Joint Intelligence Committee. I was not clear from looking at the Government's response to the report whether that has happened. It would be helpful to have an answer if possible.
One aspect of organised crime that has drawn the attention of both the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Home Affairs Committee in the past 12 months has been the organised trafficking in human beings. The Home Secretary and I have been known to disagree on immigration and asylum policy, but there is agreement across the Chamber about the need for resolute action to deal with the ruthless trafficking in human beings, the consequences of which we saw in the most stark and tragic form in the deaths of 58 young Chinese men and women in the back of a truck in Dover last year.
At paragraph 90 on page 32 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's report for 1999–2000, it expressed its concern about
"the scale of illegal immigration into the UK."
It reported that the Joint Intelligence Committee had taken a paper on the issue in June last year. The Intelligence and Security Committee then stated:
"GCHQ and the Security Service have also produced intelligence on this topic. but accept that they could do more."
I hope that Ministers will be able to assure the House that that comment has been heard and that greater efforts are being undertaken to combat this particularly cruel traffic in human beings.
This debate has been characterised by a seriousness of purpose and sense of agreement on the basics on both sides of the House. I started by paying tribute to the retiring members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I conclude by paying tribute to the men and women who work in our security and intelligence services. When I have spoken to former Ministers from Conservative and Labour Governments who have had responsibility for dealing with the security and intelligence agencies, they have all said how impressed they have been by the courage, patriotism, professionalism and sheer commitment and hard work of those men and women, who go about their duties in secret on behalf of us all. Those of us who are outside the circle of secrecy have to rely on the occasional glimpse through the veil. Perhaps the best tribute that we can pay is simply to place on the record our acknowledgement that the constituents of every hon. Member can go about their lives today more peacefully and securely because of the work that members of those agencies do.
6.10 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, this has been a good debate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks that such debates were traditionally bipartisan, but given the electoral timetable, he wondered whether

1189
that would be tested to destruction. It almost fell over with the first speech from the Opposition Front Bench, that of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), to whose remarks I shall return in due course.
There have been one or two discordant voices, and rightly so, but the debate has been of a high standard. It has served to illustrate the great effectiveness of the Intelligence and Security Committee in holding Ministers, particularly my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself, and the Government to account for their stewardship of the intelligence and security services.
My right hon. Friend began by paying tribute to members of the Intelligence and Security Committee who are leaving the House, and I shall do the same. Two members who are leaving, my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), have not been able to be present today for the debate, for reasons that we all understand. However, I know from the assiduous way in which they have attended the Committee, and the even more assiduous questions that they have put to me and to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that they have made an important contribution to the work of the Committee and will be greatly missed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) entered the House, in the end, at the same time as I did, after three tries, two in Darwen, the adjoining constituency to mine, in February and October 1974, and then at a famous by-election, when Fred Peart went to the other place to become Leader of the House of Lords. I first got to know my hon. Friend the Member for Workington—he may not remember it, but I do—as Barbara Castle's bag carrier at a meeting in Darwen at which he was speaking before the October 1974 election. I admired him then and I have admired him ever since. Over the period in which we have been in the House together, we have become firm friends.
My hon. Friend has done a huge amount not only to maintain but to enhance the reputation of the House, at a time when there have been many assaults on its reputation from inside the House as well as outside. He made his own decision to be a parliamentarian, rather than to seek office, and very effective he has been. When the history of the period comes to be written, he will feature in more than footnotes, whereas many others who served in government will scarcely appear even in footnotes. I place on record my great thanks and the tribute of us all to him for his work across the House, and not least in the Intelligence and Security Committee.
My hon. Friend will go to his grave as a member of the awkward squad, and quite right, too. The House cannot operate if it is simply full of self-congratulatory toadies. He would not be a member of any such club. His characteristic criticism, combined with good judgment, makes him such a good Member.
The last of the four who are leaving is the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). Many tributes have been paid to him and I underline them all. There are other records for which he will be known. I had to look twice in the reference books to refresh my memory. He must be one of the few hon. Members in the past century to have served as Secretary of State in three Departments within
1190
10 months, as he did in 1983. Between January and June that year, he was Secretary of State for the Environment; between June and October, he was Secretary of State for Transport; and between October and some time in 1985, he was Secretary of State for Employment. No doubt that was a shock to him, if not to his Departments. He then served with distinction as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Defence. He has been the mainstay of the Intelligence and Security Committee, although I have no idea whether he has been a difficult Chairman. He has never been difficult with me, only firm and inquiring. Long may that tradition continue. We wish him well whatever he does and wherever he goes, although a few of us. might lay some bets about that.
The fundamental work of the Committee is a theme that has run through the whole debate. Its role is to hold the agencies and the Ministers who are responsible for them properly to account for what they do. The Committee ensures a degree of accountability in the most difficult areas of Government. Of course, they are so difficult because the matters with which they deal are secret by definition.
It is interesting to reflect on just how far we have moved in this country in 17 short years. Before the Interception of Communications Act 1985 took effect, none of the work of the intelligence or security agencies was done on a statutory basis. Indeed, the existence of most of their work was denied. Officially. they did not exist and no one owned up to working for them. All their work was done on the basis of directives such as the Maxwell-Fyfe directive and of the royal prerogative. Since that time, however. Parliament has introduced the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Much of that legislation was driven by the fact that the way in which the agencies were operating—as opposed to what they were doing—was increasingly inconsistent with our obligations under the European convention on human rights.
At each stage, people in the agencies, as well as Ministers and Members of Parliament, were extremely worried that steps towards greater accountability would reduce the agencies efficiency and effectiveness. The great thing is that those fears, which were understandable at the time, have turned out to be entirely misplaced. In my judgment, the agencies have become more effective and efficient as they have become more accountable.
There is a twofold reason for that. The oversight systems that have been established have better ensured that the agencies and their staff stick to their task. In any field of government, people can distort the purpose for which they are employed, but that is especially true with regard to law enforcement. It is true of the police service, the customs, the immigration service and the agencies, as they use the coercive power of the state. Indeed, they often do so covertly.
That work gave rise to suspicions, some of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I have no doubt that some of those suspicions were well founded, but I believe that many of them were unfounded. There is no doubt that public confidence in the work of the agencies was undermined. whether they were performing tasks set clearly by the House and by Ministers or following an agenda of their own. We now have a much greater degree of certainty

1191
about the integrity of the staff, their professionalism and the degree to which they are following a programme laid down by Ministers and, in turn, by this House.
When we are dealing with parliamentary accountability, there are moments when the rights and interests of Parliament run directly counter to those of the Minister who is being held accountable. In acute circumstances, that can lead to the resignation of the Minister concerned—and quite right too. However, I believe that I speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as well as myself when I say that our increasing accountability to the Committee and thus to Parliament has directly helped our role of not only holding the agencies to account, but ensuring that their work takes a more effective direction.
I could give many examples. The most obvious is that the list of questions that I am likely to be asked by the Intelligence and Security Committee triggers thoughts in my mind. All Ministers are busy; we cannot ask every question. When others raise issues, especially on the basis of greater expertise, it helps our work. The Home Office intelligence and security liaison unit arid the terrorism and protection unit work with the agencies They acknowledge the importance of the ISC's work in enhancing their supervisory role of the agencies.
Debate continues about whether the ISC should be a Select Committee. The Prime Minister expressed the Government's view this time last year. There is much to be said on both sides; I personally see the argument from both sides. If it became a Select Committee, it would be a rose by another name. It would also show that it belonged to Parliament rather than to the Prime Minister of the day. Perhaps we will move towards that in the next decade. However, it must be done on a step-by-step basis.
I stress to the sceptics, and there were many in 1993 and 1994 when the House considered the formation of the Committee, that the ISC has done work that is at least as good as that of any Select Committee. I do not disparage the work of Select Committees by saying that. I have witnessed the work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs under two Chairs. They and their members have been independent-minded and held me to account. They have done it differently from the ISC because the work for which I am answerable to them is overt rather than covert.
In practice, the ISC has been able to drill deeper, even though its proceedings are secret. It has been able to go into more detail and develop greater expertise. However, I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that the way in which the members of the ISC and members of Select Committees are chosen is no different. Although we could go for secret ballots, tossing coins and drawing names out of a hat, as long as our democracy is based on parties, they are bound to take a view about the membership of the Committees.
It is evident that not only toadies need apply to become members of Select Committees. I say as a compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that if that were the case, he would never serve on any Select Committee. That applies to a long list of my hon. Friends and to many Conservative Members. We are all members of political parties, which are the bedrock of parliamentary government.
I want to deal briefly with some of the points that were raised. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked about recruitment and retention. Eighty-nine IT specialists were
1192
recruited at GCHQ this year against a target of 95. That is not bad in a highly competitive market. A lot of effort is put into recruitment and retention. I stress to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, my hon. Friends the Members for Workington, for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have put in a lot of effort with the heads of the agencies to ensure that they improve the performance of their recruitment systems, examine individuals' background more closely and make sure there is better psychological profiling.
Crises or disruptions in people's personal lives occur in any organisation; the agencies cannot be immune from that. Such disruptions can contribute to or cause relationship problems in the office. We want to ensure that people are given better counselling and support than they received in the past and are not simply left. That applies to the staff not only of the agencies, but of Departments.
Direct access to employment tribunals for people with grievances relating to employment problems is important. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I regret the delay in enforcement of the regulations. We are grateful for the work done by the Committee, and for the knowledge that the debate was impending: it concentrated people's minds.
Members have raised the issue of finance. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater asked whether there should be more qualified people running the agencies' finances. That gives rise to an interesting debate which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is not confined to the subject of the agencies.
There is a point at which people in every organisation must decide whether there should be subject specialists in Departments, or whether there should be a crossover involving people with more general expertise that is relevant to the way in which the organisation is run. There is currently a great debate in private industry—in the PLCs—about whether finance directors should end up running organisations, and about the point at which taking an interest in the organisation and having expertise in financial matters should cross over into more general skills. I do not think that there is any one answer, but I know that it is important to have proper systems of control, while also making use of qualified people.
Mr. Tom King: I hope the Home Secretary will allow me to say something about what might be described as a hobby horse of mine. People who may have had experience in a number of parts of an agency or department may never have been involved in finance. They may suddenly be promoted to the job of principal finance officer, although they have no expertise in that field. Not many companies could be found in this country that would entrust their funds to a financial director who had no financial qualifications.
Mr. Straw: That is a fair point.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned the risk of information being given to the Intelligence and Security Committee. He cannot have known this, but we give the ISC full information about the balance of expenditure not only between but within agencies. The issue has been whether the information should be provided publicly. My right hon. Friend and I are at one, in that we understand the argument for having a snapshot of only one year, but do not consider it to be sustainable.

1193
Questions were raised about organised crime, NCIS and Customs and Excise. NCIS and Customs and Excise attend occasional meetings of the Joint Intelligence Committee, but are not full members of it. An increasing amount of the effort of agencies—not just the Security Service, under its specific powers, but the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ—is devoted to dealing with organised crime, and a great deal of effort goes into improving co-ordination of work across agencies. I see, directly, the work of the Security Service, the National Crime Squad and NCIS in dealing with organised crime, as well as that of the Met. Although there was a fair amount of suspicion initially, as often happens with law enforcement services, it is gradually being broken down, and the organisations involved are learning from each other.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) suggested that the Security Service should concentrate more on subversion. He implied that the problems that we experienced with two successive riots in the City could be blamed on a decline in the size of F5.
As is well known, there was a time when much of the effort of the Security Service was spent on investigating potential subversion in this country. That was the case throughout the cold war, and for as long as there were suspicions that many people might be fellow travellers and potential traitors. It goes back to the concerns of the Attlee Government after the war about the lack of vetting. Information gradually emerged about the extent to which various secret organs of the state had been infiltrated by the Communist party. As the cold war wound down, that was bound to change.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that if he thinks about what those organisations were doing, he will realise that they were mainly concerned with bodies such as the Communist party and those who might spy for the Soviet bloc. They had some involvement in industrial trade unions, but, for a similar reason, they were little concerned with general mayhem on the streets. One could think of plenty of examples of potentially violent and, in some cases, very violent demonstrations in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, including the poll tax riots, that occurred when there was a high level of activity by F5. Palpably, that activity did not prevent those demonstrations, because, even with the best intelligence in the world, one cannot prevent them. Furthermore, that is not what the organisation was there for.
The hon. Gentleman also slightly glossed over the situation as to those riots. There were serious lessons to be learned from the 1999 riots, and most were learned by the time of last year's May day riot. Yes, that riot occurred and damage was done, but it was controlled to a high degree by the Metropolitan police. I pay tribute to it for its direction.
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, want to close my remarks.
Members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are concerned that staff of the agencies may sometimes think that they are mentioned only when their work is being criticised. Any member of staff who has listened to
1194
the totality of the debate will recognise that any criticism has been made with affection and support for the organisation. Across the Chamber, every Member who spoke expressed high regard for what staff do, and that is entirely right.
One of the great delights of my four years as Home Secretary has been getting to know what necessarily secret organisations and people who cannot name or laud themselves do and witnessing their commitment, professionalism and esprit de corps. I have to add that they also show a great deal of personal courage. In thanking members of the Committee for their work and in paying tribute to the outgoing members, in particular the Chairman, I know that I express, on behalf of the whole House, our great debt of gratitude to the agencies and their staff.
Mr. Mike Hall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Intelligence Agencies

  LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
  Ordered,
  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 tin e 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.]

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
  Order read for returning 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.]
  Question agreed to.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Ordered,
  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 01 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.'. —3 [Mr. Mike Hall.]

Ravenhead Glass
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Mike Hall.]
6.33 pm
Mr. David Watts: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important issue on behalf of many of my constituents. I should inform the House that Ravenhead Glass, which went out of business three weeks ago, has a long history in St. Helens—it has had a factory there for more than 150 years. In its heyday, it employed more than 5,000 people, but when it closed two weeks ago, it employed 200.
Many of those people, after 30 years' service, would normally have expected gold watches, enhanced redundancy payments or even good pensions. Most of the staff are aged over 50 and, as I have said, most have more than 30 years' service with the company. Three weeks ago they were made redundant and were told that they would receive only statutory redundancy pay, and that they would have their pensions redundancy by about 20 per cent., as the pension scheme contained a £5 million black hole.
These workers are not numbers; they are people. An example is Mr. Dave Rotherham, who contacted me recently. He had worked in the plant for 30 years, and his father had worked there for 50 years. His life has been turned upside down in recent weeks. He has lost his job, he has no enhanced redundancy payments, and he faces a family crisis and a bleak future. That is after 30 years' hard work for the same company.
The Ravenhead company is owned by a parent company, Durabor, which is owned by the Belgian regional government. Ravenhead went into administration in November 1999. It had massive debts and an undervalued pension scheme. The Ravenhead plant at St. Helens is one of only two glass manufacturing plants in the UK. The other is in Chesterfield and is also, by coincidence, in receivership. It is quite possible, therefore, that within a few weeks Britain will have no glassware industry at all. That will be the end of another British industry. It will be lost for ever, thanks to the current problems that the industry is experiencing.
The Department of Trade and Industry has been very helpful with the recent problems that we have had, and I would like to pay tribute to Ministers and officials for all the help that they have given me. From day one, when we were trying to find a new buyer, they gave us every assistance with advice, and financial and moral support. I cannot criticise the effort made by the Department, and I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on my thanks to his staff, especially those in the north-west office, for all their help.
The workers have now lost their jobs—some after 30 years—and they want to know why. I am having great difficulty understanding why the company got itself into such a mess. Many of the workers believe that responsibility lies with the manager lent of the company. They want to know why the factory closed, why their pension scheme was so underfunded, and why Durabor forced the St. Helens factory to sell glass at well below cost price. Those people believe that forcing the company to do that led to the closure of the factory in St. Helens.
1196
A large stock of surplus glass in the Ravenhead factory warehouses is now up for purchase as a result of the closure. Rumour has it that Durabor is in open discussion with a company based in America called Libby's, which is about to buy up those stocks. If it does so, it will buy them at very low cost, and be able to sell them at a fat profit. The workers at the plant believe that a deal has been struck between the American company and Durabor to gobble up the whole of the British and Belgian markets.
Following the closure of Ravenhead in St. Helens and Delmar in Chesterfield, there will be no glass producers in Britain. If the American giant were to take over the company, it would have complete control of the Belgian and UK markets. It would then be able to increase prices over a period of time and have a very healthy business. I believe that there is a case for investigating whether any anti-competitive practices have been carried out by that company, and I would welcome any such investigation.
My constituents who worked at Ravenhead have been told that there is a £5 million gap in their pension fund. Many of them worked there for 30 or more years. The company took a contributions holiday back in 1998. When the scheme was revalued in 1999, a deficit was found. It was agreed that the company would increase the payments over a number of years to make good that shortfall. Obviously, that will no longer happen now that the company has gone out of business, and the company pensioners have been left with a pension scheme that does not meet the requirements needed to maintain their pension levels. They want to know why the trustees and the company decided to take a contributions holiday and why the scheme went into deficit. I would welcome an investigation into pensions schemes. I know that that is the responsibility of the Treasury, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to contact Treasury colleagues about it.
There should be an investigation into the closure of the plant and into whether anti-competitive practices have gone on. We need an investigation into the relationship between Libby's and Durabor, as I believe that there is strong evidence that they have been working collectively for many months to destroy the competition in Britain and Belgium and to give themselves a dominant position in the market for years to come.
There is also a case for the Government to consider legislation on employment rights and pensions. It is totally unacceptable for workers who have given such loyal service to a company over many years to be treated in such a shabby way. British workers need to have better employment and pension protection and I hope that the Government will look at that in some detail.
I also want the Government to consider legislation on a company's ability to take a contributions holiday, and I wish to make some suggestions. No pension scheme, and no trustee of a scheme, should be allowed to take a contributions holiday unless the scheme has built up a buffer zone, which could be used if the scheme underperformed. There is a strong case for removing the employer from the pension scheme altogether. That would have made a major difference to the employees' scheme at Ravenhead. There is also a strong case for requiring pension schemes to be revalued every year, rather than every four years. Recently, we have seen how the market can move rapidly and revaluing pension schemes every four years is unacceptable.

1197
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will discuss with his colleagues how we can investigate those issues and make sure that people are held accountable for their actions. The very least my constituents expect is that a full investigation will be held into the allegations that they have made, which I have restated today.
Durabor, the Belgian parent company, is not a small operation; its majority shareholder is the Belgian regional government. That regional government may not have a legal responsibility to the employees at Ravenhead, but there is a strong moral case that they should make some compensation payments to my constituents.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make representations on behalf of the workers of Ravenhead to the Belgian regional government, who must stand by their ex-employees and accept responsibility. They cannot walk away, leaving people who have worked in the company for more than 30 years with minimum statutory redundancy pay and an undervalued pension scheme. I would welcome any help and assistance on those issues.
The Labour Government have done a lot in the past few years to strengthen pensions and employee regulations, but the case that I have outlined tonight demonstrates that we have a lot more to do.
6.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) on securing this debate and drawing attention to what I know is an important issue for him, his constituents and former employees of Ravenhead Glass. He has, as usual, made an eloquent and forceful case on behalf of his constituents. It might help if I set out in some detail the current position of the company.
On 29 November 2000, Paul Stanley and Ronald Robinson of Begbies Traynor, Manchester were appointed joint administrators of Ravenhead. An administration order allows court-appointed administrators to make proposals to restore a company's viability or to sell all or part of its business as a going concern. Officials have been in touch with the office of the administrators, and it has been confirmed that, until 16 March 2001, Ravenhead was trading on the basis that negotiations to sell the business as a going concern would be successful. Regrettably, the American company with which those negotiations were being held pulled out, citing the considerable capital investment required, particularly in view of the substantial losses and large overheads associated with the company's current operations.
Most of Ravenhead's employees have now been made redundant, except for 60 or so who have been retained to conduct an orderly rundown of the business and fulfil back orders. Officials have been informed that the administrators are now proceeding to sell the individual assets of the company, and the indications are that there will be no prospect of a payment to unsecured creditors.
It is always a great blow when a company goes into a state of insolvency and redundancies are necessary, although those are of course commercial matters for the parties concerned and not something in which the Government can intervene. The Government's role is to
1198
ensure that employees have minimum safeguards in employment rights legislation and to provide support and assistance to business when appropriate. I shall say something a little later about the points that my hon. Friend raised on anti-competitive practices and the way in which British workers are treated in such situations.
My Department's redundancy payments service can, under the Employment Rights Act 1996, within limits pay certain entitlements owed to former employees of insolvent companies. That legislation, which implements the European Union insolvency directive, guarantees a basic minimum of payments to employees of insolvent employers who would usually have to wait a considerable time for payment, or receive no payment, as creditors in the insolvency.
The RPS in Birmingham received 120 application forms from redundant employees of Ravenhead, and they were validated against information supplied by the administrators. The RPS has, under the legislation, made redundancy payments to all employees who have completed two years' service. Any holidays that have accrued at the time of the employees' dismissal and bonuses have been paid as well.
The RPS is currently processing compensatory notice payments, and the vast majority of them have been paid. The only claims still to be processed are those of the long-termers who are claiming the maximum 12 weeks, and they will be dealt with as soon as the employees return the forms. As far as I am aware, there are no outstanding queries.
It might be helpful if I explain that, when payments are made, the RPS will take over the employees' rights in relation to the amount of the debt paid from the national insurance fund and seek to recover the payment by lodging a claim for the debts in the insolvency proceedings. The Payments of contractual debts that exceed minimum statutory entitlement payable from the national insurance fund remain lodged in the insolvency. Payment of those amounts will depend on whether the insolvency practitioner is able to raise sufficient funds from the sale of the company's assets to cover the debts.
I should also point out that the EU collective redundancy directive. provides for employers to consult employee representatives on proposed redundancies and is implemented in the UK under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. All employers operating in the United Kingdom, including overseas companies, are bound by UK consultation legislation. Similarly, any UK companies operating in another member state are bound by the legislation of that state.
The directive also provides for sanctions to be taken against an employer for failing to comply with the consultation requirements. It is for the member state to determine the sanctions that may be taken. In the UK, an employer who is proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment over a period of 90 days is required to consult appropriate representatives of employees who may be affected by dismissals or measures taken in connection with them.
Unless prevented by special circumstances, the consultation must begin in good time, and in any event there is a minimum requirement of at least 30 days before the first dismissal takes effect in a case in which between 20 and 99 dismissals are proposed, and 90 days when 100 or more are proposed.

1199
Employers are also required to notify my Department's redundancy payments service within the same time scale, so that support may be given to those facing redundancy in the form of measures, including retraining, that the Government office and other local agencies take to mitigate the effect. Statutory employment rights are also in place for employees in these unfortunate circumstances.
An employee's representative may make a complaint to an employment tribunal if it is believed that the employer has failed to consult in accordance with the statutory provisions. If the tribunal finds a complaint justified, it will make a declaration to that effect, and in appropriate cases, whether or not the employees are still employed, it may take steps to safeguard their remuneration by making a protective award. The period of the award is determined by the tribunal and may be up to a maximum of 90 days.
My hon. Friend asked about the pension scheme. There is an anticipated shortfall of about £5 million. The administration of the scheme has now been delegated to an independent pension trustee who will deal with employees' claims and investigate the reasons for the shortfall. Any concerns that employees have about the scheme need to be reported to the administrators so that they can liaise with my Department's redundancy payments service. The Department operates a free telephone helpline on matters relating to redundancy, and my officials will do what they can to assist with any questions. The telephone number, it may be helpful to note, is 0500 848489.
I note that my hon. Friend feels that the present legislation does not protect employees or their pension schemes from unscrupulous companies. However, it may be helpful if I outline the relevant provisions of the employment protection legislation. They provide that an employee of an insolvent company who is owed arrears of wages, holiday pay and certain other debts may claim these amounts, subject to statutory limits, from the redundancy fund.
Furthermore, if an insolvent employer has failed to pay some contributions into the pension scheme, a claim can also be made for payments into the scheme from the redundancy fund. Taking together the work of the independent trustee and officials at the DTI's redundancy payments service, we should be able to address my hon. Friend's points.
On a general note, insolvency law contains what I believe are effective provisions against abuses of limited liability. For example, under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the administrators are required to make a report to the Secretary of State if they form a view that the conduct of a director makes him or her unfit to be involved in the running of a company. Of course, I cannot anticipate whether the administrators will make such a report, but if they do, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to apply to, the court for a disqualification order, if he judges that to be in the public interest.
Disqualification orders run for between two and 15 years, and all identified cases of misconduct are pursued. About 2,800 directors have been banned for unfit conduct in the past two years. The concerns that have been expressed about the management of Ravenhead should be passed to the administrators for their consideration. In addition, if there is evidence that there has been fraudulent or wrongful trading, a liquidator can
1200
ask the court to declare that those responsible should make a personal contribution towards the company's assets. However, any such sum would be available for the general body of creditors rather than any specific group, such as employees.
Ravenhead Glass was designated a large-scale redundancy in December, when the first redundancies were announced, allowing early access to Employment Service programmes. Some initial discussion has been held locally about the rapid response fund. Former Ravenhead employees have been placed on a case load for matching to any suitable vacancies that arise. The jobcentre is also carrying out a specific marketing exercise to target local companies that may be able to offer employment to these people. I know that my hon. Friend is deeply involved with that process.
The final 40 workers left Ravenhead on Friday 23 March. Local Employment Service jobcentres opened on Saturday to book appointments and deal with initial claims.
Before I say a little about the glass industry in general, I shall respond to what my hon. Friend said about the way in which UK workers are treated, compared with those in other European Union countries. He will be aware that in early February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a complete review of redundancy arrangements, with regard not only to information and consultation, which have become a concern following some recent high-profile cases, but to the question whether it is easier to sack British workers than anyone else in the EU.
Unlike some political parties represented in the House, we do not think that this country should sell itself on the basis of being the sweatshop of Europe. We are sensitive to such criticisms, and I am sure that the comprehensive review that we have set in train, which involves the CBI and the TUC, will illuminate the debate on that issue when it is concluded. I shall also consider what my hon. Friend said about anti-competitive activity.
I should take this opportunity to mention the support that we have given to the UK glass industry since I May 1997. The industry overall has accepted offers of regional selective assistance totalling £18 million, of which £1 million has gone towards the manufacture of hollow glass.
In addition, the Department has been working with British Glass and Glass Technology Services in a number of areas, including financial support for an innovation project to design safer screw threads on glass bottles, and assistance with the establishment of a glass manufacturing improvement club.
Discussions were held with British Glass last year about other potential projects, including a competitiveness analysis. I strongly urge it to consider working with the Department on a competitiveness analysis, because such an analysis can often lead to the identification of further areas in which the Department can work with the sector to mutual best advantage.
My hon. Friend suggested that the parent company may have employed anti-competitive practices. The trading operations of the company have been under increasing pressure because sales to European countries are made under fixed-price contracts in euros, which have been seriously affected by the fall of the euro against the pound. I shall ask my officials to look into that issue.

1201
Finally, my hon. Friend was kind enough to pay tribute to the Department's representatives, especially in the north-west. I shall pass what he said on to them, and I assure him that we shall continue to give whatever
1202
assistance we can in what we understand are the very difficult circumstances that have arisen at Ravenhead in his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Electoral Malpractice (Northern Ireland)
[Relevant documents: Second Special Report, Session 1997–98, HC 781, Second Special Report, Session 1998—99, HC 484, and First Special Report, Session 2000—01, HC 148, from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee; Administering Elections in Northern Ireland—Report of the Elections Review, October 1998, Cm 4081; and Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland, Cm 5080.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: It gives me great pleasure to open what may be the last debate in this Parliament on a Select Committee report.
The report of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on electoral malpractice was agreed in March 1998, a little more than three years ago. I thank the Liaison Committee for agreeing to put the report forward for debate. It was the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's second report of the Parliament, and it may yet prove a highly topical subject for debate.
Mr. John M. Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that it has taken three years to bring the report forward for consideration in debate?
Mr. Brooke: I am glad to respond to my hon. Friend's question. To be fair to everyone concerned—I shall allude to the Government's role later—there has been a continuous thread of intermittent activity on the issue throughout the Parliament. Our Committee saw no reason to ask the Liaison Committee for the opportunity to debate the report when we first produced it, but that thread has given grounds for today's debate on the report.
I am conscious that the last Thursday in March, when the sword of Damocles of an election being called may fall at any moment, is not necessarily the best time for a debate on any Select Committee report. Due to the uncertainty about the election date, our Committee was occupied until a late hour last night agreeing not one but two reports that we wanted to produce.
Like Wellington at Waterloo, I hope that I shall be joined by allies. Indeed, two members of the Committee have come into the Chamber while I have been speaking, so we are not totally absent from the ground. If we do not use all the time allotted to us, I want it to be clear that the report is nevertheless timeous and timely. The debate will not be prolonged because the issue is not especially complicated, but that is no reflection on the process of debating such reports.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. Gentleman said that the issue was not complicated, but it has taken a long time to come to fruition. The harsh reality is that the problem has caused tremendous concern. It did so in an earlier Parliament when we argued for measures to be brought in to tackle it. Do we now think the issue so complicated that it might be another two Parliaments before we have measures to protect against electoral fraud in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I think was directed more to others in the Chamber than to me, though he intervened on my speech quite properly. There will clearly be further opportunities in the debate to hear why people thought the issues complicated, despite the fact that some of us do not think that such complications exist.
Allegations of electoral fraud have been a feature of the political scene in Northern Ireland for many years. The apocryphal cry of "Vote early, vote often" is familiar in much parliamentary literature. To be parenthetical for a moment, I recall a Northern Ireland debate on the Floor of the House some years back, which was obviously going to go the full time. A former private secretary of mine was in the Official's Box, and I inquired how many Divisions were envisaged by the Government for the business, and he said that there would not be any Divisions in the early part of the evening, but there would be a lot at the end, to which I said that this must be one of those rare instances of "Vote late, vote often."
Parliament acted on reports that vote stealing in the Province was widespread by introducing, in the Representation of the People Act 1985, a requirement that voters in Northern Ireland should produce specified evidence of identity when asking for a ballot paper. Given that allegations were current about the impact of electoral fraud at the May 1997 general election, particularly in relation to the constituencies of Mid-Ulster and Belfast, West, the Committee made this inquiry a priority.
The Committee took oral evidence from the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, a former deputy electoral officer, the then Secretary of State and the Social Democratic and Labour Party. In addition, a range of interested parties submitted written evidence. The Committee was ably advised by Dr. Sidney Elliot of the department of politics at Queen's university, Belfast, and we were grateful to him for his assistance.
In his evidence to the Committee, the chief electoral officer identified four main ways of cheating: multiple entries in the register; personation, where someone pretends to be another person entitled to vote; absent voting abuse; and undue influence, which can take a variety of forms, ranging from outright physical intimidation to following postmen who are delivering postal votes and then calling at the houses to collect the postal vote forms or the votes themselves.
One difficulty in this area is gaining access to hard evidence. There have been many allegations of voting fraud, but much of the evidence is anecdotal and circumstantial. Even the chief electoral officer was unsure about the extent of the problem. However, we considered that there was sufficient evidence of organised voting theft to show that the problem of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland is serious.

327WH
The Committee proposed a number of possible solutions. It considered the inclusion of every elector's signature in the register of voters and on any application for absent votes to be an essential component of checking. We envisaged that the signatures would be digitised and accessible in polling stations. We also sought an increase in the identifying details included on registration forms to counter the problem of illicit multiple registration and to make fraudulent applications harder. The Committee's report also proposed measures to improve the reliability of the register and called for the chief electoral officer to be given the technology that he needed to collate useful, collaborative information for checking applications to be put on the roll and for absent voting.
Central to our recommendations was a proposal to improve the standard of the proof of identity documents that give entitlement to a ballot paper. Some of those documents do not include a photograph, which assists their fraudulent use. National health service medical cards are particularly vulnerable to convincing forgery. Our preference was for a new, universally issued and electronically readable electoral card. Although a relatively expensive option, there was broad agreement that that was likely to be the most effective in preventing abuse.
On timing, we sought implementation of our recommendations at the earliest possible date, and in that respect I march with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). In evidence to the Committee, the then Secretary of State said:
"Before the European elections in 1999 we will be well on the way to looking at the changes we would like to make."
The reality has been rather different. In July 1997, at about the time that we announced our inquiry, the then Secretary of State announced her own review of electoral practice in Northern Ireland. Initially meant to report by the end of November 1997, it had not reported by the time the Government replied to the report in May 1998, which arithmetic tells me is six months overdue. In view of that, the Secretary of State felt unable to give any commitment to change until she had considered the outcome of the review, completion of which was expected "shortly". She said that a more substantive reply to our report was likely to be given in mid-August.
In the event, the report of the election review was not delivered to Parliament until October 1998, almost a year after it had originally been expected to be ready. It was not until May 1999, following some prompting from the Committee, that the full response to our report was received. By then, we had reached the date by which the Secretary of State had originally expected to be considering next steps. It was supportive of many of the Committee's recommendations but, somewhat disappointingly, was vague about any time scale for implementing the measures that it envisaged.
When the Committee took evidence from the new Secretary of State on 5 April 2000 on recent political developments in the Province, we raised the lack of progress with him. The Secretary of State again expressed the Government's concern about electoral
328WH
malpractice, and confirmed their commitment to the eventual introduction of electronic voting cards. Although he did not rule out the early introduction of primary legislation, he added:
"I do not have a slot to introduce such legislation at the present time."
He described as "very unlikely indeed" the possibility of introducing smart cards before the next general election—and, consequently, the local elections due in May. He added:
"You are right to be hudging my elbow on this. You are right to focus me on it."
In November 2000, as part of the Committee's contribution to the Liaison Committee's "shifting the balance" exercise of reviewing outstanding recommendations, we asked the Northern Ireland Office—not unreasonably, I think—for an update on progress. That revealed that a working group had produced a draft Bill, which had been the subject of consultation with political parties and others, and from which several new ideas or modifications of existing ideas had emerged. The Northern Ireland Office was "considering the next steps".
I think that I speak on behalf of the whole Committee—we do not have a bad record of being unanimous—in saying that the Committee was singularly unimpressed. In its first special report, published in January 2001, it commented:
"Although we welcome the fact that the general thrust of the Department's current proposals accord with our general approach to the problem of reducing electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, we are very concerned about the length of time it is taking to secure any progress, even on such basic matters as replacing the most vulnerable identification documents which currently entitle a voter to a ballot paper. When we reported in March 1998, less than a year after the General Election, we had a reasonable expectation that rather more progress might have been made before the next General Election in tackling the serious problems of electoral malpractice than appears likely to be the case. Given the extensive consultation that took place following publication of the Government's review"
that is the one that was issued in October 1998—
"we find the need for yet more rounds of consultation surprising, and the level of progress disappointing. Given that it is now unlikely that legislation can be introduced before the 2001–02 Parliamentary Session, at the earliest, we recommend the early publication of a draft bill on measures to counter electoral fraud, based on the proposals of the Working Group, modified to reflect the Government's consideration of the points raised in the most recent round of consultations."
Those strictures appear to have galvanised the Secretary of State into action. This month the Government presented to Parliament the White Paper "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland". Besides a series of proposals for legislative change, it includes details of some welcome reforms initiated by the chief electoral officer that have immediate effect. One disappointment though, is that the key to further progress remains the enactment of appropriate primary legislation. The White Paper merely states that that will emerge
"at the earliest possible opportunity".
The particular ways of describing time—I have already quoted the previous Secretary of State's use of the word "shortly"—are familiar to all connoisseurs of ministerial language I do not know how I would calibrate "at the earliest possible opportunity" against

329WH
the other circumlocutions that are available, but at least the Government are saying that it will happen at the earliest possible opportunity.
However, that is no real advance on the position described by the Secretary of State on 5 April 2000, the anniversary of which we will reach next week. I hope that the Minister will say something more specific about the timetable today and, perhaps, give a commitment that the preparation of the legislation will not be delayed by work on the legislation arising from the implementation of the criminal justice review, a draft of which was promised in the Queen's Speech, and which I understand may emerge in the near future.
I conclude by saying that when the report was agreed in 1998, I did not expect to be standing before the House on what might be the eve of the next general election, three years later, with Northern Ireland's electoral system still substantially as vulnerable to electoral fraud as it was in 1997. To be doing so is frankly disappointing. Therefore, I commend also to the House the Liaison Committee's systematic interest in ensuring that pressure is maintained on the Government, not simply to reply to Committee reports and then forget them, but to take due and proper account of their continuing relevance to policy development. Finally, to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), we are having this debate today because of that interest, and I commend the report to the House.
2.46 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who is the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I have been a member of that Committee throughout this Parliament entirely under his chairmanship. As in his role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he found a form of words that began to lead to the peace process, and was therefore the first of the long line of facilitators who have assisted Northern Ireland in that development, he has also been a great facilitator of the work of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. He has assisted us greatly by his full involvement in that Committee and by making decisions that might seem to be remarkable, given the range of Members who are on the Cttee. The Committee has seldom been divided. The right hon. Gentleman was always careful to see that we produced not only words, but ensured that Governments took on board what we were arguing about. When the Government did not, as on this occasion, they were prodded and pressed, not only by the right hon. Gentleman, but by the Committee collectively, or else he would seek our support for the position that he adopted.
The debate brings together the two subjects of Northern Ireland and electoral matters, both of which I am closely involved in, so it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. Although reference has been made to the work of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the response of the Northern Ireland Office to measures that we put forward and the development of the White Paper, we are not the only ones who lave been prodding and pressing on electoral matters. The, Northern Ireland Forum produced a report, work on which was developed by a sub-committee. As part of that process,
330WH
I gave evidence on matters such as the need for a rolling electoral register, which we have moved towards in the Representation of the People Act 2000.
I shall refer to an incident that I hope to show is relevant. It relates to elections in Yugoslavia. I went with others to monitor elections in the rump of Yugoslavia—the Milosevic Yugoslavia—until Christmas 1992. The group was chaired by the late Sir James Kilfedder, who was the first Chairman of the Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs that was set up in the previous Parliament. The other people involved in the work were Lady Olga Maitland, Simon Clarke of the Electoral Reform Society and another former Member, Michael Meadowcroft, who remains, I believe, with the party that calls itself the Liberal party, not the Liberal Democrat party.
We monitored the elections in Serbia, Kosovo and Vojvodina and discovered at polling stations and the count that a committee composed of the political parties in Yugoslavia was running things. With us were people from the former communist party, a fascist party and centre democratic parties, all of whom were working together monitoring what happened. Sir James Kilfedder was amazed by the extent to which it worked. Probably what was most wrong about the elections in Yugoslavia was the domination and control of the media and the influence over people's right to make up their minds. What we saw of the electoral procedures was astonishingly smooth, given that the people involved were drawn from such different groups.
Sir James could not believe that such a system would have a hope of working in Northern Ireland. He thought that allowing procedures at the count and polling station to be carried out by members of Sinn Fein, the Democratic Unionist party and the loyalist parties close to paramilitaries would be a recipe for disaster. Fortunately our tradition does not require that approach, but it was amazing how well it worked in Yugoslavia, despite the fact that the result was greatly distorted because of people's frame of mind, and state manipulation.
Northern Ireland is, apart from occasional odd incidents, the only area of the United Kingdom where serious organised electoral fraud and malpractice take place. If we consider ourselves to be a democratic Parliament, we should be seriously concerned about that and try to change the situation. We should see it as an important aspect of the development of the peace process. If parties are supposed to be committed to the use of the ballot box and democracy, that cannot mean a fiddled ballot box and manipulation aimed at fixing results. Everyone, including the Government, is firmly of that opinion and wants to press forward with such a policy—but perhaps it should be done more swiftly.
A difficulty is that as more is done to try to stop fraud, more difficulties are created for people exercising their rights of franchise. The checks and controls become significant, as the White Paper shows. A balance between the two sides of the matter is needed, and the mechanisms that make fraud possible should be eliminated.
One of the most serious forms of fraud in Northern Ireland is the appropriation of the votes of people who do not usually vote. Following checks to establish which people do not turn up to exercise their franchise,

331WH
someone else, by personation or postal ballots, will act in their stead. That needs to be controlled. It raises the question for Northern Ireland—it was not raised in Britain—of whether the marked register should be available to political parties in Northern Ireland, as it will allow them to discover who has not voted. Information on who has not voted can be collated election after election as an insurance, and others can make use of it.
Acting on behalf of those who do not vote is probably more serious numerically than voting on behalf of people who have died whose names still appear on the register, which is thought to occur in Northern Ireland more often. In report HC 316, from the 1997–98 Session, the Select Committee recommended at paragraph 19 that the chief electoral officer should have the power to remove the names of those who have died from the register. The recommendation states:
"On notification by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages of a person's death, the Chief Electoral Officer should have the power to remove their name from the Electoral Register immediately."
The chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland, unlike his counterpart in Britain, receives information from the registrar of births, deaths and marriages when people have died. He marks his register to show that they are dead, but he cannot remove the names from the register. In evidence to the Select Committee, he told us that he knew of five case in which the franchise had been exercised on behalf of someone who had died.
It would be a simple exercise in Northern Ireland, and in the rest of the United Kingdom, for people's names to be removed once they had died. To ensure that nothing had gone wrong, information could be sent to those households to check that the details were correct. That would prevent further intrusion into a family's grief being caused by the sending out of election addresses and polling cards to people who had died. That provision could be made for the whole of the United Kingdom. If electoral registers are to be correct, that Select Committee recommendation is important. We should try to ensure that no one is registered except those who are entitled to vote. We should stop these continuing errors.
We have done something about people who might not be entered on the register through the rolling register provision, but we have not yet acted to delete the names of those who should not be included. In Britain, information from the registrar of births, death and marriages is made available to the person—it might be the returning officer—within the local authority who deals with housing benefit or other provisions, such as council tax, which may have to be sent as a result of the death. However, the electoral register cannot be corrected at the same time.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about multiple registrations. Although the Select Committee did not propose banning them, the White Paper attempts to ensure that they are monitored, checked and controlled and that action is taken on any abuse that is brought to
332WH
light. Multiple registration is not normally necessary in Britain, but there is a particular problem in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman say from his experience of the Committee's investigations why that principle was changed in Northern Ireland? At one time, multiple registration was not allowed.
Mr. Barnes: We may have discussed the history of the situation although I do not recollect what was said at that particular time, but, for our mutual benefit, I shall check our records to discover what occurred.
Multiple registration would be easy to control and contain in Britain. We have a rolling register; it may not roll fast enough for me, but supplementary lists are produced each month and people who move about the country can get on to those lists. If registration arrangements were speeded up, it would be possible for students, for example, to be taken quickly off one register and put o t another, according to where they were living at a particular time. The problem in Northern Ireland is that that might be open to fraud. There is a three-month residency requirement for electoral registration in Northern Ireland so that people are not encouraged to move into an area just to be able to vote, thereby committing an electoral fraud. The residency qualification applies to by-elections as well as to general elections to prevent people taking up temporary residence and flooding an area in order to affect an election result.
If there were no residency requirement, problems would be presented in a general election; citizens of the Irish Republic might move into Northern Ireland on a temporary basis in order to vote. One way round the problem might be to retain the three-month residency requirement for citizens of the Republic of Ireland but not for citizens of the United Kingdom. I grant that difficulties might still remain, but I am looking for a way round these problems.
The Northern Ireland door-to-door electoral registration arrangements are excellent; they are a lesson to the rest of us. They have to be done in a way that avoids people getting hold of the forms fraudulently and filling them in with fictitious names, and so on. To overcome such problems, and to get the forms completed, canvassers will visit people at home and be face to face with them when they hand the forms over. That practice was probably widespread in Britain at one time, and I should like to see it extended beyond Northern Ireland. It is not only a matter of putting things in order and preventing fraud in Northern Ireland; it is sensible to ensure that as many people as possible who are entitled to be registered actually appear on the register. Something that developed in Northern Ireland because of different circumstances is, nevertheless, a good example for the rest of us.
Government responses to Select Committee reports are never ideal; they will never contain everything one might wish. However, the White Paper contains several valuable provisions that build on the recommendations in the Select Committee's report. It is a move down the road that the Committee wished to follow. Electoral investigation teams, the monitoring of multiple

333WH
registrations and personal identifiers would all be helpful in ensuring that electoral registration is not subject to fraud, as it has been in the past.
The great shame is that legislation has not been introduced. We shall have to wait until after the coming election—the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said 2001 or 2002—before legislation in on the cards again. I thought that we would move much more quickly.
The White Paper contains a provision for voluntary voter identity cards. The Government see that as a temporary measure; they may be expecting future developments that will lead to the introduction of better technology. The logic is that identity cards should have photographs on them. Driving licences with photographs and passports will be satisfactory for the purpose but, because not everyone is able to obtain a passport or vehicle driving licence, there should be some mechanism by which people can get identity cards. The White Paper mentions that the poor and the elderly might need to resort to such a facility
The problem is that the poor and the elderly are probably less likely to exercise their rights than other groups. In contrast, others will readily have appropriate documents with a photograph, or will have no great difficulty in obtaining a photo ID card. There might be some resistance or lack of understanding about people's rights. If it is a temporary measure, I hope that we can quickly move on. A situation in which people who are lower on the social scales find it more difficult than others to get on electoral registers is unacceptable, both socially and politically. In the interests of democracy, as well as of our respective parties, we should not accept that. I have some difficulty arguing for my party's interests in Northern Ireland, because the Labour party has not yet come round to organising in Northern Ireland. Everyone should have the right to vote or not for the party that aspires to govern. By their nature, the Northern Ireland parties will always be small parties within the United Kingdom system. I hope that we move beyond a voluntary system and introduce a system that is fairly automatic and easy to use.
The key to everything going right is the development of the peace process. Those groups that are associated with paramilitaries must make a commitment to give up such activity, not as a tactic but to absorb themselves in the political process genuinely. The hope is that the operations of the Assembly and the Executive are such that people from paramilitary groups will be educated to take that approach. If they do so, it will be inconsistent for them to have any association with fraudulent activities. That is probably our greatest hope for putting things right.
However, there will still be problems in respect of the extension of some of the paramilitaries' activities. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has just produced a report showing that there are 78 gangs, 42 of which emerged from paramilitary activity, either current or historical, which are now the equivalent of what I call IRA plc. There might be an equivalent on the loyalist side. That residual problem from the past needs to be tackled and overcome, but it cannot be removed by good hopes. Tough measures must be taken to control the problem. Likewise, electoral malpractice may be reduced by the
334WH
development of the peace process, but we cannot expect that it will just disappear. When we remove a cause, we do not necessarily remove its effect. Therefore, action needs to be taken in line with the White Paper and quickly.
3.11 pm
Mr. William Thompson: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on an extremely important and pertinent issue. First, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who has chaired the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee so well. After listening to his speech this afternoon, anything that I say will be repetition, because he covered the many issues so adequately, emphasising the Government's long delay in acting on the issue.
The term "electoral malpractice" is eloquent and grand. We must not forget, however, that what we are discussing is nothing grander than blatant cheating and deceit, which attack the heart of our democratic process. The cancer of electoral fraud is especially damaging in Northern Ireland as we have been called to the polls so frequently over the past 30 years. Since 1972, there has. on average, been one poll a year in Northern Ireland. Given that statistic, we cannot underestimate the impact of organised electoral fraud on the political process in the Province. The impact is far-reaching. In the contests for many seats across Northern Ireland, one often finds a very close fight between two or three candidates in which only a small number of votes will separate the winner from the rest. As I come from such a constituency, I can understand the importance of fairness in the electoral system.
As has been acknowledged, at the previous Westminster election there was a high degree of fraudulent activity in the west of the Province, especially in Mid-Ulster. I certainly hope that such activity will not take place in the forthcoming election, because it could affect the overall result.
Local government elections are often held according to a system of proportional representation. Decisions on candidates winning or losing often come down to decimal points, so it is extremely important that we have a fair electoral system. The least that the people of Northern Ireland can expect is for the electoral process accurately to reflect their wishes. Parties across the United Kingdom are struggling to lift people out of their political apathy and reluctance to vote, so we must provide them with every incentive to do so.
As has been said, the most common forms of malpractice identified by the former chief electoral officer were multiple registration, personation, absent voter abuse and undue influence. It is entirely legal—and often beneficial for the honest voter—for someone to be registered to vote at more than one address. That is particularly true of students at colleges in Northern Ireland or on the mainland who wish to remain registered at home—when they might not in fact fulfil the registration qualifications. We need to discuss whether multiple registration is necessary. During the previous general election, there were examples of five or even six people registered as living in the same one-bedroomed flat in west Belfast. After closer investigation, it often emerged that none of the

335WH
individuals concerned actually lived at the stated address. For every case of fraud that was discovered, it is reasonable to assume that many more were not. Fraud is not a random phenomenon but something much more organised and influential.
The register must be as accurate as possible. At the moment, it is based on the information in household forms; in many instances, the householder who fills in the form puts down everyone living in the house, even if they are not entitled to be on the register. The onus is then placed on political parties to argue that such people should not be included, but it is extremely difficult to sustain such an objection because one has to provide proof, and how can such anomalies be proved? The electoral officer generally accepts the household form as gospel truth. Without doubt, some people on the electoral register should not be on it, but political parties find it extremely difficult to have them removed. We welcome rolling registration, but we should also be able to remove from the register the names of not only those who have died but, through a system of rolling objections, those discovered during the year to have been incorrectly included. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we can add someone to the register, we should also be able to remove someone from it.
In the recent White Paper "Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland", the Government propose that those who are registered more than once should be more closely monitored so that their voting patterns can be traced and any irregularities pursued through the courts. However, that system of monitoring will regrettably not be implemented until 2002, thus being of no benefit at the coming elections. I hope that investigation procedures into irregularities will be much more thorough and efficient than in the past.
We would all welcome the additions—signature, date of birth and, I hope, the postcode—to the household form. The postcode is universally used nowadays to find out where people live. With the aid of a computer programme, a postcode provides an immediate address and it would make it easier for the electoral officer to trace a proxy vote application. I therefore suggest that the postcode be added.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument. Not only in Northern Ireland, but even in England, Scotland and Wales, some people have similar names, which makes the postcode even more vital for identification purposes.
Mr. Thompson: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend. The electoral number that used to be on the electoral register will change when the election is called, though I do not understand why. A form of additional registration existed before, under which additional numbers appeared on the register. Now I gather that when the election is called, a button will be pressed and a new register with changed electoral numbers will appear. That will make it more difficult for political parties to put the electoral number on the application forms for proxy votes, and more difficult for the electoral officer to discover where the person on the register lives. In rural areas of Northern Ireland, many
336WH
people have the same Christian names and are sometimes known by their nicknames. That makes it difficult for the electoral officer to choose the right person to give the vote to, which makes the postcode essential.
Mr. John M. Taylor: I sympathise with the problem of sharing the same name with other people. I have had to live with that most of my life.
Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman has had to live with that problem in the House. Mistakes have been made here and they could be made on postal vote applications. National insurance numbers could also be used on the household form. Such numbers are distinctive and could be used to avoid mistakes of identification.
It is regrettable that legislation is unlikely to be implemented until 2002, and that the issue was not raised before the household registration forms appeared in 2000. If it had been, the additions could have been included for the coming election. There was considerable electoral abuse during the previous general election and it is likely that, because of the Government's inability to act quickly enough, there will be similar abuse in the coming election. I should have liked the next household form to include the additions rather than have to wait until 2002.
Vote stealing is a major issue in the procurement of postal or proxy votes. The number of people applying for absent votes in each constituency in Northern Ireland is approximately double that anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It provides massive potential for fraud. Often in the past individuals have been wholly unaware that an absent vote has even been applied for on their behalf. More rigorous scrutiny of the applications is essential if we are to restore a modicum of fairness to our democracy.
There is undoubtedly quite a lot of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland, but the majority of it comes from false applications for postal and proxy votes. A smart card will be useful for people going to the polling station, but it will not be of much use for those applying for postal or proxy votes, especially in preventing those who are doing so fraudulently. If the household form were brought in as quickly as possible, it could be used in a more beneficial way to stop the fraud in postal and proxy votes.
I accept that the introduction of a smart card would benefit those who go to the polling stations, but if the presiding officer had a register that additionally contained dates of birth, that would also be a deterrent. If the presiding officer saw someone coming in, he could reasonably judge his age, and if he were in doubt he could question him. It would be unlikely that someone coming to vote fraudulently would know a date of birth. That would be beneficial too.
As the Bill to make the changes will apparently not be introduced all that soon, we could also make acceptable forms of identification other than passports or driving licences. I have known people who have gone to the polling station and produced a pass with a photograph that they used at work, but they were refused a vote

337WH
because it was not a designated document. If someone produces a photograph that clearly identifies him, that should be acceptable too.
Mr. Barnes: On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point about the date of birth, I just pass On the information that, in Malta, identity card numbers end with the date of birth and that number appears on the electoral register. There have been problems with identity cards in Northern Ireland, but they might nevertheless be a means by which one could try to ensure 100 per cent. electoral registration, because they would make it easier to trace people and place them on registers.
Mr. Thompson: I am not as far travelled as the hon. Gentleman, but there is much to be said for the wisdom of the people of Malta. I cannot see why we cannot all have an identification card, as it would make things a lot easier in many ways. It is certainly worth looking into.
In conclusion, we are all disappointed that it has taken the Government so long to act. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report was printed in March 1998, we had a preliminary response from the Government in June 1998, followed by another in May 1999, and a recent White Paper. It is clear that the Government are not in any hurry, despite my understanding that we were to have legislation in this Session. I do not blame the Minister for that, because I believe that his intentions were good, but he was overruled in another place. I hope that it the Government will examine the matter more urgently and take the promised steps, so that we can look forward to a fair electoral system in Northern Ireland, with abuse at a minimum.
3.31 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik: I start with a confession to right a wrong of 18 years standing. I was in an election that I am certain was rigged. When I stood for the first year representative position in the economics department of Bristol university, I managed to accrue a first preference vote of 84 votes, while the second placed person came in with 26 votes. That was an impressive achievement, especially considering that there were only 76 people in the class I can now tell the House, and thus the country, that the two culprits were Ian Williams and Clive Banks, who should never be allowed to stand for Parliament.
I welcome the opportunity to debate such a serious issue, albeit with an amusing side from time to time. I welcome the fact that it was also debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 13 February, which demonstrates that the Assembly is taking the issue seriously. I am concerned about the speed with which the Government have acted, and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. As hon. Members have said, we must bear in mind that the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue published a report on the issue immediately after the 1997 general election, and that there has been a long delay in the Government's acceptance of its findings. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report, which again has already been mentioned, came out three years ago and, despite that work, there has been little action since the previous election.
338WH
I understand that the peace process has had to take priority and that ministerial and officer time is limited, but one might have expected a little more progress on the issue given that personation and electoral malpractice are probably responsible for increasing tension, especially when individuals in Northern Irish politics conclude that outcomes have been materially altered by personation. The point was also made that, in proportional representation elections, smaller influences lead to bigger changes, and I do not need to rehearse the reasons for that.
We all agree that electoral malpractice is deplorable. Democracy is based on the assumption that the will of the people, fairly expressed in the ballot box, influences outcomes. One need think only of the work of individuals such as Emily Pankhurst at the turn of the past century to see how fundamental that right has been, and it is wrong to deprive deliberately some individuals of that right by effectively discounting the value of their votes compared with the votes of those who seek to cheat the system. Let us remember that our democracy is founded on the basis of trust. Everyone is entitled to believe that others will respect the system and, when that does not happen, the entire system comes into question.
Although we are discussing Northern Ireland, we must recognise that there is probably an underlying level of malpractice elsewhere; one occasionally hears about cases of personation on the United Kingdom mainland. However, the incidence of such malpractice is much less pronounced outside Northern Ireland, and there seems to be a cultural rejection of the acceptability of widespread electoral malpractice.
The way that we operate and the way that the system in Northern Ireland has operated has been based on that assumption. However, as we have already heard, people in Northern Ireland have different views. A small number of individuals feel more able or perhaps more entitled to pervert our system of democracy.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman used the term "discounting votes". Is he aware that in the implementation of the law on identification, many genuine voters have been turned away and their votes discounted, even though presiding officers knew who they were and knew that they were genuine? As a result of that, we have been pressing for records of those who have been turned away. The electoral officers have not been prepared to give them to us, but it is an aspect of the process that is adding to concern about voting.
Mr. Öpik: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of occasions when people with the right to vote turn up at the polling station only to find that a vote has already been cast in their name. I have come across such cases. Of course, they do not know who has cast the vote. They do not expect the staff at the polling station to recall the person, and the incident is not followed up or taken through the courts.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Recourse should have been made to tendered ballots in those cases, but I gather that, on certain occasions, people have not been told that they could vote using a tendered ballot. I am thinking of cases such as the one in which a wife came to the polling station with her husband, brought the wrong handbag and left her driving licence at home. Although the

339WH
presiding officer knew who she was and her husband identified her as well, she was refused her vote. That is a greater discount, when the state turns people away and prevents them from legitimately voting.
Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman raises a comparable injustice to the one that I described. It must be galling for such individuals to be turned away, especially when they know that a proportion of the votes being cast in their neighbourhood may not have been cast legitimately. The hon. Gentleman made that point most effectively.
Sometimes we have campaigns to increase electoral turnout, and, somewhat whimsically, I would like to point out that it is ironic that we are now trying to stop people from voting too much. The correct allocation of votes is one per person. I do not think that is in dispute.
There are also plenty of examples, many of which have already been mentioned, of the ways in which the system is cheated. One of the obvious ones, which the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) has described, is when five or six people are registered in one house or in a one-bedroomed bedsit. I understand that, due to student poverty, that might be the true number of residents of such a bedsit in the environs of Queen's university, Belfast—I will not make a point about tuition fees, because I would be ruled out of order. Nevertheless, when a pattern emerges in certain areas, one has to be suspicious.
It is difficult to prove that sort of abuse. Considerable resources are required—more than is available in Northern Ireland for the task—to follow up all such examples. Ultimately, it can come down to individual members of the public reporting such incidents, but in doing so they lay themselves open to intimidation, given that those who cheat the system are hardly prone to take a fair-minded attitude to being found out. Many other examples could be adduced, but I think that we all agree that we have a serious and particular problem in Northern Ireland that is not shared by the rest of the United Kingdom.
Various proposals have been made. I favour the collecting of personal identifiers such as date of birth and signature, using the registration process. That information can then be used to verify voters' identity. Again, other Members have defined that proposal in detail. However, even with that, the presiding officer would still need discretionary powers to refuse ballot papers. In theory, I could turn up to vote with my grandfather's pension book and say that my date of birth was 1916. The presiding officer should be able to refuse me a ballot paper in those circumstances, as I am not 85, although the past four years in Parliament have definitely put years on me. It would be relatively easy for me to get away with electoral fraud if the difference in date of birth were smaller. My brother, for example, is only a few years younger than me and is also called Öpik. If he were on the electoral register, I could get away with it easily on the assumption that the electoral staff did not know of me. We need to recognise that the measure would not be a panacea for the problems.
A photographic identity document would be a step forward, but it would take time to legislate for such a scheme. I welcome the suggestion that such a card
340WH
should be free. To charge people for being enfranchised would be unacceptable. The elderly, poor, infirm and others may be disinclined to apply for such a card. If so, we would be concerned about disfranchising people through additional bureaucracy. Will the Minister comment on that?
Perhaps the most radical proposal is to replace all the specified documents with an electoral identity card, although it has been suggested that that might take 10 years or so. I see the Minister shake his head, so I am optimistic that the Government think that the card could be introduced rather faster. I look forward to hearing what he says about the timetable for such a change.
In the specific circumstances, it may make sense to introduce such an identity card scheme. I doubt that it would completely eliminate fraud, but it would probably massively reduce it. It would be a good idea for elections, but I have always had reservations about identity cards on a more widespread basis for citizens in the United Kingdom. I am not a number; I am a free man—well, I sometimes think that I am probably simply a mobile number to the press, but I shall live with that. Nevertheless, the issue should not be used as an opportunity to introduce an identity card on a UK-wide basis. It should simply stand to try to eliminate electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. The other debate should be had separately, on the Floor of the House. Creeping legislation has always concerned me, and I see the possibility of it in this instance.
The system is most open to abuse at present through postal and proxy votes. In evidence to the Select Committee, the former chief electoral officer, Mr. Bradley, said that two thirds of the applications for postal votes that he saw were marked red to show that they were discounted and disqualified. That proportion demonstrates the magnitude of the abuse of the postal vote system. The proposals to introduce checks for postal and proxy votes similar to those required for normal registration, combined with a unique serial number or barcode on each application form, would be useful. I am sure that the fraction of two thirds is right. Can the Minister confirm it? When I was told of it, I was immediately suspicious as it was so astoundingly high. He may not be able to answer now.
As we know from experiments last year on how people vote, postal ballots seem to increase turnout. They had a 60 per cent. positive effect in one of the local government experiments last year. So long as the votes have been cast legitimately, that is great, but we would have to ensure that the increase in turnout was not at the cost of electoral integrity. That is an aside, but the issue of postal ballots must be handled in conjunction with the other considerations.
Despite all the changes, we must recognise that malpractice is tempting to some and achievable by a few. I do not favour compulsory voting, as I think that politicians should positively motivate individuals to vote and earn individuals' votes. Even if it were introduced, it would probably be abused in some way. I shall give an example that illustrates the humility of the Liberal Democrats. In 1992, an individual called Sluggo Copeland voted in the elections for a federal president of the Liberal Democrats. To the returning officer's surprised, it turned out about six months later that Sluggo was a dog that lived in the United States. To

341WH
the dog's redemption, its ballot paper arrived after the close of nominations, so it did not significantly influence the outcome. Most intriguingly, neither the Liberal Democrats nor any other party specifies the category of species entitled to membership, so that vote was technically in order—although the handwriting was somewhat illegible. If the Liberal Democrats can have that sort of potential problem, we shall always have people trying to cheat the system. On balance, however, most people, including those in Northern Ireland, take their electoral responsibilities seriously, and do not seek to pervert the course of democracy.
Mr. John M. Taylor: I do not think that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly. I thought that he said that his party's constitution includes a species definition on who can be a member and who can vote. Would I be right in assuming that, in order to be a member of that party, one has to be a human being? That has not always been my experience.
Mr. Bill Olner: Order I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman should stray down that route.
Mr. Öpik: Had I been tempted, Mr. Olner, I would have used the phrase often heard in "Just a Minute" and said. "I shall give the hon. Gentleman point for his entertaining intervention, but he does not get the Floor." If I were a Minister, or even a member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I should say that I would look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
We cannot realistically expect to eliminate electoral fraud 100 per cent. It would probably be unfeasibly expensive to try. We certainly are not doing so in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are trying to bring the degree of malpractice in Northern Ireland to a level comparable to that in the rest of the UK. Of course we want a zero rate, but we live in the real world—an imperfect world, with political opportunism, in which some people have different values. I urge the Government to take the necessary steps to require some form of photographic identification to be produced at polling stations to at least start to combat the problem.
In a democracy, it is our responsibility to protect the interests of law-abiding citizens, who will always form the majority. We must make it absolutely clear that society will come down hard and positively on those who seek to upset that valid, honourable and proud electoral system.
3.47 pm
Mr. John M. Taylor: As a general principle, I should like the law in Northern Ireland to be the same as it is in mainland Britain. However, I can see that, in this matter, Northern Ireland may have to be treated differently. I shall not press the Minister to answer my questions today.
When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I wrongly asked why it had taken so long to have this debate. I should have asked why it has taken the Government so long to act on the findings of the Select Committee's report. A collateral question is: when do the Government propose introducing
342WH
legislation to combat electoral fraud; and collateral to that, in the light of the Select Committee's recommendations, should the Royal Ulster Constabulary's general powers to prevent obstructive and intimidating behaviour be increased?
That having been said, I refer in passing to the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I have listened to him many times, and he rightly claims to be an expert on Northern Ireland and on electoral registration; and when those two subjects converge it is a rich cocktail in which he can claim to be a specialist.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) kindly took an intervention from me on the subject of people who have the same name. Of course, it is a well-known fact that, in our honourable House, the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has the same name as mine. It will not surprise anyone to know that, from time to time, post that arrives for us at the House is muddled up. He once said to me that when I received cheques intended for him I put them in my bank account, and when I received death threats meant for him, I sent them on by second-class post.
Clearly, as a student, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) achieved a prodigious over-performance in the electoral college of his class. It is not a proper matter to discuss here, but I should like, in the margins of the meeting, or on some social occasion, to learn more about that. Whatever went wrong, he was clearly on top of it.
With your indulgence, Mr. Olner, I conclude on a different note, with a matter that is merely tangential to the proceedings. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster in his roles as Chairman of the Select Committee and, previously, as Secretary of State. For me, he is not merely my right hon. Friend but my personal friend, and this may be the last time that he and I take part in a parliamentary debate together. His thoroughness, scholarship and wit are legend, and his parliamentary career and achievements are awesome, not just because of the high responsibilities that he has undertaken, with distinction, but also because of his infinitely careful attention to the small things. I admire what he has done more than he may know. To anyone seeking to embark on a parliamentary career I hold him up as an example of how it should be done.
3.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by the debate to discuss electoral abuse in Northern Ireland, and for the many informed contributions, and I acknowledge the expertise and commitment of the Select Committee and its distinguished Chairman, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
I should like to add to the sentiments just expressed by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I know from my own involvement in Northern Ireland that the right hon. Gentleman is well regarded and held in great affection in the Province. Parliamentary convention dictates that I should not refer to him as my right hon. Friend, but as he knows, I have for several years now

343WH
been his constituent, at least for several days a week, and I have been very well served. I resorted to his services only once, and that was for a letter confirming my existence in the block of flats where I live, so that I could gain a residents' car park permit, and I am grateful to him for that. He has played a distinguished role, not only in the House, but in his dealings in Northern Ireland, to which he brought great expertise, warmth and affection.
I shall try to cover as many of the points raised in the debate as I can, in the time available. There is no shortage of time, but I do not want to test the patience of the House too far. I shall not be drawn into commenting on who may or may not vote in elections for any Liberal Democrat party office, but, in the spirit of confession of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), I confess that, in one election for which I was standing—not for Parliament, but for my local authority—an elderly gentleman came up to me outside the polling station and said, "Mr. Howarth, I have just voted for you, and you will be pleased to know that my dog did too." When I questioned him further about that to ascertain the possibility of it happening legally, he produced a polling card with the name Jack Russell on it. I am not sure whether the dog or another member of the man's family was called Jack Russell, but I am happy to report that the size of my majority in that election exceeded one, so I was not elected fraudulently.
I confirm that the Government take the issue of electoral fraud very seriously indeed. Although, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster acknowledged, it is difficult to quantify the amount of abuse that occurs in Northern Ireland, the perception of abuse is a threat to the democratic process, a point which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made extremely well. I share the disappointment of the House that legislation to counter abuse is not already in place, and I say that especially in view of the fact that elections are expected during the year, if not sooner.
As we have repeatedly made clear, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, any measures that we take must strike a balance between limiting opportunities for abuse of the electoral system and not putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of legitimate voters. That sounds like a simple balance to strike, but from the extensive consultations in which I have been involved, I can tell hon. Members that it is not as easy as it sounds.
The measures outlined in the White Paper, which has been referred to extensively in the debate, are largely based on the excellent work done by the Select Committee when it investigated electoral malpractice. The conclusions of the report of the Northern Ireland Office, published at about the same time, have also been taken into account in formulating the proposals in the White Paper. Some, including the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and the hon. Member for Solihull, have pressed for an explanation for our not having already included the proposals in legislation. That is not because of any lack of commitment to the problem, because the matter is of grave concern, something on which I have received many representations, and an issue that I take seriously. The truth of the matter is that the measures in the White
344WH
Paper have been refined and developed after detailed consultations with all political parties, with the chief electoral officer, and with registration and electoral officers in Great Britain, as well as after an examination of all the measures that have been introduced in other parts of the world to combat electoral fraud.
Whatever measures we introduce must be broadly acceptable to the House and, as important if not more so, they must broadly acceptable to the electorate. Because the measures that we want to introduce will affect how people register to vote and how we introduce new attainers, we will have to bring forward primary legislation, as the right hon. Gentleman said. However, much of the proposed change will involve new technical equipment that is not in place. If we were to introduce legislation now, its procedures simply could not be implemented straight away. I shall say more about that in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that other measures that do not require legislative provision have already been brought forward by the chief electoral officer. For instance, he has initiated a programme of enhanced training for those who administer elections, and he will issue new guidelines for those who work at polling stations on polling day. Given what has been said during the debate about how abuse is often conducted, the Chamber will realise that those two initiatives are welcome and important. The chief electoral officer has also decided that absent vote applications should be processed locally in future to facilitate their scrutiny. There has been on-going liaison between the chief electoral officer and the police, but the Chamber will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to give further details about that now.
We have also commissioned research that will provide valuable information about the extent of vote stealing and perhaps shed more light on the manner in which it happens. I should issue a warning. Those who may be contemplating such abuse should be aware that, if a pattern emerges, it is open to the police to investigate. I need say no more than that. The research is not aimed specifically at that purpose, but if a pattern were to emerge in any constituency, the police could well carry out a more detailed investigation.
Mr. Thompson: The Minister will appreciate that the police have done some good work in the past and have recommended prosecutions that have gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but nothing has ever happened. Perhaps he would advise the Director of Public Prosecutions to be more exercised in the matter.
Mr. Howarth: I do not propose to get involved in advising the Director of Public Prosecutions in this debate. The hon. Gentleman may realise that it would be most inappropriate—perhaps even counterproductive—for me to do so. However, we and the police are concerned about the quality of evidence that can be produced to demonstrate that fraud has been carried out, which will determine whether the Director of Public Prosecutions feels that a case can be brought.
As I pointed out, measures have been put in place by the chief electoral officer. I cannot give the Chamber a commitment that a Bill will be introduced

345WH
soon—I should probably stick to the formulation "shortly"—because we cannot anticipate how long this Session will last; nor, as is the convention on such matters, can I say what may be in the next Queen's Speech. However, I can give the assurance that if the opportunity to legislate arises, we will bring forward proposals. Most of the White Paper's provisions have a considerable lead-in time; there are no quick solutions for countering electoral abuse.
First, the voter identity card that will be included in the list of documents to be used at polling stations will certainly be issued as quickly as is practicable. However, the House will understand that, when developing such a database and issuing cards of that nature, it is important that both the information technology and the organisation are of the required standard.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I can understand why dates cannot be given, but I urge the Minister and the Government to move quickly after the next election. We have been dragging our feet for so long. We do not know whether we will have a full term until the votes are cast, but we know that in Northern Ireland there will be an Assembly election in a couple of years. We are equally aware that there will be a European election. We should not think of a general election in five years' time. We want this dealt with sooner.
Mr. Howarth: I shall come on to that point in a moment. To return to the question of the voluntary voter identity card, for such a system to be developed in a way that was faulty, inaccurate or open to abuse would only further undermine faith in the electoral system in Northern Ireland and waste public money.
As I mentioned earlier, and the hon. Member for Solihull spoke about this too, many of the changes proposed in our White Paper depend on information being collected during the autumn canvas. That again requires new information technology and software in the electoral office to ensure that, when that information is collected, it can be used in the appropriate way and, as with the voter ID card, is an accurate basis on which to take forward further counter-abuse measures. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the views and thoughts of the RUC about whether it has sufficient powers. We have consulted the RUC and it believes that it has sufficient powers. It is working closely with the chief electoral officer to ensure that its powers go in the right direction. It would be inappropriate for me to go much further than that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been a useful and productive dialogue between our officials, the chief electoral officer and those representing the Chief Constable.
It is hoped, and this goes directly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), that the legislative measures, particularly those that we put forward in the White Paper, will be in place for the Assembly election scheduled for May 2003. I personally hope that we will be able to achieve that. Had all the practical difficulties been overcome, I should have liked to have done something more before the next general election, but it simply was not practicable. It was not because we were dragging our feet.
346WH
In a radio interview shortly after the publication of the White Paper, one of the elected politicians in Northern Ireland, who is not here today and so I shall not name him, accused me of dragging my feet on this, and I was struck by that phrase. I looked back at our office note of a meeting that I had had with him as recently as November, and that confirmed my memory that, at the time, he had urged me not to rush into anything until we were certain that all the technology and correct procedures were in place—a legitimate argument to ensure that we did not disfranchise legitimate voters. That was in November, so it was upsetting to be accused in March by the same hon. Gentleman of dragging my feet. I shall not labour the point, but I have been waiting for an opportunity to get that off my chest.
Mr. Brooke: Will the Minister accept that members of Select Committees—I do not know about the rest of mankind—would prefer the Government to make conservative estimates of when they are likely to deliver rather than to suggest that developments will occur faster than they do in the event?
Mr. Howarth: With his customary wisdom and good sense, the right hon. Gentleman makes a point with which I could not disagree. That is certainly the intention behind our announcements.
I shall now deal with the some of the issues that I have not yet addressed. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire mentioned Pat Bradley, the former chief electoral officer, and asked about postal vote applications. As the hon. Gentleman anticipated, I do not have that information to hand and, despite frantic efforts, I still do not know. When I receive the information, I shall certainly respond to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Öpik: I did not expect to receive the information right now and I thank the Minister for undertaking to find out. We have one eye focused on specific malpractices in Northern Ireland, and what goes on there could have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom that are wider than we realise. I hope that we can use the information about Northern Ireland to check that malpractice is not going on unnoticed elsewhere.
Mr. Howarth: That may have wider consequences, but let us gain the information first and then see what conclusions can be drawn from it.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about Northern Ireland voters taking specified identity documents to the poll. As Northern Ireland Members will know, the necessary documents are widely advertised during elections and, if an election were to take place in the near future, are likely to be so again. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South said, some people will always turn up without the documents and will be unable to vote unless they can find them and return with them.
The hon. Member for Solihull was right to say that, ideally, what happens in Northern Ireland should be exactly the same as in the rest of the UK, but if special arrangements are necessary, they will sometimes he

347WH
inconvenient. Unfortunately, that is an inescapable consequence. We must make every effort to remind people in Northern Ireland that specified documents are necessary, but it may pass some people by.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) referred to the potential usefulness of the postcode. I suspect that it is already used, but I may be wrong. Rather than give a direct answer now, I shall check up and advise the hon. Gentleman later.
Mr. Thompson: I think that it is, but that it is not mandatory. I want it to be mandatory to enter the postcode.
Mr. Howarth: That is an interesting point, which I shall check. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned re-numbering on the register as a result of rolling registration. The Representation of the People Act 2000 means that there will be re-numbering to indicate where a new resident has moved in, but most of those on the register will have the same number as in previous elections. Those who have moved will be affected, but not, we hope, those who were in the same place for previous elections. Although there will be that difference, it will not be as difficult as the hon. Gentleman expected.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire mentioned voter identity cards. We will need to make it easy for people to take up that option when it is introduced, because it will be a voluntary card. I take the view—if another Minister is responsible at the time, I am certain that he or she will take the same view—that we will have to make enormous efforts to ensure that obtaining a voter identity card is as easy as possible, even to the extent of having mobile units go round the streets so that people can step outside their door and make the necessary arrangements. It is enormously important to introduce a voluntary voter identification card and dispense with non-photographic specified documents. There will be many people who have no wish to travel abroad and therefore do not have a passport and who do not drive or anticipate driving a motor car and therefore do not have a photo-identity driver's licence. The only document left for them to have will be a voluntary photo-identity card. In those circumstances, it is incumbent on us to ensure that they are as available as possible to legitimate voters. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman made a good point well, and I take it seriously.
My hon. Friend also made a number of points arising directly from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's recommendations. With your tolerance, Mr. Olner, I shall deal with those points in something like the order in which they were raised. He said that a recommendation was that, following the notification of a person's death by the registrar of births, deaths and marriages, the chief electoral officer should have the power to remove that person's name from the electoral register immediately. That has been done in Northern Ireland on an informal basis for a number of years,
348WH
following arrangements made by the chief electoral officer. The Representation of the People Act will place a statutory requirement on registrars to supply that information, which will make easier what my hon. Friend wants to happen.
My hon. Friend also referred to the recommendation on cross-checking with the information from planning services and local authorities as a way of providing information on occupancy, the number of dwellings or even whether a property is derelict. As he made clear, there is an annual canvas in Northern Ireland, whereby, as far as possible, a canvasser visits every household to collect information on those in any dwelling who might be on the electoral register.
Rolling registration, which was introduced in February 2001, will increase the register's accuracy by allowing those who move home to re-register quickly. It empowers the chief electoral officer to collect information from the land valuation registry, the rates agency, the registry of births, deaths and marriages, and local authorities. That list could be lengthened by order, if that proved necessary.
My hon. Friend mentioned another recommendation from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which says that
"evidence indicates that there may be a serious level of multiple registration, at least in some parts of Northern Ireland."
Many hon. Members have referred to that. Multiple registration is not a crime. Those with holiday homes or on full-time study courses, as has been mentioned, may have the right to be registered in two places. Indeed, I suspect that several hon. Members exercise that right; I have already confessed to doing so myself, not that I have any desire to vote in the Westminster constituency merely to have a residents' car park pass. That is another matter.
Mr. Barnes: I also admitted in the House not to using that right, and there is a question of whether it is legitimate that I should not appear on registers. The law can be interpreted in two ways, because we generally adhere to the principle that people should take up only one registration in their sole or main place of residence, to refer to the poll tax. Therefore, I have not made use of that right, but there is some dispute as to whether I should do so. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) admitted to adopting the same position.
Mr. Howarth: I should be resuming my place soon, because the debate is bringing forward far too many confessions for the comfort of the House. I leave that concern with my hon. Friend.
Of course, it is a criminal offence to vote more than once in an election, which is the issue with which we are concerned.
Mr. Brooke: May I interpolate a parenthesis to what the Minister has just said, and say that it is criminal except in two by-elections that occur on the same day and in which the individual has the right to vote?
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing that to my attention. I should

349WH
have been aware of that, but we are all the wiser yet again for his intervention.
Mr. Öpik: For clarification, will the Minister confirm that he should have said that it is illegal to vote in more than one constituency in the same election?
Mr. Howarth: For argument's sake, if I were registered in Westminster and in Knowsley and there were local government elections on the same day, I could choose to vote in Westminster or Knowsley, but not in both. The same would apply in a parliamentary election. For obvious reasons, I will vote in Knowsley when the general election comes, although, because of the actions of the Boundary Commission for England, it will not be for myself. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I thank him for the opportunity to amplify my point.
I hope that I have made it clear how much we appreciate the excellent work of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and value its continuing interest in pressing the issue. I hope that we have made clear our commitment to finding proposals that will work, while not imposing unreasonable burdens on people legitimately seeking to exercise their democratic right. The overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland want to vote and they do not want to abuse that position; just as importantly, they do not want anyone else to abuse that position for them. The messages from this debate are, "Yes, we need to act," and, "Yes, this House deplores
350WH
the stealing of votes." If those who are contemplating stealing votes get that message, it will be to the greater good—
Mr. Roy Beggs: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's giving way, as I missed the earlier part of the debate.
As a former teacher, I remember our 16-year-olds being presented with a national insurance number in their last week at school. Surely, that is when we should introduce proper identification for all school leavers. That, in itself, may encourage them to take more interest in the democratic system.
Mr. Howarth: There is an argument for using the national insurance number as a unique identifier, but there are data protection and other difficulties with the suggestion. The national insurance number is issued for one purpose; to use it for another purpose as a statutory requirement would be in breach of the data protection principles in legislation. We could argue about that, but legal advice on the matter would suggest difficulties. I understand the attraction of the proposal but I am advised that it would not be legally possible.
If the message from the Committee is that we are opposed to people's votes being stolen and will take appropriate action to stop it, the debate has been worth while.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Four o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (North Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North Devon constituency, the effects on North Devon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155906]

  The Solicitor-General
  The North Devon constituency falls within the geographical area covered by the Devon and Cornwall Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In November 1999, in line with national policy, CPS Devon and Cornwall, in liaison with the police and the North Devon magistrates court, introduced procedures based on the Narey proposals. All adult defendants charged with a criminal offence in North Devon should make their first appearance before Barnstaple magistrates court within eight days.

  A CPS Crown court Unit based in Exeter deals with serious crime at Exeter and Barnstaple Crown courts. The CPS has set as a goal the better handling of serious cases in the interests of justice and the victims. From 15 January 2001, a fast-track procedure was adopted which will ensure that offences, which must be heard in the Crown court, normally come before a judge within eight clear days of their first hearing in the magistrates court.

  The CPS together with other agencies has been working to speed up youth justice, particularly Persistent Youth Offenders. The time taken for Persistent Youth Cases has fallen in the CPS Devon and Cornwall Area from 141 days in 1997 to 60 days in 2000 This places Devon and Cornwall at the top of the national league.

  All these changes illustrate the government's successful policy of speeding up the criminal justice system.

  On 30 November 2000, the Exeter office of CPS Devon and Cornwall altered its structure so as to fall in line with proposals in the Glidewell Review This represents a policy of more effective working between the police and prosecutors and will enable the CPS to place greater emphasis on the more serious criminal cases.

  Action and policies of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud 0ffice do not directly affect the hon. Member's constituency

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to release for(a) parliamentary and (b) public scrutiny the papers held by the New Millennium Experience Company. [155472]
  716W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: As a non-departmental public body, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) will release to the Public Records Office papers across the spectrum of the Millennium Experience project that are potentially of historic interest or significance. Other papers will be passed to my Department for archiving. NMEC's arrangements regarding the PRO and the Department have been informed by discussions between NMEC and my Department to ensure that public sector archiving guidelines and requirements are followed, and that they have due regard to NMEC's status as a Companies Acts company.

  The Department and NMEC fall within the scope of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, and will respond to specific requests for information in accordance with that Code.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Conference on Research Infrastructure
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by whom the UK Government were represented at the conference on Research Infrastructure held in Strasbourg in September 2000. [153673]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK was represented by a senior official of the Office of Science and Technology who in turn was representing my noble Friend the Minister for Science.

  Insolvent Companies
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions directors of insolvent companies have been disqualified under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986; and what this is as a percentage of the total number of directors. [156006]

  Dr. Howells: As at 28 February 2001 there had been a total of 9,734 directors disqualified since 1986 when the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 commenced. A further 1,721 cases are awaiting a court hearing of which 90 per cent. are expected to result in disqualification orders. The exact total numbers of directors returned as serving in office at any given time is not available (because, for example, some individuals hold more than one directorship) but an approximate number is 3.6 million.

  Small Building Contractors (Regulations)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade
  and Industry what proposals he has to improve regulations for small building contractors. [153509]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no plans to increase regulation specifically for small building contractors.

  Universal Banking Services
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in establishing the universal bank. [155914]
  717W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Good progress is being made with the development of Universal Banking Services. Discussions with the banks are at an advanced stage and I hope they will be resolved shortly.

  Windfarm (Northumberland)
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on AMEC Border Wind's proposal to build a windfarm at Humble Hill, Kielder, Northumberland. [156637]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today, reluctantly, decided that consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to AMEC Border Wind's application to build a 80 MW windfarm at Humber Hill, Kielder, Northumberland cannot be given. However keen the Government are to see new wind projects, we are not in the business of taking risks with aircrew lives.

  My decision was taken only after extensive discussions over a period of years to try to resolve the difficulties.

  Despite these protracted discussions and the willingness of everyone to try to reach agreement and enable the windfarm to proceed, the underlying concern of the Ministry of Defence could not be removed. That concern rested on the effect the proposed windfarm would have on the operation at the Spadeadam Electronic Warfare Tactics Range (EWTR).

  The EWTR lies to the south of the site of the proposed windfarm and aircraft approaching it would have had to fly over the windfarm. There is no other route and the proposed windfarm would interfere with radar and with low flying, particularly at times of poor visibility.

  The MOD informed me that facilities at the EWTR are unique, as there is no other site like this in Europe, so it is imperative for the front line training of RAF crews and therefore the tactical training value of the range must be safeguarded. Safety is of paramount importance. DTI and MOD are working closely together to find solutions to the problem of developing commercial windfarms, both onshore and offshore, while preserving the UK's defence interests.

  This decision was due to the unique local circumstances and is not a general precedent. Our policy remains that each application will be considered on its merits, but in doing so it is quite right that we should look carefully at concerns over a particular siting. It also remains our intention that 10 per cent. of our electricity supply should be generated by renewable resources by 2010.

  Copies of the Press Notice and the decision letter are being places in the Library of the House.

  Electricity Security and Stability
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress the steering group on electricity security and stability issues has made in following up the recommendations made by the consultants Merz and McLellan in the White Paper "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation" and the Government response to the fourth and fifth reports of the Trade and Industry Committee, Cm 4071. [156550]
  718W
  Mr. Hain
  The steering group, chaired by my Department, published its final report today. The conclusions take into account the responses to a consultation paper issued by the group in April 2000, which set out their initial conclusions. The group concluded that the further work recommended by Merz and McLellan or raised in the responses to the consultation exercise has been undertaken or is in hand. In the responses to the consultation document, there was general agreement with the steering group's recommendation that following the introduction of New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA), the Regulator—the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)—should keep under review system security to ensure that the electricity and gas systems remain robust, that roles and operational responsibilities are clearly identified, and that adequate emergency procedures are in place. Further work will therefore be taken forward by Ofgem in consultation with interested parties. The group's report also addresses the detailed points raised during the consultation exercise.

  Copies of the report are being circulated, in the first instance, to all those who responded to the consultation document. I am placing copies in the Libraries of the House. The document, and the earlier consultation paper, are available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ energy/ and on request from Natalia Davie, NEP, DTI, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET (Phone: 0207 215 6488).

  Overseas Investment (Human Rights)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how his Department ensures that investments made by UK companies overseas are in projects that comply with the international human rights commitments to which the Government are a signatory. [155138]

  Mr. Caborn
  Advice on the prevailing market conditions is made available to UK companies on request. This reflects the Government's position on human rights elements, for example on the desirability of trade with certain countries. It is however for UK companies to judge whether to bid for projects or invest in particular markets.

  More generally, the Government have sought to raise the profile of human rights considerations in the operations of companies overseas. for example in promoting the OECD Guidelines for Mult national Enterprises.

  Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the draft Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill. [156094]

  Mr. Byers
  I am today publishing for consultation the draft Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill. Copies of the "Consultation on Draft Legislation: the Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill" (CM5091) will be laid before the House and will be available at the Vote Office. Copies will also be available from the Stationery Office and on my Department's website.

  The draft Bill replaces in full the export control powers in the Import, Export and Customs (Powers) Defence Act 1939. Export controls currently imposed under the 1939 Act include both strategic export controls which are the responsibility of my Department and export controls on cultural objects which are the responsibility of the

  719W
  Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Bill is intended both to provide for improved accountability for and transparency in export controls and to provide a more up-to-date and comprehensive legislative framework for export controls.

  The draft Bill establishes the purposes for which export controls can be imposed and will provide for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation made under it. These measures will meet recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott in his report of the Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and Related Prosecutions. The Bill also provides for annual reports to be laid before Parliament.

  The draft Bill provides Government with new powers to impose controls on the transfer of military and dual-use technology by intangible means and the provisions of related technical assistance, and on activities connected with international trade (usually referred to as trafficking and brokering) between overseas countries in military or dual-use equipment.

  The Introduction to the Bill in Part I of the "Consultation on draft legislation" sets out the controls which the Government propose to introduce in secondary legislation to be made under these new powers. These are as follows:
  Controls on the electronic transfer of military technology in line with similar controls already used for dual-use technology in the new European Dual-Use Items Regulation which came into force in September 2000.
  Controls on the transfer of technology by any intangible means and the provision of technical services intended for weapons of mass destruction and related missile programmes. These controls will meet the requirements of a Europe an Union Joint Action agreed in June 2000.
  Controls on the trafficking and brokering of weapons and related equipment to any destination. In addition controls will be introduced which will be used to prohibit trafficking and brokering to embargoed destinations and trafficking and brokering in types of equipment whose export we have already banned because of evidence of their use in torture.

  The Bill will also allow for the imposition of export licensing procedures and includes a power to require the provision of certain information which is intended primarily to ensure that the Government can meet their reporting obligations to international bodies, such as the UN Conventional Arms Register. The Bill allows for the maximum penalty for offences in respect of matters controlled under the powers in the Bill to be raised from the current maximum level of seven years' imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years.

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  The HALO Trust

  1,417,600

  1,092,000

  1,751,468

  4,166,000

  UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance for Afghanistan (UNOCHA)

  500,000

  2,000,000

  —

  1,700,000

  Mines Advisory Group (MAG)

  1,033,307

  951,908

  2,204,000

  2,999,000

  Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC) (via UNDP)

  —

  —

  —

  187,500

  Government of Egypt>

  500,000

  87.308

  —

  —

  UN Mine Action Centre (UNMAC) (Sarajevo),

  220,000

  —

  —

  —

  Government of Yemen (via UN Development Programme) (UNDP)

  47,772

  —

  —

  —

  International Trust Fund for De-mining

  —

  —

  —

  500,000

  Croatian Mine Advisory Centre

  —

  —

  —

  100,000

  Government of Jordan

  —

  —

  —

  581,000

  Organisation of American States (Nicaragua de-mining)

  —

  —

  —

  283,000

  720W
  Views are invited from all those with an interest in either strategic export controls or export controls on cultural objects by Thursday 24 May.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response the Government are making to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [156479]

  Clare Short
  Afghanistan is currently suffering from its worst drought in 30 years. This, combined with continuing conflict and the absence of significant economic recovery, has led to dramatic deterioration in the humanitarian situation. The UN indicates that about 12 million people (over half the country's population) have been affected by the drought; 3 to 4 million of them seriously. One million people are thought to be at risk of famine. Neighbouring countries are becoming increasingly unreceptive to population flows from Afghanistan and there have been reports of border closures over recent months.

  We have continued to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan where this can be done effectively. This financial year, we have provided some £10.5 million through UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs. As well as drought relief assistance, this includes a longer-term programme of humanitarian assistance to the Afghan population. both in Afghanistan itself and to Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran. We intend to continue with this programme in the coming year, and stand ready to respond to additional needs as required.

  We have also reviewed our policy of not financing NGO activities that involved UK nationals, because of the personal security risks. There have been no serious security incidents involving expatriates for some time. With this in mind, we have decided to consider funding on a case by case basis for NGOs that send UK nationals into the country. As before, the appraisal proposals will continue to include an assessment of the agency's personnel security arrangements. Only if these arrangements are judged to be appropriate would the agency be eligible for funding.

  Mine Clearance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the organisations to which the Government have given money for the purpose of mine clearance in each year since 1996, and, in each case, the amount received by each organisation. [155997]

  Clare Short
  The table gives the figures requested:
  721W

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  United Nations Mine Action Service (Sierra Leone)

  —

  —

  —

  4,500

  United Nations Mine Action Service (Kosovo)

  —

  —

  —

  489,600

  BACTEC (Kosovo)

  —

  —

  —

  691,000

  DSL (Kosovo)

  —

  —

  —

  1,290,000

  ELS (Kosovo)

  —

  —

  —

  833,000

  UNMAS (Global)

  —

  —

  —

  29,000

  UNICEF

  —

  —

  —

  1,000,000

  Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian De-mining (GICHD)

  —

  —

  —

  275,138

  Cranfield Mine Action

  —

  —

  —

  74,000

  Warwick University

  —

  —

  —

  165,000

  AIGIS

  —

  —

  —

  3,600

  Landmine Monitor

  —

  —

  —

  185,000

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent by Government on(a) humanitarian mine clearance, (b) commercial mine clearance, (c) military initiative

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  (a)Humanitarian mine clearance1

  34,288,860

  34,149,642

  33,990,468

  12,300,000

  465,082

  4200,000

  4250,000

  435,000

  (b) Military initiative min2

  —

  —

  205,000

  —

  —

  51,25,000

  —

  (c) Mine awareness

  70,000

  4250,000

  —

  1,292,339

  (d) Research and development

  —

  376,673

  548,343

  500,000

  1Includes clearance of anti-personnel landmines and other unexploded ordnance as well as mines awareness. As programmes are often integrated separate costs of awareness are not available.

  2Military mine clearance have taken place in the Balkans since 1992. Military advisers have been attached to UN Mine Action Centres assisting in the development of mine action programmes. They have also supervised the mint clearance carried out by the Entity Armed Forces and provided mine awareness to local populations. The Mine Information Training Centre (MITC) at Minley has provided mine awareness training to over 30,000 people. The MOD has also continued to monitor minefields in the Falkland Islands. This work is part of the wider responsibilities of those involved and is impossible to cost accurately.

  3Includes integrated mine awareness activities.

  4Payment made from Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds.

  5Value of surplus equipment re-deployed to mine clearance projects.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 2000—01 will be available June 2001.

  2. Expenditure by Department of International Development (DFID) unless otherwise indicated DFID has not funded commercial mine clearance. There are no records of UK commercial demining activities currently available in Department of Trade and Industry.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what Government expenditure was on humanitarian mine clearance for each year since 1996, broken down by country [155897]

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Afghanistan

  1,050,000

  2,106,500

  920,000

  1,900,000

  Albania

  –

  –

  –

  50,070

  Angola

  –

  –

  –

  –

  Bosnia

  –

  –

  –

  –

  Cambodia

  1,058,700

  689,686

  693,000

  2,274,000

  Chad

  –

  –

  –

  –

  Croatia

  –

  –

  –

  100,000

  Egypt

  500,000

  87,308

  –

  –

  Eritrea/Ethiopia

  –

  –

  –

  –

  Georgia

  –

  –

  220,781

  –

  Guinea Bissau

  –

  –

  –

  138,860

  Iraq

  785,000

  658,972

  740,000

  451,764

  Jordan

  –

  –

  –

  587,156

  Laos

  148,307

  101,250

  500,000

  833,351

  Lebanon

  –

  –

  –

  –

  722W
  mine clearance, (d) mine awareness, (e) victim assistance and (f) research and development for mine clearance in each year since 1996. [155893]

  Clare Short
  Disbursements are as follows

  Clare Short
  Government expenditure on mine action
  programmes is indicated in the table:
  723W

  £

  1996—97

  1997—98

  1998—99

  1999—2000

  Mozambique

  408,900

  487,500

  362,500

  –

  Nicaragua

  –

  –

  –

  283,000

  Thailand

  –

  –

  –

  –

  Yemen

  47,772

  –

  –

  –

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo)

  275,000

  –

  –

  5,664,339

  Global/Regional

  –

  1200,000

  2375,000

  90,000

  1Foreign and Commonwealth Office funded activities.

  2Value of surplus equipment re-deployed by DFID and MOD to mine clearance projects.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 2000–01 will be available Jun 2001.

  2. Expenditure by Department for International Development unless otherwise stated.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of funds made available through the UN Mine Action Service to support the work of the Croatian Mine Action Centre in 1999 to 2001 was expended on UNMAS administrative costs. [155896]

  Clare Short
  Of the £250,000 mad available towards the United Nations Mines Assistance Programme in Croatia, UNMAS administrative costs were 3 per cent.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of grants to commercial organisations for humanitarian mine clearance in Kosovo has been taken as profit. [155996]

  Clare Short
  Under the terms of the, contracts between DFID and the commercial organisations is engaged for mine clearance work in Kosovo, profit details are commercially confidential. DFID operates well established procurement and contractual procedures designed to ensure value for money.

  Palestinian National Authority
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding is provided by the European Union to the Palestine National Authority for education. [155788]

  Clare Short
  The European Commission advise that since 1991 they have committed a total of 172.5 million euro to support education development initiatives with the Palestinian National Authority.

  Recipient Countries
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries which received UK overseas aid in each year since 1990, indicating the amount of aid given in each case. [155785]

  Clare Short
  Since 1990 a total of 156 countries received official development assistance (oda) or official aid (oa) from the UK.

  A copy of the full list of countries and amounts given in each year will be placed in the Library of the House. More information on international development is held in "Statistics on International Development 1995/96–1999/2000", a copy of which is also available in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 2 May 1997 his Department has issued a correction to police numbers statistics. [155843]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: The statistical bulletin for the September 2000 figures was reissued on 16 January 2001 as a result of receiving revised police strength figures from the Metropolitan police. There have been three other publications where corrections to the figures for earlier periods have been made in the light of revised figures submitted by the police: figures for March 1998 were corrected in the statistical bulletin number 14/99, published on 26 August 1999, entitled "Police Service Personnel England and Wales, as at 31 March 1999", after Sussex corrected their data for that year. Revised figures for March 2000 were included in both the original and revised bulletins for September 2000, after the number of secondments to central services were corrected when double counting was discovered. This originated from the National Criminal Intelligence Service return being completed incorrectly. The revised bulletin for September 2000 was entitled "Police Service Strength England and Wales", published on 16 January 2001, and was statistical bulletin number 2/01. Figures for September 2000 had to be adjusted when the Metropolitan police reported that officers on loan to adjacent forces had been deducted from their figures twice. They also provided revised figures for ethnic minority officers. A revised bulletin for September 2000 was issued, with details as given in (2).

  The forthcoming bulletin to be published in June will contain revised Northumbria strength figures for 30 September 2000 that became apparent during the preparation of the 30 January 2001 figures. It should be noted that it is a standard practice to include corrections in statistical publications when improved data are provided by data sources. Indeed, this practice is quite commonplace, although the corrections are minor in the vast majority of cases.

  Voluntary Organisations (Government Funding)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total amount of Government funding for voluntary and not-for-profit organisations in each of the last 10 years. [153939]
  725W
  Mr. Boateng
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Probation Officers (Middlesex)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers are serving in Middlesex; what his Department's target complement is; and how many served in Middlesex in each of the past five years. [155935]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: The available information is as follows:

  Middlesex probation officers in post

  31 December

  Number of persons1

  1995

  278

  1996

  263

  1997

  260

  1998

  260

  1999

  262

  2000

  254

  1Whole-time equivalent

  Middlesex will become part of the area of the new London Local Probation Board on 1 April, and that body will determine its staffing needs. Across England and Wales it is planned to recruit over 1,000 trainee probation officers in the next 12 months.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were(a) aged over 65 years, (b) required major surgery and (c) had significant impairments or disabilities in each of the past five years; and what plans he has to make special arrangements for prisoners in these categories. [155674]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of prisoners aged over 65 in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  281

  1997

  317

  1998

  354

  1999

  427

  2000

  472

  The number of prisoners who require major surgery or have significant impairments or disabilities is not collected centrally. Prisons, and their local health authorities, are currently assessing the health needs of prisoners, identifying appropriate services to meet those needs and effective ways of delivery. The aim of the needs assessment process is to provide prisoners with access to the same range and quality of services that the general public receive.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to speed the assessment of discretionary life prisoners and to ensure greater consistency in approach, with particular reference to(a) sentence length and (b) treatment programmes for sex offenders. [155675]
  726W
  Mr. Boateng
  Discretionary lifers, particularly those set a short tariff by the trial judge, are transferred from a local prison to a first stage lifer prison as soon as possible after sentencing (tariff being the minimum period the lifer is required to serve to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence). In order to enhance the working of the current system, the Government are investing an extra £500,000 in the next financial year to fund work in local prisons with new and potential lifers. This will enable speedier assessment and identification of the risk factors which lifers need to address.

  In addition, the Government are providing funding for nearly 800 extra lifer places, together with additional resources to increase the number of places available on the sex offender treatment programme. The Prison Service is also to introduce a simpler and more streamlined planning system for all life sentence prisoners which should ensure greater consistency of approach and improve the management of risk assessment and risk reduction as a lifer progresses through the system.

  The Prison Service fully recognises the need to give particular priority to the needs of short tariff lifers. The aim is to manage the system so that the Parole Board can release such lifers on or near tariff expiry where it is satisfied that their risk factors have been addressed and release is consistent with the overriding need to protect the public.

  S. P. Hinduja
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Mr. S. P. Hinduja was physically present in the United Kingdom on 22 October 1993; and if he will make a statement. [156007]

  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 question of whether Mr. Hinduja was physically present in the United Kingdom on the date in question is covered in paragraphs 5.153 to 5.155 of the review.

  Probation Directorate
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of staff in the probation directorate have operational experience. [155155]

  Mr. Boateng
  23 per cent. of staff in the National Probation Directorate have operational experience. These include the national director, who is a former chief probation officer, two of the six strategic heads, and one chief probation officer, one deputy chief probation officer, thirteen assistant chief probation officers, seven senior probation officers, two principal psychologists, and a seconded chief inspector of police.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum refusals from applicants from(a) Somalia, (b) Sudan, (c) Iraq, (d) Sri Lanka, (e) Congo and (f) Iran have been refused because of non-compliance in each of the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [155596]
  727W
  Mrs. Roche
  A non-compliance refusal is generated when the applicant fails without reasonable explanation to make a prompt and full disclosure of material facts either orally, or in writing or otherwise to assist the Secretary of State to the full in establishing the facts of the asylum case, for example not attending an interview, and any information provided does not establish that the applicant is not a refugee. In these circumstances the application falls to be refused under paragraphs 340 and 336 of HC 395 (as amended).

  A nationality breakdown of non-compliance refusals is not available prior to October 2000.

  The available information is given in the table.

  Refusals

  Nationality

  1,3,4Total

  1,2,3,4Non Compliance

  Percentage of total

  October 2000

  Somalia

  300

  250

  85

  Sudan

  25

  15

  65

  Iraq

  430

  300

  70

  Sri Lanka

  500

  215

  43

  Congo

  35

  20

  60

  Iran

  320

  170

  53

  November 2000

  Somalia

  350

  235

  67

  Sudan

  35

  20

  50

  Iraq

  495

  295

  60

  Sri Lanka

  715

  310

  43

  Congo

  85

  30

  33

  Iran

  450

  210

  47

  December 2000

  Somalia

  275

  215

  78

  Sudan

  35

  15

  43

  Iraq

  470

  220

  47

  Sri Lanka

  665

  185

  28

  Congo

  75

  7

  9

  Iran

  395

  145

  36

  January 2001

  Somalia

  295

  200

  68

  Sudan

  70

  10

  13

  Iraq

  1,030

  450

  44

  Sri Lanka

  1,065

  220

  21

  Congo

  65

  20

  30

  Iran

  775

  250

  32

  February 2001

  Somalia

  300

  205

  68

  Sudan

  70

  15

  2

  Iraq

  690

  225

  33

  Sri Lanka

  1,245

  155

  13

  Congo

  75

  22

  30

  Iran

  645

  175

  27

  1 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Non-compliance refusals (under paragraph 340 of the immigration rules and paragraph 180F prior to October 1994) are for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  3Outcome of initial decisions only.

  4Provisional figures.

  Discharged Prism ters
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what range of payments in cash and 728W
  in kind is available to discharged prisoners by way of (a) grants, (b) loans and (c) specific access to social security payments. [155553]

  Mr. Boateng
  A discharge grant is payable to most prisoners in order to ensure that the prisoner has sufficient money to meet immediate needs on release. It is not a substitute for social security payments. The current rates are:

  Standard

  £

  25 and older

  46.75

  18–24

  37.00

  Higher

  94.40

  The higher rate is paid only if there is a need to seek, obtain and pay for accommodation. It is only paid to prisoners with no accommodation arranged in advance, if this arises through no fault of the prisoner. Except those being deported or removed under Immigration Act 1988 powers, discharged prisoners receive payment or a travel warrant for their journey home. If they have not received a discharge grant, they may be given an appropriate subsistence allowance for their journey. Prisoners who do not have their own clothing may receive appropriate clothing on release.

  Discharged prisoners are generally treated in the same way as any other claimants for social security payments and must satisfy the eligibility criteria for each benefit claimed. The available benefits include Jobseeker' s Allowance (JSA), Income Support, Housing Benefit and crisis loans and community care grants from the Social Fund. Exceptionally, the JSA regulations contain specific provisions for those released from detention. They may be treated as available for work for a period of seven days commencing with the date of their release. They may also be treated as actively seeking employment for the first full week of their JSA claim if they have been treated as available for work for part of that week.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from fire services that have installed virtual reality training systems in the last two years on the effectiveness of the training; and what evaluation his Department has made of its effectiveness. [155778]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am told no such representations have been received. Fire brigades are encouraged by the Home Office to improve fire-fighting techniques by undertaking virtual reality training, the effectiveness of which is assessed by individual brigades and reviewed by Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate during brigade inspections.

  Emergency Response
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what occupational standard of competence is required of senior members of the fire and police services in respect of directing response to major emergencies. [155781]
  729W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Fire Brigade command course sets out the requirements for brigade commanders, including planning and directing responses to major emergencies. Underpinning competences which are developed are the qualities of leadership, interpersonal skill, analytical processing and dynamism. The competences trained for include: decision making involving longer term contingency planning; decision making after call-out and before arrival at a major incident; decision making on arrival, taking over command and the handing over process; and post-incident longer term decisions.

  Current Fire Service training on major emergencies is based on guidance prepared by the Government's Civil Emergencies Adviser and is comparable with that of the other emergency services. National occupational standards for operational command, which will include response to major emergencies, are in an advanced state of development.

  Occupational standards for the police service will be set by the Police National Training Organisation (NTO) once that is established. The Police NTO received recognition from the Department for Education and Employment earlier this month and is due to be incorporated in May 2001. In the meantime work is being done on the development of competences for various roles, including the management of major incidents. Police National Training provide training in the management of disasters and civil emergencies which can be taken either separately or as part of the strategic command course, which must be undertaken by officers who wish to seek appointment to the rank of assistant chief constable or commander.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the procedures for dealing with applications for British citizenship. [156549]

  Mrs. Roche
  During April 2001, the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) will devote some of its resources to starting applications for British citizenship on receipt. All cases, at both ends of the queue for consideration, will be considered using new procedures and working practices. New applicants will be asked to supply supporting documentation at the time of application and to respond more quickly to requests for further information than has previously been the case. The aim of these changes is to eliminate the current backlog of nationality applications by attacking it from both ends. This approach has been successfully used elsewhere in IND, for example in the production of travel documents.

  ICD will have achieved its target of 91,000 decisions by the end of March 2001, which is more than twice the total for 1997. By the end of February 2001, the average waiting time for all types of citizenship applications had fallen to exactly 12 months, as compared with nearly 20 months at the same time last year. These improvements flow from significantly increased investment in the system and the new service delivery culture now becoming established in the ICD.
  730W
  Because of these improvements ICD is now in a position to deal with the remaining backlog of work from both ends, cutting out unnecessary handling. This approach has proven very successful in other parts of IND' s work. More resources will continue to be devoted to those application ; that have been waiting longest, but the ICD' s intention is to reduce the waiting time for all applications to an average of six months by April 2002 and to three months by April 2004.

DEFENCE

  Warship Support Agency
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the formation of the Warship Support Agency; and what key targets have been set for 2001–02. [156486]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 2 April 2001 the Warship Support Agency (WSA) will be established as a Defence Agency through the merger of the Ships Support Agency (SSA) and the majority of the Naval Bases and Supply Agency (NBSA). The WSA will be responsible for providing responsive and cost-effective warship support to the Royal Navy and other customers. The WSA's first Chief Executive (CE) will be Mr. John Coles, currently CE SSA, who will initially be located at Foxhill, Bath together with the WSA Corporate Directors. The WSA Agency will employ some 9,000 civilian and 3,500 military staff at various other locations throughout the United Kingdom, including Bath and Bristol, HM Naval Bases Clyde, Devonport and Portsmouth, and HM Mooring and Marine. Salvage Depot, Pembroke Dock.

  The formation of the Agency will remove internal business boundaries between the SSA and the NBSA, creating a new organisation that will be more able to manage warship support coherently and be more responsive to customer requirements. The WSA corporate aim is to provide "World Class Support to a World Class Navy".

  The Chief Executive has been sent the following Key Targets for the first year of operation:

  Key Target 1Quantity To achieve 95 per cent. of Available Vessel days.
  To increase the provision of Single Living Accommodation (SLA) at Grades 1 and 2 standard to 25 per cent. of bed nights provided, recognising the long-term nature of capital works necessary to upgrade accommodation.

  Key Target 2: Timeliness
  To achieve the deep maintenance (Upkeep) programme with less than 7 per cent. overrun, and to achieve 95 per cent. of Capability Upgrades within target date and to an acceptance standard.

  Key Target 3: Quality
  To provide a quality of service that meets the ISO 9000 standard, and to achieve 95 pet cent. or better customer satisfaction rating of service delivery against agreed requirements.

  Key Target 4: Cost/Efficiency
  To make the necessary Agency contribution to the Defence Logistics Organisation's 20 per cent. target reduction of output costs by 2005, while conitinuing to deliver and, where appropriate, improve the quality of outputs.

  I am placing a copy of the Agency's Framework Document in the Library of the House.
  731W

  Sonar Systems
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department will select prime contractors to provide the new sonar systems for the Type 23 frigates and Hunt class mine counter-measures vessels. [156485]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am pleased to be able to announce that the competitions for these two important new sonar systems have now been completed and that Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd. (TMSL) has beer selected as prime contractor for both. We intend to be in a position to place contracts for the sonars in April.

  Sonar 2087 will provide our Type 23 anti-submarine warfare frigates with the ability to defeat, classify and track submarines beyond the submarine's ability to engage forces under protection. This advanced system will assure our detection advantage against modern nuclear and conventionally powered submarines. Following trials of the initial ship system, it will enter service in 2006.

  Sonar 2193 has been designed to replace the existing Sonar 193M mine-hunting sonar in cur Hunt class mine counter-measures vessels. This new system will maintain the effectiveness of our forces in this increasingly important area. The first equipment will be installed in a trials vessel next year and the system will enter service in early 2004.

  At the same time, we are taking the opportunity to replace the Command System in the Hunt Class. The new system will be developed from the NAUTIS system which is already fitted in our Sandown class ships.

  These orders will safeguard jobs at Thomson Marconi's sites at Cheadle Heath in Cheshire and at Templecombe in Somerset, as well as at a number of sub-contractor sites around the UK. The work will maintain UK industry's capabilities in this important technological area and, for the mine-hunting sonar, could lead to considerable export opportunities.

  Service Personnel (Communications)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long(a) 20 minutes of free telephone calls each week, (b) free e-blueys and (c) free e-mail facilities have been available to service personnel on (i) operations and (ii) exercises lasting more than two months; and what the annual cost of each service is. [155326]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: Previously, operational welfare support has been provided only to personnel who are deployed overseas on operations under the command of PJHQ. As of 1 April 2001, welfare provision will be extended to include those personnel on maritime deployments that are expected to be away from the UK for two months or more and, also, other exercise deployments that are expected to last for two months or more outside the country in which the personnel are based.

  All personnel deployed on overseas operations under the command of PJHQ have been entitled to 20 minutes of free telephone calls since September 1999. Access to
  732W
  free e-bluey facilities is gradually being made available as equipment is delivered and personnel trained in its use. E-bluey equipment was deployed to the Balkans and the Falkland Islands for trials in December 1999. It was subsequently deployed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Cyprus and Sierra Leone during 2000 and is to be deployed to Turkey in May 2001. UK service personnel who are deployed to the Gulf have for some time been given free access to the US forces own e-mail system, as a goodwill gesture. There is no information available to indicate when the US system was first deployed. Limited e-mail facilities were introduced in the Balkans in February 1999, and extended theatre-wide in November 2000, on completion of a programme of communication network infrastructure improvements. An e-mail facility was introduced in February 2001 for personnel deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone. The system will be extended to all personnel in theatre in April 2001, with the deployment of an additional satellite terminal.

  The annual cost of giving personnel a free 20-minute telephone call each week is currently in the region of £6 million and forecast to rise by £6.3 million from April. The annual cost of the e-bluey facility is £1.39 million and forecast to rise to £2.19 million from April. Information on the annual running costs of the e-mail facilities could be provided only at disproportionate cost, because call charges for this are contained in the telephone bills for each of the operational theatres.

  The figures given assume that the current level of operational commitment remains unchanged and do not include the provision of welfare communications for personnel deploying to Oman on Exercise SAIF SAREEA later in the year, the costs for which are expected to be in the region of £6 million to £8 million.

  Deployed Forces Facilities
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list operational deployments where British forces do not have access to hot shower facilities and laundry; [155322]

  (2) on which exercises lasting for two months or more British forces have not had access to hot shower and laundry facilities; [155323]

  (3) which units and agencies will be responsible for the provision of hot shower facilities and laundry facilities for deployed forces. [155324]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: Previously, operational welfare support has been provided only to personnel who are deployed overseas on operations under the command of PJHQ. As of 1 April, however, such welfare provision will be extended to include personnel on maritime deployments that are expected to be away from the UK for two months or more and, also, other exercise deployments that are expected to last for two months or more outside the country in which the personnel are based. This will result in improvements to, among other things, the provision of shower and laundry facilities.
  733W
  Currently, not all personnel deployed on operations have access to hot shower facilities. At Ali Al Salam, in Kuwait, the reliability and quality of the facilities is poor and the Ministry of Defence is currently addressing this problem. Also, Short-Term Training Team personnel in Sierra Leone do not have hot water shower facilities; they do, however, have access to cold water showers, which is regarded as satisfactory in view of the climate. All current operational deployments have access to laundry facilities.

  Information on the availability of hot shower and laundry facilities during exercises is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We are, however, conscious of the fact that there have been significant shortfalls in this area and have therefore provided additional funding within the new Operational Welfare Package, amounting to more than £6 million over the next four years, specifically to redress the problem. We expect future shower and laundry facilities to be incorporated in the Expeditionary Campaign Infrastructure Procurement programme, due in Service in 2004. It is expected that they will be cabin-based, similar to those procured under the Improved Tented Camp urgent operational requirement for Kosovo.

  The senior deployed logistics officer is responsible for ensuring that hot shower and laundry facilities are provided. The one exception to this is that UK Service personnel deployed on UN operations are administered under UN arrangements.

  International Criminal Court
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 756W, if he will place in the Library copies of reports and representations made to him by the armed forces during the consultation period and drafting of the International Criminal Court Bill, with particular reference to those that set out concerns expressed by the armed forces. [155921]

  Mr. Hoon
  No report or representations were made to me by the armed forces during the drafting of the International Criminal Court Bill or during the formal consultation period on the Bill starting in August 2000. Advice provided to Ministers during the development of policy on the International Criminal Court is withheld in accordance with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and cannot therefore be placed in the Library of the House.

  Holy Loch
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the clean-up operation on Holy Loch has been, broken down by component. [155315]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: The total cost of the UK clearance activity in Holy Loch to date is £10.5 million. This covered an initial survey and pilot phase, clearance and disposal, a further survey and environmental management. A further £0.2 million will be spent in financial year 2001–02 as the project winds down.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 298W on Ministry of Defence police, in what way the proposals in clause 32 of the Armed Forces Bill are designed to restore parity between his Department's police and Home Department forces in respect of disciplinary procedures. [156103]

  Mr. Spellar
  The proposals contained in clause 32 give effect to schedule 5 to the Bill. Schedule 5 introduces amendments to the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, in particular the introduction of section 3A(2)(a)(i) and 3A(2)(b), thereby restoring parity between the Ministry of Defence Police discipline regulations and the discipline regulations of the Home Department forces which were introduced in August 1999.

  In particular they allow persons other than the Secretary of State—for example, Appeals Tribunals—to make decisions, whereas order the present regulations decisions are confined to the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the report by chief inspector Reid into the complaint against the Ministry of Defence police by Mr. E. McHugh was forwarded to the Police Complaints Authority. [156002]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Deputy Chief Constable Ministry of Defence police is currently examining the report and will forward it, together with his recommendations, to the Police Complaints Authority in due course.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on how the costs of members of the armed services assisting in dealing with the Foot and Mouth outbreak will be apportioned between Government Departments. [155558]

  Mr. Spellar
  Any additional costs that the armed forces incur as a result of providing military assistance in dealing with Foot and Mouth will be recovered from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Policies (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Walthamstow constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154179]

  Ms Armstrong
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to Waltham Forest in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 is shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent in the Walthamstow constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.
  735W

  Waltham Forest

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–8

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant2

  119.632

  127.547

  131.501

  131.124

  139.903

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates 2

  48.277

  50.137

  54.129

  61.461

  59.480

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  0

  0

  0

  0

  .638

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  .150

  .150

  .270

  n/a

  n/a

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  .075

  .075

  .135

  n/a

  n/a

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  .996

  .789

  1.247

  1.439

  n/a

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  1.800

  3.564

  2.430

  0

  0

  ERDF funding

  0

  1.520

  1.379

  0

  0

  Housing Investment Programme

  6.2473

  6.605

  7.922

  422.418

  524.435

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  27.028

  25.146

  24.141

  24.478

  n/a

  Capital receipts Initiative

  1.289

  4.221

  4.967

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  1.028

  .731

  .044

  0

  0

  SRB funding

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5.793

  n/a

  1 Where known

  >2 The amounts of Revenue Support Grant and Income from National Non-Domestic Rates shown for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are the revised amounts allocated under "The Local Govern vent Finance Report (England) 1997–98 Amending Report 1999" and "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 Amending Report 2000" respectively.

  31997–8 HIP allocation inherited from the previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CRI from 1997–98.

  4 Single Housing Pot introduced from 2000– 01 resulting in CRI being merged with HIP.

  5Resource accounting has resulted in a change to the way capital resources are allocated for 2001–02, with the introduction of a new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) to cover the cost of maintaining local authority housing in a sound condition. Waltham Forest's MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £9.937 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation above.

  n/a = not available

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the annual cost to British industry of delays caused by repairs to corrugated steel barriers for the most recent year for which figures are available. [154474]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Resources Redistribution
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to divert resources from London and the South East to other parts of the country; [154298]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum written by the Prime Minister's principal private secretary in February concerning movement of resources from London and the South East to other parts of the country. [154296]

  Ms Armstrong
  There are no plans to divert resources from London and the South East to other parts of the country.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many ministerial meetings with hon. Members have been cancelled by Ministers since 1 January. [155237]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Pollution
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to encourage the use of less-polluting vehicles in major cities. [155461]
  736W
  Mr. Hill
  My Department sponsors the Energy Saving Trust's "Powershift" programme, providing financial support and other measures to encourage the purchase of new gas and electric vehicles. Powershift has been running since 1996, and my Department is today launching a consultation on proposals for the future direction of the programme, aimed at getting the greatest environmental and health benefits and encouraging the wider uptake of cleaner fuel vehicles in the cities and towns which have the biggest air quality challenges. The consultation document describes new initiatives designed to promote more use of natural gas for heavy public service and delivery lorries, which are cleaner and much quieter than diesel engines; and to encourage more use of electric vehicles, which have zero tailpipe emissions.

  Powershift, dealing with new vehicles, is complemented by the Clean Up programme, which provides grants towards existing vehicles being fitted with pollution control measures. Both programmes help local authorities to give their residents a cleaner and healthier environment, using the new powers to set up priority Air Quality Management Areas.

  Rail Saver Tickets
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many reduced price saver-type tickets were purchased(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of all rail tickets sold in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [155734]

  Mr. Hill
  The information required is not held centrally. Individual train operators would be free to provide this information at their commercial discretion.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the expenditure of the Highways Agency was in Hull in each
  737W
  of the past five years, indicating the schemes on which it has been spent and the proposals for the next five years; and what the expenditure was for estuarial (a) ports and (b) cities, of a similar size and location to Hull. [155386]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: The question relates to operational matters on the Trunk Road in Hull. I have accordingly asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 29 March 2001:

  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on expenditure by the Highways Agency in Hull.

  In broad terms the Agency has spent £ 7.631m over the past five years on routine maintenance and small-scale improvements on the A63 and A1033 in Kingston upon Hull including preparation work for the A1033 Hedon Road Improvement. This expenditure is split over the last 5 years as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1996–97

  0.177

  1997–98

  1.134

  1998–99

  1.551

  1999–2000

  1.943

  2000–01

  2.826

  Total

  7.631

  The Agency allocates its resources on the basis of need and in accordance with the objectives laid down in our Business Plan as agreed with Ministers. I regret that since information is not held by the Agency in a format that allows comparison with other estuarial ports and cities of similar size to Hull, I am not able to supply this.

  As to the future, the Agency's recently produced Business Plan for 2001/02 places a continuing emphasis on maintenance with an increase in resources over the next 3 years. Also, construction will shortly begin on the Hedon Road Improvement at an estimated cost of £53m. Construction will take place over a 2½ year period.

  In addition to this, work is underway on the Hull East-West Corridor Multi-Modal Study. Led by the Government Office Yorkshire and Humberside the study will develop a sustainable and

  Year

  Nature of work

  1997–98 (from I May)

  Survey on home composting1

  Research on effectiveness of proposed publicity for London Government Referendum2

  1998–99

  None

  1999–2000

  Research on awareness of abolition of leaded petrol1

  2000–01 (to date)

  Bus passenger satisfaction survey1

  DETR (Central) staff attitudes survey1,2

  1 Quantitative

  2 Qualitative

  Total planned expenditure on all these projects will reach £282,974 (excluding VAT) by the end of April 2001. Several projects involve both qualitative and quantitative research and it is not always possible to
  738W
  integrated plan to address the problems on the A63/A1033 through Kingston upon Hull and its surrounding area. Amongst the matters being considered are measures that will:

  Reduce congestion on the A63/A1033

  Improve the economic viability of the Port of Hull and the use of the route as part of the E20 Trans European Corridor

  Facilitate, where possible, economic growth and regeneration in Kingston upon Hull and East Riding

  Reduce the environmental problems along the route (in particular noise and air quality).

  The study is due to report in Autumn 2001 and its findings will be taken forward to the Regional Planning Body for their consideration in the first instance. Any proposals may subsequently go forward as candidates for programme entry.

  Should you require any further information, please contact the Area Manager for this part of the Network, John Bagley at our Leeds office, on 0113 283 6495.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent survey his Department has undertaken on the standards, upkeep and adequacy of road signs in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [155964]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department is not responsible for roads other than those in England. We have not surveyed English roads for which the Secretary of State is not the highway authority, as these are the responsibility of local government. The Highways Agency carries out regular inspections of the condition of traffic signs on trunk roads and trunk road motorways, in accordance with the departmental standard for sign maintenance, which has recently been updated. The new standard is based more on the actual visual performance and effectiveness of the signs than the previous version, and is less reliant on subjective judgments.

  Opinion Polling
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) quantitative and (b) qualitative analytical work his Department has commissioned from GGC/NOP since 1 May 1997; and what was (i) the cost of the contract and (ii) the specific nature of the work commissioned. [155660]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth [holding answer 28 March 2001]
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Central) has commissioned the following research projects from NOP Market Research Group Ltd. and NOP Solutions since 1 May 1997:

  separate out the costs of these two elements. However, £252,624 of the total was spent on mostly quantitative research and £30,350 on mostly qualitative.
  739W
  DETR contracts like these are let through competitive tendering, in compliance with Treasury rules. In order to protect DETR's ability to purchase services at best value through the competitive tendering process we do not usually publish costs of individual contracts.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many vacant domestic dwellings there are in the UK. [155990]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The latest available information, based on data supplied by local authorities in their annual Housing Investment Programme returns, indicates that 763,900 residential properties were vacant in England on 1 April 2000. A level of vacancy is a usual feature of the housing market, reflecting turnover and movement within the stock.

  I refer the hon. Member to the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for equivalent information in those countries.

  Roadside Emissions Equipment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision he is making for the testing of roadside emissions equipment and for the training of its operators. [155673]

  Mr. Hill
  Roadside exhaust emissions testing is already carried out by personnel from the Department's Vehicle Inspectorate. They are fully trained to carry out this work and use the same specification equipment for testing as that which is used in MOT testing stations.

  We plan to extend the power to carry out roadside exhaust emissions checks to local authorities which have declared Air Quality Management Areas designated under section 83 of the Environment Act 1995. We hope that this will be possible from April 2002, and we plan to consult further with interested parties on detailed issues such as training of personnel over this next few months.

  Lead Shot
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Lead Shot Legislation (England) Review Group will report; and what plans the Government have to take forward the group's recommendations. [156402]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have just received the report from the Lead Shot Legislation (England) Review Group. The report is the unanimous view of the organisations represented on the Group. The recommendations include proposals for some changes to the Schedules to the Lead Shot Legislation and my Department will shortly be carrying out a consultation exercise on the recommendations.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will issue directions to the Civil Aviation Authority under section 66 of the Transport Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [156438]
  740W
  Mr. Prescott
  Following consultation with the Secretary of State for Defence, I have today given directions to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in respect of their conduct of their air navigation functions under Chapter III of Part I of the Transport Act 2000. The directions set out how the CAA is to:organise the Directorate of Airspace Policy
  consult and liaise with military and civil providers of air traffic services and with airspace users, and
  mitigate the environmental impact of air operations, and
  charge the CAA, inter alia, with procuring the provision of a Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS) in UK airspace and with ensuring the provision of an aeronautical information service.

  I have placed copies of the directions in the Library of the House.

  The Secretary of State for Defence and I regard airspace policy as a crucial component of the joint and integrated provision of air traffic services, to which the Government attach considerable importance. We intend, therefore, to agree together on:
  the appointment of the Director of Airspace Policy, who will be the member of the CAA nominated under section 66(3) of the Act;
  the content of any future direction to the CAA under section 66(1) or 68(3) of the Act.

  The member of the CAA with national security responsibility under section 67 of the Act is nominated by the Secretary of State for Defence and appointed by me.

  Smoking (Taxis)
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached a decision following his consultation paper on smoking in taxis issued in October 1999. [156640]

  Mr. Hill
  I have given careful thought to all the responses received and, while recognising the merits of the arguments put forward for all the options proposed, I have decided that on balance the case is not sufficiently strong to make a commitment for legislation to prohibit smoking in taxis in some way when parliamentary time permits. I am satisfied that the present voluntary approach whereby taxi drivers have the choice of asking passengers not to smoke for the most part works satisfactorily and accordingly should continue.

  Train Protection Systems
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the joint inquiry report into train protection systems chaired by Lord Cullen and Professor Uff is expected to report. [156641]

  Mr. Hill
  The report is being published today by the Health and Safety Commission. Copies are being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Government
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish proposals for the use of the powers contained in section 16 of the Local Government Act 1999; and if he will make a statement. [156699]
  741W
  Ms Armstrong
  I have today published "Working with Others to Achieve Best Value: A Consultation Paper on Changes to the Legal Framework to Facilitate Partnership Working". This sets out proposals to provide new partnership powers to local councils under section 16 of the Local Government Act 1999. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The proposals are designed to encourage innovative partnerships with the private, voluntary and public sectors under Best Value and ultimately the delivery of better local services for all. They will give councils a toolkit of partnership powers to use in the pursuit of Best Value service delivery.

  To encourage joint working, the new powers will allow councils to provide grants, loans and guarantees, and to second or loan staff to and from anyone in the public, private and voluntary sectors in the pursuit of Best Value public services. The proposed new powers will allow councils to pool budgets and take the lead role in commissioning goods and service.

  The proposals will also provide council with a general power to form and participate in corporate bodies and to allow delegation of their functions to council-controlled companies. The proposals published today will extend the circumstances in which councils can supply the full range of goods and services to partners, whether in the public or private sectors.

  In the case of waste management, these new powers will remove the current requirements which force councils to either divest to the private sector or transfer to "arms' length" the agency that provides this service. Councils will be allowed to determine whatever method of service delivery provides Best Value, including keeping those services in-house.

  The closing date for comments on the consultation exercise is 25 May 2001. It is intended that Draft Orders will be laid before Parliament following the conclusion of the consultation exercise.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153421]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 8 March 2001, Official Report, columns 278–79W. This sets out expenditure incurred by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The FCO's only Executive Agency is Wilton Park, which organises conferences on international themes. It has conducted no promotional advertising or other promotional campaigns in the past five years.
  742W
  The FCO has responsibility for a total of six Executive non-departmental public bodies: the British Council, British Association for Central and Eastern Europe, Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Britain-Russia Centre, Great Britain-China Centre and the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission. Aside from routine advertising in the domestic press for recruitment purposes, none of these organisations has undertaken promotional campaigns in the United Kingdom in the past five years.

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance he has provided to Chairman Arafat in seeking to control the violence in the Palestinian Authority. [155756]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not provide any assistance to Chairman Arafat in order to control the violence in the Palestinian Authority.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to Chairman Arafat regarding action by the Palestinian Authority against Force 17. [155620]

  Mr. Wilson
  The British Government continue to urge both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to take immediate parallel steps to address the current crisis. We expect both parties to insist on restraint and disciplined behaviour by their military and security personnel and to restrain activities by extremists.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the percentage of Palestinians in the(a) West bank and (b) Gaza strip living under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority. [155757]

  Mr. Wilson
  Areas of the Occupied Territories for which the Palestinian Authority has civil powers and responsibilities (c. 40 per cent. of the West bank and c. 70 per cent. of the Gaza strip) encompass approximately 95 per cent. of Palestinians in the West bank and all Palestinians in the Gaza strip. These figures do not take account of the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem which also remains under Israeli military occupation (c.210,000—according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics 1997 census).

  Macedonia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British soldiers will be involved in NATO peacekeeping duties in Macedonia. 1155016]

  Mr. Vaz
  NATO has no mandate for peacekeeping operations in Macedonia. Some 31 British troops are based in Macedonia as a National Support element in KFOR (Rear).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average response time for answering parliamentary written questions in his Department is; and how many responses have taken more than 24 working days in the last 12 months. [155135]
  743W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department aims to answer all ordinary written parliamentary questions within five working days and as many named day written parliamentary questions as possible on the day named. The information required to provide the average response time for all written questions could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In the last 12 months, the FCO took more than 24 days to respond to only three questions out of a total of more than 1,300 written questions answered.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet representatives of the Israeli Government and Palestinian Authority to discuss the United Kingdom's role in assisting the peace process. [155448]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are in frequent contact with Israeli and Palestinian representatives to discuss the situation in the middle east, as well as bilateral issues. I met Nabil Sha'ath, Palestinian Minister for Planning and International Co-operation, in London on 20 March. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Shimon Peres, Israeli Foreign Minister on 21 March. We continue to urge both parties to take steps to resume contacts, rebuild confidence and restart negotiations. We will remain in frequent contact at all levels, acting on our commitment to do all we can to bring about a just comprehensive and lasting peace in the middle east.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Palestinian Authority regarding the threat posed to the peace process by Hamas. [155450]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government condemn all acts of violence in the middle east and call on both parties to take immediate parallel steps to address the current crisis. We are in regular contact with the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel, and urge, them to resume security co-operation and to do all in their power to end violence, restrain extremism and minimise incitement and provocations.

  Morocco
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to alter his policy on arms exports to Morocco; and if he will make a statement.[155732]

  Mr. Wilson
  All applications to export, to Morocco, goods on the Military List, which forms Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (as amended) are assessed against the consolidated European Union and national arms export licensing criteria, as are such applications for any country. All such applications are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking account of all available information at the time.

  Iran
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iran regarding the eligibility of members of the Christian, Bahai and Jewish faiths holding senior national positions in that country. [155760]
  744W
  Mr. Wilson
  We and our EU partners regularly raise concerns over human rights issues in Iran, particularly those affecting religious minorities. The Iranian authorities are fully aware that we and our EU partners consider discrimination on religious grounds to be intolerable. Christians and Jews (but not Bahais) have their own representatives in the Majles.

  European Councils
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for April and the major European Union events for the period between 30 April and September. [156543]

  Mr. Vaz
  To date we have received the detailed agendas for the following Council meetings in April:

  4–5: Transport and Telecommunications Council—Luxembourg

  1. Adoption of the provisional agenda.

  2. Approbation of the list of "A" items.

  Telecommunications

  3. Proposal for a Directive on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services—political agreement.

  4. Proposal for a Directive on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities—political agreement.

  5. Proposal for a Directive on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services—political agreement.

  6. Proposal for a Directive on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services—progress report.

  7. Proposal for a Regulation on the implementation of Internet Top Level Domain ".EU"—common orientation.

  8. Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to further opening to competition of Community postal services—information from the Presidency.

  9. Commission Communication on the introduction of third generation mobile communication (3G) in the European Union: state of play and the way forward—presentation by the Commission.

  10. eEurope Action Plan 2002.

  (a) Report—information from the Commission.

  (b) Network security—information from the Presidency/ Commission.

  Horizontal transport issues

  11. (poss.) Commission communication on a revised strategy for the common transport policy ("White Paper")—presentation by the Commission.

  12. (poss.) Proposal for amending the decision 1692/96/EC on guidelines for Trans-European Networks for transport (general revision)—presentation by the Commission.

  13. Strategy for integrating environment and sustainable mobility into the transport policy (Cardiff/Helsinki follow-up)— Council resolution.

  14. Galileo—Council resolution.

  Air transport

  15. Aviation and environment: ICAO regulations for gaseous and noise emissions—common approach for the ICAO Assembly.

  16. Aviation safety: Proposal for a Regulation establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation safety and setting up of a European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA)—progress report and policy debate.
  745W
  17. Montreal Convention on Air carrier liability:

  —decision for conclusion of this Convention by the Community.

  —Council conclusions on the ratification process of the Convention.

  —progress report on the draft regulation (amendment of Reg. 2027/97).

  Land transport

  18. Proposal for a Regulation on action by member states concerning public service requirements and the award of public service contracts in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway—progress report and policy debate.

  19. Proposal for a Regulation on certain rules concerning the control of drivers engaged by road transport operators established in the EU when carrying out with Community vehicles intra-Community transport operations (third country drivers)—common orientation.

  20. Proposal for a Directive on a transport system of harmonised rules for driving restriction on heavy goods vehicles involved on international transport on designated roads (weekend bans)—common orientation.

  21. Proposal for amending Directive 91/671/EEC on compulsory use of safety belts, including compulsory use of type-approved child restraint systems—common orientation.

  22. Commission Recommendation on the maximum permitted blood alcohol level for vehicle drivers—Council conclusions.

  23. Proposal for amending directive 96/53/EC on weights and dimensions of heavy vehicles—5 meter buses—common position.

  Shipping

  24. Maritime safety—second package:

  —Directive on the establishment of a Community system for the monitoring and control of and information on maritime traffic.

  —Regulation concerning the creation of a fund for compensation in the case of oil pollution in European waters and the adoption of related measures.

  Regulation setting up a European agency for maritime safety.

  —Policy debate.

  Other business

  8–10: Brussels—General Affairs Council

  8–10: Ostersund—Agriculture Council (Informal)

  20–22: Malmo—ECOFIN

  24–25: Brussels—Agriculture Council

  25–26: Brussels—Fisheries Council

  26–28: Lund Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council (Informal).

  No agendas for the above are available at present.

  The following are the principal events in the EU between 1 May and September 2001 (certain relevant events are also included: the table is based on the information available at the date of issue).

  Date

  Location

  Principal events

  May

  5–6

  Brussels

  Gymnich

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  7

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Council (possible)

  14–15

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Industry and Energy Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  31

  Brussels

  Health Council

  746W

  Date

  Location

  Principal events

  June

  5

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  5

  Brussels

  Internal market/Consumer Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  11

  Brussels

  Employment/Social Affairs Council

  15–16

  Gothenberg

  European Council

  18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (possible)

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council (possible)

  21

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  26

  Brussels

  Research Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Transport/Telecommunications Council

  July

  6–7

  Brussels

  Informal Employment and Social Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  13–14

  Brussels

  Regional Territories Council (Informal)?

  16–17

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  16–17

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  23–24

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  August

  1—

  1—

  Septembe

  8–9

  Brussels

  Gymnich

  14–16

  Brussels

  Environment and Transport Council (Informal)

  16–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  24–25

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  1There are no Councils scheduled for August

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice the High Commission in Mize has given to British businesses there as to the legality of their use of call-back services when telephoning the UK; and if he will make a statement. [155056]

  Mr. Battle
  The High Commission has not been asked by British business to advise on the legality of using call-back services when telephoning the UK.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the UK authorities have made to the Chairman of Belize Telecoms about his threat to withdraw telephone services from the British High Commission and others in Belize; what has been his response; and if he will make a statement. [155059]

  Mr. Battle
  The High Commissioner in Belmopan has been in correspondence with the Chairman of Belize Telecommunications Ltd. and has pointed out that it would constitute an unlawful act if BTL were to cease to provide telephone services to the High Commission because of the disagreement about the legality of the High Commission's use of call-back services. The Belizean Government would be obliged under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to ensure that normal service is resumed if the High Commission's telephone services were cut off in these circumstances.

  The Chairman of BTL has responded reiterating BTL's claim that the use of call-back services is illegal.
  747W
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affair; what contact there has been between Interoute (UK) Ltd. and the UK authorities about its right to offer its commercial services to clients and potential clients in Belize; and if he will make a statement. [155058]

  Mr. Battle
  None directly. In October 2000, Interoute sent a promotional leaflet to the High Commission in Belmopan. The High Commission circulated it as part of its normal activities in support of UK business, and informed Interoute of this action.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the dispute between Belize Telecom and the British High Commission in Belize has been resolved; and if he will make a statement. [155055]

  Mr. Battle
  It has not yet been resolved. The British High Commission (BHC) in Belmopan has been in correspondence with the.Chairman of Belize Telecommunications Ltd. (BTL) The latest position is that BTL stands by its claim that the use of call-back services by the BHC is illegal. They are insisting that the BHC stop using call-back services and have raised the question of compensation. BTL have claimed that they are not obliged to maintain telephone services to subscribers who use call-back services.

  The BHC believed the call-back services represented good value for money. The BHC is clear that the use of call-back services is lawful, and that any action by BTL to terminate its telephone services in these circumstances would itself be unlawful.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the saving to the British High Commission in Belize from its use of call-back services; what has been the cost of its dispute with Belize Telecoms; if this cost is recoverable from the company; and if he will make a statement. [155060]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his question on 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 662W, on the savings issue. We do not hold details of the number of man-hours used to deal with this matter. To date no other costs have been incurred.

  We estimate that the cost of the loss of call-back services to the High Commission would be in the region of £10,000 per year.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the British High Commission in Belize by companies and others seeking to use call-back services when telephoning the UK; and if he will make a statement. [155057]

  Mr. Battle
  A very small number of representations have been received by the High Commission. The High Commission has described its understanding of the situation and has recommended that companies and others take their own legal advice.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal proceedings have arisen from the dispute between Belize Telecom and the British High Commission in Belize; and if he will make a statement. [155054]
  748W
  Mr. Battle
  No legal proceedings have been instigated by the High Commission in Belmopan. Neither are we aware of any being taken by Belize Telecommunications Ltd.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the World Archaeological Congress regarding Hasankeyf and the Ilisu Dam; and if he will make a statement. [146852]

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to my answer, 2 February 2001, c. 331W]: I have received a letter from the President of the World Archaeological Congress. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Trade, replied to the President's letter.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Holding Centre Report
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the eighth annual report of the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centre. [156482]

  Dr. Reid
  I have today arranged for copies of Dr. Bill Norris' Annual Report for 2000 to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  I welcome Dr. Norris' Report and I will consider it carefully. I will respond as soon as possible.

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to reduce crime in Northern Ireland. [156481]

  Mr. Ingram
  A number of significant steps have recently been taken to reduce crime in Northern Ireland, including my announcements last week of a strategy to tackle organised crime, a small business security grant scheme available from early April, and the introduction of Banknote Watch, an initiative aimed at providing enhanced security for the cash-in-transit industry.

  In addition, I have now decided to introduce specific crime reduction targets to address volume crime in Northern Ireland. After careful consideration I have set the following three targets to be achieved over a five year period: 15 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary; a 10 per cent. reduction in vehicle thefts; and a 10 per cent. reduction in theft from vehicles.

  Baselines will be set during 2001–02 and the reductions sought over the following five years. The Government are committed over the same period to achieving a reduction in the rate of increase of overall crime.

  These targets are tailored to the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland. Research has indicated that these crimes, which between them account for over 20 per cent. of all recorded crime, are the crimes of greatest concern to the general public.
  749W
  These targets will not be for the police alone to deliver. Experience has shown that the most effective way to tackle crime is for agencies to come together in a partnership-based approach. We shall be discussing with the First and Deputy First Ministers how the necessary partnerships might best be delivered.

  While Northern Ireland has experienced a relatively low rate of crime compared to other jurisdictions, this initiative demonstrates that the Government are not complacent and that we continue to take the steps necessary to tackle this issue. Crime and the fear of crime affect everyone's quality of life and must be addressed in a robust and effective way.

  Remembrance Memorial
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's provision of a national memorial in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the service of the Crown during the course of the Northern Ireland troubles. [156480]

  Dr. Reid
  A memorial, to be known as the Ash Grove Memorial, has been sited within the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrewas in Staffordshire. The memorial takes the form of a grove of ash trees, at the centre of which is a circle of six large boulders, quarried from each of the six counties in Northern Ireland. These boulders encase a granite monolith which will bear the inscription:

  IN MEMORIAM
  In grateful memory of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve,the Armed Forces and other organisations in the service of the Crown who have laid down their lives in the cause of peace in Northern Ireland 1969–2001
ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Advocate-General for Scotland when she will reply to question 147384 tabled on 23 January in relation to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill. [155129]

  The Advocate-General
  I replied to the hon. Member on 21 March 2001,Official Report, column 270W.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Food Safety
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the current work undertaken by the Ministerial Group on Food Safety. [141642]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Ministerial Group on Food Safety was dissolved on 9 November 1999. The Food Standards Agency advises the Government on food safety and standards matters. The agency is a non-ministerial department accountable to Parliament through Health Ministers.
  750W
  The agency has as its main objective in discharging its functions the protection of public health and the interests of consumers in relation to food.

HEALTH

  Drugs Dispensing
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the pharmaceutical industry concerning the cost of drugs to(a) consumers and (b) the NHS following the requirement to dispense drugs in blister packs.[144761]

  Ms Stuart
  No medicines are legally required only to be dispensed or sold in blister packs. The type of packaging used for medicines is a commercial decision for the manufacturer concerned, provided the quality and safety of the product are maintained. The Department for Health has frequented discussions with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and those discussions have on occasions included Issues relating to the packaging of medicines.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if value-added tax is chargeable on(a) supplies of recombinant factor VIII for the treatment of haemophiliacs and (b) supplies of conventionally produced factor VIII; what representations he has made to HM Treasury in respect of charging VAT on these substances; on what date he made those representations; and what response ho has received. [146958]

  Mr. Denham
  Value Added Tax is a matter for Her Majesty's Treasury Ministers. The United Kingdom exempts from VAT whole human blood and components and derivatives of human blood such as human Factor VIII fraction, when used for therapeutic purposes. Synthetic 'blood' products such as those of animal origin or genetically engineered products are not exempt from VAT. In November 1996, this decision was upheld by a tribunal. Given that a judgment has been made, we have not asked HM Treasury to reconsider this matter.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice the Food Standards Agency has provided to the Government on the scientific justification for a ban in the United Kingdom on the use of fishmeal in animal feed. [146405]

  Ms Stuart
  The chairman of the Food Standards Agency advised my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the agency did not see an immediate human health risk from the use in animal feed of fish meal and certain animal material. Nor was there a need on purely public health grounds to launch a major recall scheme for feeds containing fish meal and the other material, although their use should be phased out as soon as practicable.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions about French BSE controls underlay the advice from the Food Standards Agency on French beef imports. [144316]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that its advice on French imports was based on the assumptions given in Dr. Christl Donnelly's study published in "Nature" on 13 December 2000. These were that if the over-30-months (OTM) rule is fully enforced there is virtually no risk from French beef imported to Britain. If the OTM rule is only 75 per cent. enforced then risks posed by British and French meat sold in the United Kingdom would be comparable. The FSA estimates that enforcement levels in the UK are above 75 per cent. This allows for the fact that there may have been under-reporting of BSE cases in France and that the French feed ban may not have been fully effective until late 2000.

  Inspection missions to member states are carried out by the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). An additional programme of urgent FVO missions is currently under way to all member states. France was visited in the week beginning 4 December 2000. The report of the mission will be published in due course in line with normal practice.

  In advising on the safety of French beef imports, the FSA has made clear that it keeps the position under constant review, taking account of the latest available scientific and other information. This will include the outcome of the FVO inspection mission to France once it is available.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of imported cattle carcases are individually checked for specified risk material contamination. [147857]

  Ms Stuart
  Imported cattle careases are generally
  checked for the presence of specified risk material (SRM) on a targeted basis. Imports from other parts of the European Union (EU) are checked by the Meat Hygiene Service at licensed meat plants in Great Britain, or by local authorities at other meat plants. Imports from non-EU countries are checked at border inspection posts, where checks in all cases are made of the accompanying veterinary certificate (declaring that SRM has been removed) and where a sample of consignments are in addition subject to physical checks. Only imports from Australia and New Zealand are exempt from these requirements under the Specified Risk Materials Order 1997.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has advised that the checks should be proportionate to the risk. Recently, and as a response to the identification of SRM in imported beef from Germany and the Netherlands, the MHS has been instructed by the FSA to check 100 pet cent. of carcase beef imports from Germany at GB meat plants. The MHS has also been required to give special attention to imports from abattoirs in other countries from which previous consignments of beef with SRM attached were imported.

  The FSA has also instructed the MHS to step up the level of checks on imported meat, in recognition of the likely increase in the volume of imports, due to the effects of the foot and mouth disease crisis on domestic supplies.
  752W
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken following the discovery of spinal cord in imported beef from other EU countries. [149915]

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations he has carried out into the presence of spinal cords in beef imported into the UK from Germany; what the findings were of those investigations; and if he will make a statement. [150222]

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to stop the import of meat that contains specified risk material; and if he will make a statement. [155296]

  Ms Stuart
  The Government are advised on matters of food safety by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  Controls on specified risk materials (SRM), such as spinal cord, are a crucial part of the protection of United Kingdom consumers against BSE, and the UK has had rules requiring the removal and safe disposal of SRM for several years. New, harmonised European-wide SRM controls were introduced with effect from 1 October 2000. Responsibility for ensuring that SRM controls are being enforced by all member states lies with the European Commission, which is currently carrying out inspection missions to all member states to check on this.

  Where consignments of beef imported into the UK have been found with SRM attached, the issue has been taken up vigorously with the European Commission, and with the authorities of the member states involved—Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy. The FSA policy is to press for plant closures if evidence suggests that there is a system failure. It is for the national authorities to review the inspection systems at the abattoirs concerned, and three abattoirs, two in Germany and one in the Netherlands, have had their operating licences suspended by their relevant authorities until they can guarantee that no more contaminated meat will come into circulation on the market. The FSA has also instructed the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) (and its counterpart in Northern Ireland) to inspect every consignment of carcase beef imported from Germany to licensed meat plants in the UK, and all consignments from the other overseas abattoirs concerned. Reports from the MHS show that the large majority of consignments of imported beef have had the SRM properly removed. In addition, local authorities have been advised to check all consignment of imported carcase beef from Germany at meat plants under their supervision.

  Smoking
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent and is allocated to be spent in England on specialist advice and support in the NHS for smokers wanting to quit in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [153439]

  Yvette Cooper
  Details of allocation and expenditure are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Health action zones

  Health authorities

  Allocation Total

  Total Expenditure

  1999–2000

  10

  0

  10

  5.0

  2000–01

  10

  10

  20

  16.1

  2001–02

  10

  10

  20

  N/A

  1April to September (Figures for October to March not available)

  753W
  The table shows investment in National Health Service smoking cessation support services. In 2001–02 health authorities have been given additional resources to fund the new smoking cessation aid, Zyban, and Nicotine Replacement Therapy on NHS prescription.

  Research has confirmed that complex services such as cessation services take time to establish. As a result the total allocation was not spent in the first year. The remainder was carried over for expenditure on the services during the following year.

  NHS Trusts (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings in administration have been made by each NHS trust in Shropshire since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [154657]

  Yvette Cooper
  Individually and collectively the National Health Service trusts in Shropshire have achieved real terms savings in management costs. The three acute trusts are all in the upper quartile for achieving management costs efficiency for the West Midlands region.

  A comparison of the 1997–98 baseline management cost position with the 1999–2000 accounts figure deflated to 1997–98 levels, shows real term savings of:

  NHS Trust

  £000

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

  103

  Princess Royal Hospital

  25

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt

  112

  Shropshire's Community and Mental Health'

  656

  Total

  896

  1 The high level of savings from Shropshire's Community and Mental Health NHS trust is due to the merger of two trusts.

  Source:

  West Midlands Regional Office

  Overhead Power Lines
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reported links between electricity pylons and childhood leukaemia. [153635]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 March 2001]: The Department obtains advice on potential health risks associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). In a report published on 6 March the NRPB's advisory group on non-ionising radiation has provided an assessment of the potential risks of cancer from extremely low frequency EMFs, (documents of the NRPB Vol. 12, No 1, 2001) and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report states that
  "there is some epidemiological evidence that prolonged exposure to higher levels of power frequency magnetic fields is associated with a small risk of leukaemia in children. In practice, such levels are seldom encountered by the general public in this country."

  The NRPB have calculated that this relates to about 0.5 per cent. of the total population.

  The board of the NRPB also published a response statement that can be found on the NRPB website www.nrpb.org.uk. The statement includes the following points. From the findings of the main study in this country
  754W
  (United Kingdom childhood cancer study) the higher levels of magnetic fields are not attributable solely to proximity to power lines. The conclusions of the report indicate that the question whether exposure to electromagnetic fields can influence the development of cancer cannot at present be completely resolved. The report made a number of specific research recommendations. The board also considers that the report provides no additional scientific evidence to require a change in exposure guidelines.

  The Department will consider carefully the recommendations of the NRPB and commission appropriate research in the light of that which is already under way. Current research includes Government-funded studies in this country and support for the multinational EMFs project set up and co-ordinated by the World Health Organisation.

  Drug Reviews
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for how long the decision to prescribe beta interferons and copaxone for multiple sclerosis sufferers has been under review; [155613]

  (2) when NICE is expected to issue guidance on beta interferons and glat ramer acetate (copaxone). [155611]

  Mr. Denham
  We asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to conduct an authoritative appraisal of beta Intelferon and glatiramer acetate in August 1999. We expect NICE to produce its authoritative guidance on these drugs in November 2001, provided there are no appeals

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the same criteria of cost effectiveness applied to beta interferons and copaxone were applied in the appraisal of Orlistat for the treatment of obesity. [155612]

  Mr. Denham
  Guidance on how the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) should carry out its appraisals is contained in Annexe C of its framework document. The detailed application of the approach is a matter for NICE.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are to be used in the economic modelling to measure the cost effectiveness of disease modifying MS drugs being assessed by NICE. [155585]

  Mr. Denham
  Detailed issues of the appraisal process are a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). I understand that NICE is currently discussing additional economic modelling with relevant interested parties.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning the derision by NICE to delay issuing guidance on beta interferon and glatiramer acetate (copaxone). [155581]

  Mr. Denham
  On 22 December the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) announced that it was extending the time scale for its appraisal of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate to enable further modelling to be undertaken on their cost effectiveness. Since that date my Department's records indicate receipt of approximately 300 written representations from hon. Members, patient groups and the public about the current arrangements for
  755W
  prescribing and funding of beta interferon. I have also met representatives of the Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society, the MS Research Trust and the Association of British Neurologists.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure that common standards are applied for appraising drugs and treatments for the NHS. [155583]

  Mr. Denham
  We are setting common standards through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Multiple Sclerosis Drugs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing local variations in prescription rates of disease modifying drugs for MS. [155582]

  Mr. Denham
  It is because there appeared to be genuine uncertainty over the appropriate use of beta interferon, which was reflected in different prescribing patterns across the country, that we asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to conduct an authoritative appraisal of the evidence on disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis. We expect NICE to produce its authoritative guidance in November, provided there are no appeals.

  Consultants
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many additional non-surgical cancer consultants are in post in the NHS in England; and how many were in post on the date of publication of the NHS Plan; [155408]

  (2) what the growth rate was in numbers of NHS consultants in England between (a) 1994 and 1997 and (b) 1997 and 1999, expressed as an annualised percentage rate; [155403]

  (3) if all cancer consultants appointed up to 2006 in the NHS, if trained in the United Kingdom, will have been in training before 1 May 1997; [155401]

  (4) what the percentage increase is in NHS consultants in England, expressed as an annualised percentage rate (a) between 1994 and 1997 and (b) between 1997 and the projected figure according to the targets set out in the NHS Plan for 2006; [155402]

  (5) what analysis his Department has made of trends in the rate of growth in consultant numbers in the period (a) 1997 to 2000 and (b) 1994 to 1997; [155404]

  (6) which Minister took the decision to include the figure of nearly 1,000 as the target for growth in numbers of non-surgical cancer consultants by 2006; [155407]

  (7) pursuant to his oral statement of 13 March 2001, Official Report, column 805, by what date the target of nearly 1,000 additional non-surgical cancer consultants by 2006 included in the NHS Plan will be met; and what advice he received from Professor Mike Richards on the prospects for meeting the target. [155396]

  Mr. Denham
  The NHS Cancer Plan was drawn up through extensive consultation with professionals and patients across the country, led by the National Cancer 756W
  Director, Professor Mike Richards. It states that the increases of 971 in the number of non-surgical cancer consultants will be achieved by 2006.

  The typical training period for these specialties is three to six years, so of those appointed through higher specialist training in the United Kingdom, virtually all will have entered higher specialist training after 1997.

  Consultant numbers increased by 4.2 per cent. per year between 1997 and 1999, and will increase by 7.2 per cent. per year over the NHS Plan period. Direct comparison with the period 1994 to 1997 would be misleading, because the method of data collection changed in 1995 when data were collected directly from National Health Service trusts for the first time.

  The number of non-surgical cancer consultants in posts in the NHS in England was 3,528 (at 30 September 2000) and the number in post on 30 September 1999 was 3,3621. This is an increase of 170.

  The NHS Cancer Plan states that there will be an increase of nearly 1,000 in the number of non-surgical cancer consultants by 2006.

  1 Source: Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Primary Care Organisations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the additional £100 million a year allocated to primary care organisations in England will be taken from the existing budget of his Department. [155628]

  Mr. Denham
  In the recent Budget, the National Health Service in England received on average an additional £275 million per year for the next three years.

  £45 million of the £100 million announced to support general practitioners will come from this additional funding, with £55 million to be funded through existing provision for NHS expenditure.

  Cycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage more people to switch from using cars to using bicycles for health reasons. [155462]

  Yvette Cooper
  Moderate intensity physical activity, such as walking and cycling, can significantly reduce the risk of developing coronary heart disease and stroke and other chronic diseases.

  We are taking action across Government to support physical activity, including cycling, working closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Department of Health is a member of the National Cycle Forum, convened by the DETR, which is working towards national targets for increasing rates of cycling, and the school travel advisory group, also set up by the DETR, which aims to increase cycling and walking to school.

  The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease requires that all National Health Service bodies working closely with local authorities will have agreed and be contributing to the delivery of local programmes of effective policies on increasing physical activity by

  757W
  April 2001. Guidance issued by the Health Development Agency identifies cycling as a recommended component of local programmes.

  The third stage of the safe and sound challenge was launched in December 2000. The scheme encourages children to walk or cycle to school along safe routes with cash prizes awarded to schools with the most innovative plans. This year safe and sound is offering schools in socially deprived areas the opportunity to develop healthy active modes of travel to school. This complements work being carried out through the national healthy school programme, which advocates a whole-school approach to health promotion, including encouraging cycling to school.

  Patient Forums
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures will be put in place to ensure that patient forums will represent the diversity of the local population. [155908]

  Ms Stuart
  Subject to legislation, the members of a forum will be drawn equally from the trust's patients and local voluntary organisations. The independent National Health Service Appointments Commission will appoint the members of a forum according to selection criteria that will ensure membership reflects the nature of the local community which the forum serves.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make abattoirs responsible for meat inspection; and if he will make a statement. [155633]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 27 March 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the rules on meat inspection are prescribed by European Union legislation and any proposals to change those rules would need to be made by the European Commission (EC).

  No such proposal has yet been made by the EC, although an EC working document, made available by the FSA to interested organisations earlier this year, sets out some initial ideas on what might form the main elements of a future risk-based meat inspection system. Any legislative proposals that flow from this working document would be subject to formal public consultation in the United Kingdom, negotiations with and agreement by the member states, and both EU and UK Parliamentary scrutiny, before any changes could come into force.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 10 November 2000, 6 December 2000, 3 January and 1 February, relating to her constituent Mr. J. A. Barham of Cuffley; [149104]

  (2) when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a substantive reply to her letters of 10 November 2000, 6 December 2000, 3 January and 1 February, and the written question replied to on 6 January relating to her constituent, Mr. J. A. Barham of Cuffley, Hertfordshire. [151679]
  758W
  Mr. Denham
  Replies to the hon. Member's letters were sent on 27 March 2001.

  Orlistat
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment was made of the long-term offset in savings for primary care resources prior to the issuing of NICE guidance on orlistat for the treatment of obesity. 155653]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence recognised the link between obesity and other diseases, but concluded that the long-term savings from treating the obese with orlistat were impossible to estimate accurately

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the key targets for 2001–2 for the Medical Devices Agency. [156548]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have agreed the Agency's key targets for 2001–02 and copies have been placed in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many child-days of education have been lost in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 as a result of teacher shortages. [154154]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: This information is not held centrally.

  The small number of schools, of which my Department is aware, that have had to send any classes home temporarily during the last year have done so for a range of reasons including teacher sickness, adverse weather conditions and the effects of the foot and mouth epidemic. It is impossible to be sure of the effect that any teacher shortages alone have had.

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

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers were recruited to serve in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each of the past 10 years. [154390]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teachers reported to DfEE as in service at the end of each financial year who were not in service at the end If the previous financial year for full,
  759W
  part-time and occasional posts in the maintained schools sector in England are as follows:

  Year

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  FTE regular teachers in January each year Nursery/ primary and Secondary sectors

  1989–901

  19,000

  18,300

  385,700

  1990–911

  17,300

  17,300

  383,300

  1991–921

  17,000

  17,200

  383,200

  1992–931

  15,400

  16,900

  384,700

  1993–942

  15,600

  17,800

  378,900

  1994–95

  17,100

  19,400

  381,400

  1995–96

  16,600

  18,000

  381,500

  1996–97

  17,100

  18,400

  381,100

  1997–98

  17,300

  19,400

  379,700

  1998–99

  16,300

  19,000

  382,900

  1Includes Sixth Form Colleges.

  2Recruits for 1993–94 exclude teachers moving from a sixth form college to a maintained nursery, primary or secondary school.

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

  Teacher Retention
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers left the profession in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [155646]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Full-time and part-time teachers leaving the maintained schools sector in England for the last three years for which data are available.

  Financial year

  Leavers1

  Rate2

  1996–97

  33,150

  7.9

  1997–98

  34,250

  8.2

  1998–993,4

  27,570

  6.6

  1 Teachers leaving the maintained nursery, primary, secondary, special and PRU sector including those moving to the FE, HE or the independent schools sector. Teachers ret ring but then rejoining the maintained nursery, primary, secondary, special and PRU sector have not been included in the figures. Teachers retiring and then joining the FE, HE or the independent schools sector are included. Teachers barred from service and dying in service are included

  2Leavers expressed as a percentage of teachers in post at the start of the year shown

  3The number of teachers leaving on premature or ill-health retirement has now stabilised at a lower level, following the reform of the Teachers Pensions Scheme in 1997

  4Provisional

  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 2,300 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93
  760W
  From April 2001 new graduate recruits can expect to earn £17,000 a year (up 6 per cent. from the previous year) and starting salaries in Inner London will rise to £20,000 (up 9 per cent. from the previous year).

  Teacher Training
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of those who started a teacher training course completed that course within the original timetable in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [155650]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information about the number of people who complete a teacher training course within the original timetable is not collected centrally.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities are currently reviewing their provision of special schools. [155677]

  Jacqui Smith
  A number of LEAs are currently reviewing their special needs provision. The prime aim of these reorganisations is to enhance and improve existing provision for all pupils with special educational needs. Many of these reviews will cover provision for children in mainstream schools, special units attached to mainstream schools and special schools. The overall population of pupils in special schools fell from 1.3 per cent. in 1991 to 1.2 per cent. in 1995 but has remained constant in the past six years with roughly 97,000 pupils. We do not envisage that this will change dramatically. The Department is aware that the following LEAs are currently reviewing their special school provision:Essex, Hertfordshire, Sandwell, Warwickshire, Peterborough, Cornwall, Gloucestershire, Devon, Blackburn, Cheshire, Knowsley, Lancashire, Manchester, Oldham, Sefton, Trafford, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Haringey, Harrow, Wokingham, Buckinghamshire, Reading, Greenwich, Oxfordshire, Richmond, Slough, Lewisham, Surrey, Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, North Yorkshire, City of York, Sheffield, Doncaster, Darlington, Gateshead, Hartlepool, Kirklees and the East Riding of Yorkshire.

  New Deal (Romsey)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much New Deal money has been received by Romsey constituents. [155860]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: It is not possible to provide resource information for New Deals by constituency, as the Employment Service systems are not set up to allocate or monitor resources at constituency level. However, the total resource allocation for all New Deals in 2000–01 for the London and south-east region, which includes Romsey, was £134 million.

  Training
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will define(a) the future role of the Employment Service in providing work-based training for adults and (b) its relationship with the Learning and Skills Council. [155864]
  761W
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 28 March 2001]: From April work-based learning for adults, which is a programme designed to help unemployed people into work by equipping them with appropriate skills, becomes the responsibility of the Employment Service (ES). This transfer of responsibility will help achieve greater integration with the rest of the Welfare-to-Work agenda, and particularly the New Deal. The role of the ES will include contracting for, monitoring and evaluating the programme.

  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) will become fully operational from 2 April 2001. It will be responsible for planning, funding and improving the quality of all post-16 learning up to university level, focusing particularly on providing the skills needed in the labour market. The LSC and the Employment Service will work together at national and local levels to plan provision for unemployed people to get the skills and qualifications they need to find and stay in work. The ES and LSC will share a common approach on such issues as the quality framework and inspection which will help reduce the burdens on training providers.

  More information is available in a number of publications issued to date about the role of the LSC, including the "Learning to Succeed" White Paper, the Learning and Skills Council Prospectus and the LSC Remit Letter. All of these are available via DfEE's website: www.dfee.gov.uk/post16.

  Departmental Policies (Newbury)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newbury constituency, the effects on Newbury and west Berkshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154571]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: Outlined are details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Newbury constituency and west Berkshire LEA.

  Beacon Schools

  There are three Beacon schools in west Berkshire:

  Type

  Start

  John Rankin

  Infant

  1 September 2000

  Stockcross CE

  Junior and Infant

  1 September 2000

  Downs School

  Foundation Secondary

  1 September 2000

  Specialist Schools

  There are six Specialist Schools in west Berkshire:

  School

  Specialism

  Start-September

  Trinity

  Arts

  2001

  Denefield

  Technology

  1994

  Kennet

  Technology

  2000

  Park House

  Sports

  1998

  Theale Green Community

  Arts

  1997

  Willink

  Language

  1996

  762W

  Infant class sizes-west Berkshire

  Revenue

  Capital

  1998–99

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  196,000

  984,226

  2000–01

  513,215

  165,376

  2001–02

  464,419

  0

  The September 2000 figure shows that there are now only 31 (0.8 per cent.) pupils remaining in infant class sizes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1997 was 672 (16.4 per cent.).

  Performance Indicators

  Key Stage 2 rest Its-pupils achieving level 4 and above

  Percentage

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  English

  LEA

  79

  76

  72

  n/a

  England

  75

  71

  65

  63

  Maths

  LEA

  76

  74

  63

  n/a

  England

  72

  69

  59

  62

  Science

  LEA

  87

  85

  77

  n/a

  England

  85

  78

  69

  69

  GCSE/GNVQ results

  Percentage

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  5+A*-C

  LEA average

  56.0

  56.8

  54.5

  n/a

  England average

  49.2

  47.9

  46.3

  45.1

  5+/A*-G

  LEA average

  93.8

  95.0

  94.8

  n/a

  England average

  88.9

  88.5

  87.5

  86.4

  No passes

  LEA average

  3.8

  3.4

  3.0

  n/a

  England average

  5.6

  6.0

  6.6

  7.7

  A/AS level, Advanced GNVQ

  Percentage

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  Average points for 2 or more A/AS levels:

  LEA average

  17.8

  17.6

  16.3

  n/a

  England average

  18.5

  18.2

  17.8

  17.3

  A/AS average per entry:

  LEA average

  5.4

  5.6

  5.3

  n/a

  England average

  5.5

  5.5

  5.4

  5.3

  Average points score GNVQ:

  LEA average

  11.0

  10.0

  9.5

  n/a

  England average

  10.1

  9.9

  9.6

  n/a

  Pre-1998, west Berkshire was not a separate LEA, it was part of Berkshire LEA along with Bracknell Forest, Windsor and Maidenhead. Reading, Slough and Wokingham.

  Funding per pupil

  In west Berkshire LEA, funding per pupil has increased by 340 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
  763W

  Capital Funding

  £000

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  ACG

  10

  2,651

  1,641

  536

  1,673

  SCA

  —

  1,657

  2,212

  5

  231

  NDS

  —

  2,031

  588

  626

  761

  VA Grant

  220

  61

  37

  27

  990

  Seed

  —

  126

  —

  —

  —

  PPP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Formula Capital

  —

  1,199

  —

  —

  —

  NGFL

  —

  558

  260

  307

  —

  Science LABS

  132

  132

  —

  —

  —

  SSLU

  23

  26

  —

  —

  —

  Access at 85 per cent.

  232

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  39

  56

  55

  47

  181

  Class size

  —

  766

  189

  —

  —

  Outside toilets

  —

  —

  —

  89

  —

  Energy efficiency

  —

  —

  —

  34

  —

  Assistance with AMP

  —

  —

  25

  —

  —

  Nursery provision

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Further Education

  Student numbers at all FEFC funded institutions where home postcode is in the local authority district of Newbury.

  1996–97 to 1999–2000

  16–18

  Adult

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  FEFC funded

  1996–97

  872

  351

  414

  4,940

  1997–98

  790

  437

  333

  5,554

  1998–99

  727

  364

  345

  5,140

  1999–2000

  752

  382

  330

  6,259

  Non-FEFC funded

  1996–97

  48

  210

  93

  506

  1997–98

  54

  216

  57

  410

  1998–99

  40

  166

  65

  415

  1999–2000

  48

  295

  125

  3,943

  Modern Apprenticeships

  Since 2 May 1997, we know of 802 starts on Modern Apprenticeships in the Newbury and west Berkshire constituency (as at 31 December 2000). Broken down by financial year these are as follows:

  Final Year

  Foundation Modern Apprenticeships1

  Modern Advanced Apprenticeships2

  Total

  1997–98

  0

  131

  131

  1998–99

  27

  104

  131

  1999–2000

  156

  115

  271

  2000–013

  148

  121

  269

  Total

  331

  471

  807

  1 Foundation Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as National Traineeships, were introduced nationally in September 1997.

  2Advanced Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as ModernApprenticeships, were introduced nationally in September 1995

  3 To date

  Notes:

  1. The Trainee Database System (TDS), from which these data are taken, is less complete than Management Information supplied to the Department by Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) (around 95 per cent.)
  764W
  2. In addition, the postcode information on the TDS, from which parliamentary constituency data are compiled, are 95 per cent. complete.

  3. TEC Management Information does not provide information at parliamentary constituency level.

  Source:

  WBTYP trainee database

  New Deal for Young People

  In the Newbury constituency, 172 young people have joined the New Deal to end December 2000. 93 have found jobs, 74 of which are sustained.

  Labour Market Statistics

  The working age employment rate in west Berkshire in autumn 2000 was 83.8 per cent., above the UK rate of 74.7 per cent. The rate in autumn 1997 was 79.9 per cent.

  The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 1.8 per cent. in February 1997 to 0.7 per cent. in February 2001 in the Newbury constituency.

  Schools Resources (Romsey)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cash resources to be paid directly to schools in the Romsey constituency, by sector, in 2001-02; and if he will list the sums to be allocated to each school. [155884]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The estimated amounts of School Standards Grant and devolved formula capital grant to be paid to schools in the Romsey constituency for 2001–02 are, for each sector:

  £

  School Standards Grant

  Devolved formula capital

  Nursery

  7,000

  6,876

  Primary

  580,000

  306,992

  Secondary

  514,000

  207,246

  Special

  88,000

  37,902

  Pupil Referral Units

  7,000

  6,092

  Amounts for individual schools cannot yet be listed as data from the Annual Schools Census have not yet been finalised. However, a typical primary school is expected

  765W
  to receive £24,000 in School Standards Grant and £9,750 in devolved formula capital grant; and a typical secondary school £70,000 and £28,500 respectively.

  Computers for Teachers
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to continue the computers for teachers initiative. [156544]

  Mr. Wills
  We have now agreed further funding and secured a total of £50 million which will be available over the next three years. This unprecedented investment in personal access to ICT for teachers will enable many more teachers who want access to have it. It will enable around 70,000 more teachers to have subsidised computer purchases.

  I want to see a wider debate on the future strategy related to this scheme and so I am seeking views on the best way forward via a consultation. Anyone who would like to take part in the consultation can get a copy of the questionnaire on the CFT website (www.cft.ngfl.gov.uk) or by phoning the CFT consultation line (0870 241 4938). The main teaching associations will also be consulted.

  New Deal
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the extension of the New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People. [156638]

  Ms Jowell
  From 23 April 2001, partners of those receiving Income Support, Incapacity Benefit, Invalid Care Allowance and Severe Disablement Allowance will be eligible to participate in New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People. To reflect the wider group, from that date New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People will formally become New Deal for Partners.

  About 450,000 partners of existing long-term claimants of those benefits will become eligible with a further 80,000 partners becoming eligible during the first year.

  The aim of New Deal for Partners is to help reduce the number of workless households. Partners will have the opportunity to use the services of a personal adviser to help them directly into a job or, for those who are not job-ready, to training, education and other support.

TREASURY

  Euro
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take account of the performance of the euro since 1999 in addition to the five economic tests under his policy towards the single currency. [154611]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have said that the determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he will take of the performance of the eurozone since 1 January 1999 in reaching a decision on British membership of the euro. [154617]
  766W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have said we will recommend joining a successful single currency only if it is in our national economic interest to do so, and if the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous.

  Family Allowances
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to ensure a high take-up by families with children of allowances to which they are entitled. [154613]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are actively encouraging families to take up the support to which they are entitled. Publicity campaigns have provided information to clarify entitlement. Reductions in the administrative burden for recipients have made it simpler and more straightfoward to apply.

  Taxation (Pensioners)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on taxation of those over 65. [154615]

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his future taxation policy towards pensioners. [154624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  By April, as a result of the Government's personal tax and benefit changes, pensioner households will be £600 a year better off on average compared to 1997.

  Climate Change Levy
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on business activity of the climate change levy. [154616]

  Mr. Timms
  The climate change levy will raise an estimated £1 billion in its first year, all of which will be recycled back to business via a 0.3 percentage point cut in employers' National Insurance Contributions and substantial investments in energy efficiency.

  The Government expect the levy to be broadly neutral between services and manufacturing. The effect on any specific business, sector or region will depend on a number of factors, including their future energy consumption, the level of employment, eligibility for discounts, use of renewable or combined heat and power energy, and take-up of enhanced capital allowances.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from charities and the churches on Government plans to write off debt owed by the poorest countries. [154620]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Campaigns by non-governmental organisations, faith groups and members of the public have helped to maintain the issue of debt relief at the top of the international agenda. Last year, around a third of all letters received by the Treasury related to debt relief.
  767W
  Faith groups and charities were just two of the groups who participated in the recent "International Action Against Child Poverty" conference, which the Government hosted in London. This was also attended by representatives of developed and developing countries, businesses and civil society groups, the heads of the IMF, World bank, UNICEF and UNDP, and the conference was addressed by Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela.

  Faith groups and charities also attended three special seminars in Downing street last year, where they were able to put their concerns about debt relief directly to the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for International Development, and international figures such as the head of the IMF, Horst Kohler. A further seminar will shortly be arranged, to keep up the momentum from the child poverty conference.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the impact of the Working Families Tax Credit in reducing child poverty. [154621]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, along with other changes to the tax and benefit system during this Parliament, will lift 1.2 million children out of relative poverty.

  The personal tax and benefit measures introduced over this Parliament mean that by October 2001 families with children in the poorest fifth of the population will on average be £1,700 a year better off. These families include around 4 million children.

  Largely as a result of the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, real living standards for a single-earner family on half average earnings and with two young children will rise by 28 per cent. over this Parliament.

  Married Couples Allowance
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been affected by the abolition of the Married Couples Allowance. [154622]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are replacing the Married Couples Allowance with the Children's Tax Credit as part of a package of measures to focus resources on families with children. The Children's Tax Credit is worth over twice as much as the Married Couples Allowance and will benefit about 5 million families.

  24. Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask tile Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the abolition of the married couples allowance will cost the average couple of working age in a full financial year. [154623]

  Dawn Primarolo
  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 on average £1,000 a year better off from measures introduced over this Parliament as a whole.

  Employment (Scotland)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his targets for employment in Scotland. [154625]
  768W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have no specific employment targets for Scotland alone, but across Great Britain as a whole they strive for employment opportunity for all, with the aim that by the end of the decade there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before, defined as high and stable levels of employment, taking account of the economic cycle, so that at least three quarters of the working age population are in work by 2010.

  However, in Scotland, by December of last year employment had risen by 4.9 per cent. to 2.3 million, while ILO unemployment stood at 165,000, a reduction of 22.5 per cent. since May 1997. Furthermore, by January of this year claimant unemployment in Scotland stood at 109,200, a reduction of 32.8 per cent. since May 1997.

  In order to help this trend to continue in Scotland as well as Great Britain as a whole, the Spending Review 2000 committed the Government to the following PSA targets for the period 2001–04:
  Increase employment over the economic cycle;
  A continued reduction in the number of unemployed people over the age of 18, over the three years to 2004, taking account of the economic cycle;
  Reduce the number of children in workless households with no-one in work over the three years to 2004; and
  Over the three years to 2004, increase the employment rates of disadvantaged areas and groups, taking account of the economic cycle—people with disabilities, lone parents, ethnic minorities and the over 50s, the 30 local authority districts with the poorest labour market position—and reduce the difference between their employment rates and the overall rates.

  Building on these PSA targets, the Government have recently committed to increase the proportion of lone parents in work to 70 per cent. over the next 10 years.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in the delivery of EU Objective 1 funds to Objective 1 regions. [154626]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Good progress has been made, given that we are only seven months into the current Objective 1 programme. The picture in Cornwall is particularly encouraging, with over £40 million of the programme already committed.

  Global Health Fund
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent announcement on the establishment of a purchase fund for global health. [154628]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  At the recent International Action Against Child Poverty conference that the UK hosted in London, the Chancellor announced a package of measures aimed at combating diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Every year, about six million people—mostly in the world's poorest countries—die from these diseases.

  Alongside plans for a tax credit into vaccine and drug research, the Chancellor announced plans for a new global purchase fund to provide a credible commitment to create a market for current and future treatments for developing countries.
  769W
  The Government will work closely with other governments, the G8 and international institutions to develop these proposals.

  Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the taxation of savings. [154629]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government receive many representations on tax, including tax on savings. The Government are encouraging more people to provide for their financial security throughout their lives, in line with their savings strategy is set out in "Helping People to Save", published alongside the November 2000 pre-Budget report.

  The Government have introduced individual savings accounts (ISAs)—5 million people invested over £28.4 billion in the first year alone. In the first nine months of ISAs' second year, a further £20 billion was invested.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the measures in his Budget on unemployment rates in the UK. [154630]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As the Government recently announced, claimant count unemployment has fallen below one million and is now at its lowest level since December 1975.

  Moreover, up to December last year we had placed almost 280,000 young people into work, further building on our manifesto of moving 250,000 young people from welfare into work.

  Some of the measures outlined in Budget 2001 seek to increase employment opportunity for all, aiming to get a higher proportion of people into work than ever before, by the end of the decade. The measures include:
  Extending the new package of choices in the New Deal for Lone Parents to include help with starting up in self-employment, training, a new outreach service to attract more lone parents to the New Deal, and extra childcare support;
  Investing additional resources to tackle the problems facing claimants whose drug problems may be getting in the way of their finding a job, and provide more help for ex-users to move into work;
  Enhancing the New Deal and other programmes over the coming three years to focus on employer needs, the hardest to help and the most disadvantaged areas;

  Increasing the National Minimum Wage for workers over 22 from £3.70 an hour to £4.10 an hour from October 2001 to make work pay; and

  Increasing the childcare tax credit limits in the Working Families' Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit from £100 to £135 a week for one child and from £150 to £200 a week for two or more children from June 2001 to help overcome barriers to work due to childcare costs.

  Annuities
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policies on annuities. [154631]
  770W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the right hon. Member to Sections 5.66 to 5.69 of our Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report published on Budget Day, available in the House of Commons Library.

  Small Businesses (Ceredigion)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the measures in his Budget which will benefit small businesses in Ceredigion. [154632]

  Mr. Timms
  In the Budget the Government announced further assistance for small and medium-sized enterprises which will benefit small businesses in Ceredigion and across the UK:reduction in the tax compliance costs for small companies: the Government are consulting on radical proposals to allow small companies to follow their own accounts for tax purposes;
  consultation on further measures to help small firms manage their entry into the VAT system. reducing compliance costs and easing cash flow constraints;
  an expansion of the Enterprise Management Incentive scheme to help small businesses recruit and retain key personnel through tax-advantaged option awards;
  improved incentives for employee share ownership, by widening access to the more generous business assets Capital Gains Tax taper relief;
  improvement of the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trusts to boost the supply of equity finance;
  consultation on proposals for a community investment tax credit;
  action to help small firms improve their "investment readiness".

  These build on the substantial tax and spending measures announced in previous Budgets that are aimed at making the UK one of then most competitive environments in the world for small firms to start and grow.

  Fiscal Forecasts
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he takes in making his fiscal forecasts of the cyclical nature of the economy. [154633]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government take full account of the economic cycle in making their public finance projections. In accordance with the Code for Fiscal Stability, the Government publish projections of both actual and cyclically adjusted fiscal aggregates in the pre-Budget report and Budget. The latest figures are set out in Table 2.5 of the March 2001 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report.

  Tax Changess (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the tax changes announced in the Budget on the regeneration in Liverpool. [154634]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government announced in Budget 2001 a package of fiscal measures to help regenerate Britain's towns and cities. This package includes stamp duty exemption for property transactions in disadvantaged communities, 150 per cent. payable tax credit for cleaning up contaminated land, reduced rate of VAT for residential coversions, and 100 per cent. capital allowances for "creating flats over shops" for letting.
  771W
  The measures will tackle physical regeneration of towns and cities—helping to bring derelict and under-utilised land and property back into productive use and reducing pressure for development on greenfield land.

  The total value of these measures is, estimated at over £1 billion over five years, across the UK.

  It is not possible to quantify the impact of these tax changes on the regeneration of Liverpool.

  New Deal
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was received by St. Ives constituents under each of the New Deal schemes. [155748]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to provide resource information for New Deals by constituency, as the Employment Service systems are not set up to allocat or monitor resources at constituency level. However, the total resource allocation for all New Deals in 2000–2001 for the South West Region, which includes St. Ives, was £34 million.

SOCIAL SECURIT

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2001,Official Report, columns 697–98W, if he will recalculate the first column, excluding those who are entitled to income-based Jobseeker' s Allowance. [153375]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: The information is not available in the format requested.

  Disability Premium
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of people in receipt of(a) incapacity benefit, (b) severe disablement allowance and (c) income support with a disability premium are undertaking therapeutic work as provided for in regulation 17(1)(a)(i) of the Social security (Incapacity for Work)(General) Regulations 1995 [154555]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available. However, research by the Department has estimated that about 1 to 2 per cent. of people receiving incapacity benefits are engaged in therapeutic work.

  We are keen to encourage incapacity benefits recipients to undertake some form of paid work which may ease their way back into full-time work. In my written answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on 22 March 2001, Official Report, columns 340–41W, we announced that from April 2002 we are introducing new, fairer and more flexible work rules to help people receiving incapacity benefits to get back into work.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents on Income Support there were in the Northern Region(a) in 1996 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [155015]
  772W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Number of Lone Parents on Income Support—North East Government Office Region

  Thousand

  May 1996

  56.5

  November 2000

  48.7

  Notes:

  1. Lone parents are defined as single claimants with dependants who are not receiving the disability or pensioner premiums.

  2. Based on 5 per cent. sample, therefore subject to sampling error.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  4. Cases are allocated to each Government Office region by matching postcodes against the relevant version of the ONS Postcode Directory.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1996 and November 2000.

  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in lone families on Income Support there were in the northern region in(a) 1996 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [155014]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Number of children in lone parent families on Income Support North East Government Office Region

  Thousand

  May 1996

  99.8

  November 2000

  84.9

  Notes:

  1. Lone parents are defined as single claimants with dependants who are not receiving the disability or pensioner premiums

  2. Based on 5 per cent. sample, therefore subject to sampling error

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands

  4. Children are defined as aged 0–15 years

  5. Cases are allocated to each Government Office region by matching postcodes against the relevant version of the ONS Postcode Directory

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1996 and November 2000

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment the Government have made of the proportion of lone parents who have found work under the New Deal for Lone Parents who return to the Income Support case load within(a) one month, (b) six months and (c) one year. [155418]

  Angela Eagle
  By the end of December 2000, 81,311 lone parents had found work through the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP). An assessment of the numbers of lone parents returning to Income Support will form part of the evaluation of NDLP which is currently under way.

  Child Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measurement the Government will use to assess how well the new child support regulations are working and when to move existing cases to the new system. [155417]
  773W
  Angela Eagle
  Existing child support cases will be transferred to the new scheme only after it has been introduced for new cases and is seen to be operating properly.

  We will carefully monitor the new scheme, evaluating Child Support Agency progress towards meeting the targets set out in the public service agreement, such as the speed and accuracy of child support assessments.

  Departmental Policies (North Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North Devon constituency, the effects on North Devon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155900]

  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 North Devon 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 North Devon 10,387 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 Jobseekers' Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in North Devon the number has reduced from 2,000 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 North Devon from 1,300 to 1,200.
  774W
  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 22,300 older people in North Devon 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 21,800 pensioners in North Devon 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 t If whom we estimate there are about 9,700 in North Devon 2,900 pensioner families in North Devon 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, letter 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.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times the Benefits Agency has overruled decisions made by the appeals tribunal in the last three years. [155955]

  Angela Eagle
  The Benefits Agency cannot overrule decisions made by tribunals.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the phasing in of existing CSA cases when the new method of calculating maintenance liabilities is introduced; and what plans he has to cushion large rises and falls in maintenance liabilities in such cases. [156137]

  Angela Eagle
  The new child support scheme will be introduced for new cases by April 2002. Existing cases will be transferred across once it is seen to be working well and getting maintenance paid regularly and reliably.

  For parents with existing child support assessments, new liabilities will be phased in stages of £2.50, £5 or £10, depending on the weekly income of the non-resident parent. These levels have been set to give parents whose liability under the few scheme will differ markedly from their current child support assessment time to adjust to the new arrangements.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list his Department's responsibilities in respect of(a) the national insurance scheme and (b) other aspects of national insurance in (i) 1979 and (ii) at present. [156096]
  775W
  Mr. Rooker
  As in 1979 the Department remains responsible for matters relating to national insurance benefits and pensions. Responsibility for matters relating to national insurance contributions (apart from policy on the reduced rates and rebates payable in respect of contracted-out pensions) was transferred to the Inland Revenue by the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Act 1999.

  Appeals Service
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what has been the average clearance time for appeals against benefit assessments in each of the last four years; [155885]

  (2) how many appeals were made during the last 12 months against benefit assessments and how many of these appeals are outstanding; [155886]

  (3) if he will set out the strategy implemented by the Appeals Service in order to reduce waiting times for all appellants; and what assessment he has made of its success; [155887]

  (4) how many appeals were heard by the Appeals Service in (a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to A 2000; and how many of the appeals in each of these years were successful; [155888]

  Appeals received

  Average clearance time for appeals from lodgement at first tier agency in weeks

  Number of appeals heard and decided

  Number of appeals found in weeks appellant's favour

  1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998

  300,389

  25.2

  158,8381

  50,4661

  I May 1998 to 30 April 1999

  316,395

  30.3

  282,535

  98,516

  I May 1999 to 30 April 2000

  247,294

  31.4

  207,724

  75,810

  1 May 2000 to 30 September 2000

  108,879

  28.8

  70,564

  28,668

  1 Figures include appeals not held on the GAPS system for the period 1 July 1997 to 31 December 1997.

  Notes:

  1. Information taken from 100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System (GAPS).

  2. The table covers appeals from all sources. It is not possible to distinguish appeals against benefit assessments.

  3. Figures may change as later data becomes available.

  Since taking up post as Chief Executive in 1999, initially of the Independent Tribunal Service and now o the Appeals Service, I have been fully committed to improving the services that we offer to appellants and others who use or rely upon our services. I have set about this systematically, in three ways:

  (i) The backlog of oldest cases I inherited has been tackled and largely cleared. At the end of February 1999, over half—some 77,000 appeals—of our outstanding appeals load were over six months old and many of them considerably older. Priority was given to clearing these appeals on the basis that all appeals were—and still are—death with on the basis of "First In, First Out", with staff and tribunal members alike seeing wherever possible to clear the oldest cases first. Of that original 77,000 just over 800 remain and these are almost entirely appeals awaiting decisions from higher courts on lead cases, the outcome of which will have a direct bearing on the outstanding appeals.

  (ii) At the same time and for newer appeals, we have sought to reduce both the waiting times that appellants have to wait to have their appeal heard and, where cases are adjourned by tribunals, the length of time they remain outstanding. These measures are now reflected in the targets the Secretary of State has set for the Appeal Service Agency and performance will be reported in the Agency's Annual Report. Currently, the national average waiting time for appellants is

  776W
  (5) how many appeals were lodged with the Appeals Service following refusal of benefit in (a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000. [155889]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of appeals is a matter for Neil Ward, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Neil Ward to Mr. Patrick Nicholls, dated 29 March 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions. You asked:

  1) What has been the average clearance time for appeals against benefit assessments in each of the last four years (PQ983).

  2) How many appeals were made during the last 12 months against benefit assessments; and how many of these appeals are outstanding (PQ984).

  3) What strategy was implemented by the Appeals Service in order to reduce waiting times for all appellants; and what assessment has been made of its success (PQ985).

  4) How many appeals were heard by the Appeals Service in (a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000; and how many of the appeals in each of these years were successful;(PQ986).

  5) How many appeals were lodged with the Appeals Service following refusal of benefit in (a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000 (PQ987).

  I am unable to provide all the information in the form you have requested it. However the information that is available is as follows:

  13.7 weeks and some 23 per cent. of our outstanding appeals are over six months old, of which 7,600 appeals cannot proceed until lead cases with higher counts are decided. The current number of appeals outstanding and sitting with the Appeals Service is some 77,600. This progress reflects improvements in delivery of our services in all regions although the extent of the gains varies. Particular attention is now being paid to reducing variations in performance aimed at bringing performance everywhere up to the standards of the best of our offices and we have strengthened our direct service delivery teams accordingly.

  (iii) To secure these gains, the Appeals Service has had to become a learning organisation. We have secured Investors in People accreditation and place great importance on practical training programmes designed to improve service delivery. We use the European Foundation for Quality Management's Excellence Model to identify internally areas for improvement; we have run customer and staff surveys to tell us where those who use or operate our services believe improvements can best be made; and we make use of direct feedback from individual appellants, their representatives, Members of Parliament or the Ombudsman.

  Improvements are being made and will continue to be so.

  I hope this information is helpful.
  777W

  Housing/Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total expenditure is on(a) Housing Benefit and (b) Council Tax Benefit for pensioners with an income of less than £210 per week. [153789]

  Mr. Rooker [holding answer 15 March 2001]
  The estimated Housing and Council Tax Benefit expenditure attributable to pensioners—defined as Benefit Units with at least one person aged 60 or over—with an income of less than £210 per week is £3,865 million and £1,140 million respectively, in 1999–2000, in Great Britain.

  Notes:

  1. These estimates are based on the estimated out-turn expenditure for 1999–2000 and the May 1999 I per cent. sample which provides information on claimant incomes.

  2. The expenditure refers to the benefit paid to claimants irrespective of the source of funding.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow registered social landlords to undertake elements of Housing Benefit administration. [156684]

  Angela Eagle
  We have secured agreement with all interested parties to involve registered social landlords in certain aspects of the Housing Benefit verification process. This builds on our commitment to improve Housing Benefit administration.

  Our intention is to run a pilot in a number of areas, and we will shortly be inviting expressions of interests from local authorities in the form of a joint bid from them and their participating registered social landlords. We will set out the criteria for taking part in the pilot and the way in which we intend to evaluate the bids.

  Funeral Payments
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he proposes to make to the rules regarding funeral payments. [156685]

  Angela Eagle
  Social Fund funeral payments are intended to enable those on the lowest incomes to provide for a simple, respectful funeral where no other family member can meet the cost. We are acting to remove an anomaly in the regulations so that claimants' relatives in receipt of help under the National Asylum Support Service are treated in the same way as those receiving qualifying benefits. Amending regulations to achieve this will be laid before the House shortly.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the most recent figures for confirmed BSE cases broken down by year of birth. [156642]
  778W
  Ms Quin
  The position in Great Britain as at 26 March 2001 was as follows:

  Year of birth

  Total number of confirmed cases

  1974

  1

  1975

  0

  1976

  2

  1977

  10

  1978

  6

  1979

  41

  1980

  101

  1981

  261

  1982

  1,393

  1983

  4,462

  1984

  8,067

  1985

  11,065

  1986

  19,733

  1987

  36,876

  1988

  22,192

  1989

  12,652

  1990

  5,647

  1991

  4,591

  1992

  3,201

  1993

  2,454

  1994

  1,351

  1995

  379

  1996

  15

  Unknown

  43,322

  Total

  177,812

  1A fourth case of BSE in an an animal born in 1996 was confirmed on 9 February. The animal was born in January 1996, before the feed ban is considered to have been fully effective.

  A fifth case of BSE in an animal born in 1996 was confirmed on 22 March. The animal was born in May 1996, before the feed ban is considered to have been fully effective.

  The unknown dates of birth relate to cattle born before 1 July 1996 when it became mandatory for cattle to have passports which show their date of birth. In some cases it is not possible to confirm the date of birth of these animals from farm records.

  Animal Movement Licences
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the application by Bristol Zoo for licence to move animals on welfare grounds was given priority over other similar applications by farmers in South Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [156136]

  Mr. Morley
  The application from Bristol Zoo took its place in the queue. A licence has now been issued.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on behalf of pig farmers about the welfare implications for pigs on farms within areas under foot and mouth restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [155622]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: In response to representations from pig farmers, we have arranged for them to be able to take advantage of the wide range of movement schemes which we have recently introduced.

  They can also us.the welfare disposal scheme and a scheme for the movement of finished animals to slaughter.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 19 and 20 March; what the Government's voting record was at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [155102]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers on 19 March in Brussels.

  I gave the Council a full account of the present state of the foot and mouth outbreak in the UK and the measures which we are taking to eradicate the disease. A similar report was made to the Council by the French Minister of Agriculture in respect of the FMD outbreak confirmed last week in France. The European Commission supported the tough measures being taken in both countries, and discussion revealed a consensus in tie Council in favour of a policy of eradication by slaughter rather than one based on vaccination.

  In relation to BSE, the Commission brought the Council up to date on progress in extending to third countries the rules for removing specified risk material from cattle. Preliminary results were given from the BSE testing programme which was agreed in December.

  In a brief discussion of proposals to adjust the EU beef regime, Commissioner Fischler reported some market improvement following the steep drop in beef consumption of recent months. Meanwhile the special purchase scheme had been passed by Management Committee on 19 March and should have an impact in firming up market prices.

  In light of discussion of progress on reform of the sugar and cotton regimes, the Council agreed to work to early conclusions, if possible in April. The Commission introduced a report on prospects for the vegetable protein market which would be further examined at the technical level.

  Flood Defences
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the allocation of statutory responsibilities for flood defence management in the(a) south-eastern and (b) eastern regions of England; and what plans he has to rieview flood defence management structures; [155607]

  (2) what plans he has to review the funding of flood defence bodies in the (a) south-ear tern and (b) eastern regions of England. [155593]

  Mr. Morley
  Throughout England MAFF has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence while operational responsibility falls to the "operating authorities"; the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and local authorities.

  The Environment Agency has a statutory supervisory duty over all matters relating to flood defence and has permissive powers to undertake sea defence works and works on designated main rivers. Internal Drainage Boards have permissive powers to undertake works on ordinary watercourses within their districts while local authorities have similar powers on ordinary watercourses outside those districts. Where defences are privately
  780W
  owned, responsibility rests with the riparian owner. Finally, maritime local authorities have coast protection powers and may also undertake sea defence works.

  A review of the funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence is currently under way and is due to report by September 2001. It is possible that the outcome of that review, and of a separate financial management and policy review of the Environment Agency which is also being undertaken, could give rise to the need to adjust the present institutional arrangements.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he plans to compensate landowners for work carried out on their land to maintain and establish flood defences in(a) Norfolk, (b) Suffolk,(c) Cambridgeshire, (d) Bedfordshire, (e) Hertfordshire, (f) Essex and (g) each London borough in (i) 1995–96,(ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98, (iv) 1998–99, (v) 1999–2000,(vi) 2000–01 and (vii) 2001–02. [155610]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministry grants are available to operating authorities but not to private landowners. However, operating authorities may compensate landowners in certain circumstances when undertaking flood defence works. Where such compensation is regarded as a necessary part of grant aided works, Ministry grant is paid towards the compensation costs.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much was provided for flood control to each of those local authorities affected by floods in 2000; [155606]

  (2) how much was provided for flood control to (a) Norfolk, (b) Suffolk, (c) Cambridgeshire,(d) Bedfordshire, (e) Hertfordshire, (f) Essex and (g) each London borough in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97,(iii) 1997–98, (iv) 1998–99, (v) 1999–2000, (vi) 2000–01 and will be provided for in (vii) 2001–02, (viii) 2002–03 and (ix) 2003–04; [155614]

  (3) what plans he has to offer compensation for flood defence works carried out by county and district councils and internal drainage boards in (a) Norfolk, (b) Suffolk, (c) Cambridgeshire, (d) Bedfordshire, (e) Hertfordshire, (f) Essex and (g) each London borough; [155609]

  (4) what percentage of funding for flood defence management in (a) Norfolk, (b) Suffolk, (c) Cambridgeshire, (d) Bedfordshire, (e) Hertfordshire, (f) Essex and (g) each London borough was grant specific in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98, (iv) 1998-99, (v) 1999-2000, (vi) 2000-01 and will be in (vii) 2001–02, (viii) 2002–03 and (ix) 2003–04. [155608]

  Mr. Morley
  Local authorities' expenditure on flood defence falls into three categories: the levy they pay to the Environment Agency, special levies paid to internal drainage boards, and the local authority's own expenditure on flood defence works. Government support for local authority expenditure on flood defence is allocated through the flood defence standard spending assessment (SSA), and distributed as revenue support grant (RSG). RSG is not ring-fenced, as it is one of the key principles of the local government finance systems that local authorities should be able to decide how to allocate their own, and their own taxpayers', money, taking account of statutory requirements and local circumstances. These decisions will reflect each authority's policies for which it is accountable
  781W
  to local people. The SSAs for the local authorities and years specified, is set out in a table which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  The Ministry provides grants (and Supplementary Credit Approvals to local authorities) rather than compensation to the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards for flood defence capital works that meet economic, technical and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. Responsibility for decisions on which works to promote and their timing rests with those operating authorities. Information on specific Ministry flood defence grants is not readily available in the form requested and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Many local authorities incurred costs in responding to flood emergencies in 2000. Eligible costs may be refunded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions under a Bellwin scheme. To date 14 local authorities have received a total of £3.8 million under the Bellwin arrangements. These are as follows:

  £

  Bridgenorth

  19,300

  Canterbury

  51,800

  East Sussex

  187,200

  Elmbridge

  65,587

  Lewes

  179,500

  Maidstone

  182,767

  Newark and Sherwood

  8,361

  Shropshire

  380,000

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  59,026

  Wealden

  44,887

  West Sussex

  1,841,600

  Woking

  129,195

  Wyre

  19,229

  City of York

  708,060

  Total

  3,876,512

  With the exception of Netwark and Sherwood, which has been paid in full, all are interim payments of 80 per cent. of the total claim. The balance will be paid on the basis of audited accounts. Claims from other local authorities are expected.

CABINET OFFICE

  e-business
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment she has made of departmental e-business strategies. [156545]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  All main central Government Departments have now produced initial e-business strategies, as required by the e-government strategic framework I published last year. The strategies are published on the web, and links to them can be found at www e-envoy.go v.uk/estrats.htm.

  The strategies represent an important step towards achieving the Government's target that all services should be available online by 2005. They demonstrate the increasing importance of e-government in transforming the quality of services offered to individuals and to businesses.
  782W
  The Government's objective, though, is to do more than put individual services online, important though that is. It is to transform the delivery of Government services, so that they are based on customer needs rather than the structures of government. The departmental e-business strategies represent the first step towards that larger goal, but require further development if that wider objective is to be met.

  Building on the foundation provided by the initial versions, Departments will therefore develop their strategies to address the major challenges of e-government: working across organisational boundaries to deliver joined-up services; transforming the internal efficiency of government by organising to meet consumer needs not producer preferences; putting e-government at the heart of strategic planning; and developing new partnerships in service delivery.

  I am today publishing a note which explains the strategy process in more detail on the e-Envoy's website. Copies will also be placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to reform the Public Trust Office; and if she will make a statement. [156639]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 1 April 2001 the Public Guardianship Office will become a new executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Also from 1 April 2001, the Public Trust Office's Court Funds Office will transfer to the Court Service and its trust work to the Office of the Official Solicitor. The Public Trust Office will cease to exist.

  The Public Guardianship Office will discharge the Court of Protection's decisions on behalf of people with mental incapacity. In creating the Public Guardianship Office, the Lord Chancellor wishes to promote and protect the financial and social well-being of people with mental incapacity by providing a seamless service that is responsive to their needs. The Public Guardianship Office will provide a service which will strike the right balance between protecting the vulnerable while avoiding unnecessary State intervention.

  The Lord Chancellor will retain ministerial accountability for the new agency's performance. The Chief Executive of the Public Guardianship Office will have clear responsibilities for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service. These responsibilities are set out in the agency's Framework Document, which will be published and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  A Corporate and Business Plan setting out the Public Guardianship Office's plans to achieve its aim and objectives over the first three years of its operation will be published and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The following Key Performance Measures have been set to challenge the Public Guardianship Office to provide a high quality and efficient service to its clients while developing increasing professionalism as an organisation.
  783W
  Public Guardianship Office Executive Agency Key Performance Measures and Targets 2001–02

  KPMI:

  To develop an effective system for identifying clients needs.

  To develop and implement a comprehensive needs assessment system by 31 March 2004.

  KPM2

  To increase the proportion of effective visits

  To maintain the current level of visits and to develop appropriate criteria as a basis to measure improvements in effectiveness by end June 2001, thereafter to announce challenging targets against which to measure the Public Guardianship Office's performance in increasing the proportion of effective visits.

  KPM3

  To increase the percentage of accounts collected on time and reviewed on time, as a basis for effective action to meet clients' needs.

  To complete the review of 95 per cent. of accounts received or have requested further information within six weeks of receipt.

  To collect 50 per cent. of accounts within two months of the accounting end date, 70 per cent. within four months of the accounting end date and 100 per cent. within six months of the accounting end date, referring cases to the Court of Protection where necessary or taking other steps to ensure proper accounts are produced on behalf of clients.

  KPM4:

  To improve investment performance

  To ensure that annually 85 per cent. and on a three year rolling basis 80 per cent. of measured funds perform in line with a model performance based upon the Association of Private Client and Investment Managers' (APCIMS) capital indices; or an acceptable performance is achieved, taking into account the client's overall circumstances, including the income generated.

  KPM5

  To secure an improved service in: responding to correspondence; payment out; providing information to receivers to enable them to support our clients; closing cases; and to survey at two-yearly intervals to ensure that these are the most important areas for customer care.

  Responding to Letter:

  Respond to 85 per cent. letters, faxes and e-mails within 15 working days of receipt and 95 per cent. in 20 days.

  Payment out:

  For 95 per cent. of requests, pay out or despatch direction to external receiver allowing access to funds to use for benefit of client within 15 working days of receipt.

  Information to Receivers:

  Despatch court orders and directions to applicants, receivers or their representatives in 95 per cent. of cases within 30 days of their being made.

  Closing cases:

  For 95 per cent. of complete applications for final directions, transfer all of clients' assets to personal representatives within 25 days.

  KPM6:

  To establish protocols for working with our receivers and our partners setting out the outcomes we intend to achieve jointly for clients.

  To establish protocols with the key bodies with whom the Public Guardianship Office has regular dealings by April 2002, setting out the outcomes to be achieved jointly for clients and memorandums of understanding setting out the ways the Office and its partners will work together to achieve those outcomes.

  KPM7:

  To demonstrate our capability through a basket of measures:percentage of staff having required skills and competencies;
  784W
  percentage receiving training; an effective research programme which underpins planning to meet clients' needs; and development of an automated case management system.

  Staff Skills and Competencies:

  At least 90 per cent. of permanent staff to have a current Personal Development Plan which identifies their learning and development needs and makes specific plans to develop their skills and competencies to defined standards.

  Staff Training:

  At least 75 per cent. of permanent staff to receive at least three days training in line with their Personal Development Plan.

  Research:

  To complete at least one research study by 31 March 2002 and Develop and publish a detailed research plan by 31 March 2002.

  Automated case management system (MERIS):

  To award the contract for an automated case management system to a supplier before end of third quarter 2001–02; design and development by supplier to commence before the end of the fourth quarter 2001–02.

  KPM8:

  Cost per unit. To develop an appropriate unit cost per case as a basis to measure improvements in efficiency by end June 2001. To announce targets for 2001–02 requiring improvements in efficiency based on the unit cost.

  Civil Procedure Rules
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the evaluation of the Civil Procedure Rules. [156636]

  Mr. Lock
  My Department has today published "Emerging Findings: An Early Evaluation of the Civil Justice Reforms" which sets out the evidence we have so far and plans for further evaluation. The paper shows that the reforms have been generally welcomed and appear to be working well.

  The key findings from the report are:
  Overall there has been a drop in the number of claims issued, in particular in the types of claim where the new Civil Procedure Rules have been introduced;
  Anecdotal evidence suggests pre-action protocols are working well to promote settlement before issue and to reduce the number of ill founded claims;
  The system of claimants offers has been welcomed by all interested groups as a means of resolving claims more quickly;
  There has been a rise in the number of cases in which Alternative Dispute Resolution is used suggesting that, since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules, parties are more likely to try alternative means of settling claims;
  The use of single joint experts appears to have worked well. It is likely that their use has contributed to a less adversarial culture, earlier settlement and may have cut costs;
  The time between issue and hearing for those cases which go to trial has fallen.
  It is too early to provide a definitive view on costs with statistics difficult to obtain and conflicting anecdotal evidence.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  War Pension Disability Orders
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she expects the Appeals Service to hear the complaint of Mr. P. R. Manifield. [155891]
  785W
  Jane Kennedy
  Mr. Manifield has appealed to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals against a decision of the War Pensions Agency to reduce his disablement benefit. Mr. Manifield's appeal has been listed for hearing at the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in Exeter on 22 May 2001.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what the average time is before(a) all types of appeals and (b) appeals relating to war pension disability orders are heard by appeal tribunals; and if she will make a statement; [1558901

  (2) if she will make a statement on the ability of the War Pension Appeal procedure to deal efficiently and effectively with the cases of ex-service personnel. [155892]

  Jane Kennedy
  Appeals to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal currently all relate to war pensions entitlement and disability assessments. The average waiting time between the receipt of an appeal by the Pensions Appeal Tribunals and hearing is currently 82 weeks.

  Provisions in The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, which came into force in England and Wales on 9 April 2001, will enable appeals to be listed for hearing more quickly and allow for appeals to be dealt with efficiently and effectively.

  The introduction of a six-month time limit will mean that the information available to the tribunal to determine the appeal will be more timely. At present there is no time limit for appealing a decision of the War Pensions Agency and in some cases the tribunal have to decide appeals where the decision has been made many years before.

  Additionally the tribunal will, from 9 April 2001, be required to consider only those factors pertaining at the time the decision was made. Under the existing rules the
  786W
  tribunal also have to take into account any changes that may have occurred between the decision being made and the date of the hearing. In practice this has meant that the tribunal often had to obtain new evidence which was not considered by the War Pensions Agency in making their decision.

  These provisions, along with operational improvements including additional sitting capacity, will help to reduce the waiting times.

  Women Judges
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to appoint more women judges. [155973]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor appoints to judicial office on merit from among those who are eligible, suitable and who put themselves forward for appointment. The number of women holding judicial office reflects the number of women practitioners in the legal profession with the appropriate period of experience. In the more senior positions there are now more women judges than every before. As of 31 March 2000, there were 11 women judges in the High Court and above and, of the 12 senior appointments made last year, five were of women. The Lord Chancellor has introduced a number of initiatives to encourage greater numbers to apply for judicial office, and to secure equality of opportunity. For example, he has made information about the appointments procedures widely available; he applies the procedures flexibly in relation to the age and sitting arrangements; he has introduced a work shadowing scheme; and he has reviewed the criteria for appointment. These efforts will continue and be developed with a view to progressive increases in numbers as the pool of suitable candidates grows.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth

Foot and Mouth Disease: Impact on Tourism
Baroness Anelay of St Johns asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on the tourism industry in England.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the best estimate by the English Tourism Council of the loss to the tourism industry in England is that it is in the order of £100 million a week and that it could reach £250 million a week if the consequential implications of the foot and mouth outbreak continue well into the summer season.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In light of those worrying figures, will the Government ensure that interest-free loans are available as art emergency measure to tourism businesses that cannot pay their bills or keep on staff as a direct result of the catastrophe? Have the Government been successful in persuading the German agriculture ministry to drop its current advice, which is that people should not travel to this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the noble Baroness's second point, the British Tourist Authority is working hard to persuade people from Germany that a very large part of Britain, including a very large part of its countryside, is open for tourism. However, Germany is not the worst case in this regard. If the noble Baroness has watched the news on CNN recently, she will know that some extraordinary ideas are circulating in the United States about the way in which foot and mouth disease is affecting Britain as a tourist destination. We are working hard to eradicate those: damaging ideas.
On the noble Baroness's first question, providing interest-free loans is one measure that the task force is considering. The list of measures was made available last week and I am sure that the matter will be followed up.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, the Minister may like to know that I held a university reunion at the Malvern Hills Hotel Fast weekend and that we drank Malvern water but did not trespass on the Malvern Hills. Will
404
he comment on the fact that tourism is a more important industry economically to Britain that the agricultural sector?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if my noble friend's university reunion was like other reunions. I rather assume that he was drinking more than just Malvern water, admirable though it may be to drink that water. When this issue was raised last week, I referred to the situation at Porlock in Somerset where it is said that 90 per cent of the land is agricultural but that 90 per cent of employment is from tourism. That is true of a large part of the country.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the division between tourism and agriculture is unfortunate? In most rural areas, tourism depends on the agricultural sector's contribution to the landscape and on its produce, and agriculture depends on tourism to a large extent now that farmers have diversified and because they sell their produce to tourists. Does he think that developing a false sense of competition about whom one should feel the most sorry for is not a constructive way forward?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness's comments. I hope that nobody in government or in any position of responsibility is helping to develop a sense of division between tourism and agriculture. The point is not just that the two sectors feed off each other, so to speak, but that a large number of people are engaged in both.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister use his influence with our New Zealand cousins? My daughter-in-law's New Zealand family have said that they will not come over here next September because of foot and mouth disease. However, I have prevailed on them to come.
Also, to follow on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, does the Minister agree that British farm produce that is sold at farm shops and farmers' markets is essential? Will he do what he can to prevail on various ministries and agencies to sort out the provision of comprehensive advice to specialist cheese-makers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those are two very different points. On the noble Countess's point about New Zealand, the British Tourist Authority will work there as it does elsewhere. I am delighted to hear that she has persuaded her family to come. I hope that they will persuade their friends and neighbours to come as well.
The issue of specialist cheese manufacturers is slightly too precise for me to give a helpful response. There is a widespread misunderstanding in this context. Some claim that British farm produce of any kind is dangerous to health; it is not.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, did the figures in the Minister's original Answer include the cost of

405
unemployment benefit, which, sadly, will become payable to a considerable extent in the affected industries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figures are intended to cover that as well. The noble Lord will recognise that it is very difficult to calculate those figures. One cannot simply use the price of a hotel room, for example. One has to examine the opportunity cost, the mix between fixed and variable costs and the public costs of losing jobs. Tourism is a highly labour-intensive industry. If one loses £30,000 in turnover one has probably lost a job.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the Minister said in his Answer that the Government were working hard to counter misconceptions abroad. Would the Government consider making special funds available through the Central Office of Information and our embassies to aid in that task?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that could involve duplication of effort. The British Tourist Authority has that primary responsibility. In areas in which it does not have direct representation, it works through our posts overseas.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, can the Minister encourage the English Tourism Council to carry out regular surveys of the damage caused to the tourism industry? That would ensure that if financial help was forthcoming, it would be distributed quickly and effectively.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that more than regular surveys are carried out. Continuous surveys are carried out by the English Tourism Council, by economists and statisticians in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and by other departments that may have a contribution to make.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister think it would boost English and British tourism if some of our political leaders announced now that they were planning to holiday in England this year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I heard a suggestion that Ministers should travel around the world in order to boost efforts to bring overseas tourists to Britain. The two are not incompatible.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the agricultural and tourist industries have exactly the same priority of ridding the country of this pestilence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes. But there are differences of emphasis in the sense that those affected in the tourism industry are not necessarily in the same areas as those in the agricultural industry who are affected. The message we have to get across is
406
that a large part of this country is not directly affected by foot and mouth disease and its tourist industry therefore should not have to suffer. That is far from being the case at the moment.

Police Vehicles: Accidents
3.14 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the latest available figures show an increase in the number of accidents involving police vehicles.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the latest available figures are for the 12 months from 31st March 1999 to 1st April 2000. Those show a 4 per cent increase when compared with the preceding 12 months in the total number of police vehicle accidents. The figures are 18,068 incidents in 1999–2000, with 17,338 in the year before. They include all incidents ranging from minor collisions in police station yards right through to more serious accidents on public roads.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Can he confirm that some police forces are refusing to divulge figures on this subject to the media, despite the public's concern? Honourable exceptions are the Metropolitan Police, for whom the Home Secretary is responsible, and also the Manchester police.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord recognises that several police forces are being explicit in their publication of figures in relation to this situation. He may also know that the Metropolitan Police introduced an additional feature into police vehicles in terms of black box recorders. They help to ensure that vehicles are used economically and managed properly, as well as providing evidence when any serious accident occurs. I recognise however that several police forces are not being so open at the present time.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has the Minister himself witnessed the turmoil and trail of mayhem left by a police vehicle charging at speed through a succession of red lights in a city or urban area?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have not witnessed such incidents although I am aware of them. We have recorded in the past the number of serious incidents which led to deaths. However, I draw to the attention of the House the Minton report which produced 33 recommendations on how we should improve the operation of police vehicles at times of emergency. Clearly a necessary balance must be struck between the public's requirement that police act promptly, efficiently and speedily to an emergency which may involve threats to life and the obvious safety for the ordinary member of the public when the police vehicle is rushing to the emergency. The Minton

407
report indicated the kind of training that is required and should be enhanced. I am pleased to be able to indicate that essential parts of the report are being adopted by a substantial number of police forces.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that with the airways project, which all forces hope to have in place within the next four years, automatic location devices within vehicles will make it much easier for police vehicles to attend accidents? The site can be pinpointed enabling the nearest vehicle to attend. That will avoid vehicles travelling all over the place at high speed and be a much safer way of proceeding in the future.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing attention to one aspect of technology which will enhance the efficiency with which police vehicles are dispatched to emergencies. Other aspects of technology are also being introduced. Police vehicles which are likely to be involved in accidents and emergencies have more highly trained drivers and they also have markers on their roofs so that they can be provided with helicopter support. That again can reduce the necessity for rapid travel along the ground, the helicopter being able to guide the nearest vehicles more accurately from the air.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if he or a member of his family were, unhappily, mugged or being burgled, he would be thankful to know that a police car was travelling at high speed, through several red lights, in order to come to his rescue?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for introducing an element of balance to this debate. It is important that the police are able to respond to clearly identified emergencies. Again, technology and the managerial structure of police forces play their part in identifying real emergencies to which we expect the police to move with all dispatch. But it is always a cause for concern when it is found that a police vehicle has travelled too fast to an incident which is not in fact a high priority emergency. A balance has to be struck. I can assure the House that the Minton report and the work of police authorities throughout the country are fully aware of public concern and the need to strike that balance.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware, as will other noble Lords, that I frequently go out on traffic patrols. In response to questions raised by other noble Lords, perhaps I may say that I have been through red traffic lights, but only when necessary. Does my noble friend agree that traffic officers are trained to a higher standard than drivers of other police vehicles? Consequently, training to a far more advanced standard for drivers of other police vehicles could lead to fewer accidents. Does he also agree that a police accident can be classed as such even if just a tail-light is broken?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. My noble friend stated that he had
408
been through red lights. I hasten to assure the House that I know it to be the case that he was in an authorised police car, bent upon attending exactly the kind of emergency that we have been discussing. He is right that the emphasis behind the Minton report and the management of the police forces is that drivers who are on duty with the requisite cars to be able to respond to emergencies require a higher level of training than do other police drivers. We expect all police drivers to set exemplary standards. However, driving in authorised emergency conditions which at times require the breaking of traffic Acts requires a higher level of skill. As my noble friend indicated, that is reflected in the intensification of the training of such drivers.

Local Government Expenditure
3.22 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will announce the result of their review of local government expenditure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we shall announce our decisions on the reform of the local government finance system in a White Paper later this year.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that immensely helpful reply. Can he assure the House that there is no truth in the reports, which have appeared on occasion in the press, that the Government are planning a major shift in resources from the South East of England to the North?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. We are considering the requirements of local authorities across the board. We are conducting a fundamental review to find a fairer way to distribute grants. The final effect of such distribution between different sort of authorities and geographical areas will be seen at the end of that process. There is no strategy to shift resources away from the South East.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister accept that although the South may be wealthier than parts of the North, within the South, and particularly London, are areas of enormous deprivation? Three of the most deprived boroughs in the country are in London. Do the Government accept that the review needs to be in fine detail not broad-brush?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. That is precisely what we are doing. We are considering every aspect of local authority provision and the demographic and physical areas they cover. We are taking into account all such dimensions. There is no discrimination against London in that process.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that the foot and mouth crisis will diminish the income and increase costs of local authorities in rural areas?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we recognise that the immediate effect may be that of further costs to local authorities and, to some extent, diminishing income. We hope that that is a temporary change and that the system of local government finance which we are addressing here will stand us in good stead for many years. Clearly, whatever adjustments have to be made in the short term following the foot and mouth outbreak will need to be taken on a separate basis from the long-term financial structure.

National Blood Authority
3.24 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have now been able to give to the judgment of Mr Justice Burton in the High Court on 26th March concerning contaminated blood supplied by the National Blood Authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the judgment is long and complex and we are unable to offer any comment until we have had the opportunity to assess it carefully.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend; but would he at least accept Mr Justice Burton's core finding that the supplier of blood to NHS patients has a legal duty to supply clean blood? Is he aware that, of 4,800 people with haemophilia who have been infected with hepatitis C by contaminated NHS blood and blood products, 114 have now died of liver disease and that of 1,200 infected with HIV, 900 have since died of AIDS? Would it not thus be cruelly unfair to deny a stricken haemophilia community even the benefit of the High Court's core finding? Is it not time now to let right be done?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the community in relation to whom he addresses his remarks has suffered very much. We feel a great deal of sympathy for those people. The issues are distinct. Prior to 1985, the technology to make blood products free from hepatitis C in sufficient quantities to treat all haemophiliacs in the UK was simply not possible. Once it was, the NHS introduced it. Government policy in this case is that compensation or other financial help is not payable. That decision was reached by the previous government. The judgment given on Monday does not affect that decision as the Consumer Protection Act did not come into force until March 1988.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that it was too early for the department to have made an assessment. However, his officials seem to be warning journalists about the implications. The Independent stated:
"Department of Health officials privately warned that the implications of the 173-page judgment were that the NHS could face claims for hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation if the same reasoning was applied in other cases where patients suffered unpreventable injury".
Despite the timing, is that not so in the case of haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C? Would not it be far better if the department finally came up with a compensation scheme after all these years? That would save the cost of litigation and the eventual damages to be paid.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, there are two distinct issues. The judgment is very long. It was published on Monday of this week. It is important that we have enough time to consider the full implications. When we have done so we shall give our views and an assessment of the implications for the NHS as a whole.
As regards compensation, I can only repeat what I said earlier. We have reviewed the decision taken by the previous government not to offer financial assistance to haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through blood products. We met the Haemophilia Society and spent a good deal of time considering the evidence it presented. The decision was not easy. However, the decision was that we could not make an exception in this case to the general rule that compensation or financial help is only given when the NHS or individuals working in it are at fault.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does not my noble friend find his own Answer somewhat surprising if one applies to it even the most elementary ethical principles? The logic of his position seems to be that we could not know that we were to produce this catastrophe, and because we did not know, we cannot compensate people for the consequences of our actions. I well understand the technicalities of my noble friend's Answer. However, I do not understand the ethical position now adopted by the Government. People have died as a result of these actions and others are in danger. I should have thought—on all sorts of grounds in which once, at least, our party used to believe—that compensation is exactly the right path to take.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the position is clear and has been stated policy by successive governments. It is that, in general, compensation is paid only where legal liability can be established. Compensation is therefore paid when it can be shown that a duty of care is owed by the NHS body; that there has been negligence; that there has been harm; and that the harm was caused by the negligence.

411
Of course the Government have every sympathy with the people who were so affected, but I do not believe that sympathy can lead us to change that general principle.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this case was the first to be brought under consumer legislation and that it therefore opens up many new concerns, particularly in the part of the NHS? Can that consumer legislation apply in the case of anyone who dies as a result of a blood transfusion, even a life-saving blood transfusion which subsequently develops into a disease such as BSE'? Furthermore, is it correct that the Government are appealing against the decision?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the question of appeal will be considered when we have received full advice from the lawyers involved. I repeat that this is an extensive judgment, 320 pages long. Potentially, it has wider implications for the NHS and we need to give careful thought to it before deciding what further action might be taken.
As regards the NHS, this is the first judgment under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The judge's main findings were that the public are entitled to expect that the blood they receive will be 100 per cent safe. The judge's conclusion was that the knowledge of the medical profession is not relevant in determining the legitimate expectation of the public, nor is it a relevant circumstance that that effect could not have been avoided. The judge concluded that once the risk is known about, the product is defective even if the risk could not be identified in the product. As noble Lords will realise, we must give careful consideration to those implications.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, some 10 years ago there were extensive discussions in this House about the possible introduction of a no-fault compensation scheme along the lines of those which exist in New Zealand and certain other countries. At the time, the government of the day said that they did not want to introduce such a scheme but that they would give the matter further consideration.
That proposal has fallen by the wayside. When these blood products were produced no one could have known that they were likely to transmit these viral infections. Hence, in my view, it would be impossible to come to a decision that the Government were negligent. However, is it not time that the question of no-fault compensation should be reconsidered?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we are reviewing a range of issues surrounding compensation, in particular the problem of litigation in the NHS and the best way to tackle that, including the process used to deal with clinical negligence claims and how we can improve it. We shall continue that work in considering how best to take the matter forward.
412
In the context of the NHS, no-fault compensation schemes offer some advantages, but there are disadvantages, too. Once one examines the position in detail, one sees that it is not easy to reach a simple conclusion on that matter.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, since the Government came into power, what has been the cost of litigation within the NHS? Are those costs balanced against compensation which might be paid to individuals who are aggrieved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall give clinical negligence payments over the past five years. In 1994–95 they were £160 million; 1995–96 they were £173 million; in 1996–97 they were £235 million; in 1997–98 they were £144 million; and in 1998–99 they were £221 million. Those are substantial payments and anyone concerned with the well being of the NHS must be worried that such a degree of resources is being spent in negligence payments.
Two issues are involved. The first is the question of whether we can improve the whole clinical negligence process. The second is to improve our procedures within hospitals and other healthcare services so that we are less vulnerable to claims in future.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, will the Minister try to persuade his department to publicise the fact that it is beneficial to health, particularly of men, to give blood on a regular basis? Furthermore, are there any age limits on blood donors?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that there are age limits but we want to encourage as many people as possible within those limits to give blood. It would be fair to say that, under new leadership in the National Blood Service, during the past two or three years the stocks have blood have increased enormously. I echo the noble Lord's remark that we must encourage more people to give generously in that respect.

Easter Recess
3.36 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a brief statement announcing the dates of the Easter Recess. Subject as always to the progress of business, the House will sit at 11 a.m. on Tuesday 10th April and rise for the Recess at the end of business that day. The House will return on Monday 23rd April.

Chairman of Committees
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness of Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the first. Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

413
Moved, That the Lord Tordoff be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees for the remainder of this Session.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees
Baroness of Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Brabazon of Tara be appointed Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees for the remainder of this Session.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

Kent County Council Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered. In doing so—I am sure that this is totally out of order—perhaps I may thank the House for putting me into the job that I now hold. However, I am conscious of the tragic circumstance which created the vacancy and I shall not forget it.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The page and line refer to the Bill as first printed for the Commons]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out 'This' and insert 'Part 2 (Dealers in second-hand goods), Part 3 (Occasional sales and squat trading) and Part 4 (Miscellaneous and general) of this'
2 Page 1, line 17, leave out '(3)' and insert—
'1A APPOINTED DAY
(1)'
3 Page 1, line 17, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.
4 Page 2, line 3, leave out 'a newspaper circulating in the county' and insert 'at least two newspapers circulating in the county and at least one national art and antiques trade periodical'.
5 Page 2. line 8, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
6 Page 2, line 12, after 'newspaper' insert 'or of any such art and antiques trade periodical'.
7 Clause 2, page 2. line 26, after 'event' insert 'held in the county'.
8 Page 3, line 16, at end insert—
"registration number" means the number which appears on a certificate of registration issued under subsection (2) of section 4 (Registration of dealers in second-hand goods) of this Act;'.
9 Clause 2, page 3, leave out line 34.
10 Page 3, lines 35 and 36, leave out 'intended or adapted for use on roads'.
11 Page 3, line 40, leave out 'building' and insert 'structure'.
12 Page 3, line 40, at end insert—
'"vehicle" means a vehicle intended or adapted for use on the road.'.
13 Clause 4, page 4, line 12. after 'registration' insert 'on which there shall appear a registration number'.
14 Page 4, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
15 Page 4, line 14, at end insert—
'(4) The council may not impose a charge for registration under this section.'.
16 Clause 5, page 4, line 20, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (8)'.
17 Page 4, line 23, leave out 'his business' and insert 'the business in respect of which he is registered'.
18 Page 4, line 25, leave out 'for the purpose of this section'.
19 Page 4, line 27, after 'sufficient' insert 'where reasonably possible'.
20 Page 4, line 28, after "(c)" insert—
'either—
(i)'
21 Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
'(ii) the person's registration number if he is registered under the said section 4 or is registered by the borough council under any enactment as a second-hand dealer in respect of his business as such; or
(iii) some other entry, of a type approved by resolution of the council, with the approval of the Secretary of State, by means of which that person may be identified;'.
22 Page 4, line 31, leave out 'registration' and insert 'registered'.
23 Page 4, line 35, leave out 'registration' and insert 'registered'.
24 Page 4. leave out lines 39 to 45 and insert—
'(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, subsection (1) above shall not apply in respect of any transaction in respect of which a person acquires an interest in, or takes charge of any second-hand article (or set of such articles) which will, in his reasonable opinion at the time of the transaction—

(a) be disposed of by him for no value; or

(b) be sold or offered for sale by him for a price (which in the case of a set of articles means the total price of the articles, whether sold individually or as a set) less than the relevant amount.

(3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to any electrically or battery powered goods or to any medium on or by which sound, images or other data are or may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above "the relevant amount" is—

(a) £10 in the case of vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, optical equipment, firearms and gardening equipment; and

(b) £50 in the case of all other articles to which that subsection applies; or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine.'

25 Page 5, line 1, leave out 'Where' and insert 'Subject to subsection (8) below, where'.
26 Page 5, leave out from beginning of line 3 to 'he' in line 4 and insert 'the relevant amount'.
27 Page 5, line 7, leave out 'or' and insert—
'(b) the person's registration number if he is registered under the said section 4 or is registered by the borough council under any enactment as a second-hand dealer in respect of his business as such; or'.
28 Page 5, line 8, after 'council' insert ', with the approval of the Secretary of State'.
29 Page 5, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert—
'(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above "the relevant amount" is—

(a) £100 in the case of electrically or battery powered goods, vehicles and vehicle parts, plant, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, building materials, boats and boating equipment, musical instruments and gardening equipment; and

(b) £500 in the case of all other articles; or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State. determine.

(7) In the case of transactions under which a dealer in secondhand goods acquires an interest in, or takes charge of or sells articles at an auction the entry of the name and address of the auctioneer in the record referred to in subsection (1) shall suffice for the purposes of subsection (1 )(c)(i) or, as the case may be, subsection (5)(a) above.
(8) Subsections (1) and (5) above shall apply to transactions which take place outside the county only if—

(a) the person acquiring an interest in, taking charge of or selling the articles in question occupies premises registered under the said section 4; or

(b) the usual place of residence of the person acquiring an interest in, taking charge of or selling the articles in question is within the county (except if that person carries on his business as a dealer in second-hand goods primarily in premises occupied by him and situated outside the county).'.

30 Page 5, leave out from beginning of line 17 to 'shall' in line 18 and insert 'Every entry made in every record kept by a person in pursuance of this section'.
31 Page 5, line 20, leave out 'last'.
32 Page 5, line 21, leave out 'this section' and insert 'the said section 4'
33 Clause 6, page 5. lines 26 and 27, leave out 'subsections (1), (3), (5) or (6)' and insert 'subsection (1), (5), (9) or (10)'.
34 Page 5, line 36, after 'stall' insert 'which is situated in the county and is'.
35 Page 5, leave out lines 41 to 46.
36 Page 6, line 3, leave out 'a false name or false address' and insert—

'(a) (in the case of subsections (1)(c) (i) and (5)(a) of the said section 5) a false name or false address; or

(b) (in the case of sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1)(c) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (5) of the said section 5) false information where that information is required to enable an entry under any of those paragraphs to be made,'.

37 Page 6, line 22, at end insert—
'(e) a person engaged in business as a dealer in secondhand books, in respect of his business as such; or
(7) a person engaged in business as a dealer in animals, in respect of his business as such; or.
38 Page 6, line 33, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.
39 Clause 8, page 6, line 38, leave out 'date this Act comes into force' and insert 'appointed day'.
40 Page 6, line 39, after 'premises' insert 'in the county'.
41 Page 6, line 41, leave out 'date' and insert 'day'.
42 Clause 9, page 7, line 4, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.
43 Clause 10, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 18.
44 Page 7, line 19, after 'trading' insert In the county'.
45 Page 8. line 1, leave out 'has been, is being or'.
46 Page 8, line 2, leave out 'has been or'.
47 Page 8, lines 4 and 5, leave out 'the holding of the sale or the carrying out of the trading or'.
48 Page 8, line 6, leave out 'carrying out of and insert 'carry out'.
49 Page 8, leave out from 'above' in line II to end of line 14 and insert—
'(4) Any person on whom a notice given under subsection (3) above is served shall supply to the council the information required by subsection (2) above within 7 days after the service of the notice, whether or not the occasional sale or squat trading commences before the expiry of that period.
(5) If the council has reason to believe that an occasional sale has been or is being held or that squat trading has been commenced in the county but that no notice thereof has been given under subsection (1) above by the relevant person, they may as soon as reasonably practicable after the holding of the sale or the carrying out of the trading has come to their knowledge, serve on—

(a) the person who appears to be the relevant person; or

(b) the occupier of any premises on or in which it appears that such sale is being or was held; a notice requiring that person to give to the council the information mentioned in subsection (6) below.

(6) The information required by subsection (5) above is—

(a) the date and time of commencement and location of the occasional sale or squat trading;

(b) the duration or (in the case where an occasional sale is being held or the squat trading is being carried out) expected duration of the occasional sale or squat trading;

(c) whether the occasional sale or squat trading is to be held on other days and if so, what days, and the time of commencement and expected duration on those days;

(d) the extent of the premises occupied or used for the purposes of the occasional sale or squat trading;

(e) the nature of the goods provided at the occasional sale or during the squat trading;

(f) the name and address (other than an address temporarily occupied for the purposes of the occasional sale) of every person who is holding or held or is promoting or promoted the occasional sale or is carrying out or carried out the squat trading, and the name and address of a person (if any) appointed to receive and answer complaints about the sale or trading; and

(g) in the case of an occasional sale, an estimate of the number of persons attending, or who attended the sale.

(7) The information required by subsection (5) above shall be supplied by the person on whom the notice is served within 7 days after the service of the notice, except in the case where the sale is being held or the trading is being carried out in which case the information should be supplied forthwith.'.
50 Page 8, line 15, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3), (4) and (5)'.
51 leave out lines 38 to 41.
52 Page 8, line 42, leave out 'Any' and insert 'Every entry made in every'.
53 Page 8, leave out from 'be' in line 42 to 'retained' in line 43.
54 Page 8, line 45, leave out 'last'.
55 Page 9, line 3, at end insert—
'(4) In this section "seller" and "supplier" mean respectively a seller or supplier with whom the person who holds the sale has made arrangements (whether or not on payment of a charge or fee) for the right to sell or supply goods at the sale, whether or not from a stall or pitch.'.
56 Clause 12, page 9, line 8, leave out the first 'business address' and insert 'his business address or business telephone number'.
57 Page 9, line 8, leave out the second 'business address' and insert 'the business address or business telephone number'.
58 Page 9. line 14, leave out the second 'the' and insert 'his'.
59 Page 9. line 14, leave out 'business address' and insert 'his business address or business telephone number'.
60 Page 9, line 14, leave out from 'address' to end of line 17.
61 Clause 13, page 9, line 30, leave out 'registration' and insert 'registered'.
62 Page 9, line 30, after 'number' insert 'or false information relating to any certificate of registration,'.
63 Page I0, line 9, after 'premises' insert 'situated in the county and'.
64 Page 10. line 15, after 'premises' insert 'situated in the county'.
65 Page 10, line 23, after 'premises' insert 'situated in the county'.
66 Page10, line 24, after '(3)' insert 'or (5)'.
67 Page 10, line 26, after 'premises' insert `situated in the county'.
68 Page 10. line 28, after `sales)' insert 'of this Act'.
69 Page 10, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—
'(2) The powers of—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (1) above in respect of premises used as a private dwelling-house; and

(b) paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) above in respect of any premises to which those paragraphs apply: may be exercised only on the grant of a warrant by a justice of the peace.

(3) A justice may grant a warrant under subsection (2) above only if he is satisfied either—

(a) that notice of intention to apply for a warrant has been given to the occupier of the premises; or

(b) that the case is one of urgency, or the occupier is temporarily absent, or that the giving of a notice of intention to apply for a warrant would defeat the object of the entry.

(4) A warrant under this section shall authorise entry, if need be, by force but shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which it is granted.'.
70 Clause 15. page 10, line 47, leave out 'or by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above'.
71 Clause 16. page 11, line 8, leave out the first 'all'.
72 Page 11, line 8, leave out the second 'all'.
73 Page 11, leave out lines 10 to 14.
74 Clause 18, page 11, line 35. at the end of Clause 18 insert the following New Clauses—
18A REPORTS

(1) Not more than 3 years after the appointed day the council shall submit to the Secretary of State a report on the working of the provisions of this Act; and the Secretary of State shall lay any such report before Parliament.

(2) The council shall submit further such reports, at such intervals, as the Secretary of State may require; and the Secretary of State shall lay any such report before Parliament.

418

(3) In this section "the appointed day" means. in the case where different days are fixed for the purpose of different provisions of the Act, the earliest appointed day.

18B RESOLUTIONS
Where the council pass any resolution under this Act (other than a resolution bringing into effect section 4 (Registration of dealers in second-hand goods) of this Act, they shall, no later than 28 days before the resolution comes into effect, serve notice of the passing of the resolution on every person registered under the said section 4.
18C SERVICE OF NOTICES, ETC.
Any notice or other document required or authorised to be served or given in writing under this Act may be served or given either—

(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served or to whom it is to be given; or

(b) by leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode or business of that person, or, in a case where an address for service has been given by that person, at that address; or

(c) by sending it by ordinary post addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode or business, or, in a case where an address for service has been given by that person, at that address: or

(d) in the case of a company or body incorporated in England or Wales, by delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at their registered or principal office, or sending it by ordinary post addressed to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at that office.'.

The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 74.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 74.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what do they do?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Earl would have read the Commons amendments. If it would assist him, I could write to him with details at a later date.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medway Council Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND MOTION MOVED ON
CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to the Bill as first printed for the
Commons]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out 'This' and insert 'Part 2 (Dealers in second-hand goods). Part 3 (Occasional sales and squat trading) and Part 4 (Miscellaneous and general) of this'.
2 Page 1, line 17. leave out '(3)' and insert—
'1A APPOINTED DAY
(1)'
3 Page 1. line 17, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.
4 Page 2, line 3. leave out from 'in' to 'notice' in line 4 and insert 'at least two newspapers circulating in the borough and at least one national art and antiques trade periodical'.
5 Page 2, line 8, leave out 'three' and insert 'six'.
6 Page 2, line 12, after 'newspaper' insert 'or of any such art and antiques trade periodical'.
7 Clause 2, page 2, line 26, after 'event' insert 'held in the borough'.
8 Page 3, line 16, at end insert—
' "registration number" means the number which appears on a certificate of registration issued under subsection (2) of section 4 (Registration of dealers in second-hand goods) of this Act;'.
9 Clause 3, page 3, leave out line 34.
10 Page 3, lines 35 and 36, leave out 'intended or adapted for use on roads'.
11 Page 3, Line 40, leave out 'building' and insert 'structure'.
12 Page 3, line 40, at end insert—
' "vehicle" means a vehicle intended or adapted for use on the road.'.
13 Clause 4. page 4, line 12, after 'registration' insert 'on which there shall appear a registration number'.
14 Page 4, lane 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
15 Page 4, Lire 14, at end insert—
'(4) The council may not impose a charge for registration under this section.'.
16 Clause 5, page 4, line 20, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (8)'.
17 Page 4, line 23, leave out 'his business' and insert 'the business in respect of which he is registered'.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 17 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 17.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Clause 5, page 4, line 23, leave out from 'business' to 'enter' in line 24.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Mayhew of Twysdenmoved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 18A, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. Perhaps I may detain the House for no more than one minute to explain the purpose of the amendment. In their consideration of the parallel Kent County Council Bill the Commons disagreed to the proposed
420
amendment which corresponded to Amendment No.18 in the Medway Council Bill. It was common ground that, so far as practicable, there should be no disparity between the provisions of these two Bills which, inter alia, regulate certain activities of dealers in secondhand goods.
By inadvertence, however, when the Commons thereafter considered the Medway Council Bill Amendment No. 18 was agreed to. It is to remove the unintended disparity between the two Bills resulting from Amendment No. 18 that Amendment No. 18A is required. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18, to leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Mayhew of Twysden.)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, moves his amendment because it puts right an error. The only reason I moved the original amendment was to allow the noble and learned Lord to move his. I hope that the House agrees with his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
19 Clause 5, page 4, line 25, leave out 'for the purpose of this section'.
20 Page 4, line 27, after `sufficient' insert 'where reasonably possible'.
21 Page 4, line 28, after '(c)' insert—
'either—
(i)'
22 Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
'(ii) the person's registration number if he is registered under the said section 4 or is registered by the county council under any enactment as a second-hand dealer in respect of his business as such; or
(iii) some other entry, of a type approved by resolution of the council, with the approval of the Secretary of State, by means of which that person may be identified;'.
23 Page 4, line 31, leave out 'registration' and insert 'registered'.
24 Page 4, line 35, leave out 'registration' and insert 'registered'.
25 Page 4, leave out lines 39 to 45 and insert—
'(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, subsection (1) above shall not apply in respect of any transaction in respect of which a person acquires an interest in, or takes charge of any second-hand article (or set of such articles) which will, in his reasonable opinion at the time of the transaction—

(a) be disposed of by him for no value; or

(b) be sold or offered for sale by him for a price (which in the case of a set of articles means the total price of the articles, whether sold individually or as a set) less than the relevant amount.

(3) Subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to any electrically or battery powered goods or to any medium on or by which sound, images or other data are or may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above "the relevant amount" is—

(a) £10 in the case of vehicle parts, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, boating equipment, musical instruments, tools, bicycles, optical equipment, firearms and gardening equipment; and

(b) £50 in the case of all other articles to which that subsection applies;

or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine.'.
26 Page 5, line 1, leave out 'Where' and insert `Subject to subsection (8) below, where'.
27 Page 5, leave out from beginning of line 3 to 'he' in line 4 and insert 'the relevant amount'.
28 Page 5, line 7, leave out 'or' and insert—
`(b) the person's registration number if he is registered under the said section 4 or is registered by the county council under any enactment as a second-hand dealer in respect of his business as such; or'.
29 Page 5, line 8, after 'council' insert with the approval of the Secretary of State'.
30 Page 5, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert—
'(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above "the relevant amount" is—

(a) £100 in the case of electrically or battery powered goods, vehicles and vehicle parts, plant, jewellery, watches, photographic equipment, sports equipment, equestrian equipment, building materials, boats and boating equipment, musical instruments and gardening equipment; and

(b) £500 in the case of all other articles;

or in either case, such other amount (being no lower than the existing amount) as the council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, determine.
(7) In the case of transactions under which a dealer in secondhand goods acquires an interest in, or takes charge of or sells articles at an auction the entry of the name and address of the auctioneer in the record referred to in subsection (1) shall suffice for the purposes of subsection (1)(c)(i) or, as the case may be, subsection (5)(a) above.
(8) Subsections (1) and (5) above shall apply to transactions which take place outside the borough only if—

(a) the person acquiring an interest in, taking charge of or selling the articles in question occupies premises registered under the said section 4; or

(b) the usual place of residence of the person acquiring an interest in, taking charge of or selling the articles in question is within the borough (except if that person carries on his business as a dealer in second-hand goods primarily in premises occupied by him and situated outside the borough).'.

31 Page 5, leave out from beginning of line 17 to 'shall' in line 18 and insert 'Every entry made in every record kept by a person in pursuance of this section'.
32 Page 5, line 20, leave out 'last'.
33 Page 5, line 21, leave out 'this section' and insert 'the said section 4'.
34 Clause 6, page 5, lines 26 and 27, leave out 'subsections (1), (3), (5) or (6)' and insert 'subsection (1), (5), (9) or (10)'.
35 Page 5, line 36, after 'stall' insert 'which is situated in the borough and is'.
36 Page 5, leave out lines 41 to 46.
37 Page 6, line 3, leave out `a false name or false address' and insert—

'(a) (in the case of subsections (1)(c) (i) and (5)(a) of the said section 5) a false name or false address; or

422

(b) (in the case of sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of subsection (1) (c) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (5) of the said section 5) false information where that information is required to enable an entry under any of those paragraphs to be made,'.

38 Clause 7, page 6, line 22, at end insert—
`(e) a person engaged in business as a dealer in second-hand books, in respect of his business as such; or
(6) a person engaged in business as a dealer in animals, in respect of his business as such; or.
39 Page 6, line 33, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.
40 Clause 8, page 6, line 38, leave out 'date this Act comes into force' and insert 'appointed day'.
41 Page 6, line 39, after 'premises' insert 'in the borough'.
42 Page 6, line 41, leave out 'date' and insert 'day'.
43 Clause 9, page 7, line 4, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.
44 Clause 10, page 7, leave out lines 16 to 18.
45 Page 8, line 1, leave out 'has been, is being or'.
46 Page 8, line 2, leave out 'has been or'.
47 Page 8, lines 4 and 5, leave out 'the holding of the sale or the carrying out of the trading or'.
48 Page 8, line 6, leave out 'carrying out of' and insert 'carry out'.
49 Page 8, leave out from 'above' in line 11 to end of line 14 and insert—
'(4) Any person on whom a notice given under subsection (3) above is served shall supply to the council the information required by subsection (2) above within 7 days after the service of the notice, whether or not the occasional sale or squat trading commences before the expiry of that period.
(5) If the council has reason to believe that an occasional sale has been or is being held or that squat trading has been commenced in the borough but that no notice thereof has been given under subsection (1) above by the relevant person, they may as soon as reasonably practicable after the holding of the sale or the carrying out of the trading has come to their knowledge, serve on—

(a) the person who appears to be the relevant person; or

(b) the occupier of any premises on or in which it appears that such sale is being or was held;

a notice requiring that person to give to the council the information mentioned in subsection (6) below.
(6) The information required by subsection (5) above is—

(a) the date and time of commencement and location of the occasional sale or squat trading;

(b) the duration or (in the case where an occasional sale is being held or the squat trading is being carried out) expected duration of the occasional sale or squat trading;

(c) whether the occasional sale or squat trading is to be held on other days and if so. what days. and the time of commencement and expected duration on those days;

(d) the extent of the premises occupied or used for the purposes of the occasional sale or squat trading;

(e) the nature of the goods provided at the occasional sale or during the squat trading;

(f) the name and address (other than an address temporarily occupied for the purposes of the occasional sale) of every person who is holding or held or is promoting or promoted the occasional sale or is carrying out or carried out the squat trading, and the name and address of a person (if any) appointed to receive and answer complaints about the sale or trading; and

423

(g) in the case of an occasional sale, an estimate of the number of persons attending, or who attended the sale.

(7) The information required by subsection (5) above shall be supplied by the person on whom the notice is served within 7 days after the service of the notice, except in the case where the sale is being held or the trading is being carried out in which case the information should he supplied forthwith.'.
50 Page 8, line 15, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3), (4) and (5)'.
51 Clause 11, page 8, leave out lines 38 to 41.
52 Page 8, line 42, leave out 'Any' and insert 'Every entry made in every'.
53 Page 8, leave out from 'be' in line 42 to 'retained' in line 43.
54 Page 8, lane 45, leave out 'last'.
55 Page 9, line 3, at end insert—
'(4) In this section -seller" and "supplier" mean respectively a seller or supplier with whom the person who holds the sale has made arrangements (whether or not on payment of a charge or fee) for the right to sell or supply goods at the sale, whether or not from a stall or pitch.'.
56 Clause 12, page 9, line 8, leave out the first 'business address' and insert 'his business address or business telephone number'.
57 Page 9, line 8, leave out the second 'business address' and insert 'the business address or business telephone number'.
58 Page 9, line 14, leave out the second 'the' and insert 'his'.
59 Page 9, line 14, leave out 'business address' and insert 'his business address or business telephone number'.
60 Page 9, line 14, leave out from 'address' to end of line 17.
61 Clause 13, page 9, line 30, leave out 'registration' and insert 'registered'.
62 Page 9, line 30, after 'number' insert 'or false information relating to any certificate of registration,'.
63 Clause 14, page 10, line 9, after 'premises' insert 'situated in the borough and'.
64 Page 10, line 15, after 'premises' insert 'situated in the borough'.
65 Page 10, line 23, after 'premises' insert 'situated in the borough'.
66 Page 10, line 24, after `(3)' insert 'or (5)'.
67 Page 10, line 26, after 'premises' insert 'situated in the borough'.
68 Page 10, line 28, after `sales)' insert 'of this Act'.
69 Page 10. leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—
'(2) The powers of—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (1) above in respect of premises used as a private dwelling-house; and

(b) paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) above in respect of any premises to which those paragraphs apply;

may be exercised only on the grant of a warrant by a justice of the peace.
(3) A justice may grant a warrant under subsection (2) above only if he is satisfied either—

(a) that notice of intention to apply for a warrant has been given to the occupier of the premises; or

(b) that the case is one of urgency, or the occupier is temporarily absent, or that the giving of a notice of intention to apply for a warrant would defeat the object of the entry.

(4) A warrant under this section shall authorise entry, if need he. by force but shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which it is granted.'.
70 Clause, 15, page 10, line 47, leave out 'or by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above'.
71 Clause 16, page 11, line 8, leave out the first 'all'.
72 Page 11, line 8, leave out the second 'all'.
73 Page 11, leave out lines 10 to 14.
74 Clause 18, page 11, line 35, at the end of Clause 18 insert the following New Clauses—
18A REPORTS

(1) Not more than 3 years after the appointed day the council shall submit to the Secretary of State a report on the working of the provisions of this Act; and the Secretary of State shall lay any such report before Parliament.

(2) The council shall submit further such reports, at such intervals, as the Secretary of State may require; and the Secretary of State shall lay any such report before Parliament.

(3) In this section "the appointed day" means. in the case where different days are fixed for the purpose of different provisions of the Act, the earliest appointed day.

18B RESOLUTIONS
Where the council pass any resolution under this Act (other than a resolution bringing into effect section 4 (Registration of dealers in second-hand goods) of this Act, they shall, no later than 28 days before the resolution comes into effect, serve notice of the passing of the resolution on every person registered under the said section 4.
18C SERVICE OF NOTICES, ETC.
Any notice or other document required or authorised to be served or given in writing under this Act may be served or given either—

(a) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served or to whom it is to be given; or

(b) by leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode or business of that person, or, in a case where an address for service has been given by that person, at that address; or

(c) by sending it by ordinary post addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode or business, or, in a case where an address for service has been given by that person, at that address; or

(d) in the case of a company or body incorporated in England or Wales, by delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at their registered or principal office, or sending it by ordinary post addressed to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at that office.'.

The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 74 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19 to 74.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.44 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 54) be agreed to. Perhaps I may say a word or two on the two subjects of smoking and accommodation. This is about as near a baptism of fire as one can get. The Offices Committee met following a letter from 18 Members who had written to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in December requesting changes to the House's smoking policy. As a result, both the Offices Committee and its subcommittees have reviewed the rules and made proposals which are contained in the report.

425
This is a compromise. People at either end of the spectrum will not be totally satisfied, but the Offices Committee believes that this offers provision for both smokers and non-smokers. The details are in the report. I shall go into the details later if noble Lords wish. I hope that noble Lords accept that this is a reasonable compromise. This subject arose yesterday in the Second Reading debate. The message from the House was that there had to be reason and compromise in these difficult matters. I hope that noble Lords accept this.
I turn to the question of accommodation. There has been considerable worry about the amount of accommodation available to noble Lords. I believe that this has become particularly acute since another place has built a rather large building in which to accommodate itself. That shows up the disparity in accommodation between the two Houses. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will move an amendment in a moment and I shall reply to that in detail. But perhaps should tell noble Lords immediately that the Leaders of the three main parties and the Convenor have written to the Leader of the House of Commons to request the return of 43 rooms located on the upper committee corridor south, which is above the Lords end of the committee corridor. The rooms were not identified in the report, because at that stage a letter had not been sent to the Commons and we did not want to frighten them off before they received it. No response has been received so far, but that is only because it is fairly recent.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 54) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
The Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
1. Black Rod
The Queen has approved the appointment of Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Willcocks KCB as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms in succession to General Sir Edward Jones.
The Committee wish to record their gratitude to Sir Edward Jones for the assistance which they have received from him during the six years he has served as Agent of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee.
2. Smoking Policy
The Committee have reviewed smoking policy in the House of Lords and make the following recommendations.
LIBRARY
The Library comprises the Truro Room (the silence room at the northern end); the Derby Room (between the Truro and Brougham Rooms); the Brougham Room (newspapers); the Queen's Room (stall); and the Salisbury Room (round the corner, separate from the main suite of rooms). At present, smoking is permitted in the Brougham and Derby rooms, but not elsewhere.
The Committee recommend that smoking should be permitted in the Truro Room and prohibited elsewhere; and that the Salisbury Room should be provided with different furniture and become a silent area in place of the Truro Room.
REFRESHMENT OUTLETS
The House's smoking policy varies across its different refreshment outlets, which are listed in the first column in Annex A. The current rules for each outlet are set out in the second column of the table in Annex A.
The Committee recommend the following changes to existing policy in the refreshment outlets:

- Dining Room Guest Area: the introduction of a designated smoking area in the far corner where smoking is permitted after 1.30 p.m. at lunch; after 5 p.m. at tea; and after 8.30 p.m. at dinner

- Dining Room Long Table: smoking permitted after 5 p.m. at tea; and after 8.30 p.m. at dinner (no change to the existing no-smoking rule at lunchtime)

- Guest Room Bar and Lords Bar: no smoking at the counter

- Home Room: no smoking at any time

The effect of these recommendations is set out in the third column of the table in Annex A.
OTHER AREAS
The current rules on smoking policy in other areas are set out in the second column of the table in Annex B.
The Committee recommend the following changes to existing policy:

- No smoking in corridors and staircases, except in the Committee corridor (it is already permitted at the Commons' end of the Committee corridor): and the Bishops' corridor (between Prince's Chamber and the Library).

- No smoking in division lobbies.

- No smoking in the TV room.

The effect of these recommendations is set out in the third column of the table in Annex B.
3. Accommodation
The Committee reviewed the office and other accommodation available to the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and agreed that the Leaders of the parties and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers should approach the Leader of the House of Commons with a view to recovering certain accommodation for use by Members of the House of Lords.
The Committee also agreed, as part of a strategy to achieve a significant improvement in working conditions for Members, to adopt a target that each Member who requires a desk should have 10m2 floor space. At present, desks are allocated on the basis of 5m2 floor space.
4. Medical screening for peers
The Committee agreed that, on a rolling basis, once every three years each Member of the House should be offered free medical screening. A similar service is already available for MPs. It is intended that screening will be provided within the Palace of Westminster under a contract with St Thomas's Hospital. As the contract will have to be negotiated and extra staff recruited, it is unlikely that the new service will be available until 2002.
5. Salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees
The Committee approved revised salaries for the Chairman of Committees (from £66,294 to £68,283 per annum) and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (from £61,773 to £63,626 per annum), with effect from 1 April 2001, following similar salary increases for Ministers.
6. Printing and Publishing Services
The Committee took note of the award of contracts to The Stationery Office plc for the printing of the Minute, Hansard and Select Committee documents, with effect from 1 April 2001.
7. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
The Committee took note of the establishment on a permanent basis of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology from 1 April 2001. Since 1993 POST has been funded under temporary arrangements which expire on 31 March 2001.

Annex A—Smoking policy in the refreshment
outlets

Area

Current policy

Recommended policy

Dining Room Guest Area

Lunchtime: yes, smoking permitted after 1.30 p.m.

Designated smoking area in far corner in the "L" where smoking permitted as follows:

Tea: no rules

Lunch: after 1.30 p.m.

Dinner: yes after 9 p. m.

Tea: after 5 p.m.

Dinner: after 8.30 p.m. no smoking elsewhere*

Dining Room Long Table

Lunchtime: no

Lunchtime: No:

Tea: no rules

Tea: Yes after 5 p.m.

Dinner: yes

Dinner: Yes after 8.30 p.m.

Guest Room Bar

Yes

Yes, other than at the counter

Bishops' Bar Coffee Room (sandwich counter)

No

No (no change)

Bishops' Bar Main Room

Yes

Yes (no change)

Home Room

Lunchtime: no

No

Dinner: yes

Barry Room

Yes

Yes (no change)

Millbank House (to open October 2001)

No

No (no change)

Lords Bar

Yes, except in non- smoking area

Yes, other than in the non-smoking area and at the counter

Staff restaurant

No

No (no change)

*The exact dividirg line between smoking and non-smoking tables to be
decided flexibly by management, according to demand.

Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "and that this House, while in no way wishing to replicate the scale or the degree of comfort that the House of Commons has seen proper to provide for its Members, considers that the conditions for its own Members are in need of drastic improvement and believes that it should set itself the same target as the House of Commons set for itself in 1987, namely of providing an office for every Member who wants one, and accordingly:

(i) requests the House authorities to ascertain as soon as possible how many Members wish to have (a) an office to themselves, (b) shared office space and (c) office space for a secretary/researcher; and

(ii) asks the Leader of the House to open discussions with the Leader of the House of Commons with a view to a division of the Palace of Westminster on all floors on a line running through the Central Lobby on the axis of St. Stephen's Hall".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper to the Motion moved by the Chairman of Committees. I confess that the inspiration behind the amendment comes from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, who has been much concerned with these matters for a long time. The noble Lord and I have had a number of conversations on this matter, and I share the broad thrust of his views, although perhaps not every single word. Be that as it may, for almost 40 years I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House, and the plain fact is that for all that time there has been an acute shortage of accommodation for every noble Lord. Even in the far off days there were insufficient desks and rooms, and only the most senior noble Lords had anything like the kind of facilities which were necessary. I believe that I had been here for 15 years before I was even on the list for a desk, never mind a room. By and large, nowadays it is only Ministers or Opposition Front Bench spokesmen who have that facility. Therefore, the thrust of the amendment, inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, but supported and moved by me today, is one with which I have total sympathy.
As the amendment points out in paragraph (i), there is considerable doubt as to how many noble Lords want the more spacious facilities suggested. I agree it is probable that not every noble Lord would want a room of his own. Some noble Lords would be satisfied to have even a desk. Many noble Lords do not have one. Perhaps there are some noble Lords who do not want even that.
The broader point contained in paragraph (ii) of the amendment is a separate matter but one which, in the new circumstances in which we find ourselves with the different relationship between the two Houses, should be considered.
The position of the Pugin Room is one issue which has, for a very long time, rankled with many noble Lords. A few years ago that room was hijacked—there is no other word for it—by the House of Commons. We should have stood up to them and not allowed them to have it. I hope that in the Chairman of

429
Committee's discussions with the authorities of the other place he will put the recovery of the Pugin Room at the very top of his list of priorities.
The Chairman of Committees referred to the 43 rooms which may be available from above the committee corridor. That would certainly be a just return, given, as the noble Lord pointed out, the new and very grand premises now available to the other place on the other side of Bridge Street.
Certainly the time has come for an important review of the facilities available to noble Lords. Many noble Lords are much more active than Peers were in former years. For example, when I first took my seat in this House none of the European sub-committees even existed. So the work which noble Lords contribute to those committees was not part of the activity of the House at all. There were a tiny number of Select Committees of your Lordships' House which involved a few Members of the House and which would not, perhaps, have justified the suggested increase in the facilities which are now called for.
Clearly a new situation exists. The Chairman of Committees has said that he is involved in discussions with the authorities in the other place on the matter. I very much hope that those discussions succeed. In the meantime, I hope that my amendment will add strength to his elbow. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is not very often that I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Over the past decade or so we have disagreed on a number of issues. But perhaps I may say to him that the thrust of what he is saying is absolutely right. There is no doubt that the House has changed radically in the past few years. It is a busier House. It is—dare I say—a more professional House than perhaps it was before. It seems to be given, and is doing, more work. In terms of legislation, the burden of the legislative efforts of this House appears to be on the increase rather than diminishing.
In those circumstances it is quite wrong that the House does not have the facilities to do the job which the constitution demands of it. If they do not want us to do the job, they must tell us. If they do want us to do the job, we deserve rather more consideration from the authorities down the other end than perhaps we have had.
I am not wedded to the precise terms of the noble Lord's amendment. The idea of bisecting the Palace of Westminster is a trifle fanciful, but the thrust of what he is trying to do is right. The difficulty is not at this end but at the other end. It always was. When one tries to negotiate with the House of Commons one is left with the idea, and it is still fairly prevalent, that this House is of very little consequence; that it is an amateur House; that it should be treated like an amateur House; and really that one should just pick up one's tent and quietly go away. I do not think that this House should pick up its tent and quietly go away. Therefore, what is important today is that the House gives its support to the thrust of the noble Lord's amendment so that the voice of this House is clear and
430
unambiguous in its negotiations with the authorities at the other end of the building. I support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I should like to enlarge a little on it. I do so for the sake of both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches. I consider that the Opposition Front Bench works in conditions of squalor. Noble Lords share minute spaces. They are jolly lucky if they share with noble Lords who do not smoke as much as me. So there is bad accommodation both for Ministers and for the Opposition.
I make a further point. If one has an important foreign visitor, and one has to be in the House because of a Whip, there is no room to receive, interview and talk to that visitor. American congressmen who come over here are amazed at the squalor in which we have to receive them. In the past I have had to borrow an office to have serious meetings with foreign agriculture Ministers. It is disgraceful that we have no room set aside which can be used for important conversations with people who are not of this House. When the whole matter is being looked at I urge that not only is the accommodation of the Government Front Bench looked at but that of the Opposition Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is some 15 months since I became Convenor. One of the most intractable problems has been the allocation of accommodation and desks to the Cross-Bench Peers. On many occasions I have argued for a better allocation than we have so far achieved.
I am very concerned that shortly we shall add to our number 15 new independent Peers. They will come to this House not only as an honour but also to work as parliamentarians. It is essential that the House and the Cross-Bench Peers are better able to make accommodation available for them. Perhaps the full frontal attack that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has suggested is not the right one, but the step-by-step approach which the Office Committee has advanced will, I hope, achieve results.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, 1 endorse everything that has been said about accommodation by noble Lords on both sides of the House. Perhaps it would help the House if I speak briefly about Annex B to the Second Report from the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices.
I was one of the signatories to a letter written to the late Chairman of Committees, to which the Chairman of Committees earlier referred. That letter was signed by Members of all parties, including the health spokesmen of the Liberal Democrat Party and the Conservative Party. It represented a fairly wide cross-section of opinion. Underlying the sentiments expressed in that letter were three principles: first, that we should make a reality of the statement contained in the House of Lords' Staff Handbook, that staff are entitled to work in a smoke-free atmosphere; secondly, that we should ensure the provision of defined areas

431
where Members of your Lordships' House who wish to smoke could be left in peace to do so; and, thirdly, to ensure that those of us who prefer to read, eat and drink, work and, dare I say, sleep, in smoke-free areas, be able to do that.
The sub-committees which reported to the Offices' Committee have clearly done their best. Certainly, the proposals for the Library Committee meet all three criteria. They are seen as a huge improvement by the members of the Library staff to whom I have spoken.
The refreshment proposals also represent a step forward, although many of us are disappointed that there is not yet any provision for smokers in the Barry Room. There the ventilation is not good enough to keep drifting smoke away from the tables of diners who would rather enjoy their food and drink than taste other people's cigarette, pipe or tobacco smoke. Perhaps we can come back to that matter later.
Given that this House is not renowned for making change at a lightning speed, I am very happy to welcome these proposals. I congratulate the Offices Committee on proposing what is for many of us an acceptable compromise.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and supported by others, we must bear a sense of proportion about the matter. It would be absurd for us to attempt to provide special office accommodation for hundreds of Members of your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may speak from my own experience. I have been a Member of this House for 21 years. I was told that because of my seniority as a parliamentarian I could have a room in which to work. I did not want one. I have a flat in Lincoln's Inn in London where I stay. I prefer working in the Library, which is so easily accessible and where all the references that one could possibly want are quickly obtainable, whereas if I had a room somewhere up in the zenith of the building, it would take me extra time coming and going every day and I would be isolated from the references. Let us by all means ensure that Front-Benchers on both sides of the House have the accommodation they require and other noble Lords have accommodation if they require it, but let us not plan for hundreds of us to be provided with this accommodation, which geographically would be a nonsense.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The modern office is not a place of isolation. One of the worst aspects of your Lordships' House is the dreadful support electronically that is given to noble Lords. The need to be on-line is increasing. The fact is that a huge amount of work which needs to be done electronically cannot be done. At the moment I am using a telephone line with a modem because we do not have Internet connections on this side of the Palace of Westminster. That is quite extraordinary in this day and age. It is costly for the House and unnecessary. It would be much better if I were able to use the Internet, but I cannot do so because in my present position I am not connected. One needs space in which to work. Very few noble Lords who, like me, have a job outside the House could: disagree with the fact that it is necessary
432
to do some of that work inside the House between debates. Without that space, one cannot attend the House regularly and make a proper contribution to the proceedings of Parliament.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that it is perfectly easy to gain access to the Internet from the House of Lords as long as one has a modem and access to the PDVN? Through that one can browse the Internet and have all the electronic support one needs.
Lord Winston: My Lords, with respect, if one has a Macintosh computer, which is what a large number of academics have, that is not possible.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords. perhaps I may add a few points to those made by other noble Lords. I was a member of the Offices Committee for some years. During the whole of that time the subject of accommodation rose and rose in importance in our deliberations. It is a matter of grave concern, particularly for those Peers who are new to the House and are simply not used to having to work in such conditions.
My second point relates to a different matter. I am lucky enough to have had a desk to myself ever since I became a Member of the House because I came in as a Front-Bencher. I share a room with four other Front Benchers, so we have five Front-Benchers in the room. A few days ago a person came into the office to measure up to see whether another desk could be put into the office, which is already extremely crowded, as one might suppose. In the course of conversation with that person it became apparent that no provision is made for those who assist noble Lords in their work. I have to share my desk, not with another noble Lord but with the person who comes in on a regular basis to help me. It is not convenient. Those are not the kind of conditions to which people who work hard in other walks of life—we do work hard here—are used.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, on his persistence in this matter. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that paragraph (i) of the amendment requests the House authorities to find out who wants an office and who does not, so that point is taken care of. I hope that we will make progress as rapidly as possible. Paragraph (ii) of the amendment may be a little farfetched. We are talking about a virtual division of the Palace of Westminster. Who knows where that line should fall. Perhaps the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will be able to tell us a little more about that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I support the remarks that have been made on accommodation. Perhaps I may make two or three additional points to the excellent ones that have been made. First, we should concentrate on the needs of the House in the future and not go over all the ground of the catastrophic experience that we all have here. We need to be ambitious. As I, and I think most colleagues, take the House seriously as a legislative and revising Chamber,

433
we need the facilities that enable us to do our job; or, more importantly, our successors need them. Therefore, we need not merely the sticking plaster of these rooms—a point to which I shall return later—but we need to be ambitious for the future.
The Commons started their building in 1987 and got it last year. We will be long gone if we start, but that is what we ought to do. I believe that £250 million, or whatever the figure would be even at the current low rate of inflation, is a cheap price to pay for us to have a proper purpose-built building. I simply throw that idea in for the committee to consider. In other words, one has no objection to the committee's suggestions other than how minor and trivial they are compared with the needs of the Chamber.
Perhaps I may say en passant that as soon as I read about the five square metres I brought in my tape measure. I measured up this morning. I do not have five square metres and nor does anyone in my room. I should like to know where the five square metres comes from. Depending on how I measure I might have four square metres, so I should like to have my 25 per cent in the next hour.
I congratulate the new Chairman of Committees. Does he remember that he and I have sat on all these committees over many years? I think that the last time we demanded back the rooms was eight years ago. Eight years go by and nothing happens. Do we have any reason to believe—this echoes some of what my noble friend Lord Richard said—that the new letter that we are going to write will get anything for us; or will our successors eight years from now also write yet another pathetic letter?
I turn to smoking. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I am not in the least impressed by the smoking suggestions. They are not a compromise and they are certainly not a reasonable compromise. The fact remains that the smokers occupy a disproportionate amount of the space in this building and it is about time someone just said "no". We should just say that it is going to stop. To take the obvious examples, if a noble Lord wants a drink in a nonsmoking environment, the Bishops' Bar is captured by the smokers and so is the Peers' Guest Room. There is nowhere to go. The least we could have—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, half of the Bishops' Bar is non-smoking.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Baroness is completely mistaken. The half of the Bishops' Bar that is non-smoking is the sandwich part, which is not a drinking area. The two drinking areas are smoking areas. In my judgment, one of them—namely, the Peers' Guest Room—should be non-smoking. We should just decide to do that. If the smokers want to poison themselves in the Bishops' Bar, good luck to them.
In the restaurants themselves—I speak as a former chairman of the Refreshment Sub-Committee—people smoke, no matter what the rules are. That has
434
to be brought to a stop. We are the only body that I know of anywhere in the country that stands for this nonsense. It is about time that we stopped. There is a particular problem in the dining room upstairs. No matter what the rules are, people smoke. Peers do not tell their guests not to do it. Are we to go to the staff and say, "You go and tell some Peer that his guests cannot smoke"? Who is enforcing the rule? The way to solve the problem is to say to people, "You are not to smoke in any of our eating areas". All over the country, people can live with that. It is about time that your Lordships, instead of talking this nonsense of reasonable compromise, showed a little backbone and did something.
Lastly, I should like to say a few words in support of the report; namely, the medical screening. That facility will be an absolute breakthrough. All I hope is that, by 2002, some of us are still alive to see the screening begin. Given that I have argued that what really matters are the conditions for the future, we know now that our successors will be medically screened and will be told either that their blood pressure is OK or that it is about time they made their will.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, although I am impressed by his Cromwellian determination, what tactics does he suggest that we deploy against the House of Commons?
Lord Peston: My Lords, in so far as the rooms belong to us—I was under the impression that that was the case, although the Chairman of Committees may well tell the House that they do not—I would occupy them. I do not doubt that if people will not respond to sweet reason— I have spent my life supporting sweet reason—there are times when someone ought to take a bit of action.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, perhaps I may add my support to the amendment. It is important that in the future we are given better accommodation. I have been through this process twice, as have many other noble Lords who have come from another place. Way back in the 1960s, I would meet my secretary on a bench in a corridor. Eventually I secured a half share of a room and, finally, I had a room. Having a room makes a significant difference. One can spread out, install computer equipment and stack books and the Companion on shelves.
When I was lucky enough to come to this place, I started again. First, I did not have anything; then I secured a half-share in a desk, followed by a share of a desk in a room shared with 10 other people. I should certainly miss their congenial and friendly company were we each to have a room to ourselves; on the other hand, it would be valuable to have a place to meet visitors, conduct interviews and so forth, as well as to have a little additional space. I do not know how much space I would need, although five square metres does not sound very much.
Perhaps I may put one point to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. On no account must we be fobbed off with more rooms down at Millbank. It is

435
too far away for Division purposes. One cannot keep running to and fro between the two buildings. Indeed, that would rather scupper the idea put forward by the noble Lord who has just spoken as regards a new building. Not only would that never be achieved in our lifetime, but there is nowhere to put another building adjacent to this one, thus allowing speedy access.
We must claim back from the Commons rooms such as those on the Upper Committee Corridor, which would be more than adequate. We should put all our efforts into obtaining the space we deserve from another place. Good luck to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in his deliberations.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I apologise for taking up any more time on this debate, but I should like to make one further point which reflects the view of a new and junior Member of this House. Four years ago I gave up all of my private work and have since worked only in the public sector. I have enjoyed my work more and I enjoy this House enormously.
However, it does seem quite absurd that those like myself who make such a decision should have to accept that, as a quid pro quo for working in the public sector, there are fewer resources and fewer facilities. As a result, I am less able to work professionally than has been the case during the 40 years I have been in business.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees about the average allocation of five square metres of space, although I note that the noble Lord opposite mentioned that he does not have anything like that amount of space. In this House we say that we try to abide by national legislation, even though we are not hound by it. Does the allocation of space conform with that provided for in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act? The Act specifies a minimum amount of space to which any worker is entitled.
If the noble Lord opposite does not have at least that amount of space, how is that to be remedied unless we can secure more rooms from the other place? However. I believe that we shall achieve our aim only by negotiation. Although the noble Lord's suggestion that we adopt direct action was very amusing—on another occasion, I should have liked to join him—we do best in our dealings with another place when we work by negotiation and compromise. I feel certain that it will not be necessary to go as far as the noble Lord has suggested. When the other place learns of what has been said during this afternoon's debate and it appreciates the disparity between its House and our own, it will be disposed to agree.
The perennial problem of the Pugin Room ought to be solved with ease. However, if it is not, we shall face a problem. As the noble Lord pointed out, we must reconsider our smoking policy. The Truro Room in the Library is still allocated to smokers. I believe that we must have the only major library in the United Kingdom that still allows people to smoke. If we have nowhere else to put the smokers, we shall be forced to accept them in the Library. For that reason, the occupation, the annexation or even the exchange—to use a less confrontational term—of the Pugin Room is
436
an essential preliminary to achieving a total nonsmoking policy in the Library. I hope that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will be able to put that point to our colleagues in another place when he embarks on the negotiations.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that these arrangements must be achieved by negotiation with another place. We cannot take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, with whom we so often agree, and simply squat in another place's areas. That simply cannot be done. However, it is obvious that the Pugin Room ought to be returned to this House and I hope that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will achieve that.
I understand the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Puttnam., who feel that everything must be electronic and up to date. However. I think that we should be careful not to make life too cosy by half. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton: if Lords' rooms are made extremely comfortable and convenient—so much so that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, can have her assistant working with her—what will happen then? As soon as a debate commences, everyone will disappear, like mice running into their holes, to their comfortable rooms. They will switch on the television and watch—
A noble Lord: The football.
Earl Ferrers: If they do not watch the football. they will watch the proceedings of your Lordships' House from the comfort of their rooms. No one will come to the Chamber. One simply has to look at what has happened in another place. It is always empty. I believe that that would be a bad thing for this House.
Once the new wave of enthusiasm for becoming more professional and hiring more assistants takes hold, two things will happen. First, Peers will need to he paid—I am sure that that will be put on to the agenda. Secondly, Peers will see what the other place has done— it has built a huge building costing more than £250 million—and will say, "We want one of those". I did not think that I would hear that request articulated quite so soon, but the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said it. It would be an absolute disaster for us to say that we want a great big new building like that for the House of Commons. What would happen? We would all disappear, not merely out of the Chamber but out of the House. That, too, would be an extremely bad thing.
Of course, we need to modernise the rooms and bring them up to date, but for goodness sake, the centre of operations for this House is here in this Chamber. I have every sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who told the House that he has given up his private pursuits in order to enter into public service, but who has since been horrified to find that there are so few facilities. Although we should think carefully about whether sufficient facilities should be provided for people to pursue their private businesses from here—I do not think that we should be quite as lavish as that—our facilities ought to be brought as up to date as is reasonably possible.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, we have had 34 minutes of interesting discussion. Many questions have been answered by other noble Lords, who have then posed further questions to be answered by yet other noble Lords.
We start from a position where we occupy a building that was not designed for modern purposes. Sir Charles Barry had no idea of the purposes for which this building would eventually be used. That is a problem that we all share. Given what I have learned from the Offices Committee, there is no doubt that it is determined to make progress on improving accommodation for noble Lords in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, has pointed out that in the 1960s the facilities provided in the Commons were dreadful. I can recall Lord Winstanley—then Dr Michael Winstanley, Member of Parliament for Cheadle—saying, "You would not believe that after all the effort you put into getting me sent to the House of Commons, once I arrived, I found that I had to enter a raffle to secure a desk!" Things have improved there and things are improving here.
I know that not everyone is happy with offices across the road, but there is a limit to the number of people that we can cram into this building. In recent times, we have acquired 18 offices in Little College Street; we have five rooms that are being returned from the Commons, two of which have already been handed over and three of which will be handed over at Easter; we have 107 desks in Millbank House; we have 27 desks in Old Palace Yard; and we have 12 extra offices in the Palace of Westminster, which is around 61 desks. Between December 2000 and October 2001 the House will have gained 69 offices, making a total of 153 desks. So progress is being made. That does not take into account the 43 rooms referred to earlier.
A letter has been sent to the Commons, in quite clear terms, setting out precisely the problem that we have and that, in justice, those 43 rooms should come to this House. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that those rooms—although they may be in territory which is this side of the imaginary line—were never House of Lords rooms. They were put in, I think in 1965, for the Commons to improve its accommodation.
We are getting to the stage where, very shortly, every Member of the House will be able to have a desk—not necessarily within the Palace but within the area round about. It will average five square metres, which is not adequate; the Commons have somewhere between 12 and 15 square metres. This will be the subject of continuing discussions with the Commons to try to improve our share of the space in the Palace.
I am perfectly willing to accept the first two-thirds of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, but I have difficulty with paragraph (ii). If we were to draw a line, as he suggests—I know that this is one of the specialities of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert—through the centre of the Palace, we would gain another seven committee rooms, the Commons tea
438
tent, the Churchill Room and the five dining rooms on the bottom corridor. Desirable though that may be, the chances of getting that in sensible negotiations are rather slim. I believe that it would be better to keep up the pressure and to take this step by step. We should not put things onto the record in this Chamber which may frighten away the horses at the other end.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he bear in mind my plea for better accommodation and a decent room for foreign visitors?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I have been fortunate in my recent incarnation; I have a very good room on the West Front. However, I am conscious of the comparison between that and some Ministers' rooms, who also have visitors. I have received a number of visitors from overseas, particularly from Europe. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is one of the things that we have to factor into the equation when we are trying to find out how much accommodation we need and how we are going to get it.
I come back to paragraph (i) of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I agree that it would be a very good thing to have some kind of survey to ascertain how much accommodation people feel that they need. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to other people—some want a lot, some want none—but we do not know at the moment precisely how much accommodation is needed. Nor do we know the size and shape of the House in the future. There are a number of intangibles in the whole business.
The Pugin Room was mentioned several times. Yes, it would be very nice to have the Pugin Room, but the idea that it was stolen from us a few years ago is not quite accurate. It was exchanged for a committee room in 1906—which, in your Lordships' eyes, might be recent, but I think that is stretching it a bit.
Perhaps I may say a word about smoking. While I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his support on the medical side, I was not so happy with what he said about smoking. I think that a reasonable compromise has been made for the moment. We can keep the issue under review; we are making progress. There are a number of smokers in the House who want proper provision to enable them to indulge themselves in their disgusting habit. I speak as a reformed smoker.
As to the issue of smoke in the Barry Room, I understand from the chairman of the Refreshment Sub-Committee that steps are being taken to improve ventilation in the Barry Room, which is inadequate at the moment. He is also looking at the possibility of obtaining more refreshment facilities within the Palace. But do not press him—just let him quietly go about his job—because, again, we have made a lot of progress in the years since I first came here.

439
With the assurance that I accept the first two parts of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I hope that he will not press the third part. That might send the wrong signals down the corridor at a time when fairly delicate negotiations are ongoing.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Chairman of Committees and to all noble Lords who have spoken and largely supported the thrust of my amendment. The Chairman of Committees has undertaken to inquire into the needs of noble Lords, as suggested in paragraph (i) of the amendment, and he has told us that he will campaign for the return of the 43 rooms above the committee corridor, which would represent an admirable proportion of the space that we need.
He has been a little less encouraging about the return of the Pugin Room. As I recall—I confess that my memory is a little hazy—prior to 1983, when the late Lord Whitelaw became Leader of the House, I think we had the shared use of that room.
A noble Lord: No.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, whatever the position was then, we now have no access to it. Perhaps the Chairman of Committees will see whether he can acquire—even if we did not have it before—shared access to that room. That would be a step in the right direction. If the noble Lord is nodding—as he seems to be—that he will attempt that, then, on that basis, I am happy with the assurances that he has given and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Air Traffic Services
4.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)rose to move, That this House takes note of the progress in addressing concerns and explaining and implementing the public private partnership in relation to National Air Traffic Services, as established by the Transport Act 2000.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the final stages of the Transport Act in November last year, amendments were made to defer the implementation of the planned public/private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Limited until three months after Royal Assent. I said then that the Government remained firmly committed to setting up the PPP but that we undertook to use the time to consult interested parties further on the detail of the proposal and to report back to Parliament at the end of that period. The Government have placed a copy of their report in the Libraries of your Lordships' House and of another place.
In our previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, suggested that we would also use the lime to select the strategic partner for NATS, and so we have. As announced on Tuesday, the Government have selected the Airline Group as their
440
preferred bidder for NATS. I shall refer further to that in the course of my remarks today. I know that the selection will be a matter of considerable interest to your Lordships.
I should like, first, to remind your Lordships of the commitments that we made on the 29th November and to illustrate how we have met them. We assured the House that we would, in consultation with interested parties, work on the detail of the PPP and make sure that we had got it right. We undertook to ensure that all concerned fully understood the proposals, and that action was taken to deal with the real concerns that had been expressed.
As we promised, we have consulted air users both through meetings and through written consultation. Commercial airlines, business aviation, leisure flyers, passengers and airport operators have all been given an opportunity to air their views. The general message was that there should be safe, efficient and economic provision of services and management of airspace, supported by proper consultation by NATS on a continuing basis about strategic and detailed operational matters, and that there should be no discrimination in the provision of services. That is a message with which the Government agree, and there are safeguards in both the Act itself and in the air traffic services licence—which is enforceable through the Act—to ensure that safe, efficient and economic services are provided, and that airspace is managed in a way which recognises the legitimate needs of all classes of user.
Membership of the stakeholder council—the formal body for consultation on strategic and policy matters—was discussed at a meeting between users and Ministers, and I can assure your Lordships that users, and in particular general aviation—including leisure flyers—will be properly represented on it.
We attach particular importance to fulfilling our commitment to talk to staff and their representatives. We have brought the unions and the bidders together: a team of IPMS and PCS members met members of the three consortia who submitted final bids in January and took the opportunity to discuss a range of staffing and strategic issues with them. We have continued to hold meetings with the unions on matters of concern; and my colleagues and I have visited NATS' main sites to talk to staff at all levels and address their concerns.
With the leave of the House, I shall dwell a little on the matters discussed there. To my regret, the unions are still not in favour of the PPP, although I was pleased to see that they welcomed the choice of the Airline Group as the preferred bidder. They expressed concern that the PPP may prove incompatible with safety, notwithstanding the safeguards that the Government have put in place. The unions' commitment to safety is admirable and we all share it, but I trust that they will come to appreciate the efforts of noble Lords here today in strengthening those safeguards and in enhancing the benefits of the PPP.
The safeguards are enumerated in the report, but I briefly remind your Lordships that the safety matters covered include: the separation of regulation from

441
service provision; a statutory obligation on the Government and the CAA to set safety ahead of all other regulatory considerations; a statutory obligation on holders of air traffic services licences to provide a safe system; powers for the CAA to direct a service provider, in the interests of safety, to provide such services as the CAA considers appropriate; and the establishment of a board-level safety review committee within NATS which will be chaired by a government-appointed partnership director.
Safety is paramount for all of us. We do not accept that private sector status is incompatible with the maintenance of the highest safety standards, but we have none the less done all that has been asked of us, and more, to protect safety. We believe that we are putting into place a robust safety structure in which we can all repose confidence. We can be sure that the Airline Group will have every incentive to operate a safe system.
We believe that we are putting equally robust safeguards in place to protect the public interest and national security. I can assure your Lordships, as I can assure NATS trade unions, that the Ministry of Defence has worked with my department in developing many of the details of the public/private partnership. The MoD's contribution to key issues such as the legislative provisions in respect of crisis, war and emergency; the institutional structure for airspace policy—especially the air navigation directions to be given under Section 66 of the Act; the air traffic services licence; and the evaluation of the bids for the PPP has been considerable and very welcome. The joint, integrated provision of services will continue and there will be no discernible change after the PPP is set up.
National security is well protected through the Act and the wider PPP framework, as the report describes. The Government are taking extensive powers through the Act, through certain provisions in the air traffic services licence, through the appointment of partnership directors, and through the strategic partnership agreement and the golden share provisions to ensure that we can influence NATS whenever and wherever the wider public interest dictates. The PPP will free NATS from those public sector controls which are inhibiting its development, and the strategic partner will control the day-to-day running of the company. This is very far from being a cut and run privatisation.
The main "public sector control" which is inhibiting NATS—and arguably UK aviation—is, of course, the financial one. I can assure your Lordships, and NATS staff, that we have made very sure that our preferred bidder is committed to making the investment we need, and has demonstrated the ability to take the investment programme forward. As we have said many times, NATS' operational skills are second to none, but there is room for further improvement in areas such as project and investment management. Our preferred bidder, the Airline Group, will strengthen NATS' skills base in these and other respects.
442
Commitment to making the investment is, of course, crucial. The strategic partnership agreement will bind the partner to the investment programme. But I remind your Lordships that we have also made provisions within the initial price controls so as to make doubly sure that there would be a smooth transition to the PPP, and that management could focus on getting the change and investment programmes right during the early years. Even though the CAA had made allowances in the price cap it recommended to me, I set a somewhat lighter price control in the early years of the PPP.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to other measures that we have put in place to protect—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend continues, will he explain why NATS, as presently constituted, could not do what he wants? It may be that some change in legislation would be required, but the point is fundamental in our assessment of what he has to say.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord's question, it relates to an area that we have debated thoroughly in this House on many occasions; namely, the concern that over the span of initially a decade and beyond, with the vagaries of public financing, it might not have been possible given the competition with other priorities in government to ensure that NATS had the necessary level of investment and could produce the value for money required by the Government in that time.
Perhaps I may proceed to the other measures that we have put in place to protect the interests of NATS' staff. In addition to the measures that I have mentioned, we have safeguarded membership of the CAA pension scheme—or a scheme identical in all other material aspects—for existing NATS' staff. We have ensured that no individual member of the scheme is materially worse off as a result of the restructuring of the scheme. We are making 5 per cent of the equity in the NATS PPP available to staff in acknowledgement of their contribution, past and to come, to the success of the company, including an initial gift of £500 of employee partnership shares for each and every member of staff; and the staff will be represented on the stakeholder council.
When I visited them recently, staff at Prestwick welcomed the legislative guarantee that the new Scottish centre would go ahead, but sought our assurances over the services that the centre will provide. The new Scottish centre will service the Scottish flight information region, which is part of the UK's national airspace, and the oceanic region, and will provide contingency cover in case of systems failure at Swanwick or West Drayton. I can assure your Lordships, and NATS staff at Prestwick, that the Airline Group is committed to the two centre strategy of which the new Scottish centre is an integral part.
We are committed to the PPP and our selection of the Airline Group as preferred bidder is a key milestone in the implementation of the Government's transport strategy. We have, throughout the process,

443
listened and responded positively to the concerns expressed by NATS staff, by the aviation industry, by your Lordships and in another place. We have subjected our proposals for the PPP to continuous scrutiny, and we are satisfied that the PPP is the right course of action. It will contribute to safety by effecting complete separation between regulation and service provision, keeping regulation in the public sector and in the hands of an experienced regulator with wide-ranging powers; ensuring that NATS has access to essential investment capital, outside the bounds of government control, to maintain existing safety standards against predicted increases in traffic levels; and by bringing in new skills to improve NATS' project management capability.
The PPP will also allow long-term investment planning unhampered by government spending constraints. The contract that we have signed with the Airline Group will secure over £1 billion of investment in NATS over the next 10 years, with an accelerated programme to deliver the great majority of that spending in the first seven years. It will also provide the right structure of incentives and disciplines to maximise efficiency through economic regulation; introduce new management skills—for example, in investment and project management—to supplement NATS' operational strengths, and develop best private sector practice; provide NATS with the opportunity to develop its business, for example, by expanding overseas; and provide greater transparency in charges.
In the Airline Group we have selected a preferred bidder who will help us achieve all our objectives from the PPP, and who will bring their expertise and commitment, as users, to this partnership—a commitment that includes commitment to a high standard or safety. After all, who has greater interest in robust safety management than air users who depend on the provision of safe and efficient services? They will provide the management capability and investment to ensure that NATS can continue safely to meet the growing demand of air travellers in the future. They will also introduce appropriate management skills to NATS while maintaining good industrial relations. The Government look forward to working with the Airline Group to provide a highly successful future for NATS through a true partnership between the public and private sectors. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the progress in addressing concerns and explaining and implementing the public private partnership in relation to National Air Traffic Services, as established by the Transport Act 2000.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
4.42 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing his Motion this afternoon. He undertook to do so during the passage of the legislation a few months ago. Speaking for myself, I support the privatisation of NATS—and, I believe, that I speak for all of us on this side of the House. This is not, of course, full privatisation; it is partial privatisation. None the less, it is welcome.
444
I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, who was good enough the other day to invite me and my colleagues from the Popular Flying Association to a briefing on the proposals, which we found most impressive. Of course, general aviation did not take a position as to which of the various bidders was the one we preferred; indeed, that was a matter for others. However, what we heard from the Airline Group, as those involved have come to be called, was certainly impressive. Whatever one may think of the various proposals, they will all end up by bringing more capital and investment into NATS. That is clearly very much to be desired and welcomed.
However, there is one matter that has not as yet been satisfactorily resolved. I trust that the Minister will be able to give me some assurances in that respect. The noble Lord will not be surprised when I remind him of the problems of general aviation just outside controlled airspace which, in some areas. presently enjoys the provision of what is called the "lower airspace radar service". NATS has no duty to provide that service. It is not provided for in the licence that will be issued. However., it is fair to say that it does provide such a service in a few cases where the facilities available enable it to do so. I am told that something like £1 million or £1.5 million a year is spent on the provision of that service, but it is far from comprehensive. It is not available everywhere. Moreover, in a number of other areas, that service is provided by the Ministry of Defence where it can be obtained through the radar facilities available to the RAF or Royal Naval aerodromes.
However, the provision of the lower airspace radar service is steadily reducing these days. A number of services have been withdrawn in recent months and years to the considerable concern of the general aviation movement. It is said that the problem arises from the fact that there is no money for the provision of the service; that general aviation would not be willing to pay for it; and, that, therefore, it must he withdrawn. I am not sure that the Government are right in that view—if, indeed, that is the view that they take. Through the duty on aviation gasoline, general aviation provides between£10 million and £12 million to the Exchequer each year. I am told that the Chicago Convention, which governs such matters, provides that that revenue ought to be used for the provision of aviation infrastructure. So we do have a problem with the provision of the lower airspace radar service—
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I find it something of a contradiction in terms when the noble Lord says that he is in favour of complete privatisation, but then proceeds to make a special plea for such a service to be provided for nothing.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not for one moment saying that it should be provided "for nothing". I was just explaining that it ought to be paid for by the revenue already provided by general aviation for that very purpose. As I said, the duty on aviation gasoline—the fuel largely, but not exclusively,

445
used by general aviation aircraft—generates a revenue of between £10 million and £12 million a year to the Treasury. Under the provisions of the Chicago Convention, that revenue is supposed to be used for the provision of aviation infrastructure. I hope that it can be so used.
We should be quite happy if NATS had a duty to provide such a service. Of course, there would then need to be a mechanism for providing the revenue; it cannot be assumed that the airlines would be willing to pay for all of the service. Indeed, that would not be right. However, to some extent, the service is to the benefit of the airlines in any event. Therefore, there is room for discussion on that point.
I am more concerned that the lower airspace radar service should be operated one way or another. I give way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged. Can the noble Lord explain how the airlines would benefit from what he said? That is an absolutely crucial point.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the interface between non-controlled airspace and controlled airspace is one in which the airlines are very much interested. There is an interface, for example, in the Stansted area, where there are real problems with integrating general and commercial aviation, which is not covered by the provision of the services available from so-called "Essex radar". The latter provides no service for general aviation. Thus there is an interface between the boundary of the Stansted area and where general aviation operates which is causing great difficulties, both for commercial air transport and for general aviation. Indeed, I have been in discussion with the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS as to how we can resolve the matter. As it happens, there are no military aerodromes in that particular region, so the service cannot be provided in that way.
There is a problem with flights outside controlled airspace. I agree that that is largely an issue for general aviation to resolve. However, as I said, there is an interface between general and commercial aviation. Another example is the Luton control area, where there are difficulties as to the provision of the services for general aviation and where it would be of benefit to commercial aviation if the interface could be made more "user friendly", if I may use that expression.
I recognise that there is no case for a large contribution from NATS—which, inevitably, comes from the commercial airlines—for the provision of services for general aviation. However, I believe that there is considerably more scope for co-operation between the two at no real cost to either, which would provide a more efficient and effective service. In any event, there is a significant revenue stream available from general aviation that comes from aviation gasoline. Of course, no such revenue derives from commercial aviation because, by and large, it does not operate on gasoline and the turbine fuel is not taxed in
446
the same way. I hope that the Minister will take that into account when deciding what steps he can take to resolve the problem.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, am grateful that the Minister has fulfilled his commitment to report back to us three months after the passing of the legislation. By any measure, this has been a particularly bad week for government transport policy—not, for that matter, that there have been many good ones. It has been especially bad for that part of their policy which is based, if that is not too strong a word for so shaky a concept, on their PFI/PPP schemes. First, there has been the damning report from the National Audit Office, which heavily criticised both Conservative and Labour governments for the way in which PFI has been applied to the financing of the Channel Tunnel rail link. Creative accountancy of a de Lorean kind seems to have been adopted to fudge the figures. That comes as no surprise.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Many of us are very tempted to explore the possibilities with which the noble Lord has prefaced his remarks. But I do not believe that it is an advantage to put together all the aspects of part privatisation or nationalisation. Each issue ought to be considered on its own merits. I believe that the noble Lord is inviting the House to come to a conclusion about forming a view on the whole issue.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, may be anticipating that that is what I am going to do, but I am developing a point which has direct relevance to the development of the NATS/PPP. Such fudging is implicit in all PFI/PPP schemes precisely because they themselves are the result of an intellectually flawed idea: the underlying premise is incoherent. The cost overruns, which private sector management techniques were alleged to prevent, have been very considerable. The risk of such overruns were meant to be borne by the private investors. That has been one of the central claims made by the advocates of the PFI/PPP. In reality, the small print escape clauses now require the public to pick up the tab. It appears that the private backers in PFI/PPP schemes are in an almost win-win situation.
Secondly, this week has seen the collapse of the talks between the DETR and Mr Bob Kiley, the Transport Commissioner for London, over the future funding and management of London Underground. The Government have doggedly stood by their PPP proposals to fund Tube modernisation which the highly expert Mr Kiley condemns as highly flawed and unworkable, and place the travelling public at very great risk in terms of safety. That is his opinion. It is one that is supported by those papers which have seriously investigated the matter. Earlier, Mr Hague, seeing the way the wind was blowing for once, thought it prudent to U-turn and reversed Tory policy for privatising the Tube.

447
Thirdly, we have today the announcement that the airlines consortium has emerged as the "preferred bidder" for the Government's PPP for the National Air Traffic Control Services.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been alone in our total opposition to taking NATS out of public ownership. No good argument has ever been advanced for the privatisation or part-privatisation of NATS. However, in the light of the dogmatic stance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that NATS would not continue to be funded by government, even though that is by far the cheaper option, we pressed, along with others, that a not-for-profit public trust along the lines of NavCanada was the next best option to public ownership. We stood by our guns and, in the event, almost alone, we divided your Lordships' House on the issue.
In selecting the airlines consortium as their preferred bidder, by their own standards the Government may well have fallen between two stools. On the one hand, they have belatedly acknowledged the weight of public opinion and the views of the relevant unions because the consortium appears to be offering itself as a "not-for-profit" undertaking, whatever that may mean operationally. Is this another de Lorian-type gimmick? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. How will he guarantee that other airlines, which are not part of the consortium, will not be discriminated against? After all, the consortium can raise air traffic fares and that is merely a bookkeeping transfer in their own accounts, but it will bear heavily on the profitability of other airlines.
On the other hand, during the passage of the legislation setting up the Act the Minister made much play of the need to bring in private sector techniques in the management of NATS: indeed it was his only tune. Yet clearly he has not chosen the best bidder on this criterion. The recent commercial performance of many of the airlines involved has not been good and they possess no relevant experience. Moreover, the Government's choice breaches the cardinal business principle that users of services should be separated from the suppliers. There is a real risk that we shall see a repetition of the ill-fated attempts to let British shipowners run the lighthouses.
The Novares Consortium, led by New Zealand air traffic control, which is one of the most technologically advanced and profitable in the world, would have been more likely to introduce the private sector techniques that are so slavishly worshipped by the Government. How does the Minister reconcile the choice of preferred bidder with the earlier stance he took so strongly as regards both the management techniques he wanted and the importance he attached to the incentives provided by the profit motive which he staunchly asserted would add to safety in the air?
More importantly—and this is the crux of the matter— how do the Government think that they will be better at negotiating this PPP than they have been in the past as the NAO report demonstrates? Neither do the protracted and excruciating negotiations over the London Underground give grounds for confidence: indeed, quite the opposite.
448
Quite specifically, I ask the noble Lord the following questions. How will he avoid get-out clauses in the small print of the contract so that the private partners can evade their financial commitments? In the negotiations, will the future strategy for air traffic control be based on explicit criteria for measurable improvement? How will that strategy regain the position of the United Kingdom as the best air traffic control system in Europe—it has slipped because of the confusion and procrastination over the future of NATS—which will be necessary as a competitive advantage in the negotiations for the creation of an integrated European control system?
These questions must be answered and the Government must really smarten up their act if this NATS/PPP is not to go the same way as the Channel Tunnel rail link. The deal must not just be allowed to evolve.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I do riot wish to be churlish, so I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend on fulfilling his promise to the House to come back, after a decent interval, to present his proposals to us. I believe that is almost the Fast word of comfort that I can offer him. I believe that he has made a serious error and he has not explained it. It would be of great service to the House and the public if we were able to get to the bottom of this extraordinary enterprise. Why are we changing fundamentally a system which, on the whole, has performed remarkably well? What is the case for breaking up a system which quite clearly gives enormous priority to safety, which is recognised as such, and which gives great confidence to pilots, air controllers and the general public?
Why are we making this radical change and introducing a new element, a so-called strategic partner which, once it has been done, opens the door for further change? I noted what my noble friend said about golden shares and so on, but I am not sure that they are not shortly to be outlawed by the European Court of Justice. They are not universally accepted in the European Union. We may well be opening the path to what the noble Lord opposite would welcome; namely, full privatisation. There is case for it, but I find it very difficult even to begin to formulate a case, as did my noble friend in his opening remarks.
What reasons have been put forward? I think we have had two. The one in which the greatest investment has been made is the alleged costs of maintaining a modern system of air traffic control. Quite frankly, that is wholly unconvincing. We are rolling in surplus money and redeeming the national debt because there is nowhere else sensibly that we can think to put that money. Many years ago I was in charge of our air services and, heaven forbid, president of Eurocontrol for a short period. In my view, more sensible policies were being pursued in those days. There has never been a problem of financing the modernisation of the air traffic control system.

449
However, we have a problem and we all know what it is. The massive investment that was put into the modernisation via the Swanwick development has been delayed for so long that it has put us, and particularly our air controllers, under severe stress. I believe that it is at last to begin to come into operation later this year. That undoubtedly will be a vast improvement and a great release from the strain. But that, apparently, is not good enough. The moment the new regime is put in place it is intended to scrap the system which will have been inherited, and over a seven-year period replace it with another system whose reputation, provenance and nature I know not of, nor does the Minister I suspect, or anyone else. The new system may be even less successful than the inherited system which will be scrapped. As we said, that will cost £1,000 million over a seven-year period. Financing is, frankly, not a problem. We must lay that on one side.
But having done that, the question then arises: if that is not the reason, what is? My noble friend hastily asserts—although, to be fair, he has said this on other occasions—that it is not just a matter of important investment, but of project management skills. I am not overwhelmed by that argument. It is a shot in the dark. Project management skills in this vast area on the frontier of technology are very uncertain. I seem to recall that British Airways, for which I have normally a high regard, suffered a crashed computer system worldwide only a week or two ago. I am not saying that that would happen if it took over air traffic control, but it is no good just asserting that we shall have better project management. I cannot accept that as a convincing argument.
I turn to the scheme which my noble friend has put forward. I suppose one could say that it is the best of a bad lot. Of the bidders at least this one has adopted the guise of non-profit making; that is, it will not seek to make commercial profit pressures, or rather avoidance of loss pressures—that is what the problem would be—a factor in making its decisions. To that extent, safety will have overriding priority.
But there is another factor. My noble friend will recall his Written Answer to a Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Brett as recently as 23rd January when he was asked about the efficiency charge, as it were, the cap, that the CAA will in future impose upon the new NATS or its successor. It is, of course, to be a so-called "efficiency saving". Something like 5 per cent per annum must be, as it were, provided for. I am not quite sure how the calculation is arrived at, but nevertheless if the operator experiences delays or falls down on its performance it will be subject to pre-agreed penalties amounting to 5 per cent—of precisely what I do not know—in money terms, rising to at least £5 million in three years' time.
I do not like the process of imposing penalties for delays and poor performance when safety is the overriding consideration. Railtrack gave a terrible demonstration of what happens if penalties are threatened. Operators cease to give safety the overriding consideration that it should have. I know
450
that my noble friend will say, "I have slightly eased the proposed regime". However, I am not sure whether that is good enough. I should certainly like to hear much more detail as regards why he feels confident that that is not a factor which need concern us.
I have tried to think about this whole problem. We know that there will be a great increase in air traffic over the next 15 years, as there has been over the past 20. That is nothing new. We must cater for that. We are also aware that flights can be delayed. Only yesterday in the newspapers there was a list of charter flights that had been delayed. Scheduled flights may also be subject to delay. Clearly we want to have as efficient a system as we possibly can. What are the factors that make for efficiency? How relevant is the formation of the new partnerships company to those factors?
If I may detain the House a little longer, I would say that there are two categories which have to be considered with regard to safety. First, who regulates the air routes across Europe, of which the United Kingdom obviously is part? Who determines the space between one air corridor and another? Who determines the frequency of flights and take-offs? Those matters comprise the very core of regulation.
As I understand it, we are about to hand over that regulation to a European authority which has hardly featured in our debates. Eurocontrol is almost on the eve of being handed over to a body, basically the European Commission—no doubt it will give itself a slightly different title—which will acquire at once majority control over all decision-making in Eurocontrol. It will cease to be an intergovernmental body and will become an extension of the European Union's common policy. Is it not odd that we have not had a word of explanation of how that fits into the present scheme of things? Perhaps it does not fit in at all.
Let us face the fact that the regulations that will now be made by majority decision by the new Eurocontrol will be one of the key ingredients in achieving safety, regularity and good service for Britain in its traffic with Europe—and not only with Europe because the new body will take over negotiating our air traffic rights with countries outside Europe. We fly occasionally to places like North America, South Africa, Australasia and elsewhere, do we not? Why should all that fall into the hands of the European Union with its offensively described "single European sky"? I have never heard such nonsense as a "single European sky". There is a global sky of which we are a part, and there is a British sky which is a component in it. The European sky is a fiction. It is simply another example of the endless ambition of the European Union to take over every aspect of our national life.
I have mentioned the major factor of safety in air service provisions. I wish to touch on a few others. Do we have enough air traffic controllers? Will numbers be a problem? We have enough, just about. The figures are quite promising. We had 1,162 controllers in 1991; the number rose to 1,700 in 1997; and at the beginning of this year the figure was 1,957. That is a fairly large increase. Looking to the future, the number of air

451
traffic controllers under training has been increased by about 50 per cent. So handing over NATS to a new body, with the new system introduced for European air traffic, will have no effect on one of the key components—the supply of air traffic controllers. That is in hand. It is doing very well, thank you, and does not need to be disturbed.
What about other factors? There is the possibility of considerable adjustments and savings of space if we can get the right regime between civil and military air use. But that is a British internal problem which is not to be decided outside these shores by Brussels. Indeed, it could have quite serious implications for our defence, military planning and general secrecy. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, intervened recently to point out that British air space stretches to about 20 degrees west. In other words, it covers a large area of the Atlantic particularly sensitive to American military transport. To have all that brought within a Brussels civil regime and reported on will not necessarily be welcomed on the other side of the Atlantic. No doubt we could make improvements in dividing our space between civil and military use. But that is now wholly within our own authority and capacity to deal with.
In the last annual report of NATS, the figure for delays in taking off over the UK was 23 per cent down in the year 1999. That is quite remarkable. It was 24 per cent up on the European continent. Most people accept that density and overcrowding of the skies is on the continental side rather than over the British Isles or Scandinavia. So that factor does not affects us directly, although perhaps indirectly.
On safety, it was good to have the NATS report that despite the increase in air traffic the number of so-called air proxies—the near misses; the worrying ones—has decreased in recent years.
The only factor which would greatly affect the adequacy of air traffic facilities, and so on, in Britain is airport policy. If we had more airports we would have potentially less overcrowding. If we had more runways, we might also achieve the same effect. But I know nothing about proposals for increasing that capacity. It has nothing to do with the proposals that the Minister has brought before us. So I am left with a genuine puzzle. What on earth is all this about? One does not undertake an exercise simply for the fun of humiliating the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. There must be a more serious purpose. So when the Minister replies, will he please give us some of the information that this debate lacks so desperately?
5.16 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, like other noble Lords I welcome the content of the Minister's statement. My welcome may not be echoed by air traffic controllers. They may probably have had a sense of relief that the choice made was the most sensible of those available. I think that they would have agreed with many of the sentiments in the early part of the speech of my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney. They would have admired his tenacity in fighting this single battle on so many fronts. They would probably not have agreed
452
that all air routes lead to Brussels; and my noble friend may have lost them somewhat towards the end of his contribution. However, my noble friend asked a number of questions which I am sure the Minister will be delighted to answer. It will relieve me of the temptation so to do.
We have heard about choices made and legislation already enacted. That is why I do not feel tempted to reopen arguments. That does not mean that the policy adopted by the Government was the correct one. However, in the aftermath of that decision, the Airline Group has put together a proposal which has borrowed a number of features some of which are in the Canadian model to which some of us were very attached. The Government have declared it to be a not-for-profit model. To be fair, some of the airlines in the consortium have been "not-for-profit"—but on those occasions it was accidental. On this occasion, it is more deliberate.
There is a slight problem about the 5 per cent shareholding in a not-for-profit organisation. I urge the Minister to ask the Airline Group and the trade unions to discuss fairly quickly how that conundrum is to be resolved.
By instinct and training, air traffic controllers do not dwell on the past. It would not be in the interests of those of us who fly if they spent their time worrying about the flight that passed 20 minutes ago and had already landed. They move on. I believe that they will move on from the legislative decision to have a PPP. They will be greatly relieved, and will have greater confidence, that they have in the strategic partner in the Airline Group those with a vested interest in safety and those who have given assurances which are believed in terms of long-term investment. In the main, airlines have a long-established and reasonable record of good industrial relations. It is a record built on the exchanges between strong trade unions and strong management. I should be happy to see that continuing in the future.
Air traffic controllers to whom I have spoken in the past 24 hours have some concerns. In so many cases where there are franchises—from railways to proposals for commercial television—what is said on the first day of a company creation, or bid, may not be repeated two to three years later.
Comparing the three bidders, the trade union representatives and their colleagues were impressed by the fact that the Airline Group does not have an exit strategy. To use an aviation term, it is in there for the long haul. It is a bit churlish to say that we have made the best of a bad job. The group has a better track record for the future than that—if it is possible to have a track record for the future. It is willing to give a good account of the air traffic control operation. Issues such as the distance between flight levels and the ordering of airline take-offs and landings are operational, not regulatory matters. We have to concentrate on ensuring that the operation is safe and expeditious, in that order. In that sense, because of the Airline Group's enlightened self-interest—its members carry

453
the passengers and they watch each other hawkishly—there is a good prospect that it will make a success of the operation.
Like some of my noble friends, I should have preferred it if we had not gone down this route but, given that we have done so, the Minister has handled it with commendable skill in this House and outside. From a very difficult situation, he has put forward a proposal in which I have more hope and faith than I had three months ago when we last debated the subject.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I ought to declare a number of interests. I am a former aviation Minister and served under the guidance of my noble friend Lord Shore. I looked after transport and the environment in the European Commission. I am also President of BALPA—the British Airline Pilots Association.
I should come to the rescue of my noble friend the Minister, although I do not really have to do that. My noble friend Lord Shore attacked him for not having put forward a policy on airports, but he is proscribed from making the most important decision of all—on Heathrow. He cannot say whether he supports a fifth terminal. My noble friend is entitled to the benefit of my defence.
I have listened carefully to the Minister. He has not totally convinced me that NATS should be completely changed. I should have preferred the solution that commended itself to previous Labour Governments and to my noble friend Lord Shore of making no essential changes to NATS. Of course some changes can be made, but it is a mistake to change the personality, so to speak, of NATS beyond anything that we recognise.
It is important that the public interest should be underpinned. We may require additional legislation for that. That may be the province of my noble friend the Minister. However, although I would have preferred NATS to be financially supported and improved in the manner that I have described, it is clear that NATS and its staff are prepared to go down the route that the Minister has outlined today.
The airlines that have formed the Airline Group have given a great deal of thought to what can be achieved to ensure their safety and that of the passengers whom they carry. As I understand it, the Conservative view is that everything could be left to the free market. I hope that I am not doing the House a disservice by mentioning the possibility that that view could prevail. I do not think that it will. It is not viable or acceptable to public opinion. The British Market Research Bureau conducted a poll in October 1999 with a sample of 1,019 adults—over 16—across the UK. It found that 72 per cent opposed privatisation, while 16 per cent supported it. Some 84 per cent came to the view that air safety should be the priority for air traffic control. That underlines what the Minister said
454
today. In addition, 68 per cent believed that air safety standards would be damaged by privatisation. Those views still apply today.
The Minister has said—in no uncertain terms—that air safety must never be compromised. If there is to be a change, what route should be followed? As I have already said, I would prefer no essential change. However, there is an urgent ongoing need for parties such as the Airline Group, the stakeholder council and the flight crews to come together before the idea is cemented. Their involvement is key to the issue.
The Airline Group has declared that it is a not-for-profit organisation. That will be totally different from all other bidders. It is very important to emphasise that. BALPA, of which I am proud to be president, strongly approves of that, as does the IPMS, of which my noble friend Lord Brett was the general secretary until he took his place in this House. The group should be held to that in no uncertain way. I trust that the Government will take that view and I look to the Minister to reinforce that point when he replies.
As I said, I have finally come to the view that the Airline Group put together a reasonable bid. I came to that view for seven reasons. I am sorry to weary the House with them. First, the income from air traffic control would be re-invested, not channelled to shareholders. Secondly, the group would provide a stable structure in terms of finance and technology. The Airline Group's partners are committed to the long term, particularly in the area of finance, which is crucial for investment. Thirdly, as all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have acknowledged, the group would provide the greatest expertise in terms of managing the UK's congested, capacity-constrained airspace. Fourthly, the Airline Group would reinforce and extend the safety culture that makes NATS a world leader in terms of safe and efficient ATC management. Fifthly, it would put the UK's ATC system first. However, in the longer term, the Airline Group would seek to develop "unlicensed business"—I stress that I use those words with quotation marks—overseas. Sixthly, I hope and believe that the company will provide an inclusive stakeholder council with input from controllers and pilots. We heard something about that today. Seventhly, the group would emphasise the need for better people management as the key to delivering a successful partnership.
Finally, I turn to the question of conflicts of interest, which is raised in today's Guardian. There is no essential conflict of interest so far as the Airline Group and good air traffic control is concerned. I also believe that the matter is minimised by the way in which the group put forward its bid. Importantly, it offers stewardship of the United Kingdom air traffic control resource through its most committed customers and users. The group has a fundamental and inherent interest in maintaining and upgrading the air traffic control system.
As I said earlier, although I should have preferred us to go down the route that I have described, I commend my noble friend for listening carefully to what controllers and pilots have to say on this issue.

455
However, they, too, would have preferred the situation that I referred to earlier. They have been careful to demonstrate that they could accept the route that the Minister has taken. I commend him for going to airports and listening to air traffic controllers and pilots. As he recognises, they are in the front line.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I have made my position on this subject perfectly clear. I was in favour of NATS remaining in the state sector but I understand that just remaining in the state sector was not all that was required. I should have preferred a free-standing company in the state sector. I say that because of my experiences on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in another place. We saw how the Post Office's profits were being clawed back by the Treasury. It would have been important for the Post Office to stand alone. However, we went through that argument in another place and in my view the argument is now dead and we have to look to the future. The Airline Group offers the best prospect in that regard, particularly in the long term. We have been assured that it is coming in to stay.
I also welcome the fact that the Airline Group is what it says it is; namely, a non-profit making commercial enterprise. That, too, is very important. That arrangement resembles another of the ideas that we advanced in relation to the Canadian trust, which was a non-profit making venture.
I understand that in certain respects the group may have a vested interest in running the system. However, above all else it will be interested in safety. After all, it is their planes and those of other airlines that have to be brought down and guided to airports safely. It will pay for the operating costs through licences, which means that it has an interest in maintaining efficiency along with safety. I therefore welcome the proposal.
Like my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I thank the Minister for the way in which he dealt with the matter. The situation was very difficult for him—he came in rather later than some others. He was always receptive to people—he would meet them—and he would always discuss the situation with us. I am glad to put that on the record.
I thank the directors and staff of NATS for the way in which they behaved in very difficult circumstances. They did not know what the future would be but they ran an important service efficiently and co-operated by looking at the choices and advising people—Ministers and Civil Servants in particular. They gave their full co-operation to whatever proposal would apply.
I also pay tribute—in view of my background, one would expect me to do so—to the trade unions. We have in the House two previous general-secretaries of the unions, including my noble friend Lord Brett. The unions did not want to go down this path but they looked at it and asked, "What is the best for the future? What is best for consumers and our members? Where should we go?" They could have made life very difficult. I am pleased to pay tribute to them.
456
I want to ask the Minister several questions, which I hope he will answer. He said that the pension arrangements were in place, but I should like him to go into a little more detail on that and say whether that includes the "trust of promise". He answered one of the questions I intended asking when he said that each employer would receive £500. Initially there was discussion as to whether it would be £500 or £1,000.
I turn to the three directors to be appointed by the Government. One of those directors is to be approved by the trade unions. How far has my noble friend gone down that road? What discussions has he had with trade unions in that regard? I believe that if we want to carry the unions with us and they are to have confidence in us, the sooner those discussions begin the better.
Another point relates to the safety review committee. That too will be chaired by a government director. That committee is absolutely crucial in relation to the future of air traffic control. I know we cannot be privy to all the negotiations, but can my noble friend say what progress has been made in finding a suitable person to chair that committee?
We have been talking about the long-term interests; that the airlines should be encouraged to stay and not withdraw. What provision has been made to make it, while not impossible, difficult for the airlines to withdraw? Also, if they enter into partnerships, what veto does my noble friend hold if he believes that one of the partners is unsuitable, particularly when safety must be the top priority in this matter? I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response to those questions.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his report to us today in fulfilment of the promise he made at the end of our work on what seemed like an extraordinarily long and difficult piece of legislation, although it takes up only a small part of the Transport Bill. The Minister assured the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—he can no longer play his normal part on these Benches in this discussion because of his new role—that he would produce the report, and he has fulfilled that commitment. His account of his contact with the unions, the employees and a wide number of other interests was extremely valuable and I look forward to reading the report in full.
I shall briefly go backwards before I turn to the later part of the Minister's report. Liberal Democrats in both Houses objected forcefully and consistently to the NATS PPP. As my noble friend said, we still have strong doubts about the long-term value of the PPP process as a means of raising the —1 billion needed over the next 10 years to modernise the air traffic control system in this country. As we have learnt in recent weeks, joint funding arrangements often require a larger investment from the public sector than at first envisaged; and, of course, the investment has to be paid off at a higher rate than government borrowing or a bond issue would attract.

457
All in all, Liberal Democrats remain totally at odds with the Government in their fascination for this inappropriate model for public services. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Brett, elegantly reminded us, this battle is lost, at any rate for the time being, and we now have to consider what the current negotiations have yielded to those who have taken an interest and to the service.
My noble friend drew attention to the weakness of the preferred bidder, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to my noble friend's comments and questions. But using the SWAT analysis, the airlines' bid also had some advantages as compared with the other two players in the field who were apparently still interested in taking over the PPP. They have a strong interest in safety. As the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, said, that balances their natural interest in keeping fees to a reasonable level. That balance of interest should reassure those who, inside and outside Parliament, expressed fears that safety would be compromised by the PPP.
The transfer of safety regulations to the CAA is also to be welcomed. In his opening statement the Minister referred to the importance of the economic regulation under which the PPP will operate. Can he tell the House how the CAA will reconcile its dual responsibility for both safety and economic regulation? How will it work in practice? For example, is the body to be divided into two halves? Will different people think about the two subjects and fight internally before advice is published? How will it work in practice?
Here I repeat my thanks to the Minister for responding to a suggestion which I made in a moment of desperation; that is, that the overriding importance of safety—a matter with which many of us struggled during the early part of our discussions on the Bill in this Chamber—should be written into the beginning of Part I of the Transport Act. Indeed, the noble Lord fully and generously satisfied that requirement. It is characteristic of his responses—he does not always respond; Ministers do not—that he does so wholeheartedly and we are grateful for that.
Before I move away from this area, I should like to ask what the phrase "not for commercial return" actually means. It does not seem to mean something around which I can easily get my head. I believe I understand what "not for profit" means, and certainly understand what "not for operating profit" and "not for profit beyond operating costs" means; but I do not understand the meaning of, "not for commercial return". It would be helpful if the Minister could give us a little more information in that regard.
Another aspect of the bid which concerns me is the fact that foreign airlines may worry that a take-over of NATS by the UK airlines will disadvantage them. That could happen in a number of ways. There are already a continuing series of disagreements between other airlines and the major British airlines, particularly BA—a major shareholder in the new
458
bid—as to slots. Have such concerns been expressed? If so, what reassurance has the Minister been able to give?
A point on which nobody has touched is what happens to the employee shareholding after it has first been distributed. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 5th March which covered some of the questions I raised in the debate on the draft order on 27th February and I understand how the system will work in the initial period. However, it is clear that these shareholders will not be able to take their shareholding out of the business. Does that mean that, in return for their shareholding, they will get a director of the new company? If they do not profit from the shareholding, I am not sure what benefit there would be.
In his discussions with the Airline Consortium, I wonder whether the Minister has thought further about what would happen in the event of there being an increase in the total number of shares by one means or another. Would the then employees share equally in the increased number of shares, as they will with the existing number of shares?
Concerns were expressed at an earlier stage by those employees of the CAA who are not air traffic controllers or anything to do with that side of the CAA's business. They will therefore remain with the CAA and not go over to the new company. Their concerns were about their future pensions. Can the Minister reassure the House that such pensions are fully safeguarded?
This is the last performance of a long-running show. We all hope that there will not be a sequel. As sometimes happens in the theatre, interest has waned and the curtain is falling. Other shows will soon take to the road. Perhaps the actors will move on to new roles. There is nothing left for me to say except how much I have enjoyed the camaraderie established across all Benches during the debates on the Bill, and how grateful I am for the solid support given to the Front Benches by my colleagues behind me.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to discuss once again the emotive issue of the Government's proposed public/private partnership for our National Air Traffic Services. It is somewhat ironic that the Government are scrambling to push this matter through Parliament just as there is every prospect of a general election, while at the same time they profess to believe that our national air traffic interests would best be served by a single European system, as it seems was discussed by the Prime Minister in Stockholm last week. Are we to assume that the views of the Government are tailored by the audience to which they speak?
It is widely accepted that the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) urgently needs greatly increased investment to allow it to develop and operate a world-class system for the 21st century. We have supported the principle that NATS should be transferred to the private sector, particularly to release NATs from

459
capital programme controls and Treasury controls. Where we take issue with the Government is in their chosen scheme. We would have floated the business to create a great, new, independent, British plc, able to benefit from partnerships of their own choosing with arrangements to protect national security, and immune from EU interference.
To those who believe that that would be rash, I cite the example of the UK aviation industry, one of Britain's great success stories. The reforms of the 1980s, when it was taken from national control, helped to create an aviation industry second only to the USA and pre-eminent in Europe. It contributes more than £10 billion, over 1.4 per cent, to the UK's GDP; it directly employs over 180,000 and supports a further 380,000 jobs. It contributes £2.5 billion in taxes and accounts for 11 per cent of UK exports of services. It is also an industry with an unrivalled safety record. That is the benefit of privatisation.
The Government have announced that the Airline Group should be a strategic partner for NATS. We congratulate the Airline Group on its success. It has a deep appreciation of the safety issues involved. The public will be able to have full confidence in the safety of the service in future. The Conservatives will honour those contracts after the general election, if the hoped-for result arises, and ensure that NATS is able to operate in a stable and positive framework. That said, and although we welcome the announcement, I find myself wondering quietly if it might not have been better if the announcement had been made in the normal way, on the Floor of this House rather than through a press report. That is a minor matter. I do not wish to lower the tone on what is a generally happy and joyous occasion.
We have discussed the problems of the PPP for NATS on many occasions. As the Minister is aware, my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara tabled an amendment to the Transport Bill which gained the support of Members of this House and, I am pleased to say, of all parties. It sought to delay this ill thought-through and rather convoluted compromise until the Government had given it the proper consideration that it both requires and deserves.
When the Government used their considerable majority in the other place to send the Bill back to us, we agreed to allow the Bill to progress on the condition that the Government report to this House in three months' time with progress on its further consideration. As I have said, I am grateful to the Minister for calling this debate. However, so far the Minister has been unable to answer the majority of concerns raised by my noble friend, people in the industry and members of the Labour Party.
Today, the Minister has not been able to answer one of our reasons for objecting to this deeply unpopular compromise; that is, that the Government still have no mandate to privatise NATS, especially after the virulent anti-privatisation comments such as those made by Andrew Smith in 1996 when he said,
"our air is not for sale".
460
We believe that the electorate should have had an opportunity to see the proposals in the Labour Party manifesto before the next election. As has been said, there is a precedent for such a delay. In 1982, the privatisation of BT was delayed until after th.e next election because it was seen as a controversial proposal which had not been in a manifesto.
There are other concerns. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, last year, the EU Commission issued an opinion challenging the legality of so-called "golden shares" on the grounds that they are a barrier to the freedom of capital and the freedom of establishment within the European Union. That means that no government can any longer rely on any provision in UK law to protect the national interest.
Given the Government's record in choosing selected bidders or strategic partners, as exemplified by the sale of the Dome, and the present hiatus over the London Underground, are the Government satisfied that they will be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations with the Airline Group? Is it a question of third time lucky?
The possibility of foreign control of NATS has serious national security implications. The concerns are amplified by recent cases before the European Court of Justice which ruled that issues of national security are not immune from European Court of Justice jurisdiction. That means that government directions to the privatised NATS to secure the national interest in the future could be ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice. How does the Minister foresee our national interest being protected under the PPP in any future emergency?
What have the Government done or said in the past three months to reassure the DETR Select Committee in another place, which stated,
"The current proposal for public-private partnership for NATS is, in our view, the worst of all the possible options for the future structure of the company"?
I have not heard the answer to that. What have they done to reassure members of the Labour Party, such as the former Labour Transport Minister, who said:
"the key dialogue in air traffic control is that between the pilot and the air traffic controller, and the Government would make a great mistake if they proceeded with a policy that is opposed by airline pilots. I urge the Government to reconsider and accept one of the alternative models—the independent publicly owned company or the not-for-profit trust"?
I believe that to some extent the Minister has answered the staff but he has not answered the former Labour Transport Minister.
What have the Government done to reassure those who work in the aviation sector? The Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists seems far from convinced by the Government's plans, despite numerous meetings. In a letter to my noble friend dated 12th March, the general secretary, Paul Noon, stated:
"NATS staff remain opposed to the planned privatisation of NATS. If anything, the views of our members …have hardened as more detail becomes known and discussions have taken place with bidders. Indeed, NATS staff have voted by a very large percentage (91 per cent) in a high turnout to be balloted on industrial action should their safety concerns not be met".

461
How does the Minister now view the possibility of industrial action? Is he satisfied that he can resolve the concerns of the staff involved?
Perhaps the Minister will answer some of our concerns over the future of NATS under the Government's plans. What contingency plan do the Government have in the event of the strategic partner selling its share in NATS? Would the Government have any say in what was to happen if their selected bidder chose to sell out to some other business enterprise?
Can the Minister be sure that the Government's plans will prevent our air traffic services being controlled by a foreign company which might compromise our national interest or security in the future? Are the Government sure that fines for delayed flights will not constrain management decisions about incentive remuneration and safety management? Will the Minister tell the House how much NATS currently owes on outstanding loans?
The noble Lords, Lord Brett and Lord Hoyle, posed another question: what is the value of the 5 per cent of the equity which is to be held in trust for the staff? We hear that perhaps 500 shares will be issued to each member of staff. If there is to be a non-commercial return on the enterprise, how are the staff to benefit from their holding in the equity if at the end of their careers it must be handed back to the staffs share trust? The staff will need to have those questions answered clearly. Finally, can the Minister tell us when Swanwick is expected to come into operation?
The only things which are clear from the Government's handling of the sell-off of NATS is that, four years on, the delay in finding a solution to the funding crisis has not so far been helpful or beneficial to the industry; and concerns within the industry, the Labour Party and the House at large have not been fully addressed. How do the Government justify pressing ahead with these plans when they have failed to reassure those whom they most affect? Although we welcome the fact that we now know the selected bidder, we cannot approve of the methods the Government have employed to bring this matter to a conclusion.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we have had many interesting debates on the subject and today's debate has been no exception. The comments and questions raised have been so dense and so well informed that I quail at the prospect of trying to answer them all in the time available. However, your Lordships can be assured, that any questions I do not deal with adequately I shall deal with subsequently in correspondence.
We have all come to the debate knowing that the volumes of air traffic continue to increase. We all accept that air users, airlines, general aviation and the travelling public expect that aircraft movements will be managed in a way which avoids undue delay and does not impose excessive costs and maintains safety,
462
which is the paramount consideration. Your Lordships reflected those concerns, together with the concerns of staff and shareholders, throughout the period we have been planning for the PPP and have successfully done so again today.
We are on the brink of establishing the PPP. We have fulfilled our commitments which we gave to your Lordships in November and I am grateful for the compliments offered in regard to the extent of our consultation. We have talked to key shareholders and have tried to address their concerns. We have now selected a strategic partner, we have signed the necessary documents and we are moving towards completion and, I hope, a satisfactory conclusion.
I now turn to the individual points raised and I shall begin with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who asked about the provision of lower air space radar services. He will remember that recently we had a thorough, informative and worthwhile debate on the issue. It is true that NATS will not have a duty in its licence to provide for lower air space radar. That is because the services are provided by different operators in different places according to the facilities available.
However, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that a duty is being laid on the CAA to organise an acceptable level of provision. That is confirmed in the air navigation directions which the Secretary of State has today given to the CAA. I am aware of the issues which have arisen at Stansted and Luton and I know that the CAA is considering them carefully. I am also delighted that the noble Lord met the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, to discuss some of the issues and I look to him to take them forward in a spirit of co- operation with the Airline Group as it comes into operational control of NATS.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that assurance. It is most reassuring. I have a meeting in the near future with a senior CAA official who will no doubt confirm it. I am grateful to the Minister.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I turn to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. Perhaps he will forgive me for not going too deeply into some of the other transport matters he raised as I have been dealing with them in other ways and at other times this week. He asked specifically about the financial "get out" clause. We have tried to build on the experience of previous transactions in order to develop a more robust contractual framework which will bind in the strategic partner. We believe that the government partnership directors on the board of NATS will help ensure that the NATS PPP delivers on its undertakings.
As regards the objective criteria by which we try to define and measure success. the Airline Group and the Government will agree a business plan which will contain certain specified "deliverables", as the jargon has it. They will all be set out clearly. The CAA in the

463
public sector will, as ever, deploy best practice economic regulation to keep the company up to the mark.
As to the single sky, we believe that under the PPP NATS will be well placed in Europe. The Airline Group has already developed relationships with neighbouring ATC providers. That will form the basis of a very strong position in what we anticipate from previous debates will be rationalisation across European skies in the years ahead. We have tried to make clear that the criteria on which we have made our judgment are based on an objective and impartial assessment. Any implication that somehow we made the decision for political convenience, or to try to match some of the demands made with great conviction in earlier debates by noble Lords, must be placed in the context of a very rigorous, objective and impartial analysis of a number of important criteria. At the end of that assessment there was clear blue sky between the bid of the Airline Group and that of its nearest competitor.
I turn to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Shore about replacement of the Swanwick systems over the years ahead. I am not entirely clear as to what the replacements would be. I accept the general point that technology should not remain in service as long as some of that with which our air traffic controllers must work at the moment. Some of the screens of circular design to be seen when one visits Prestwick appear to be quite quaint. From my discussions with air traffic controllers, like all professionals they appear to be very pleased by the anticipated investment which will give them new equipment. I anticipate that if we have an accelerated pace of technology, under the new system Swanwick will be the first to benefit from it.
These days advanced systems like Swanwick are subject to very regular upgrading and replacement, and often the process is a very organic one. I for one am pleased that the Airline Group stands ready to enhance the level of investment to modernise the systems, and its concept of running competitions to ensure that it has the best systems for UK air traffic control appears to make good sense.
My noble friend Lord Shore also queried the wisdom of a penalty for delays caused by air traffic control in relation to any particular flight. I entirely agree with him that safety must be paramount and there must be no incentive to compromise. I have gone to some lengths to analyse the suggestions put to me by the CAA in trying to find a middle way with the management of NATS and its aspirations. My noble friend referred to the suggested 5 per cent as a tightening of the charge regime for each year up to 2005 for NATS en route services. Perhaps my noble friend will be pleased to hear that I modified that and set a cap which began at 2.2 per cent, rather than 5 per cent, arid then went to 3 per cent, 4 per cent and finally 5 per cent in 2005. That has been greeted very warmly by NATS management and there has been no complaint about it.
Similarly, in relation to delay, it was put to me by NATS management that the proposals of the CAA, based on one year of operation, might be tough to
464
meet. I asked the CAA and our own officials to look at an average across four years to try to get a fairer datum line. They have come up with a system on which the CAA is prepared to compromise and NATS management very much welcomes it. I have tried to meet my noble friend's point.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. In his very full Written Answer in January my noble friend spelt out a helpful and more relaxed charging system. But I did ask: of what exactly is it a percentage? My noble friend was good enough to tell the House what the charge would be in three years' time; namely, a figure in excess of £5 million, and that thereafter it would be 5 per cent, but 5 per cent of what?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, since NATS is a monopoly service provider it is regulated by the RPI minus x formula. Therefore, the .x factor has been set for the period of five years. That factor would have been 5 per cent. Therefore, my noble friend can see how cumulatively 5 per cent over five years coming off RPI might be a considerable tightening of the screw. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend's inquiry on that matter.
As to the single skies initiative, noble Lords will be aware that, faced with the kind of expertise from noble Lords to my right who have been both Ministers and closely involved in European operations, in some of these areas my remarks are somewhat tentative. But 1 believe that the single sky is fundamentally a benign attempt simply to rationalise the way in which the various jurisdictions in air traffic control co-operate. In particular, we are trying to do that through institutional reform. We believe that through a single sky policy we shall be able to reduce air transport delays and their costs in Europe and provide the infrastructure to increase capacity, because by 2015 Europe will be coping with 7 million more flights and 1 billion more passengers than in 2000. Therefore, the provision of systems across Europe to handle that level of traffic safely represents a substantial challenge.
As I argued from the beginning of this debate, if consolidation is inevitable, when scores of national jurisdictions can be handled by half a dozen centres across Europe, we want to try to ensure that we in Britain not only control our own skies but are able to offer our expertise, based on an improved technological platform, to countries all over Europe, particularly small ones. Let us not forget that, if we want to, we can control Siberia from Swanwick, so there is a very real opportunity for a British-based company to help others to rationalise their skies.
I will now deal with some points raised by my noble friend Lord Hoyle about partnership directors. We have held discussions with the trade unions on the whole process of selecting the partnership directors to be appointed by the Government. Those discussions have centred on the types of people who might be suitable and what criteria should be used in their selection. That will include how they might best fulfil a role in safeguarding the safety of NATS. We have

465
advertised for people to put their names forward under the new process, and we have arranged for people to consider putting forward their names. That process is ongoing, and I do not believe that I can properly say much more about it. We hope to have directors selected by the time that the PPP is due for completion, and as to that we are aiming for 1st June.
My noble friend Lord Hoyle also asked about pensions and the trust of promise. I can assure my noble friend that we are in the final stages of discussing the trust of promise deed with NATS and the Law Debenture Trust Corporation which is likely to act as trustees. The trust will be in place before completion of the PPP. As outlined earlier by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, we believe it will guarantee that while NATS employees remain within that they can also continue in membership of the CAAPS scheme. Staff who transfer with their work to another employer will be entitled to membership of a scheme that is identical in all material respects to CAAPS.
My noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Brett have played a remarkably positive role. I bring that matter to noble Lords' attention because at times we may have seemed to have been at odds. But, with their collective experience of IPMS, BALPA and of public life, they have helped me enormously in understanding some of the difficulties that the staff have had in accepting some of our policies. They pointed me toward areas of the legislation where our Bill might be, and indeed was, improved. Both noble Lords have served the public interest very well.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked about the public interest in the context of the stakeholder council. There will be three government-appointed directors. Like the noble Lord, we believe that the stakeholder council will allow people to come together and for broader interests to be represented by the government-appointed directors on our partnership board and the PPP board. Therefore, 1 readily reinforce his call for partnership. I endorse his comprehensive seven-point appraisal of the positive aspects of the winning Airline Group bid.
I am particularly delighted to be able to share my noble friend Lord Brett's optimism. I, too, believe that the winning bidders are well positioned to keep their promise. They have no exit strategy. Clearly, they are locked into the proper functioning of this new company by the most powerful of all self-interests. Again I should like to thank the noble Lord for the robust role that he played in helping us to improve the Transport Act.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for her complimentary remarks. I understand her party's reservations about the public/private partnership. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the CAA can be both an economic and a safety regulator. I foresee no difficulty there. The economic and safety groups within the CAA are used to acting together; for example, the advice given to the Government by the economic
466
regulator on the setting of the NATS charges was reviewed by the safety regulator. Should there be any conflict, the CAA board would address the issue.
On the question of the staff shares, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the pension position of staff, while remaining in the CAA, will be unchanged by the separation of NATS. On the new shares for employees—I anticipate the question of the noble Lord opposite—of the over £100 million of equity involved in the bid, 5 per cent will go to staff and £500 will be free. The share scheme would be for the initial allocation only. Any further staff proposals would be for the strategic partner to decide in consultation with the other shareholders and the Government.
I was asked what the value might be in the future. With regard to the total sum in cash received for the transaction, your Lordships may remember that we were looking at removing a debt of some £330 million and perhaps receiving £300 million on top of that. Therefore, in the past, I have offered £650 million as a possible total. The total amount is around £800 million. The valuation of the company is probably over £900 million and nearer to £1 billion now. So noble Lords can see that if people get a percentage of this company at an early stage on what would be a percentage of £100 million, were the company to be floated in future and a proper valuation put on it, there would be a considerable upside for those who held the shares.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am sorry to press the matter further. But if these shares are to be returned on an employee's retirement to an employees' shareholding trust, the value of the appreciation would not then be available to retirees. Perhaps the Minister could inform me further.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I would look for a negotiation which puts in place a system that reflects a shared judgment of the value of the company as the scheme goes forward. The monies that we have received have been taken on by the Airline Group together with the debt and so on.
A question was asked about the phrase "not for commercial return". The noble Baroness will be able to ask the Airline Group because it is for that group to define exactly what nuances it means by "not for commercial return". As I understand the matter, it is simply that the Airline Group does not intend to extract profit. So whatever profits there are, in terms of its operating profit, would be reinvested in the group. Although the group has made it clear to us that in the early years the priority will be in ensuring that investment goes into Britain and the focus of its activities is in improving our air traffic control services, in the years ahead, it has said that if there is any expansion of the group, it will try to expand the business internationally as well. I believe that that will bring with it extra value.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, implied that somehow my being here today signalled the onset of an election. He need not be unnerved. This matter was promised a long time ago and for some time 1st April

467
has been the deadline for the deal. I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of the UK aviation industry. I was pleased that he greeted the Airline Group's success so warmly. The noble Lord asked whether we have a mandate to privatise NATS. We have no intention of privatising NATS. Our air is not for sale. Our air is to be managed in partnership. It will be managed in the partnership of public and private skills.
We believe that the golden share, which also exercised the noble Lord's concern, will protect the strategic dimension of NATS. We have no concerns about that special share. The special share arrangements are only one part of a comprehensive range of safeguards for the various government and public interests in the provision of air traffic services. The main significance of the special share is in the event of a flotation of NATS, for which the Government have no current plans.
The Government believe that the provisions included in the Transport Act and in NATS' articles of association in relation to that special share are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. The Government do not consider that any of the existing special share arrangements in UK companies are inconsistent with Community law. They are committed to defending very vigorously all challenges to such arrangements.
On the question of national security, the Government will ensure that the strategic partner can be entrusted with the national security and aviation safety. NATS' licence requires the licensee to inform the Secretary of State if control of its operations, or even the ability to exercise material influence, changes hands. The licence may be revoked if such a change goes ahead, despite being deemed by the Secretary of State to be detrimental to the national interest. That will enable the Government to see that after the initial sale the PPP remains in the hands of fit and proper persons. I am delighted that so many noble Lords have seen the Airline Group as very fit and very proper persons.
Conscious of the time, I end by saying again how valued are the contributions noble Lords have made to our thinking on this matter. I should like to thank in absentia the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for his courtesy, good humour, his incisive arguments and, of course, his encyclopaedic knowledge of aviation affairs, which is so resonant in his name. We shall all miss his involvement with the transport portfolio, but we wish him well in his new role.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Election Publications Bill [H.L.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee.
468
Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 28th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine
6.32 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchantrose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (6th Report, Session 1999–2000. HL Paper 123).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot but feel that those rumbles of thunder suggest that it is unusual that someone steeped in the practice and principles of conventional scientific medicine should be presenting a report on complementary and alternative medicine, but I am delighted to do so for a variety of reasons. To have chaired the sub-committee that produced the report was a challenging and, at times, daunting task. It was a long and detailed inquiry. I should like to pay a very special tribute to the members of my sub-. committee whose support and vigorous argument. throughout made this a most fascinating experience. They were at all times interested, dedicated and willing to put forward their individual points of view, often trenchantly. It was to their credit that, at the end of the day, we were able to publish a unanimous report on a difficult and controversial topic.
I should also like to pay a special tribute to our two specialist advisers, Professor Stephen Holgate, Professor of Immunopharmacology, University of Southampton, and Mr Simon Mills, Director of the Department for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, University of Exeter. I would be remiss if I did not also say that our Clerk, Chloe Mawson, throughout was a tower of strength. It was a difficult task as it was her first major commitment on becoming a Clerk in this House and she fulfilled it outstandingly. We received great support too from Andrew Makower and Adam Heathfield in the Select Committee Office.
The objectives of our inquiry were to examine what we felt could be reasonable definitions of complementary and alternative medicine, to look at the usage of those disciplines in the UK and abroad, and to examine matters relating to regulation, education, research, the production of information and NHS provision of the disciplines. We were riot primarily concerned with efficacy but, inevitably, in the course of our inquiry, we were drawn into making some value judgments about individual disciplines and about their respective evidence basis. We received in all 180 submissions from organisations and individuals

469
and we conducted 44 oral hearings. My committee and I were grateful to all of those who gave us written evidence and who came to give oral evidence to us.
The first issue we examined was the question of a definition. We found it impossible to produce an all-embracing definition. Perhaps the one that came closest to satisfying our wishes was that of the Cochrane Collaboration. It defined CAM—complementary and alternative medicine—as,
"a broad domain of healing resources that encompasses all health systems, modalities and practices and their accompanying theories and beliefs other than those intrinsic to the politically dominant health systems of a particular society or culture in a given historical period".
While no firm distinction was possible, we regarded complementary disciplines as those which are usually, if not invariably, used to complement conventional medical treatment, while the alternative disciplines are those which purport to offer diagnostic and therapeutic alternatives to conventional medicine.
Since the report was published we have had much subsequent correspondence and even one or two informal meetings. Our broad divisions enabled us to look at four possible groupings. First, in group one we classified what are often called the big five in the CAM field. They are osteopathy, chiropractic, herbal medicine, acupuncture and homeopathy. Osteopathy and chiropractic are already regulated by law in that each of them has its individual Act of Parliament regulating its activities. There is a General Osteopathic Council and a General Chiropractic Council. The General Osteopathic Council has run into certain problems over registration of those calling themselves osteopaths. But I am sure that that matter is outside the terms of reference of our inquiry and that it will ultimately be resolved. The General Chiropractic Council pointed out to us a minor error in our report where we referred to its policy on retrospective recognition of qualifications. But the council is now functioning extremely well.
Our view was that herbal medicine and acupuncture as practised in the West have now become so well organised through their individual bodies—they are voluntary regulatory bodies—that the time is approaching when it is right that they should seek statutory regulation under the Health Act 1999. I am delighted that the Government's response to the report, published only yesterday, suggests that the time has come when discussions with the Department of Health on behalf of those professions should proceed with that end in view.
Homeopathy has been practised for a very long time by doctors in the NHS; not least in London and Glasgow, but also in other parts of the country. Those doctors are regulated by the General Medical Council. But the non-medical homeopaths have an active society. They are self-regulating but as yet they have not come to any kind of formal agreement with the medical homeopaths—the Faculty of Homeopathy—as to common standards of practice and principles which should guide their practice. We believe that such
470
discussions should be undertaken. We further believe that the time will not be far distant when non-medical homeopathy should also seek statutory regulation.
In group two we classified many disciplines. They are largely complementary in that they are generally used either privately or, in many instances, within the National Health Service to complement conventional medical treatment. They include disciplines such as aromatherapy, reflexology, healing, yoga, massage, shiatsu and many more. Those disciplines do not claim cure. They do not carry diagnostic capability. But, from the evidence we received from many quarters, there is no doubt that they give comfort and succour not only to the elderly but also to many patients suffering from terminal illness. For that purpose, they are commonly used and employed within hospices and in the hospitals of our National Health Service.
One problem with regard to this group is that many diverse organisations claim to represent them. However, one example of a group that has come together—I shall turn to regulation in a moment—is the Aromatherapy Organisations Council, which has brought together all but one of the bodies purporting to represent aromatherapists.
The most controversial group in our classification was Group 3. We divided that group into two sections; Group 3a included traditional, long-established systems of medicine which have been offered to the public in other parts of the world, sometimes for centuries. These included Ayurvedic and Ancient Chinese medicine. In a moment I shall turn to the problems relating to the disciplines, but because we were concerned about certain aspects of these particular disciplines we put them into a category in which we said that, at the moment, there was no convincing evidence—no convincing scientific evidence base—to support their diagnostic capability or to support all the forms of treatment that they provide.
Our Group 3b comprised a list of disciplines including, for example, dowsing, iridology and other methods such as radionics and crystal therapy, where we found no scientific evidence base to support their use and, indeed, no evidence was brought forward to suggest that they had a credible evidence base.
The evidence we have received has shown that in the United Kingdom, more than 40 per cent of the population has turned, at different times, to complementary and alternative medicine. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society told us that, in 1998, £93 million was spent on complementary remedies and that the figure was rising rapidly. If one takes into account the costs of consultation, it was thought that people in the UK probably spend £1.6 billion a year on complementary and alternative therapies. In the United States the figure is staggering: 27 billion dollars spent annually on complementary and alternative medicine, but much more statistical information is required.
Perhaps I may return to the somewhat controversial issues of Ayurvedic medicine and Ancient Chinese medicine. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the

471
problem is that these traditional disciplines have been used for centuries. In Ayurveda, the difficulty we encountered was that, not only the philosophy that underlies the discipline, but also the concepts relating to the five elements and the doshas could not be sustained in modern medical parlance. Equally, we could not wholly accept the yin and yang concepts of ancient Chinese medicine. But what we did accept without any hesitation was that many of the herbal remedies used in Ayurveda and in Ancient Chinese medicine, when tested thoroughly, have been introduced into western herbal medicine to good effect.
After all. acupuncture was developed in China. However, western acupuncture, which now has a sound neurophysiological basis, is quite different from the acupuncture of the ancient Chinese practitioner, who believes that certain acupuncture points correspond to individual organs of the body and in the concept of meridians and changes in the pulse that may result from various techniques of acupuncture. We could find no solid evidence for these concepts.
However, quite recently we were shown a demonstration of certain remedies used in Ayurvedic medicine at the Indian High Commission. Effectively, very careful scientific study has demonstrated these to be beneficial in certain fields of medicine. However, what we were being shown was modern herbal medicine. For that reason, we wholly accept that some of the herbal remedies of Ayurveda and, indeed, of Ancient Chinese medicine properly can be included in Group 1; namely, they can be brought under the umbrella of herbal medicine as can some of the other methods used in the disciplines, including massage, counselling and so forth. I hope that that deals with those particular problems.
Throughout, we were looking for evidence and evidence base. It was our clear understanding that it was important to recognise that the efficacy of these remedies had to be demonstrated by careful study and by research using not only double blind control trials—we made comments on many other methods of research. Those trials had to prove the remedies to be better than the placebo effect, which we know from many medicinal trials to be extremely effective. Of course we were also conscious of the fact that complementary and alternative practitioners can offer long consultations which provide the tender loving care which has been a part of traditional conventional medicine, but which many doctors have found difficult to offer because of the sheer pressure of work and time constraints. We were satisfied that it was important to demonstrate a greater degree of efficacy than can be shown from the placebo effect.
On regulation, I have already said that in Group 1 we believe that regulation by statute is either appropriate in the near future or will soon become so. As regards the Group 2 disciplines, we have made it clear that the individual disciplines should all come together under a single, voluntary, self-regulating body with principles clearly laid down relating to training and practice. When and if they do that, the time may come when it would be appropriate for them,
472
too, to seek statutory regulation. But that must be the first principle. We made some trenchant comments and proposals on training courses for complementary practitioners, in particular for those in Groups 1 and 3 where it is important that they should gain a level of basic understanding of medical science in order to be able to offer diagnostic skills as well as therapeutic interventions. That is not so necessary in the Group 2 disciplines but, nevertheless, they need to lay down principles as regards their training.
We were quite satisfied that it is important that doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals who wish to practise complementary medicine—many now do—should acquire a level of training comparable to the standards expected of non-medical practitioners. Equally, we have made firm recommendations to the effect that, in their training, medical students, nursing and other students in the healthcare field should be trained not to practise complementary medicine, but should attend courses of familiarisation in order to learn what kind of procedures and disciplines their patients are likely to seek.
We were very concerned about research. Most practitioners in this field practise in private and have little, if any, opportunity to embark on research. There are some islands of excellence: in Exeter, in Southampton, at the Marylebone Health Centre in London and elsewhere. These are centres where doctors and complementary health practitioners work together in order to carry out research which seeks to confirm or, if necessary and if possible, to refute the efficacy of the procedures. But we are in no doubt that much more is needed by way of research. We have made strong recommendations to the Government that, through the NHS research and development mechanism, funds should be made available for training fellowships to train complementary practitioners in research and to establish centres in relation to or in collaboration with conventional medical schools so that integrated medicine can be practised and research can be conducted in order to strengthen the evidence base of these various disciplines.
We are glad to see that the Government, in their response, accepted virtually all of the recommendations we made and further recommended that support should be given for training fellowships and for research through the NHS R&D procedure, along with the support of the Medical Research Council and charities. The only thing missing from the Government's response, as we anticipated, was a pound sign. The exact sum available is as yet uncertain, but at least they made a declaration of intent, which is most welcome. Furthermore, we believe that academic units in this field should be developed.
One perfect example—which I hope will inspire the Government—was the establishment some years ago of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States, chaired by a very distinguished biomedical scientist, Dr Stephen

473
Straus, who gave evidence to the Committee. That organisation is now receiving from the National Institutes of Health 73 million US dollars per year and is carrying out, and granting money for, a whole series of excellent reports and research projects in the field of complementary and alternative medicine. It is an example which—much more modestly, no doubt—we hope that the Government will be able to follow.
Let me make one or two final points. My first point relates to information. We have been impressed by work that has been carried out by the British Complementary Medicine Association, by the Research Council for Complementary Medicine, and by the databases that have already been established by them to identify not only research carried out in the field but, more particularly, facilities throughout the United Kingdom where complementary and alternative medicine are practised and where such facilities can be provided.
However, much more is needed. We are happy that the Government have accepted that through, for example, NHS Direct, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York and the Cochrane Centre, it is intended to clarify and produce a much more formal and comprehensive database so that patients in all parts of the country will know where to turn to find information about the best practice of complementary medicine in their locality.
It remains for me to mention the issue of NHS provision. There has been increasing NHS provision in this field. It increased markedly under the fund-holding system of general practice introduced by the previous government in that quite a number of general practices commissioned complementary practitioners and paid for their services. There is some evidence that under the NHS as now reformed, with primary care groups and trusts, that provision may have shown some decline, but we did not have firm statistical information upon this. We urge that more opportunity be made for such provision to be given under the National Health Service.
However, we were firm in our conclusion—a conclusion which was supported by organisations such as the Foundation for Integrated Medicine, a foundation which has fulfilled a seminal role in the field of bringing doctors and complementary practitioners together—that it would only be proper to provide complementary and alternative medicine from public funds once a firm evidence base has been established and once these professions and disciplines have become organised into either statutorily regulated organisations or have developed a single system of professional self-regulation for each of the mechanisms.
It is our firm belief that once that is achieved, it will be perfectly proper for doctors in primary care to refer patients to such practitioners, and for individuals in the other healthcaring professions—nurses, physiotherapists and so on—to have a similar facility, both in primary care and in secondary or tertiary care in the hospitals, wherever it seems to be appropriate. In other words, our recommendation is that the
474
general practitioners and the other healthcare professionals—who are becoming much better informed about the value of complementary and alternative medicine but who, nevertheless, need more information and, indeed, more education on this issue—should still be the gatekeepers through which complementary and alternative medicine are provided under the NHS. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (6th Report. Session 1999–2000, HL Paper 123).—(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
6.54 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, perhaps my first job today is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for a piece of conventional rather than alternative medicine. In my absence yesterday I was given credit in the newspapers for a piece of medicine that in fact the noble Lord, Lord Walton, undertook; that is, the treatment that he gave to my noble friend Lady Castle. Certainly, we on this side of the House are deeply grateful to him for that. I am sorry that it seems that I have been given the credit for a piece of medicine I am not trained to deliver. Indeed, I understand that the noble Baroness was somewhat alarmed when she saw my name associated with the medicine that she was receiving. Your Lordships may draw the appropriate conclusion from that.
My second reason for thanking the noble Lord is for his outstanding chairmanship of the sub-committee, the parent committee of which I chair. His chairmanship follows the long tradition of chairmen of this wonderful committee, on which it has been a privilege to serve. He displayed great tact during what was, for many reasons, a quite difficult investigation; it is a vast, blurred field and there were very strong feelings on all sides. Any chairman who can lead my noble friend Lord Howie docilely to agree with him deserves very great credit. This was a very successful investigation indeed.
We are also grateful to the Government because essentially they have agreed, as far as I can see, looking at the response very quickly, with nearly all of the points raised during the course of our deliberations. It will be interesting to see what funding there may be for research, but at least there is a commitment. That in itself may stimulate more research in this area. Certainly, I know of certain ongoing research projects.
Perhaps I may be rather specific today. I should declare an interest. In giving my maiden speech some five and a half years ago, I know that I upset a number of your Lordships. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, was somewhat concerned about my criticisms of alternative medicine. That was not entirely fair—I support alternative medicine—but I was incensed about the way in which it was being delivered in my specific area of medicine, and I made no bones about that at the time. I have reflected on how that has continued in the past five years.

475
Looking back at my own unit, I should declare an interest because we have been practising stress management for 15 years; we have been doing acupuncture for people with reproductive and pelvic disorders for certainly that amount of time, if not longer; and we have also promoted the use of a number of adjunctive therapies, such as aromatherapy, which undoubtedly have helped the well-being and welfare of a great number of our patients, particularly women attending for infertility treatment.
But there is a real problem which illustrates what is of concern about some aspects of alternative medicine. When I deliver treatment as a registered medical practitioner, I am subject to all kinds of careful statutory restrictions. I am required by the National Health Service to undergo appraisal. Indeed, your Lordships may be interested to hear that I underwent appraisal only last week and my appraiser was not at all certain that I was any longer competent to practice surgery because I was spending too much time in your Lordships' House.
Be that as it may, there is undoubtedly now vigorous and rigorous governance in the health service. I am required to audit my treatments and to make sure that they are genuinely effective. One of the problems is that this is not yet true in many areas of alternative medicine. That is why I believe that statutory regulation of some kind in certain areas is very much desired, and probably essential.
In particular, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the problem of reproductive medicine. About one in 10 couples, remarkably, have difficulties in conceiving. Infertility is extremely common. Very often when infertile people conceive, they lose the life within them; they miscarry. It is a tragic event which causes a deep emotional scar. Infertility starts off by people merely feeling rather anxious and a bit surprised that they are not conceiving; but it ends up with the most serious threat to their self-esteem, in a way that is difficult to imagine if you do not come into contact with these patients.
The threat to self-esteem often leads to quite severe depression; it leads to great anxiety, and to an attempt to clutch at straws. It also poses a real threat to people's sexuality—so much so that they often lose libido and find that there is no longer any point in taking part in the great pleasures of marital life. They often withdraw from young people around them. Loss of self-esteem affects their progress at work, because it affects every aspect of their being. It is quite common for women who are infertile and who have been trying to get pregnant for a long time not to be able to walk into a room where there are pregnant women.
Because of their desperation, such people are greatly open to being exploited. I regret to tell the House that this certainly happens in my field at present, through the offices of a certain type of alternative medicine. One organisation claims great efficacy in diagnosing the levels of trace elements in patients who are infertile. It recommends treatment with trace elements which it does not find to be in the right proportion. The organisation is particularly interested in a number of
476
substances: selenium, manganese, zinc, copper, molybdenum and iron. Some of these substances may have some relationship to reproductive processes, but it is by no means clear exactly how valuable they are and what a deficit in those substances really means. One organisation, Foresight, as I understand it, takes hair samples from patients, measures each hair sample and provides a print-out to the couples, saying that they are deficient in some of the trace elements.
It is well known from research in the United States that analysing hair samples in this way is not a reliable means of examining levels of any kind of substance in blood or tissue. It may reflect historically what was the case several months ago, but even then there is a large amount of evidence to suggest that hair samples do not correlate with what is actually happening in the bloodstream or in the body as a whole. It is, I believe, a fallacious test.
Once the patients have a print-out, they may be given an address where they may seek tablets to replace the substances that they are missing. Often, the tablets contain 10 to 100 times the amounts of each trace element that might be required to adjust their body balances. They may pay £50; they may pay £200 a month each if both partners are diagnosed.
The problem is that these poor patients are not subjected to any proper medical tests and no proper medical history is taken. They are prey to exaggerated claims; for example, it is common for them to hear that there is an 80 per cent chance of the woman becoming pregnant if they undergo this treatment. I believe that there has never been any peer review to demonstrate the truth of such claims.
Because I have been critical of this practice, I have been bombarded with letters from one particular organisation in the United Kingdom. I know that the letters are orchestrated, because they are all couched in similar language. Parliamentarians are familiar with that tactic. It gives the impression that there is much greater support in the community for a particular course of action, way of life or belief than is actually the case. It is signally clear that these organisations have failed to produce proper peer-reviewed evidence, properly carried out blind trials, to demonstrate that this medicine is efficacious.
Does it matter? No one dies from infertility. But as infertility is ineffectively treated, these patients age; as they become older, becoming pregnant is more and more difficult. The delay can be critical, particularly for a woman in her late 30s. That is a paradigm of what may happen to some extent in other areas where these sorts of medicines are not properly controlled.
It seems to me that there is a very real need to look at some proper regulation in regard to how patients are "prescribed". I say "prescribed" in inverted commas because, as I understand it, many of those who hand out these drugs, if I can call them that, are not registered pharmacists. The tablets are not obtained from a chemist's shop but usually through the organisation itself or through a friend of the organisation.

477
That said, let me emphasise that I am not in any way opposed to alternative medicine. I have seen the value of alternative medicine; it is undoubtedly of increasing importance in medical practice in this country. There is no doubt that one of the problems that people face, particularly in the National Health Service, is the hurried, stressed doctor who sometimes does not spend as much time as he should do communicating with his patients. For that reason, if for no other, the alternative practitioner offers a valuable service, because one of the most important aspects of medicine is listening to what a patient has to say about his or her predicament. That undoubtedly has a huge and beneficial effect, not excluding any other therapy.
However, there is no doubt that in this country we have accepted that medical practice needs to be audited. It needs to be demonstrated to have an evidence base. If the evidence-based approach is good enough for registered medical practitioners, it is essential that anything that is given to patients who are effectively not well, who have a problem with their physiology, should be given on the same basis as applies in regular medicine.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I should like to echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. He guided us through the examination of some 29 disciplines that are grouped together under the rubric "complementary and alternative medicines". They are a heterogeneous group based on hygienic, diagnostic and therapeutic philosophies and practices whose theoretical bases and techniques may diverge substantially from modern scientific medicine, veterinary medicine or dental medicine. Their heterogeneity is exemplified in the fact that some have roots in ancient, or indeed modern, philosophies or religious systems. Some are based on notions of anatomy, physiology or pharmacology which are not consistent with current scientific knowledge. Some are based on beliefs that contradict established scientific principles and there is little or no scientific evidence to support their efficacy, and especially their safety.
Among this array of disciplines, the committee discerned three major groups, the third of which was divided into two groups, 3a and 3b, based on the evidence that we could ascertain. In relation to groups 3a and 3b, our chairman in particular and some members of the committee came under a degree of criticism from bodies that were included in that grouping. We all admired the composure of our chairman in dealing with the dissent levelled against him and others. When we met at the Indian Consulate to discuss some of these, he was the soul of discretion and charmed his critics very well indeed.
The issue in relation to complementary and alternative medicine and its veracity is the provision of a critical mass of evidence to support claims for efficacy and safety which would lead to regulation.
478
Two therapies—acupuncture and herbal medicine—appear to be at the stage where it would be beneficial to strive for statutory regulation under the Health Act 1999. Osteopathy and chiropractice are already suitably regulated. Obviously, a major concern is the lack of the type of evidence that one would require for the registration of conventional, therapeutic molecules, which is accepted as being a very expensive and drawn-out process. The usual quotation of time is 10 years, and the usual quotation as regards finance is 100 million dollars. Very few, if any, of the complementary and alternative medicines could generate that sort of expenditure in order to become registered.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned, the evidence may well be there; it is a question of producing it by determined work. Indeed, we found at the Indian Consulate that they had produced the sort of evidence on four substances that would be accepted for registration. Hence, that changed our minds somewhat for the Ayurvedic medicine type of approach. However, it seems to me that there are several reasons for this lack of evidence. The first is the critical lack of a mass of research workers in any institution. In many of the institutions where CAM medicine is taught, the teaching is carried out by one person who may in fact be working part time. Hence it is very difficult, if not totally impossible, to mount a research programme under such circumstances.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, some of the teachers of CAM approaches are not research workers. They have never been trained in research and have never carried out such work. Therefore, they are unable to write the sort of research proposal that would generate support and interest from the major funding bodies. Nevertheless, we have been given to understand that funding would be forthcoming from some of the major medical charities, such as the Wellcome Foundation, were quality research proposals placed before them. That raises the question of ring-fencing research funding; in other words, whether special funding should be given to this area in order to kick-start research on the various complementary therapies.
While organisations like the Medical Research Council would reject ring-fencing, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out, this is done in the United States by the national institutes of health. Indeed, between 80 million and 100 million dollars are made available for the purpose. With this large amount of grant funding available, we heard in committee that the major research groups went after such money and were willing to carry out the research. So the research followed the money, rather than the money following the research. We do not know whether that would happen in this country, but I suspect that the same thing would occur. If funding is made available in substantial sums, there is no doubt that research workers will follow it.
The way forward in the United Kingdom would seem to be to establish one or two critical centres of excellence where the necessary research can be undertaken and developed. Some of these centres

479
already exist; for example, in Exeter and Southampton. One would hope that there will be increased effort as regards research funding for such work.
A further area that is poorly attended to in this country is education in CAM. That applies both at the undergraduate level—not only in medical schools but also in veterinary schools and, I presume, also in dental schools—and also in CPD, or continuing professional development, to practitioners in medicine and veterinary medicine. It is no easy task to insert yet another instruction in an undergraduate course in medicine, in what is usually already a crowded curriculum. There is also the possibility that this might be dealt with on an elective basis. However, where that instruction is given, it is important that the provider should have a fairly broad view of the various disciplines; in other words, he should provide a broad-view outlook and not concentrate on his own specific area of interest.
The provision of further information on CAM via CPD is an important area of development. The committee recommended that as one of the ways forward in dealing with the education of doctors, vets and dentists in this area. In the delivery of CAM therapies, we strongly believe that a progressive integration between CAM and conventional medicine should be encouraged; for example, we recommend—and, interestingly, the Government agree—that patients wishing to try CAM therapy should be encouraged to discuss their conditions with a medical practitioner beforehand.
In my own profession of veterinary medicine, the delivery of CAM therapy is covered under the veterinary surgeons' Act. Under its provisions, only veterinary surgeons may practise acupuncture and other CAM therapies. However, it is now possible for the practice of those disciplines to be devolved to non-veterinarians, provided that they are carried out under the direction of a veterinary surgeon. This means that one can bring into these areas highly trained auxiliaries for the benefit of animals.
There is widespread use of the wide range of CAM therapies. There is a strong case for a greater understanding. of such therapies, both by the provision of more evidence of efficacy and safety and by the provision of self-regulation. Given these, a more useful integration of the conventional health delivery and CAM delivery would be possible.
I believe that the report looked in great detail at these therapies. I also believe that the recommendations contained within it are not only considered but also constructive. Attention to them will lead to a more beneficial appreciation and integration of the use of both complementary and conventional medicine. I believe that, together, the conventional and the alternative in medicine could work to the benefit of the patient. Indeed, that is what we aim for in the long run.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, should like to attest to the remarkable chairmanship skills of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. He had to deal not only with a wide range of CAM therapies, but also with a wide range of disciplines represented by members of the committee. When I was co-opted to the committee, I saw this array of medical, veterinary, pharmacological and scientific expertise and felt it necessary to establish my own provenance. I remarked that I was bringing to the committee's deliberations the perspectives of a serious hypochondriac. I should declare an interest and say that in the royal fellowship of serious hypochondriacs I have been gratified to appoint myself its life president—but not for long, you understand!
In a more serious vein, I turn to the point made the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, and emphasise the importance of the role of research in the area of CAM. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, drew attention to that as well. It is gratifying to note that the Government have more or less accepted all our recommendations. I think that is common ground. We made a timely review given the enormous recourse to CAM by the public, which is likely to show no signs of abatement in the future. It is absolutely vital that, if the public and the relevant professionals are to be properly informed, an adequate research base is developed. I am slightly less optimistic than the other two noble Lords who have referred to this. I believe that it will be a major step to get that established.
I would like to add one other point which has not been made. I believe that it has to be done with a great deal of sensitivity and, in a non-patronising sense, hand-holding. This is almost virgin territory for many of the CAM therapists. For that reason, I believe that the sensibilities of the practitioners in CAM need to be a major concern.
It is therefore important that the Government have acknowledged their role there. When we were taking evidence I frequently remarked that while most people agreed that a greater research effort was needed to produce the sort of evidence base required, people were often waltzing around the subject. I am gratified to note that our recommendation that the Department of Health must really own this subject and be the main drive behind it will be taken on board. As I have said, I am not as optimistic as other noble Lords that we shall really get this matter moving. It will require money, which may be forthcoming in due course. It will require a major commitment on the part of the Department of Health in order to co-ordinate the various agencies which finance research in the medical area so that we can build up a fairly major critical mass at an early stage rather than letting it dribble along.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I would like to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the Select Committee on an excellent report. I bellieve that it is a balanced and important report which will serve as a bench-mark

481
in our understanding of complementary and alternative medicines and in helping us assess the value and place of what is a very widely disparate group of therapists.
I would like to focus on the section dealing with research in this field covered so admirably in Chapter 7. I believe that research is the key as to whether an independent observer—I suppose that there are such people in this rather controversial field—can conclude which, if any, of these treatments can be accepted as valid, that they work and they are safe. I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about sensitivity in this field. Indeed, some of the CAM therapists have been able to demonstrate effectiveness by research because it is only through research that we can hope to collect the evidence on which we can base any confidence about others.
It is certainly the case that before any new conventional therapy is introduced and used, there has to be reasonable evidence that it is likely to be effective. After all, that is what the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) was set up to ensure and it is the basis of rational medical practice. So we should expect no less of complementary and alternative medicine.
Now the reasons why the necessary research is not done as much as it should be is said to be because there is not enough funding from grant-giving bodies. I shall speak about that in a moment or two. But it may also be said that there is a reluctance on the part of practitioners to engage in research because they know in their bones that what they do helps people. They are right to the extent that any sympathetic, kindly practitioner can produce remarkable improvements in patients' sense of well-being by what is effectively comfort and a mixture of psychotherapy and placebo effect. Most, if not all so-called conventional doctors know that and indeed practise it or try to do so.
But where complementary and alternative medicine practitioners go beyond that and suggest that what they do for patients has a specific effect over and above those non-specific results, and where those specific effects are the reasons they are in business—in many instances it is a business largely outside the NHS—then the public deserves to know what is the evidence for the effectiveness of the therapies that they are paying for. Therefore, I have little sympathy with the idea that research for evidence is not necessary.
Perhaps I may now turn to funding. Those who want to carry out research say that there is little or no funding available. But the Association of Medical Research Charities—here I should express an interest because I am the scientific adviser to the AMRC, which has over 100 medical charities as members—made a survey of its members asking what their position was on complementary and alternative medicines. It transpired that very few had ever received any application for CAM research. Those that had said most of these were unacceptable because they were so poorly formulated.
Some charities, most notably the Arthritis Research Council (ARC), have leaned over backwards to try to encourage high quality research proposals and have
482
had some limited success. But it is not as though there is no money available. One of the important recommendations of the report is that the manufacturers of the CAM remedies and preventatives sold over the counter and which are so profitable, should plough a small percentage of their profits into research. The rest of the pharmaceutical industry puts much more into R&D, so why not the others? Could it be that they fear that research will reveal that their products are not effective? Your Lordships may detect a note of provocation here. Perhaps I might provoke a positive response.
Most of the charities in the AMRC were set up by patients, parents or carers because they thought that not enough research was being done into arthritis, for example, or Alzheimer's disease, strokes or cancer and they did something about it. They began raising funds directly from the public. While they are open to receive requests from any researcher wanting to do any research which will improve the lot of the patients relevant to the charity, including requests from complementary and alternative medicine researchers, some charities have asked why it is that with the enormous public interest in CAM there has been no real concerted effort to raise funds directly from the public for research in this field. There is some, but why not more? Why go to other charities when funding from the public might be easier?
What I am trying to say is that many complementary and alternative medicines have an important role to play in easing the discomfort and symptoms of patients. But in order to go beyond that to having a specific effect in the cure or relief of disease, it is only by carefully controlled research that evidence of effectiveness can be obtained and only then can the public be reassured about what they are receiving.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for his excellent chairmanship of the committee, I should like also to thank the members of the committee, some who remained sceptics to the end, some who may perhaps have been influenced by some of the evidence and some who may even have changed their minds.
I collected my copy of the Government's response but have only had a short time in which to look through it. In his speech this evening the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has dealt with many of the queries that have arisen since publication, particularly the reactions from the long established and traditional systems of healthcare that felt they were being ignored in our Group 3 classification. I am sure that on reflection practitioners of these systems will realise that it would not have been possible to examine the detail and theory of those entities in a 14-month inquiry. It might have taken two or three years. Grouping them together showed the respect which they are due and, in reality, took them outside the scope of our inquiry.
I should like also to thank the various organisations which have written to the sub-committee and to me personally since the publication of the report. I hope

483
that our responses have offered sufficient explanation of the grouping arrangement. Perhaps I should declare an interest as president of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alternative and Complementary Medicine. I am president of the Natural Medicines Society and a practising dental surgeon who uses some of these techniques.
The modern, research-based scientific advances in medicine over the past 50 years have been spectacular and have brought relief, healing and sometimes health to countless numbers of patients. This growth of knowledge has been such that different specialties have developed, each competing for and making legitimate demands on the NHS budget, which has always, and will always, fall short of the personnel and materials needed to benefit all those patients who are perceived by conventional methods of diagnosis to be ill. It has been estimated that about one-third of all patients with chronic symptoms have no organic disease and another third have symptoms that are unrelated to their organic condition. The skill to understand and relieve the suffering of those patients is just not available within the accepted framework of conventional medicine.
Scientific advances in medicine have also affected the patient-doctor relationship and caused difficulty in communication. The committee heard that such misconceptions might be why help is sought from complementary practitioners, where patients can be assured of a listening ear. Very often the therapy involves the active participation of the patient. That has obvious appeal in an age when authority, including that of the medical profession, is being challenged and health is considered to lie in self-help.
In January, the all-party parliamentary group was addressed by Andrew Weil, the director of the Programme of Integrative Medicine of the Department of Medicine at the University of Arizona School of Medicine. He told us that American healthcare institutions have been engulfed by an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions that has alienated patients and eroded the job satisfaction of physicians. Simply, medicine has become too expensive. All over the world insurance systems are breaking down and hospitals are going bankrupt. He thought that in the not too distant future, when many smaller and community hospitals have disappeared, large areas will be left with only one central hospital— the only one that will be able to afford the hardware.
One of the great attractions of medicine as a profession was the promise of autonomy, an area where one could be one's own boss. We heard that few physicians today in the US can succeed in solo practice; most must work in corporate settings where someone tells them how many patients to see an hour, which treatments are authorised and which are not. The Minister will be aware of this already happening in my own profession of dentistry in this country. A very high proportion of new graduates cannot afford to set up on their own or buy into established practices. In a recent survey, 70 per cent of newly qualified
484
dentists said they would choose to go down the corporate route, where someone else makes the decisions and pays the bills.
The Minister will have seen the report in last Sunday's Times, where 80 per cent of doctors surveyed on the Medix website believed that the incentive payments for GPs to enter general practice would make no difference and that,
"medicine is losing its allure as a career".
By eliminating much of the incidence of infectious disease—the major killer of the 20th century—modern scientific medicine has to assume the responsibility for this situation. We have been left to deal with chronic degenerative illness, a much more stubborn and costly problem. Medical expenses go up the more elderly people there are. The generation to which I belong—the generation that will soon constitute a gigantic demographic bulge of old people—has not yet reached the age where its medical costs will skyrocket. We have not seen anything yet!
Another reason for the expense of conventional medicine is its extreme dependence on technology. Medical technology is inherently costly and unless we change that dependence there is no hope of cutting costs. Consumers are very clear about their desires for natural, complementary and alternative therapies. It should be obvious by now that this is not a passing fad but rather a worldwide sociocultural trend with deep roots and great economic significance.
Much of the evidence we heard showed that patients want more involvement with medical interactions and want doctors who share their views about health and healing. They want physicians who have time to help them understand the nature of their problems and who will not just promote drugs and surgery as the only ways of doing things. They want physicians who are aware of nutritional influences on health and who can answer intelligently questions about the bewildering array of dietary supplements and natural interactions, who are willing to look at patients as mental/emotional beings, spiritual entities and community members as well as physical bodies. And they want physicians who will not laugh at them for inquiring about Chinese, Anthroposophic, Ayurvedic medicine or kinesiology. I mention kinesiology specifically because we relegated it to Group 3 in our list as having no evidence base. I use it every day of my life in my surgery as a diagnostic tool. It works brilliantly but I have no idea why.
The report recommends that there should be more consistent training offered to complementary therapists in all the different disciplines and that formal training should be offered to doctors, dentists, nurses and physiotherapists who wish to practise complementary disciplines. The setting up of a formal training structure should then produce practitioners and therapists who have a research-based background. It is our recommendation that the Government and the Medical Research Council pump prime the area of research by producing funds over a 10-year period in order to establish centres of excellence for those wishing to undertake research in

485
this field. It is important that we follow the example of the National Committee for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the USA, which is funding research projects with a budget of 73 million dollars a year.
In their response the Government say that they recognise the need to develop research capacity and they will consider the best way to achieve that objective. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned the lack of a pound sign. The noble Lord, Lord Burlison, can make himself world famous. How about offering £5 million this evening?
The challenge is to create a new approach to medicine, one that is based on a model of health rather than disease, one that trains practitioners to take time to listen, to value nutritional and lifestyle influences on health and illness, to offer treatments in addition to drugs and surgery and to understand the innate potential of the organism for self-repair and healing. This approach operates from the premise that prevention is one of the primary responsibilities of practitioners and that, whenever possible, simple, safe, cost-effective treatments should be offered before invasive, expensive ones.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government's response is bold enough to take steps to endorse the integration of complementary and alternative therapists into routine NHS practice. The integration of the theories of complementary medicine at undergraduate and postgraduate level can go some of the way to meeting the demand for good quality care, to the provision of care that respects the dignity of patients.
Integrated medicine shifts the orientation of medicine to one of healing, engaging the mind, spirit and community as well as the body. This approach is based on a partnership of patients and practitioner within which conventional and complementary modalities are used to stimulate the body's healing potential. It is committed to the practice of good medicine, whether its origins are conventional or complementary and recognises that good medicine must always be based in good science that is inquiry driven and open to new paradigms.
The last page of the response is encouraging. It states:
"The Government agrees that there is scope for closer integration of CAM and conventional medicine. This is in the interests of all relevant disciplines and, above all, in the interests of their patients".
I hope that the rest of the document is just as supportive.
7.39 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am glad of the chance to speak in this debate, just as I was grateful to be co-opted to Sub-Committee I together with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. He and I have helped to run the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine for a good number of years, and are patrons of a number of organisations within CAM.
486
It would not be sensible for me to go over the whole field covered by our recommendations, since this has been admirably dealt with by my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant. From our conversations early in the proceedings he knows my views on the difficulty of a medical person chairing an inquiry into a domain which until very recently has been at loggerheads with the medical profession, and many of whose philosophies and assumptions will not have featured—shall we say?—in the medical curriculum. I can only pay tribute to his fairness, efficiency and skill in guiding us through a welter of paper, discussion and examination of witnesses which has resulted in this comprehensive and unanimous report.
That it has not pleased everyone is not surprising. It was almost inevitable that our attempt to categorise the various therapies at the beginning of Chapter 2 would upset some people. Like my noble friend, I have tried to explain to those who wrote in that it was not unreasonable to accept some of the therapeutic claims, for example for herbal medicines or acupuncture which feature in Group 1, while viewing the diagnostic criteria and the whole framework of Ayurveda or Traditional Chinese Medicine in a different light.
Speaking personally, I have little difficulty with the latter. If they are clinically useful, that is what chiefly matters. Colleagues may remember our visit to the Marylebone Health Centre, where the acupuncturist told us that her TCM approach often made more sense out of the symptoms of heart-sink patients than did the diagnostic tools of the GP, and consequently she was able to help them where others could not. There is more than one possible lens through which to view the human condition. I recently came across an attractive one I had not met before, when I read Plato's view that,
"medicine may be regarded … as the knowledge of the loves and desires of the body, and how to satisfy them or not: …he who knows how to eradicate and how to implant love, whichever is required, and can reconcile the most hostile elements in the constitution and make them loving friends, is a skilful practitioner".
It is surely no insult to say that until the frameworks of ancient Greece, or in our case India and China—for which, as I say, I have the greatest respect—attain at least some form of scientific validation, it is logical, in a society dominated by western concepts of medical science, to place them in a category of their own. If we had called this "1b" instead of "3a", maybe we would have avoided much misunderstanding and, sadly, abuse. It is not as though we were recommending that they should be prevented from practising, or from doing good research, or from achieving a high standard of self-regulation.
I would highlight this evening just three recommendations in the report. In doing so, I would remark that it has been quite difficult to react to the Government's late response, which I have seen today for the first time. Other noble Lords, I think, have found the same. Some of what I say may be optimistic in the light of what at first sight appears to be a lukewarm response to one or two of our proposals, but I shall say it nevertheless, encouraged by my noble friend's review of the response, which is certainly more considered than my own.

487
Patients and doctors need full and reliable information about therapies and practitioners. There has been no thought of banning anyone: that would stifle innovation, as well as remove the patient's right to choose. But the corollary is that therapists should display their wares so that the public knows exactly what it is getting. I know from experience how hard it is to find one's way through the complementary medical maze. Much information will have to await good-quality research—other noble Lords have spoken about this— into efficacy and effectiveness in comparison with other treatments and in terms of cost. But there needs to be a central place, or places, where registers of practitioners are held, with details of their training and qualifications—what all those different initials mean, for a start—and assurances about regulation in all its aspects, and with enough unbiased information about such research findings as there are. Because the NHS already has structures that could handle this, and because patients turn to their GPs for information on most other aspects of healthcare, we thought that the NHS would be the best place to start.
A development close to my own heart has been the increasing acceptance by the medical profession of what CAM has to offer, or at least, where this is contentious, of the patient's right to follow the treatment of his or her choice. We met this in most, though not all, of our oral evidence sessions. We recommend that doctors. whether in training or long established, become familiar with CAM—not to the extent of practising, say, acupuncture or nutritional therapy, but of understanding enough of the principles and practices of the commonest therapies to be able to discuss treatment programmes and prospects with their patients. who in some cases at present know more about the CAM world than they do.
As a frequent CAM patient, and as the husband of someone with a serious illness to which conventional treatment has no adequate answer, I cannot stress too highly the importance of this. If you have to deal with a doctor who is all the time trying subtly to undermine what you are doing, it is dispiriting and it saps the energy you should he devoting to the disease. We have been fortunate in this; but at the same time the lack of anyone who can professionally oversee all aspects of the case, who will understand why an alternative approach may succeed where chemotherapy may not, who will give it due weight, understand its mechanisms and particular patterns of healing, be aware of any contraindications and of what to do when problems arise, has been a source of constant stress. If anyone tells you that patients recover in cases like this because of their commitment to their own healing, do not believe them. Managing a complex regime, and being responsible for life-and-death decisions because there is nobody else to help you take them, is no bed of roses. We need the multilingual physician, in the words of Dr George Lewith, one who understands the grammar and syntax of more than one system of healing, and when and how to use each.
Finally, there are the funding implications of the need, which most informed observers agree on, for more and better quality research. I hope the
488
Government will see our recommendation for pump-priming money for a few centres of excellence as an investment which offers a good chance, not only of cures in areas where few existed before, but of economies in a healthcare budget which—the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, mentioned this—if continually linked to the latest developments in high-technology medicine, will spiral out of control. If government cannot rise to this challenge, at a time when so many patients are seeking and find help in the field of CAM, then there is comparatively little that small-time therapy bodies or manufacturers can achieve on their own. It needs, as so often, the initial impetus to set the ball rolling. I hope government will make an imaginative response to this as to other proposals in what I believe to be a sensible and forward-looking report. At present less than 0.1 per cent of the national research budget goes on complementary and alternative treatments. And here we are not asking for the moon.
Although there is as yet no definitive picture of why patients are flocking to CAM, and we have made no recommendations for further surveys, I believe there is evidence that Vickers and Zollman were correct when they wrote in the British Medical Journal of 25th September 1999 that people usually go for,
"long-standing conditions for which conventional medicine has not provided a satisfactory solution, either because it is insufficiently effective or because it causes adverse effects".
The latter should not be underestimated. 1 t has resource implications as well.
We also know that patients report high satisfaction with their non-conventional treatments. Doctors like to ascribe this to the extra time available to CAM practitioners—a notion contradicted by the one chronic patient, at Southampton, to whom we put the question—and to the placebo effect. Neither of these entirely convinces me, though they are satisfying to some and may well play a part. But if complementary practitioners have learnt how to harness the placebo effect more effectively than their medical counterparts, then they deserve every encouragement.
Of course, this is not the last word on complementary medicine. To those therapy bodies who felt affronted by aspects of our report, I would say that they are quite at liberty to regard it as a product of a particular time and place. They could draw attention, if they like, to the fact that we were 11 white professional males with an average age of 71, and they could couple this with the view of Charles Darwin, who wrote in his autobiography,
"What a good thing it would be, if every scientific mail was to die, when sixty years old, as afterwards he would be sure to oppose all new doctrines".
I hope, nevertheless, that CAM organisations will take to heart what we have said in our chapters on regulation and training, together with the need constantly to question and test what they do in an effort to improve their evidence base.
Despite criticisms, I do not believe we have done badly. I think this is recognised at what one might call the senior end of the CAM world. We have looked exhaustively, and sometimes exhaustingly, at the key

489
issues facing complementary and alternative medicine in this country, and have produced a set of sensible and practical recommendations. On the acid test of whether our recommendations, if implemented, will improve the lot of the patient, I think we have succeeded. And that is the most important thing.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it was a great privilege to be a member of the sub-committee that carried out the inquiry. Our chairman, our expert advisers and our excellent clerk mobilised the flood of evidence that came our way and steered us through it safely and competently. Our three external visits, to Exeter, Southampton and the Marylebone integrated practice, gave us a flavour of what it is like to be a CAM patient and showed us that high-quality research into CAM is possible. I shall use the abbreviation CAM throughout my speech because I shall be referring to it a lot and it will probably save me about 10 minutes.
Some of that research, particularly that being done in Professor Edzard Ernst's department at Exeter, showed that certain forms of CAM gave better results than the inert placebo treatment with which they were being compared, but others showed no benefit beyond that provided by placebo treatment. As a result, his department is not universally popular with the CAM fraternity. It is important to note that even when the placebo results were not greatly different from those of the treatment in question, both treatment and placebo usually had a beneficial effect. While we did not think that the placebo effect was the only reason for the benefits attributed to CAM, it always needs to be borne in mind when assessing the effects of different treatments.
I shall centre my remarks on the reasons why CAM is so popular today and look at some of the weaknesses of mainstream or scientifically based medicine that may lead patients to seek alternative remedies. Chapter 3 of the report gives the committee's thoughts after we received evidence on the factors underlying patient satisfaction with CAM treatment in general. In our view, the approach of the therapist to the patient and the power of the placebo effect of any treatment are crucial in understanding that satisfaction. CAM practitioners are usually more relaxed, friendly and welcoming and their premises are often more domestic in character and less formal and clinical—more like home. Although we do not know the exact mechanism of the placebo response, some of our witnesses gave clues as to which factors enhance it.
Paragraph 3.27 of the report says:
"Research on therapist variables has shown that those therapists who exhibit greater interest in their patients, greater confidence in their treatments and higher professional status, whatever their background of training, all appear to promote stronger placebo responses in their patients. … It is also possible that the almost 'magical' approach of some complicated and unusual therapies may have a similar effect to highly sophisticated technologies in inducing wonder in patients".
As my noble friend Lord Turnberg pointed out clearly, the placebo response is present in mainstream medicine as well. Impressive technology sometimes
490
appears to enhance that effect. The effect is not merely psychological, but may result in an enhancement of the immune response that is measurable by laboratory methods. An effective placebo response should not be dismissed as valueless. A hurried consultation in mainstream medicine may not evoke as effective a therapeutic response as an encounter with a caring CAM practitioner.
In mainstream medicine there is a common impression among patients that the doctor's time is precious and must not be wasted. As the report says in paragraph 3.8:
"Constraints on time and other pressures on the NHS, and the reliance on drug prescribing in conventional medicine, have eroded the time patients spend with doctors and has tended to lead to a forced discussion of 'the problem' rather than also embracing the context in which the problem needs to be considered".
Paragraph 3.12 says:
"conventional medicine as presently practised may lack something so that some patients are left feeling that not all their needs have been met".
As a former National Health Service GP, I am only too aware of the truth of that, even though, like many other doctors, I was often fully aware of the social and psychological factors that lay behind the problems presented by patients. It is easy to blame a patient's dissatisfaction on the lack of time in an average GP consultation—seven and a half minutes—but that may not be the only problem. Even in a short consultation it is possible, although not always easy, to establish some understanding and mutual trust that can carry forward over subsequent meetings into a long-term therapeutic relationship. Many noble Lords who have a good relationship with their GPx2014;or their consultant, if they have had the misfortune to get that far—know that to be true. Unfortunately, that is not the rule in modern medicine. The sheer volume of technical knowledge that medical students have to encompass today can easily squeeze out the compassionate motivation of the young adult who entered medical school.
Academic medicine and the General Medical Council are much more aware than previously of the basic importance of good doctor-patient communication in diagnosis and treatment. However, the technically expert doctor is always in danger of losing touch with the caring person within. Final qualifying examinations overwhelmingly test technical knowledge and competence. That is understandable. In today's technological and health environment, turning out a safe and competent doctor must be high on the priority list of the General Medical Council or any medical school. It is often said that psychological skills and sensitivity in a doctor are either innate or learnt very early and that only a minority of those in the caring professions are so endowed. However, I contend that a great deal can be done during training to instil into even the most blinkered student an understanding of the need to listen to and empathise with patients, if only because it makes for much more effective consultations and saves time and National Health Service money in the long run.

491
We found repeatedly in our inquiries that the symptoms and conditions that were best helped by complementary medicine were complex and long-term and did riot respond adequately, if at all, to mainstream treatment with drugs. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, both made that point. The conditions include migraine, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic joint or back pain, chronic fatigue syndrome, eczema or allergies. Most GPs find such conditions time-consuming and difficult to treat. They are often the "thick file" patients. The pain of cancer patients was also often helped and their wellbeing enhanced by complementary medicine.
The common factor in all those problems is that stress, due to psychological or social factors, often plays a part in their origin or continuation. Some studies have found that the "worried well"—those with higher than average anxiety levels—are frequent users of complementary medicine. They often find that it helps them better than mainstream care. That may well be because the psychological or social help that would help them to get to the bottom of their problem is either not available through mainstream medicine or, more probably, not acceptable to them because they—and sometimes their doctors—prefer to regard their symptoms as having a completely physical cause. The approach of CAM therapists is ideal for such people because, while concentrating on their physical symptoms and often laying hands on the affected part of the body, the therapist subtly plays the role of a psychotherapist by another name, because he or she allows the patients to talk holistically about their life problems as well as their symptoms. Many GPs have found that a CAM approach is very appropriate for a sizeable proportion of their patients who have chronic symptoms but few detectable signs of organic pathology. It is not surprising that 40 per cent of GPs now either practise some form of CAM or collaborate closely with one or more complementary therapists.
It may be demonstrated that such collaboration can save NHS resources by reducing the number of GP consultations, prescriptions and referrals to outpatient consultant clinics. More research into the cost-effectiveness of CAM and the extent to which it could save NHS resources should be commissioned in addition to the research that is already being carried out. We were shown the results of a few studies that demonstrated its cost-effectiveness but more, larger and more soundly planned studies are needed.
In fact, research into CAM, as nearly all noble Lords who have spoken have said, is woefully under-funded and the CAM professions lack the research expertise and training that underlies the development of mainstream medicine. In chapter 7 the report examines the whole problem of research and development in CAM. Other noble Lords have already discussed that more effectively than I was going to so I shall not discuss it further.
It was good to read in the Government's response on page 14 that they,
"recognise the need to develop the research capacity in this field".
492
I was particularly pleased to note that they will include "the funding of fellowships", as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. However, their response was disappointing in that they did not feel able to respond positively to the report's recommendation that they should "pump prime" in order to create centres of excellence for CAM research. We have already heard about the way in which that has been done successfully in the United States.
In conclusion, it is fair to say that the report has for the first time put together a comprehensive description of CAM in Britain: its extent and varied nature and some of the reasons why it is so popular. The report also discussed some of the problems that are connected with complementary medicine, including its standards of training, its regulation and its lack of a good research basis. The report also points out some serious deficiencies in mainstream medicine as it is currently practised. I join the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, in the hope that both complementary medicine and conventional, science-based medicine can learn something from the report.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I begin by congratulating members of the committee and its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on producing a fascinating report. I was not a member of the committee so I apologise to its members, many of whom are in the Chamber this evening, for scrambling up the learning curve behind them.
I first became interested in CAM about 20 years ago for two simple reasons. The first arose because I was then a Member of another place representing Walsall, North, and I saw a constituent of mine at an advice surgery. She came to me in an extraordinarily stressed and tearful condition. She had a familiar tale—she was a single mother with three children and she lived in a high-rise block of flats. She had been prescribed some pills by her orthodox medical practitioner to deal with her stress; the practitioner did so entirely in good faith. A side effect of the pills was that they gave her vertigo, which is not good if one lives on the 15th floor. When she came to me she was at the end of her tether and it was extremely difficult to offer her advice. I knew another doctor in my constituency—a conventional medical practitioner—who undertook complementary medicine. He was for that reason regarded as something of a maverick. He saw her and prescribed a homeopathic remedy, which proved to be extremely effective.
When, 18 months later, there was a threat to close down the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, I met and was extremely impressed by several doctors there, many of whom were orthodox medical practitioners as well. From those two episodes came my interest in CAM.
The attitude of the medical profession then—20 years ago—was, to say the least, disdainful. We have, if the committee's report is any yardstick, come a long way since then. I congratulate the medical profession on that. It has had a lot of stick in recent months and years but this more positive approach is greatly to be

493
welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has no doubt provided the leadership necessary to change those attitudes and I congratulate him on that. I say to him that in 1980 it would have been inconceivable for an orthodox medical practitioner, especially one of his eminence, to have agreed to lead an inquiry of this sort. That is evidence of how much attitudes have changed.
We have seen progress in the medical profession but now it is time to see it in the Department of Health. The Government's response to the report, at least in writing, seems to be encouraging although there are some uncertainties, especially about time-scales. The intentions seem to be good but what about the delivery? What concerns me—I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I sound churlish—was the Government's response to the Psychotherapy Bill, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. Mental illness is an omnipresent feature of our society. One in four Members will experience it at some time in their lives. Like CAM, it is bedevilled by uncertainty about clinical outcomes and general fear; lack of clear guidelines on quality standards for training and treatments; and some embarrassment among users. Such users may feel that mental health is for wimps and that having a cold is okay but that with mental health one should have a good brisk walk and a cold bath, after which one will feel better.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, managed to stitch together the elements of the psychotherapy profession and put forward a proposal along the lines of the recognised professional bodies for chiropractors and osteopaths. I am afraid that the Minister's response on Second Reading was to push the proposal into the long grass. I was very disappointed by that. He said, in effect, "Yes, it is a good idea, but the time is not yet right". I hope that there is no long grass in the Government's response to the report.
There is a huge pent-up demand for CAM out there. I have three simple examples. Boots the Chemist, our largest high street chemist shop, is now changing several of its branches so that they provide alternative medical treatment. At its High Street Kensington branch, in an extremely valuable piece of retailing space—the whole of the second floor—electrical appliances, greetings cards, records and CDs have been got rid of in favour of a CAM centre.
On my second example I declare an interest as the director of a hospital company with 1,000 beds in 20 hospitals around the country. The company does acute and mostly elective surgery and all the time we see a demand for alternative therapies. As a company we cannot vet practitioners. We need a series of clear yardsticks. We have that in conventional medicine because admitting rights can be tied to consultants who have had, or who have, NHS contracts or who can be subject to the medical advisory committee, which is made up of doctors practising locally. For CAM we have no such yardstick. Our reputation, if we allow people to practice in our hospitals, is at stake. We need a regulatory framework for CAM on which we can rely.
494
Thirdly, finally and most critically for me, I had a brief personal journey to alternative medicine. A year ago I was diagnosed as having prostate cancer. I had a radical prostatectomy—that is, to speak plainly, removal of the prostate—and subsequently six weeks of radiotherapy. It was all handled with care and 100 per cent professional skill and diligence.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, talked about the vulnerability of patients. Believe me, one is vulnerable when one has had one's prostate removed, when one is told that one's PSA is rising again, when the doctors are saying, "Once the radiology is finished, that's about it", and when only palliative not curative options are available. In doctors' speak, that means that one is going to die but die slowly. One is vulnerable. In that situation, one is going to cast around. One is no longer a statistic—it is you who is affected. That is when, for people like myself, a benchmark provided by a proper regulatory framework would be very helpful. Moreover, as the noble Lord said, patients in that condition get a bit depressed. That is a combination of the effects of the treatment and the options that lie ahead. It was then that I was introduced to a reflexologist who specialised in gynaecological and prostate bladder problems. It was that or more pills on the NHS—pills on the NHS which were paid for by the taxpayer or reflexology which I paid for myself. I have since then used, slightly cynically I have to say, reflexology in various 30-minute sessions and it has been remarkably successful. I have felt better; the NHS has saved money; and a conventional orthodox doctor's time, which I would have occupied in consultation, is available for others.
Given all that evidence, the Government need to move with urgency. There are always reasons for not acting urgently. When I was in the other place we worked on a report called, Prevention and healthcare: Everybody's Business. Two of our key recommendations were turned down. I read from the Government's response:
"In making some recommendations the Sub-Committee may have assumed certainty where none in fact exists. Examples are recommendations 42 and 45 which propose action by the Government to inform the public of risks arising from the consumption of certain foods including fats, and recommendation 53 which suggests the introduction of a national breast cancer screening service for women. Whilst the Government accepts that decisions must sometimes be taken in the face of uncertainty about consequences, its assessment, in the light of expert advice … leads it to conclusions which differ from those which the Sub-Committee reached. Clearly the Government cannot wait for absolute certainty before taking action; on the other hand, it would seem wrong to use resources or interfere with individual liberty if there is real doubt".
Breast screening and fat in the diet: those of us who were not doctors who were on that committee could see the statistics that showed breast cancer rising year by year; we could see that overweight people died of heart attacks more often than thin people. Yet for some reason at that stage the Government could not give the urgency required to those two problems. I hope that will not be the Minister's reaction in his reply tonight.

495
I ask the Government, amid the many splendid reactions and proposals of this report, to adopt two priorities; first, to improve education and knowledge so as to close the gap between orthodox and alternative medicine. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, it means that there is a need for medical students to be educated about CAM; for nurses, midwives and health visitors to become familiar with it; and for us to ensure that continuing professional education of all doctors and other health professionals takes place. After all, this is an area where knowledge, information and expertise is advancing all the time.
The Government must encourage the publication of research into alternative medicine. I felt that one of the most depressing sentences in the report was on page 121 where the committee received evidence from Exeter University that,
"the paper based on orthodox medicine treatment was more likely to be accepted for publication by an orthodox medicine journal than the identical paper which provided the same results for a CAM treatment".
It is a shame if that is true because information is what we need.
Secondly, the Government must encourage the emergence of professional organisations which will lead to a regulatory and training framework. I am sure that that will need some pump priming. From my knowledge the professions are still too weak and fragmented. The efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, were remarkable in pulling together the psychotherapy profession. They need to be duplicated elsewhere and where there is a will there is a way.
I conclude by saying that I am not starry-eyed about CAM. I would not trust my prostate cancer to a practitioner of, for example, crystal therapy. I wanted and received conventional invasive surgery and radiological follow-up. Equally, orthodox medicine does not provide all the answers. The trick must be for the various disciplines to work in harmony; to relieve the hard-pressed NHS; to spread the burden currently carried primarily by orthodox medical practitioners and thus, above all, to improve the health of the country.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walton. As somebody who sometimes cannot remember what I had for breakfast, I congratulate him on his encyclopaedic knowledge of medicine and his instant recall of matters medical. It amazed me and many of our witnesses on many occasions. The noble Lord also set a tone of tolerance for this inquiry and that was well judged, because I soon found out what my noble friend Lord Winston knew already: CAM is something about which people have particularly strong feelings and not a few prejudices.
I know nothing about medicine—orthodox, contemporary or alternative; but I have my prejudices and they were generally pro-orthodox and anti-complementary. But during our work I learnt that that attitude is not universally shared. As our report states,
496
some 40 per cent of the UK population had used an alternative or complementary medicine or therapy, and Professor Strauss told us that the equivalent proportion in the United States is 42 per cent. In Asia, the number must be nearly 100 per cent. So CAM plays an important role in people's health.
That was brought home to me by the media response to our report. Almost all the broadcasters, magazines and newspapers reported our paper. So I should not have been surprised at the large number of individuals and organisations who responded to your Lordships' committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, those responses were numerous and varied. Many welcomed our report, particularly our call for regulating accreditation and training and setting high standards. Others criticised it. A few angrily rejected it. One letter was quite the most acerbic I have read for many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred to angry responses. The reason for that anger was that we had either omitted a therapy or did not accept that some treatments were effective, regulated and professional. Indeed, the practitioners of the Ayurvedic medicine were so outraged that, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, told us, they arranged a seminar for us at the Indian High Commission and brought over several eminent practitioners and researchers to convince us. I found their evidence was convincing.
But that was after our report was published. Of course we explained that they should have done all that beforehand. We explained how the system works and that we are a committee of your Lordships' House. Of course all correspondents and organisations, pleased or angry, received a courteous reply from the noble Lord, Lord Walton, one of the members of the committee or from the committee's Clerk. But I wonder whether that is good enough. Perhaps we should do better.
Some correspondents accused us of arrogance. I do not agree. But perhaps that could be justified if we do not respond adequately. Members of Parliament respond because they are elected representatives. If voters do not like their response, they can vote them out of Parliament. People cannot do that with us and that is a reason why we should be more and not less responsive.
It seems to me that we should have a mechanism that allows people to discuss our reports, whether or not they agree with our recommendations—remember, we are creating yet more committees dealing with matters of great public concern such as animal testing and stem cells. After all, only five weeks ago, in this very Chamber, we were emphasising the importance of this kind of dialogue when we were debating science in society. We said how important dialogue is in building up public trust when dealing with scientific matters that affect people's everyday life. We spoke of how public dialogue assists decision-making and acceptance, especially where information is incomplete. It is also more democratic.
The point about democracy is important because many of the responses to our report on CAM came from minority ethnic and religious groups. They were

497
obviously unaware of how the call for evidence works and how the House of Lords committee system works. I would hate to think that, because of that, they feel excluded from debate and from the democratic process. It seems to me that those arguments point towards a structured dialogue to follow up our reports. Perhaps this is the structure within which we can revisit topics. Perhaps this is an initiative that can be taken up by POST or the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on some kind of systematic basis. I hope that the House authorities and the committee will give that matter consideration.
How would I justify our report to those who have responded, especially to those who think that we have double standards: one for orthodox medicine and one for their particular therapy? I would start by saying that in science there is an uneasy balance between dispute and consensus. The evidence clearly showed that some CAM practices, such as Chinese herbal medicine, rely on consensus for justification that may go back a thousand years, but much of which has not been tested.
A number of those therapies, such as osteopathy, have proved to be safe and effective and have been assimilated into medical practice. They appear in the first group, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. They have been accepted because people disputed the earlier consensus. That led to trials and research, which in turn led to a deeper understanding of the therapies and established the fact that they are safe and effective beyond the placebo effect.
Other therapies have yet to go through that process. It is essential that they should because our now deeper understanding of science may help to explain those therapies. Indeed, we are now beginning to learn that if the human body is reduced to its tiniest components, something is lost. A more holistic approach is perhaps more in keeping with the human condition. Our greater understanding of the immune system is beginning to explain how herbal treatments or acupuncture can boost our resistance. We are also learning how our immune system responds to stress and what meditation can do to reduce stress. That is why we are strongly in favour of research to determine those matters and of regulation to ensure that the treatments are properly administered.
The Government, in their response, rightly mention the need for regulation to be light so as not to stifle innovation and progress. Our purpose in seeking more regulation is to ensure safety and high standards. I welcome the Government's support in their response. My noble friend Lord Rea reminded us that some of the work to achieve those high standards is being carried out at Exeter and Southampton Universities. I compliment them on their work and the time and trouble they took to assist the committee.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Turnberg: research shows up the dangers and, once revealed, orthodox medicine is quick to react. That does not appear to be the case with CAM. It is often the case with CAM therapies that safety is based on tradition and philosophy, whereas in today's world we demand
498
scientific research as evidence. No longer can it be claimed that because people feel that a therapy is helping them, it cannot be harmful. During our work we learnt that St John's Wort was shown to be harmful when taken together with other drugs. I want all therapies, complementary or orthodox, to take their place in modern medicine, but all must justify their place by regulation and research.
That does not mean that orthodox medicine and CAM should be polarised. On the contrary, we need both. As the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Hodgson, reminded us, CAM operates well in areas where orthodox medicine fails, in disorders such as allergies or chronic fatigue syndrome, and in quality of life therapies. We never have all the knowledge that we would like, so there is always risk.
In our Science and Society paper we discussed risk. We discussed the fact that if people are convinced of the benefits of a certain science, they will be more accepting of its risks. Surely CAM is the supreme example of that. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, told us of the high satisfaction of patients. Some people are so convinced of the benefits of a particular therapy that they are prepared to accept any risk. Indeed, that conviction has been the justification for some therapies by CAM practitioners over the years. But time has moved on. In this day and age we have to define those risks to enable people to make an informed choice. That is one of the main reasons for our recommendations.
I cannot close without thanking Stephen Holgate and Simon Mills, our specialist advisers. We had the unique experience of visiting Simon Mills's clinic where we saw herbal medicine being prepared for despatch around the world, and the therapists in action. We also had the opportunity to speak to some of his patients. All that provided me with an important insight for our work, as did the visit to the homeopathic hospital.
Our clerk, Chloe Mawson, coped with an extraordinary amount of evidence: 180 submissions. I extend my grateful thanks to her for making that manageable. I thank, too, my colleagues for their companionship. Some are eminent in the field of medicine, but not for one moment was I made to feel inferior. This was a fascinating study. I hope that it will change attitudes and, in that way, that it will help to improve the nation's health.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as patron of the Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine, which, with some 400 members, is the main body of Chinese herbal medicine practitioners in this country. It forms part of the European Herbal Practitioners Association, which represents professional herbalists throughout Europe and which gave evidence to your Lordships' committee. The RCHM also works closely with the Chinese Medicine Association of Suppliers, about which I shall say more shortly.

499
I am happy to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and his committee on their landmark report. As he may be aware, the conclusions are not entirely satisfactory to our Chinese herbal medicine practitioners. Nevertheless, the fact that your Lordships' House has provided such a wide-ranging and penetrating report on complementary and alternative medicine is a great step forward. CAM is at last being taken seriously.
In common with many other noble Lords I was somewhat dismayed when the original membership of your Lordships' committee to consider this matter was first proposed in the autumn of 1999. Accordingly, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, as did other noble Lords. The cause of our dismay was that the membership of the committee as proposed by your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee did not appear to include any noble Lord with specialised knowledge of CAM. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton, publicly for his letter of 12th October 1999 in which he said that he and his committee would have in mind the possibility of co-options to its membership when the future membership of your Lordships' House was known. As your Lordships will recall, that was somewhat in doubt at that time.
I, and other noble Lords, am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was as good as his word and that his committee subsequently co-opted the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley and my noble friend Lord Colwyn. I feel sure that their presence on the committee contributed to the wisdom and balance of the report that we now have before us.
As it is the practice in your Lordships' House to speak from personal experience when possible, perhaps I should reveal how I came to be such a firm supporter of Chinese herbal medicine and Chinese acupuncture. Some 15 years ago my former wife was unfortunate enough to grow a lump on her throat. It was diagnosed by Harley Street as being a nonmalignant thyroglossal cyst and was duly removed by surgery, leaving a rather nasty four-inch scar. The operation concerned is not a matter of simple skin surgery. It requires several days in hospital and involves quite deep surgery into the neck and throat.
After about three years another lump grew and Harley Street duly obliged with another operation and another scar. When a third lump appeared some time later, my wife heard of Chinese medicine and consulted one of our leading practitioners, Mr Ken Lloyd. By treating the constitutional cause of the cyst and not merely cutting out the symptom, or the lump itself, he was able to make the lump disappear. That was 10 years ago and no lump has since reappeared. From time to time it shows signs of doing so, but a short course of herbs sends it away immediately.
Then three years ago my 17-year old mentally handicapped daughter developed violent eczema on the back of her head, about which the conventional trichologist could do nothing. And so my daughter eventually ended up on cortisone ointment, which also failed. She was cured completely in three months by a course of Chinese herbs.
500
I could tell your Lordships several similar stories from among my friends, as word spread of the extraordinary efficacy of Chinese medicine when western medicine had failed. There was, for instance, the lively 12-year old daughter of the chief president of St John Ambulance, who is an entirely practical lady, I assure your Lordships, and not one to dabble in the "mumbo-jumbo of Chinese herbs", as she put it, unless sufficiently desperate.
Her daughter had picked up a kidney infection in an NHS hospital and after three years of treatment on antibiotics from an expensive Harley Street consultant, was getting rapidly weaker. She had to he taken out of school and was told that she would have to be on antibiotics for the rest of her life. We began I o fear that she was losing the battle.
In desperation, her mother took her off to Mr Lloyd, who first strengthened her immune system, which had been severely compromised by such a long period of ever stronger antibiotics, and then he killed the infection itself. Four months after starting on Chinese herbs, she was back in the netball team and eight years later remains entirely healthy.
I could go on. Your Lordships could have a word with no less a personage than the chairman of the 1922 Committee in the other place, one of whose daughters had a similar experience and who has also now been cured for several years of a very serious illness which conventional medicine failed to cure and for which she was told she would have to remain on western drugs for the rest of her life. So much for a little of my personal experience of Chinese herbal medicines and acupuncture.
As I fear that I shall be accused by those who adhere solely to conventional medicine of being anecdotal. or even giving in to delusions caused by the placebo effect, I suppose that I had better come to my main criticism of this report, which is so laudable in so many other ways. It is that although the report rightly places herbal medicine in Group 1 as a professionally organised alternative therapy, it manages to relegate Chinese herbal medicine to Group 3. Likewise, although it places acupuncture in Group 1, it demotes traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), (which, as I understand it, invented acupuncture some 5,000 years ago and has been at the forefront of the craft ever since), to Group 3. Relegation to Group 3 is a serious matter, given the committee's view expressed in the second paragraph of the report's summary, which I now quote:
"While the question of efficacy was not included in our initial terms of reference, in the absence of a credible evidence base it is our opinion that the therapies listed in our Group 3 cannot be supported unless and until convincing research evidence of efficacy, based upon the results of well designed trials, can be produced. Such evidence must be capable of showing that the effects of any therapeutic discipline are superior to those of the placebo effect. It is our view that for those therapies in our Group 3, no such evidence base exists at present".
I can only assume that because the question of efficacy was nothing included in the committee's initial terms of reference, they did not exactly exert themselves in the quest for the colossal and credible evidence base which does indeed exist.

501
I understand that there is a growing body of research available in the English language to add to the many volumes in Chinese and Japanese, all of which demonstrate both the efficacy and the physiological mechanisms which lead to its positive outcome.
Indeed, if the definition of "useful research evidence" extends beyond randomised controlled trials—and that is one of the welcome approaches recommended in the report—I gather that the evidence base for Chinese herbal medicine would be supported by literally thousands of Chinese and Japanese research papers which use collected histories and outcome studies to demonstrate efficacy.
In these circumstances, I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and his committee how many cases such as those I have quoted from personal experience, of which there are many thousands of examples in this country, would be necessary to convince them to withdraw their strictures. Perhaps the noble Lord would care to give me some form of answer when he comes to wind up.
However, the committee's conclusions are even more perplexing when one comes to a recent article written by Mr Michael McIntyre in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in which he criticises your Lordships' report in the following way. Mr McIntyre is Chairman of the European Herbal Practitioners Association and I believe that his strictures must be taken seriously. He states that:
"their Lordships were incorrect in saying that no evidence of efficacy exists for Group Three therapies. Both written and oral evidence was presented to the Select Committee, mentioning trials involving Chinese herbal medicine. One trial that was specifically mentioned, published in 1998 in The Journal of the American Medical Association (Bensoussan et al., 1998) showed Chinese herbal treatment to be effective for treating irritable bowel syndrome. Another trial that was brought to the Committee's attention was one carried out by doctors from the Great Ormond Street, Royal Free and Middlesex Hospitals in London demonstrating the efficacy of Chinese herbal treatment in the treatment of atopic eczema (Sheehan et al., 1992). The dermatologists who wrote this paper commented that Chinese herbal treatment 'affords substantial clinical benefit in patients whose atopic dermatitis has been unresponsive to chemical therapy'."
He goes on to state:
"Had it been clear that the Select Committee would consider questions of efficacy as part of its terms of reference and that this could lead to the demotion of traditional medicines systems of China, India, and the Middle East to Group Three, practitioners of these modalities would have been able to provide a wealth of scientific evidence in support of their effectiveness".
He gives other examples but the evidence appears in the magazine. He continues:
"While there may be concerns about the quality and safety of some Asian medicines, there is surely no reason to question the efficacy of TCM and Ayurveda, which are used by approximately half of the world's population with published research on a worldwide basis. The fact that the Select Committee placed homoeopathy, the scientific rationale of which continues to be rejected by the scientific community, in Group One merely underlines the report's blatant Eurocentric bias in its evaluation of traditional medicine systems in the Near and Far East".
502
That is strong stuff and I hope that your Lordships do not think me cowardly if I quote Mr McIntyre at such length. I do so because he speaks with greater authority than can I.
As Mr McIntyre also says, the report is not justified in relegating Chinese acupuncture and herbal medicine to Group 3 because of any self-regulatory shortcomings. The RCHM has a clearly defined code of ethics and good practice; a core curriculum, together with other herbal traditions, which is being implemented and properly accredited; a dynamic programme of continuing professional development; a research programme which publishes regular safety and efficacy data; and a democratically elected council supported by a busy central London office. The RCHM is a member of the European Herbal Practitioners Association and is actively participating in the rigorous process of applying to the Department of Health for statutory self-regulation.
I am aware that in the past there have been some problems with some supplies of Chinese herbs but the RCHM now works closely with the Chinese Medicine Association of Suppliers, which meets once a month. Together they submit to good manufacturing practices (GMP) as originally established for the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs in the USA. Requirements to qualify for GMP status vary from country to country but it is generally recognised that the Australian Government's Therapeutic Goods Administration's standards are equivalent to the highest international GMP standards in the world; higher in fact than the United States FDA. It is to the Australian TGA standards that RCHM and CMA now submit and the best factories in China have made great efforts to upgrade their facilities in order to be internationally certified under this rigorous Australian GMP regime.
I heard the noble Lord's introduction to the debate, but I must still ask him whether he and his committee will think again about the placement of Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture in Group 3. I feel sure that there may be other disciplines, such as Ayurvedic medicine, which would merit a similar review. I am sure that the noble Lord and his committee will be aware that there has been quite a bit of negative press comment, picking up on the lack of support in the report, and so it is important to resolve this matter as soon as possible.
Finally, there is in addition one other lacuna in the report which it might be helpful to put on the record. In paragraph 1.20 the committee reported that overall UK retail sales of herbal medicine in 1999 were around £100 million. It helpfully reported that those sales were rising fast, up from £63 million in 1994 and predicted to be £126 million in 2002, reflecting the growing use of herbal medicines. But I feel that it would have been helpful if the committee had given comparative figures for the total pharmaceutical market sales so that we could have some idea of the size of the conventional medicines industry compared with that of herbal medicine.
According to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which is the source of the figures for herbal medicines that I have just mentioned, total pharmaceutical

503
market sales, excluding hospital sales, amounted to £7,593.4 million. On that basis, the conventional medicines market is at least 75 times larger than the herbal medicines market. I mention these figures because they help to show the colossal size of the conventional medicines market. Of course, that is only one way to compare the size of the two sectors. Conventional medicine, through the drug companies and other institutions, also spends huge amounts of money on research which herbal medicine does not need to spend in quite the same way, because most of the research has been conducted over the ages and the ingredients do not need a laboratory for their manufacture.
In short, what we are looking at in conventional medicine is one of the planet's most powerful vested interests. Human nature being what it is, it must be very frustrating to those powerful vested interests to see their market undercut and undermined by a very much cheaper, and sometimes very much more efficacious, competitor.
It is against that background that I was very relieved to read in paragraph 14 of the Government's response to the report that they will recognise the diversity of practice and hold discussions with herbal interest groups to consider the way forward. I am sure that that we are all most grateful for that. I remember, too, that in 1994 the Department of Health was leaned on by the Foreign Office to be extra good "Europeans", and so fool's gold-plated an EU directive to propose a massive licence fee for each herbal medicine of, I believe, some £80,000. This total folly would simply have sent the whole herbal medicines practice underground, including Chinese herbal medicine which in this country uses about 400 herbs.
So, those of us who have benefited from herbal medicine and wish to see it grow and prosper will have to be on our guard, and we shall be. Of course we wish to see herbal medicines adequately regulated, but with as light a touch as possible consistent with the aims of this largely excellent report upon which, once again, I should like to commend the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and his committee. However, I should be most grateful if perhaps he could reassure me on the major point which I put to him when he comes to reply.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, made a very powerful and impressive case. It tailed off towards the end when Europe came up, but that did not surprise the House very much. However, the noble Lord might have been more conciliatory towards the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who I believe offered an olive branch to the Chinese herbal business, as far as I understood his remarks at the beginning of the debate. The welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was rather more lukewarm than I thought appropriate.
I turn to more immediate and joyous matters. I enjoyed the committee very much, although my own background in technological matters lies in physics,
504
especially that branch described as "mechanics". I understand things like structures and was not at home with the kind of science with which the committee dealt. However, I listened with great care.
The spread of the committee was interesting. There were two true believers, two healthy sceptics, of whom I was one—I remain so—and in between was a rainbow coalition of people with a variety of views, some of which changed and some of which remained the same. The report was described as "unanimous". I thought that that was going a little too far. I would have agreed to "nem con" because of the guidance of the chairman, who was not only firm and fair but also extremely cunning. The noble Lord did not persuade me to support the report with the zeal and enthusiasm that he would have liked, but he made me give in. I thought that that was quite reasonable on my part.
As a sceptic, I ask what "medicine" means and what qualities a therapy requires to come within the meaning of that word as I understand it as a lay person. I would have thought that there are two or three characteristics. First, there must be a diagnostic element; otherwise to me it is not medicine. Secondly, it must have curative, not just "feel good", properties. Thirdly, there must be a scientific basis to understand how it works. We must also understand how it continues to work or, possibly, does not continue to work.
It is against the background of those three characteristics that I look at the classifications in the report. It is not enough to make a patient feel good, nor, as one witness put it, to promote spiritual and physical wellbeing. One can do that by a walk on the heath, but that is not really medicine, is it? If one turns to the classifications, the first group appears to be reasonably sound, with the qualification that has been made in respect of the Chinese objections. I have my doubts about homeopathy. I have diluted a little of what-you-like-does-you-good. I shall get on; otherwise, we shall be here all night.
The second group does not embrace diagnostic skills. That makes me feel uneasy, especially as it includes meditation and healing. I worry about that.
The third classification is divided into two parts. Some of them offer diagnosis but are indifferent to the scientific principles of orthodox medicine, and some are based on philosophies. During the committee hearings a number of philosophers outlined their philosophies. Some of them were very interesting, by which I mean weird or somewhat strange. Some of them were not weird. I believe that to base a medical therapy on a peculiar philosophy is unsound; or at any rate a Newtonian physicist would not like it. Others had no credible evidence base.
While there were critical comments relating to the classifications in the report, I believe that they were too general. I would have been much happier had we itemised each of the therapies—I cannot remember how many there were—and set against them our appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses, dealing with each one individually. I tried to persuade the committee to do that but apparently it had better ideas of its own.

505
I turn to one of the therapies. I refer to the therapy known as healing or spiritual healing, which is, as one of the witnesses told us, akin to prayer. People have been praying for good health for many years, and a great deal of good it has done them.
I should like to point to two questions in the oral evidence. They are Questions 1693 and 1694. Unless someone points it out, they were put to the healer by me. I asked about distant healing. It was alleged that one could cure by healing at some distance. It did not require the laying on of hands, although I am told that that sometimes happens. They had carried out some studies. The interesting reply was:
"Certainly in one of the studies that was carried out, the patients did not know that they were receiving distant healing in the form of prayer and also their doctors did not know that they were receiving distant healing in the form of prayer and yet the results were very very positive".
There we are.
The healers also claimed to be able to carry out group distant healing. Therefore; if there is a group of people who are all ill they can be treated from a distance, presumably without them or their doctors knowing. I asked them to suppose that this group, however large—they mentioned a group of 1,000 in the United States in some test that they had done—suffered from a great variety of different illness, some of them diseases, some of them sore backs and a variety of things—eczema and so on—did that pose a problem for the spirit healer? The answer was no. Apparently one can heal people with a variety of diseases at a distance although they and the doctors do not know that one is doing it. We should have these people immediately in high places in the National Health Service. There is a good deal of talk about saving money. They would save a great deal of money.
I did not find that terribly convincing. The word "magic" came into my mind. Some of my friends described it as "mumbo-jumbo", but that is not the kind of language we should use in this House. The word "magic" is adequate. It reminded me of something that all noble Lords and their families will have experience of. That is of a child playing in the street who trips over his feet. It would always be a boy. He trips over his feet and grazes his knee. He immediately creates a hullabaloo and cries of pain emerge from him. His mother comes along. She cuddles him. She almost always says, "There, there now. It'll be all right in a wee while". Then she says, "I'll kiss it better", and she does.
Does anyone actually believe that the cuddle, the kissing better and the kindly words really heal the grazed knee? They make the child feel better. That is a good thing. That is the good thing in quite a number of these therapies about which we were informed. They make people feel better. They should be commended for that because making people feel better is clearly good. But it is not the feel-good factor which heals the grazed knee. In all probability the grazed knee, even if one puts Vaseline on it—or whatever one does—heals itself. That is a recurrent feature of the curative qualities of orthodox as well as unorthodox medicine.
506
That is almost all I have to say about the report, but I want say something about the manner in which we deal with committee reports in this House. We try to get a consensus or a unanimous report. The chairman feels that if the report shows clear indications of dissent, or even disagreement, as it were, that would diminish his report. I do not believe that. One result is that we are very reluctant, although it sometimes happens, to permit amendments to the report during consideration of the debate of the final version of it.
I do not think that that is sound. We should follow the practice of the other place which permits amendments. It votes upon them and the reports are not diminished in any way. I am supported in this matter by looking at the Companion to the Standing Orders. It is paragraph 9.32 of the recently revised version of the Standing Orders. It states:
"A report from a committee embodies the text agreed by the majority of the committee."—"
Not unanimous, not even nem con but the majority of the committee.—
"Members of a committee may not make a minority report".
We accept that.
"However, members who wish to express dissent may move amendments to the chairman's draft report or propose an alternative draft report. Amendments moved or alternative drafts proposed are recorded in the minutes of proceedings of the committee, together with a record of any vote. The minutes of proceedings are published with the report whenever a difference of opinion has been recorded in a division".
That is a general remark about the general procedure in this House. It is not in any way a reflection of the procedures of the committee. I wish that to be made absolutely clear in case anyone is in any doubt.
I conclude by quoting the comment which cheered me up most in the evidence which we received. It came from Professor Lewis Wolpert. It is at paragraph 2.17 of the report. Professor Lewis Wolpert of the Academy of Medical Sciences told us that:
"Medicine aims to base itself upon science. I am sorry that any complementary or alternative medicine procedure for which one can see no reasonable scientific basis should be supported".
I agree with that. That means that I am very sceptical about many of the CAM proposals which came before us. That raises a question which I must answer. Since I am sceptical, does that mean that I would wish to ban these therapies? The answer must be no. I am not a banner. We have tried twice this week to ban things in this House. On Monday we tried to ban fox hunting. I disapprove of that ban thoroughly. Yesterday, we set out to ban tobacco advertising. That is also preposterous and an interference with the liberty of subjects. In this case we are talking about the rights of people to treat their ailments in whatever manner they think and in whatever manner suits them best. Regardless of what I think, they should be permitted to do so. The report permits them to do so and I commend it.
8.59 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, tonight we have had a fascinating and expert debate. Before the very lively speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I was

507
going to say that the committee speakers tonight had really demonstrated how well integrated their perspectives were, as they appeared to be in the report.
I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on the report and on his chairmanship of the committee. I congratulate him on his stamina in so doing and also his stamina this week, because his prodigious speech-making efforts have resulted in his speaking in all three of the debates just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howie.
The timing of the report was excellent. Shortly after the publication of the committee's report, a major conference in London organised by the Royal College of Physicians and the US Government's National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine took place. They took great heart from the committee's report. In fact, the BMJ published a special edition on integrated medicine to coincide with that conference. That, itself, was significant. It is a far cry from its "Beyond Science" editorial of 20 years ago, which decried complementary medicine. We have come a very long way.
I have always been broadly sympathetic to complementary medicine because of my background. Research into enkephalins conducted by my late wife, Dr Vicky Clement-Jones, demonstrated the physiological basis of acupuncture. I am also connected with the British School of Osteopathy and have benefited from osteopathy myself. I am glad that the committee gave great encouragement to those in category 1 to seek registration, in particular, those engaged in acupuncture. I welcome the Government's encouragement to acupuncture practitioners in particular.
I am clearly not alone in being sympathetic to complementary medicine. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord 'Walton, how —1.6 billion a year is spent on complementary treatments. A recent NHS survey showed that 5 million patients consulted a CAM practitioner in 1999. We have heard the percentage of the population which now uses alternative and complementary medicine and how that percentage is higher both in the US and in Germany, where it has reached 65 per cent. The fact is, however, as the Chief Executive of the Foundation for Integrated Medicine recently said:
"Unfortunately those patients who would most benefit from integrated healthcare are those who can least afford to pay for it".
A sign of the times, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, pointed out, is that Boots the Chemists has opened two pilot stores in Kensington and Milton Keynes which have available professionals such as homoeopaths, physiotherapists, reflexologists, herbalists and osteopaths. That is an extremely interesting development. There is growing professional support for it too, as is charted in the report. At the NHS Alliance annual conference in October, 63 per cent approved expanding NHS provision of complementary medicine. As we have heard today, CAM is increasingly practised in a conventional medicine setting. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, was particularly interesting in that respect. General practitioners are now offering access to CAM
508
and 40 per cent of medical schools in the United Kingdom now offer courses in CAM. Primary care groups are establishing contracts with CAM practitioners.
The cause of a sensible evidence-based approach to complementary and alternative medicine has been much advanced by the committee's report on its superb examination of CAM, its therapies, practitioners, the state of research and the relationship with conventional practitioners. Its key conclusions have been rehearsed today and I shall not repeat them, especially now that the Government have come up with their response. I would say, however, that, caught as the Government now are between the hammer of the Prince of Wales and the anvil of the House of Lords Select Committee, I very much hope that they will be devoting adequate resources to research in this area. I rather share the views of those noble Lords who looked askance at the precise nature of the Government's commitment in this respect. The use of the words "research capacity" rather than "research resource" is rather significant. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, can give an assurance in that respect.
The amount currently spent on CAM research is pitiful. As the Prince of Wales, the Foundation for Integrated Medicine and the committee in its report have pointed out, it is inadequate. Only 8p is spent for every £100 spent on orthodox research. The King's Fund, in its typically farsighted way, has started the ball rolling with a grant of £1 million and I hope that more private donations will be forthcoming as the profile of complementary medicine and research into it rises. The quality and quantity of research are clearly improving, as the BMJ recently pointed out, but research is inadequate even in disciplines such as acupuncture.
Sometimes, however, even where the research is adequate, there is poor communication about what research exists. A respectable broadsheet paper such as the Independent—1 notice it with my background—can still say as it recently did about acupuncture:
"The process by which it works remains a mystery but that it could have some effect is scientifically plausible".
If the paper had done five minutes' research work, it would have found that there is considerable evidence in that respect. That is fairly ignorant even in the light of the existing research. How much worse is the situation in other areas of complementary medicine?
The report has had some criticism, principally from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I take some comfort from the fact that, while that may be criticism from one end of the spectrum, there was equal criticism from the other end. The late lamented John Diamond made considerable criticisms of the report from his perspective as a diehard anti-complementary medicine journalist, but the one key point that he did make was a powerful case for there to be no double standards as between complementary and orthodox medicine. I firmly agree with him on that. I thought that the committee struck the right balance in that respect.

509
It is extraordinary, however, to think that the research base of conventional medicine—randomised controlled trials—which we now regard as a scientific yardstick for evidence-based medicine is only a postwar development. Major pharmaceutical advances have been made from natural substances. After all, we know that Taxol is derived from yew and aspirin from willow bark. As a result, conventional practitioners should respect the benefits when the evidence is there that certain herbal remedies such as St John's Wort for depression—its pedigree goes back to Hippocrates—or gingko for dementia are effective. On the other hand, practitioners need to make it clear that they support an evidence-based approach. By the same token, we should all recognise danger when it is present, particularly when products are sold as food supplements.
However, I offer a few words of caution on the purely evidence-based approach. I was very taken by what was said by Dr Andrew Weil when he came over to speak to the committee, as regards not dismissing the placebo response. He has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. Dr Weil is a well-known American practitioner of complementary medicine and is the director of a key programme on complementary therapies in Tucson. I hope that most doctors would agree that a positive mind-body response, if it cures, is in fact better than a course of drugs. I also entirely agree with him about the desire of patients to spend some time with their doctor, along with their desire to be treated holistically, as a spiritual entity as well as a physical body. Many noble Lords have touched on that aspect of complementary healing. I believe that conventional medicine has much to learn in this respect and that, as Dr Weil has suggested, the integrated medicine movement will become much stronger over the years.
I shall offer a further word of caution: the paradox here is that the public appears to prefer personal recommendations on CAM treatments to any kind of scientific evidence. Indeed, one of our key tasks is to restore trust in science and scientists. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, quite rightly raised this point.
I do not normally sell House of Lords publications, but in this context, I always recommend another report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Science and Society, which was published in February and which we debated recently. The report tackles in depth the issue of public trust. I hope that we can sell the two reports in companion volumes. That would be the best way forward.
9.10 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on what can only be described as an extremely important and thorough piece of work and altogether a brilliant job, especially when one considers the great variety of views and numerous conflicting interests in this field. No doubt he also had a little difficulty in controlling the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
510
Much of what I had planned to say has already been covered and emphasised by many noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. But I should like to stress that one of the strong points of our National Health Service is that the general practitioner acts as the gatekeeper. There are very good reasons for that. The patient is protected against too many eager beaver practitioners of whatever kind, and the GP keeps track of what medications the patient is receiving. I am sure that the Select Committee was absolutely right to recommend in paragraph 9.37 that,
"all NHS provision of CAM should continue to be through GP referral (or by referral from doctors or other healthcare professionals working in primary, secondary and tertiary care).
Most of the speeches from noble Lords have rightly stressed the need for research into CAM, but it also has to be said that we need to continue to look critically at the efficacy of orthodox medicine. It is essential to keep an open mind in scientific research because so often it reveals surprises. Some while ago a carefully conducted trial was carried out to see what would be the best treatment for warts. Four methods were tested: cutting them out; burning them out; freezing them out; and charming them. The most successful treatment was charming them out. Several conclusions could be drawn from that, but there is no doubt that high morale does boost the immune system. Of course the reverse is also true: low morale diminishes the effectiveness of the immune system. If a man loses his wife, if she dies after they have been married for some years, he is then in danger of dying within a year of cancer or recurrent infections. That is especially the case if he does not grieve properly. Thus high morale is very important to ensure that the immune system functions well.
In the past, people have made the mistake of disregarding unlikely therapies. In Holland it was said for years that liquorice was good for healing duodenal ulcers, but that was pooh-poohed. Eventually it was proved to be the case and the active principal, carbonoxylone sodium, was isolated. Nearer to home, a dry-cleaner noticed that a fluid he was using in his business made him rather drowsy. He wondered whether it would be an effective anaesthetic agent. Because he believed in trying things out, he successfully anaesthetised his wife. When he approached one of the Royal Colleges with his discovery, at first he was received enthusiastically and taken in. But when he was asked which hospital he worked in, he said that he was only a dry-cleaner, so he was dismissed out of hand. We have to keep an open mind and seek evidence-based orthodox medicine and alternative medicine. Even more important than keeping an open mind is to retain a touch of humility.
It is often not only a shortage of resources which keeps people from doing effective research; it is also a shortage of good ideas and determination. As has already been said, acupuncture is widely integrated with mainstream medicine and is used in more than 80 per cent of chronic pain services. There is sound neurophysiological evidence to support its efficacy.

511
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, some of the earliest work was performed by the late Vicky Clement-Jones, who demonstrated an increase in endorphin levels in the cerebral spinal fluid after acupuncture in patients with chronic pain. Research workers now believe that they have found the mechanism responsible for the sustained effect of acupuncture, which has been apparent to clinicians who are familiar with these techniques.
A high proportion of musculoskeletal pain arises in trigger points. One of the best recognised trigger points lies in the muscle that is responsible for the shrugging of the shoulders; on deep palpation it is tender in almost every subject. Anatomically, it equates to the site of the acupuncture point known as GB21. There are many more examples of this close correspondence between trigger points and acupuncture points.
As has been mentioned, the randomised control clinical trial is the gold standard in evidence-based medicine. It is, of course, vital to find whether a treatment is more effective than an apparently identical placebo treatment. When testing new drugs, this is quite straightforward; but in research into the relief of pain by acupuncture it is difficult to devise a valid control procedure for the subjects, and virtually impossible to have the therapist in the dark about what treatments he is giving. Placebo relief of pain appears to work by stimulating endogenous opioids, which is a mechanism shared at least in part by acupuncture. The problem is that if you have a placebo effect by sticking needles in elsewhere, they too will work.
To try to overcome this difficulty, an attempt was made to compare four groups of patients with pain in their neck. It was done in four different ways: first, standard needling; secondly, superficial needling; thirdly, a drug called diazepam; fourthly, a placebo diazepam. All the groups, apart from the placebo diazepam group, had significant improvement in their pain. There is now good scientific evidence for relief by acupuncture of pain, nausea, vomiting, dental pain and low back pain.
What should acupuncture practitioners be called? Doctors who use acupuncture would like to retain the term "acupuncturists". Perhaps they should be called "medical acupuncturists", as opposed to those who practice traditional forms, who could perhaps be called "traditional acupuncturists".
So far as concerns teaching, we shall have a major problem if there is any suggestion of doctors having to undergo several hundred hours of instruction in traditional acupuncture theory. This would require the suspension of belief in much of the conventional and neurophysiological bases.
In summary, the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has made an enormous contribution to the subject. It will be a great move forward towards having a much better system, which I trust will be better for patients, practitioners and science.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the Government have already welcomed the Select Committee report. In fact, our response shows that we have already begun to implement many of the recommendations in which we have a role to play. Although I know that noble Lords have had little time to consider the Government's response, I thank them for their general acceptance of the report and their kind comments during this excellent debate.
However, I should like to add my voice to the many notes of appreciation for the work of the sub-committee that have been expressed during the course of the debate. The fact that the report has been so well received in both Houses is testimony to the professionalism and objectivity with which the subcommittee approached its task and, if I may say so, to the quality of the chairman—a great man, of course, from my own county, Durham.
We are most fortunate to have so many medical experts in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Castle was particularly grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was on hand yesterday to help her. I am pleased to say that she has now returned to her home. We look forward to her return to your Lordships' House.
The report published the results of what I believe to be the first comprehensive inquiry into complementary and alternative medicine in the UK by a parliamentary Select Committee. The committee received written evidence from many leading individual experts and professional organisations on both complementary and orthodox medicine.
This debate has touched on the main themes in the report: regulation, education and training, research and the evidence base, information and National Health Service use. It has also mentioned the way in which the report has introduced some structure to the CAM world by classifying CAM therapies into three groups.
I recognise the difficulty in making any generalisation about such a diverse range of therapies. But I think it important that we begin to introduce more structure into the very diverse world of complementary medicine. This might at least help patients and the general public to understand better what they are dealing with.
We do, of course, recognise the difficulty of classifying traditional health systems which, being rooted in cultures that are very different from ours, have not yet come to be fully understood by western science. We have therefore suggested a collaborative arrangement between organisations representing those systems and the professional bodies which regulate the leading components of these traditional systems; namely, acupuncture and herbal medicine.
The structure suggested in the report also provides a useful basis for improving the regulation of complementary therapies. Those practising the complementary therapies listed in Group 1 are already regulated on a statutory basis, or are recommended to give serious consideration to applying for regulation.

513
The acupuncture and herbal medicine professions were specifically recommended as early candidates for statutory regulation under the Health Act 1999.
In view of the potential public health risks posed by unskilled practitioners of acupuncture and herbal medicine, the Government accept that statutory regulation of these therapies is desirable and should be achieved as soon as practicable. Officials have held preliminary discussions with organisations representing both therapies.
Other groups need to progress to the point where each therapy has a single organisation to regulate it on a voluntary basis. In time, the Government would be prepared to consider extending statutory regulation to some therapies in Group 2. But a good case would have to be made for each candidate; most of its practitioners would have to support this move; and there should be a single organisation to regulate the whole profession concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on the regulation of psychotherapists. The Bill is currently going through Parliament. The noble Lord suggested that I had tended to kick it into the long grass. The Government would support the statutory regulation of psychotherapy, but they were not persuaded that the model that has been proposed is the best way of achieving that. I am sure that we shall continue those discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. Whatever may develop from them, the ability and efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in pulling together the various groups of psychotherapists was an achievement which, I admit, was not within the ability of the National Health Service.
What really matters is that, if complementary medicine practitioners are to be recognised as respected members of the caring professions, each of their professions must put in place a sound regulatory framework that will raise standards and protect patients. We have emphasised that in our response. We also emphatically agree with the report's recommendation that only those therapies which are fully regulated could be made available to National Health Service patients.
I should tell my noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Lord. Lord Soulsby, that it will take time to put strong regulation in place in all therapies. However, improved sources of information will educate the public as to the qualifications and regulation to look for in practitioners. At the same time, we have made available a guide on continuous professional development for practitioners, which should help them audit their practice with the guidance of their professional body.
Regulation of products is also important. Following extensive consultation with UK interest groups, we are now working with our partners in Europe on proposals for a directive on traditionally used medicines. The aim is to provide a framework for the effective regulation of traditionally used medicines, including herbal remedies, balancing public safety and consumer choice.
514
In fairness, I turn to the question for the need to recognise the Ayurvedic and traditional Chinese herbal medicines, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. In the European discussions on the draft traditional medicines directive, the UK is arguing that that measure should take account of the herbal traditions from outside the European Union. I hesitate to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, although I know that he will take it in the right spirit, but it is possible that Europe could come to his rescue on this particular issue.
An important function of professional regulation is that of setting standards for training and education. More work needs to be done in setting standards for the training of new complementary medicine practitioners, and of existing healthcare practitioners who want to practise complementary medicine. It is important for the professional bodies involved to agree clear standards, and to work closely together in the process.
The Government agree that all qualifications in complementary medicine should be assessed by the regulatory body that grants the licence to practise the therapy concerned. We should also welcome more standardisation of qualifications within each therapy. This would simplify the recognition of qualifications and make it easier for members of the public to judge the qualifications that practitioners claim to offer.
Healthwork UK, as the national training organisation for the health sector, has a key role to play in developing national occupational standards in complementary medicine. We have now commissioned that body to undertake further work in the area, which should help clarify the standards to which new practitioners should be trained before they begin practising.
Mention has also been made of the need for more research in complementary medicine. However, I believe it is understood that what complementary medicine needs is better, not just more, research. The most popular therapies need at least to be underpinned by more definitive, high-quality research evidence. That will take time to produce, but the opportunities are there for researchers to train in the techniques that they will require. The academic expertise is beginning to come together to help co-ordinate research efforts. However, we recognise the need to develop further research capacity in this field. We shall, therefore, be asking the National Health Service Research and Development Workforce Capacity Implementation Group to consider research capacity development needs in complementary medicine, and how these might be met. One option to explore is that of funding fellowships within the department's priority areas, including funding for pilot projects.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and other speakers, mentioned the issue of financing. Indeed, the noble Lord even suggested that it might be my way to fame, but I doubt that very much. I can tell the noble Lord that the exact amount of funding will depend on the outcome of the early discussions with those who can take forward such matters. As regards what the

515
Government are likely to do in this area, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that we have received written strategies for taking forward research in complementary medicine from three organisations. We find it very encouraging that people are now looking at research in a strategic way. Our response addresses many of the proposals in those strategies, but we shall now go on to discuss with those organisations how to develop and take forward a common strategy for research in complementary medicine.
In the meantime, the Department of Health welcomes applications to fund research projects which include complementary medicine provided that they offer a clear link to one of the NHS priority areas. For example, the NHS Cancer Plan identifies the need to review the evidence of complementary therapies in relation to supportive and palliative care and, as our response states, the department will be seeking high quality proposals for work in this area.
I fully accept that information on complementary medicine, such as it is, needs to be carefully synthesised and made available in a more user-friendly way both to the wider public and to health professionals. The provision of better information for patients is a key feature of the NHS Plan, and work is now in hand to include complementary medicine in the information that will be made widely available.
Our response makes it clear that we expect the National Electronic Library for Health and NHS Direct to be the main conduits through which information on complementary medicine will be made more widely available in the future.
NHS Direct Online already includes some basic information on complementary medicine, and is planning to run a specific feature in April this year. The possibility of including electronic links from NHS Direct Online to other reliable sources of information will also be considered.
To complement that, the Government have already commissioned the Foundation for Integrated Medicine to produce an information leaflet on complementary medicine for patients and the public and provide supporting electronic information.
Complementary medicine can, of course, play a part in treating NHS patients. But if complementary medicine is to be accepted alongside other forms of NHS treatment it must meet the same standards. It must be clear and realistic about the contributions that it can make. It should work in an integrated way with other forms of treatment. Effective regulation of practitioners is essential, as is an appropriate evidence base for the treatments that they offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made a point about primary care groups. We are aware that some concerns have been raised about the impact that these groups are having on the amount of complementary medicine available via GP practices. We agree that the situation should be monitored and the medical care research unit at Sheffield University is already doing that on our behalf.
516
The Government have issued a basic information pack on complementary medicine for primary care groups. The pack focuses on those therapies which are most commonly encountered in NHS primary care and offer advice as to how they might be incorporated into local services. The feedback that we have received suggests that many found it helpful.
Towards the end of this year the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will publish evidence-based guidance to the NHS on supportive and palliative care for cancer patients. The guidance will aim to improve the quality of life for all those affected by cancer. One of the issues that NICE is considering is the potential benefit that cancer patients can derive from complementary therapies.
The Committee's report sets out an authoritative agenda for change. Some of the complementary medicine professions have begun making the improvements they need to secure a more lasting place in public affection. They must now drive forward these changes more decisively, and the professions which have still to put those changes in hand must do so more urgently.
I close by reiterating the Government's welcome for the report. We believe that its main recommendations will do much to protect the interests of patients and consumers. We have been as supportive as possible in our response to the report's recommendations and I hope that that will help to reinforce them. The report will undoubtedly be regarded as a benchmark for complementary and alternative medicine for some years to come.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, it is customary on these occasions when winding up to spend most of one's time responding to what the Government have said about one's report. One of the good reasons underlying that principle is that—I speak from experience in having presented several such reports in the past—on many, many occasions the Government have not found it possible to accept the recommendations set out by a Select Committee. It is rare, in fact unknown in my experience, to find that every single recommendation set out in a Select Committee report is approved and accepted by government. For that reason I can only express on behalf of the sub-committee, which I had the privilege of chairing, our gratitude for the fact that the report has been so greatly welcomed by government.
As the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, has said, it is crucially important that regulatory frameworks be devised for those professions in CAM which are not yet properly regulated in the interests not only of the professions but, above all, in order to protect patients.
I shall return to one or two points made by certain members of my sub-committee. I am deeply grateful for their support, as I said at the outset, and for their endorsement of the principles underlying our report. I offer to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, my thanks for his support and endorsement as chairman of the

517
parent Select Committee. Many of us are sad that his term of chairmanship of that Select Committee has come to an end.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, that it is important—as he rightly said—that safety is one of the paramount features of our report. The noble Lord stressed that. Reference was made to the crucial importance of regulating herbal medicine. That relates to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. That was one of the cornerstones of our recommendations.
I shall return to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in a moment. I can only repeat that we recognise to the full that in Ayurvedic medicine, as practised for centuries in India and in ancient Chinese medicine as practised for centuries in China, many valuable herbal remedies have been identified and many of them have been introduced into western medicine with great success and great efficacy. Indeed, the seminar on Ayurveda that we attended at the Indian High Commission was not concerned with the principles set out in some of the documentation relating to the diagnostic capability of Ayurveda and the principles underlying the practice, but presented to us the scientific results of carefully designed trials of single herbal remedies which would certainly fall into our Group 1 of herbal medicine. That was stressed at the seminar. We would do exactly the same in relation to ancient Chinese herbal remedies. Our problem is that some of those consist of huge concoctions of herbal preparations where it is not easy to obtain consistency and where it is very difficult to determine the active principles involved. But as Ayurveda and Chinese medicine begin to develop the same kind of procedures as are practised now in western herbal medicine clearly those preparations will come into our Group I. There is no doubt of that at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, acupuncture has become an important part of western medical practice. But, on the other hand, as regards the ancient Chinese system of depending upon changes in the pulse resulting from acupuncture and of the identification of acupuncture points corresponding to organs of the body, there is no scientific or credible evidence to support that concept. We encountered difficulties on those issues and on the diagnostic capabilities of ancient Chinese medicine and Ayurveda which is why we classified them in Group 3.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, spoke about a non-patronising attitude of the conventional medical profession. The report demonstrates that patronising attitudes are a thing of the past. Equally, as the noble Lord made clear, we were aware of the sensitivities involved in analysing the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, stressed the crucial importance of research. The Minister referred to that. We believe that the nature of these mechanisms and therapies are subject to examination by research. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others will agree that there is not just the randomised double-blind control trial. That is still the gold standard in conventional medicine. There are other mechanisms of research.
518
One can do sequential trials, comparing one remedy with another in sequence; one can do cross-over trials, comparing remedies by crossing over from one to another; and one can carry out trials comparing the best known conventional treatment against a complementary or alternative treatment. Many techniques of research are available. One of the cornerstones of the government response is their wish to see funding devoted from the government R&D budget to research fellowships to train complementary practitioners in research methods and to help them to associate in an integrated way with schools of medicine and other centres of excellence. My committee will greatly welcome that desire.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred to the partnership between the doctor and the patient. The relationship between the patient and healthcare professionals is crucial. As the noble Lord said, much of what we learned about complementary and alternative medicine has proved to be effective, in particular (although not entirely) in chronic, degenerative and progressive diseases. There are circumstances where some complementary remedies have been shown to be helpful in acute illness. But many have worked best largely in the chronic disorders.
I felt a little uncomfortable—I fastened my jacket—when the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, talked about the bulge of the elderly. But as he said, we were an elderly committee. That is perfectly true. On the other hand, we were people of experience not only in conventional medicine but also complementary and alternative medicine. The outstanding support of noble Lords as co-opted members, and their enthusiastic but critical discussion of the evidence, were enormously valuable.
The noble Lords, Lord Rea, and Lord Turnberg, stressed the placebo effect. We know that the placebo was the cornerstone of medical practice before the Second World War because we had at that time so few effective remedies in conventional medicine. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, in conventional medicine, we have concentrated on compassion, communication, understanding, release of stress and on the management of the worried well—a group of people in whom complementary and alternative practitioners often produce such effective results.
The personal testament of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was moving. His help and support for integration between conventional medical treatment and complementary treatment were one of the cornerstones of the report.
I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about my memory. I am grateful for the support of the report in general terms by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I clearly remember our discussions about whether the noble Lord would wish to table an amendment. He may remember that we agonised over a specific section of the report; the noble Lord had an alternative to offer. Before lunch he indicated that he would wish to propose an amendment, the procedure for which is set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders. The committee agreed to return to the

519
discussion after lunch, by which time, I regret to say, the noble Lord was no longer present in the Committee.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, that was when I gave in.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In any event, my Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's support and I appreciate the points that he made. He made a number of comments about spiritual healing, which was one of the disciplines about which we had some difficulties and anxieties. The same applied, to some extent, to homoeopathy, although it has been practised in the National Health Service for many years. Some of the scientists who gave us evidence said that they could not understand how a remedy that did not contain a single molecule of active substance could work, yet the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, and his colleagues were able to produce some evidence that homoeopathic remedies worked in the animal kingdom, where it was difficult to see that the placebo effect could be active.
Those are some of the problems that we faced. Throughout, we were aware of the words of the Bard:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Some of what we learned was not easily subject to scientific explanation, but nevertheless required further validation and investigation. We were concerned to find no fewer than 12 UK organisations purporting to support healing and spiritual healing. We had no concrete evidence, although we learned of certain trials that had failed to demonstrate any effect. We wished to give warm support to regulation and further investigation in that area.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the welcome that he gave on behalf of his colleagues to the report. He is right that there has been a sea change in attitude on the part of the medical profession towards complementary and alternative medicine. The situation now is quite different from what the British Medical Journal published 20 years ago.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, rightly told us that the evidence base of some conventional medicine—indeed, much of it—is still weak. He gave us a number of important examples. He stressed, as we did, the role of the GP gatekeeper as regards access to complementary and alternative medicine in the NHS. We were certain of the crucial importance of that. As a surgeon, the noble Lord knows that millions of dollars have sometimes been spent on research into various aspects of conventional medicine. He will remember that millions of dollars were spent on trying to discover whether, after a stroke, an intracranial-extracranial bypass made any difference. Many surgeons believed that it did, but after five years of investigation it was shown that that procedure, which is no longer performed, was ineffective. Those lessons from conventional medicine need to be taken on board as the whole field of complementary medicine is studied.
520
Finally, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, for pointing out one important aspect of our report that I did not stress before. Herbal medicine needs closer regulation. We recommend that it should become regulated under the Health Act. The Government have confirmed that. The important point is that herbal remedies can never achieve the same standard of safety and regulation as is necessary in standard pharmacology, but under the European directive they require much closer and more effective regulation than exists at present. We are glad that the Government have confirmed that view.
I do not propose to speak any longer except to say that it has been a privilege to have chaired the inquiry and I am grateful for the warm response given by the House and for the kind things that my colleagues have said. We are particularly grateful to the Government for their positive response to our recommendations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2001
9.49 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall explain the purpose of the order, mention some of its key features and draw the attention of the House to some of the key exemptions. In my view, the provisions of the order are compatible with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act restricts the promotion of financial services unless they are made or approved by an FSA-authorised person. The order defines which financial services are to be subject to that restriction. That is in Schedule 1 to the order.
The order also defines the circumstances in which promotions are exempt from the restriction. There are 60 different exemptions, in some cases applying to the person making the promotion—for example, a passive communicator of data such as the Post Office—and in others to promotions made to certain persons, such as investment professionals. Whether, and to what extent, many of the exemptions apply depends on whether the promotion has been sought by its recipient; in the language of the order, that depends on whether it is solicited or unsolicited. The immediacy of the promotion—again, in the language of the order—depends on whether it is in real time or non-real time.
First, the order consolidates existing restrictions on financial promotion. There is a single restriction on financial promotion under the Act, and a single set of exemptions under the order. Secondly, the order reflects the pace of legislative and technological development. It focuses on the content of a

521
communication rather than on the medium through which it is made. That means that it will not become outdated as new methods of communication are used to promote financial services. As secondary legislation, the order can be updated relatively easily. However, noble Lords should be clear about the fact that any proposal to extend the financial promotion restriction in circumstances in which it did not previously apply will require a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Unlike some of the legislation that it replaces, all the boundaries of the financial promotion restriction will be set by Treasury Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, rather than by the regulator. Thirdly, the order maintains, broadly speaking, the scope of the existing financial promotion regimes.
Let me turn now to two of the key exemptions under the order. The first of these is our proposed exemption for journalists. That has been the subject of much comment. Let me take this opportunity to consider a couple of its aspects. First, it is, as I have just said, an exemption. What we have done is to exempt promotions by journalists precisely because we do not think that it is the role of financial services legislation to regulate responsible financial journalism. As the beneficiaries of an exemption, journalists will not be subject to the financial promotion restriction. That point has often been lost.
Particular attention has been paid to a condition that we have set for the exemption to apply; namely, that, if a journalist promotes a share in which he or she has an interest, that interest is required to be declared. It is a condition for the exemption to apply. It is not in any way a control on what journalists write. Nor will the condition even impinge on a journalist when he merely writes about a company, even if he has shares in that company. The condition will need to be met only if a journalist makes a promotion; that is, an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity and he or she is likely to—not just "may"—benefit financially.
The Government's objective in introducing the condition for disclosure of interest by journalists was to ensure that consumers were not misled by promotions by a journalist of shares in which the journalist has an interest. That objective remains. We have also made it clear that we will consult further on how that objective can be achieved; there are other ways of achieving it in addition to the disclosure condition that is in the order. In particular, following consultation with the Press Complaints Commission, the Government are satisfied that new guidance on the PCC's code of practice, which was published on 19th March, will adequately protect consumers from being misled. The order now reflects that view. Having spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, earlier this evening, I can confirm that that is the PCC's view. It also disapplies the condition for any publication that has systems and procedures in place to prevent promotions without a disclosure of interest. I should make clear that, in light of our commitment to further
522
consultation, we welcome discussion with other relevant regulatory, or self-regulatory, bodies on that issue. Indeed, discussions have already started.
We have made some important exemptions affecting the territorial scope of the financial promotion restriction. We seek a regulatory framework that does not put in place unnecessary or over-burdensome barriers to cross-border financial promotions. In the EU context, that means a "home state" regime, regulation by the UK of promotions from the UK to overseas but no additional restrictions on promotions from other members states to the UK.
The Government have listened to a large number of representations that moving now to a system of home state regulation, in the absence of moves to do so elsewhere, would be over-burdensome in imposing dual regulation on UK firms. We have therefore provided an exemption for most promotions from the UK to overseas. However, I should make it clear that our commitment to a home state regime remains. We will seek this House's approval of legislation to implement a home state regime as and when that is developed. In particular, we will as necessary seek approval to amend this order to implement the forthcoming e-commerce directive before it comes into force next year.
We will also impose a home state regime if it is clear that that is required for reasons of consumer protection. We would if necessary seek approval to amend this order to require all promotions to a certain country or of a certain type to be approved by an authorised person.
As I said at the outset, there are 60 exemptions to the financial promotion restriction. I do not want to try the patience of the House by describing all of them. I have restricted detailed comments to how we have proceeded in respect of journalists and on territorial scope and I hope that is acceptable to the House. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
10 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of what is a complex and far-reaching order. I begin by declaring an interest. I am a director of the Securities and Futures Authority, one of the self-regulatory authorities that is going to be swept up in the new Financial Services Authority. My term of office ends on 31st March—two days from now—but as of this moment I remain a director.
I have a couple of specific points on which I should like the Minister's clarification. However, in view of the volume of statutory instruments, and particularly the length and complexity of this one relating to the Financial Services and Markets Act, perhaps I may seek his view on just one brief general point.

523
The regulatory objectives of the Act are set out in Section 2(2) as being, inter alia, the establishment of market confidence and the protection of consumers—both worthwhile objectives. But it lays on the authority a number of other requirements, notably in Section 2(3)(d):
"The desirability of facilitating innovation in connection with regulated activities".
and paragraph (e),
"the international character of financial services and markets and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom".
This statutory instrument alone is 74 pages long and we must constantly think how we are reconciling those sets of objectives. I tabled a Question today to the Minister asking him how many statutory instruments we will need to pass through before N2 comes about in October and how far we are through that process.
The volume of legislation now hitting financial services is very great. By and large, I am not concerned about big firms; they can look after themselves. If necessary, they will just decamp and leave London. But I am concerned about small firms; and for a small firm to try to pick the bones out of this legislation, let alone the many other instruments coming through, is a grave task indeed. Smaller firms have been the City's lifeblood. They are the ones which often provide new approaches and new services and, as such, they nip competitively at the heels of their larger, lumbering brethren.
But for the most part regulators do not like smaller firms; they represent risk. Above all, they represent risk to the regulator's career when things go wrong. It is much easier to deal with fewer and larger firms which can be more easily regulated. The general view of regulators is to put up a high barrier and have a bias to say "no". If that means that small firms are put out of business, are not formed, or do not begin, so much the better.
Against the background of this instrument, which is complicated and difficult to understand, and the volume of others coming through, I take the opportunity to urge the Minister to keep the issue of preserving London's competitive, innovative edge, as required by the Act, at the forefront of his mind as the flood of statutory instruments continues and, where possible, to restrict, reduce and eliminate them. I hope that during the course of the next few months the Minister will not mind if I remind him of that from time to time.
I turn to the specific statutory instrument before us. I want to ask the Minister about the cold-calling provisions. Cold-calling is the uninvited or unsolicited attempt to sell securities to individuals. It is a pernicious practice which can permit the greedy and predatory to prey on the innocent and unsophisticated. I am pleased to see that the statutory instrument contains the concept of the certified high net worth individual. That is a welcome flexibility which allows people who know what they are doing in the securities markets to be approached with plenty of opportunities.
524
I turn to the non-expert individual and refer to article 6(a), which relates to approaching individuals. The market practice tends to operate in the following way. An individual salesman will call a non-expert and invite that person, not to buy securities or any financial instrument, but merely to meet the salesman for a cup of coffee to discuss his financial affairs. The salesman will take the initiative that the meeting never takes place in the individual's house; he will ensure that the individual is asked to come somewhere, so he has made the effort to travel. It is only then, when the individual has made that move that any transactions are entered into or attempts to sell are engaged in. That practice is not dissimilar to some of the pernicious ways in which timeshares were sold.
It is difficult to understand whether invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity in article 6(a) covers cases of that nature. Would it cover the case where a neutral telephone call is made, as a result of which an individual goes to meet a salesman for a cup of coffee and activities selling financial services follow? If not, there is a potential major hole in the statutory instrument.
I refer the Minister to Article 36(b), which relates to activities conducted in other states within the European Community. This relates to telephone calls into the United Kingdom under the host state regulation, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. Some of the worst problems of cold-calling in the UK markets have occurred from boilerhouses established in Amsterdam, in which there are batteries of telephones with salesmen operating on innocent people in the United Kingdom. Those have now largely been closed down. However, they have moved elsewhere. There is evidence of similar operations in Athens. I am not clear whether under the host state regulation we shall be able effectively to protect unsophisticated UK investors from practices of that nature coming from within another member state of the European Union.
Finally, I turn to Article 62 which deals with the operation of a lighter regulatory regime on the sale of a company with a small number of shareholders. Article 62(3)(c) refers to the lighter regulatory regime being available where the shareholders include a group of connected individuals. That is defined in Article 62 (4)(a)(i) as including a director or manager of a body corporate. I want to know of the Minister why that definition does not include the word "employee", too. It would then read,
"a director, manager or employee of a body corporate".
In such cases we are now often considering not management buy-outs but employee buy-outs where large numbers of staff participate in the purchase of a firm and in due course want to realise that investment at a profit. The regulations as drawn mean that an employee buy-out, where a large number of employees own the shares, would not be able to take advantage of the lighter regulatory regime offered in Article 62.

525
I am sorry to have spoken at length and in such detail. I understand that the Minister may want to write to me subsequently because I have raised detailed questions. However, they are important matters for the City of London, for the firms which work there, and, last but not least, for the investors and the clients who use those services.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, the Act is long and complicated and the order is detailed. Fortunately, it is not very controversial. It was not very controversial in the other place and, subject to a number of questions being asked, I trust that it will not be very controversial here.
It seems to me that the Act is being implemented in a sensible way, as one would expect from the FSA in its present form. It is sensible that three sets of regulations should become one. The new exemptions appear to be sensible: the high net-worth investors; the mere conduits; the exemption of communications by content not the medium; and the exemption of journalists.
I have only one question to ask the Minister. It relates to Article 12, the issue of territorial scope. I am not quite clear where we are on the question of mutual recognition. I understand that if there is no mutual recognition, we do not regulate promotions from the UK to overseas in order to avoid a dual burden. I also understand that if there is dual recognition, we do regulate it but we do not regulate promotions from overseas into the United Kingdom. Is mutual recognition a regime which will come into being in total when everyone has the necessary regulation, or will it be introduced gradually? If so, how will it work? How will the regulations be amended?
I am a little puzzled by one comment the Minister made. He said that the Government will also impose a home state regime if it is clear that that is required for reasons of consumer protection. Does he mean that even if the system of mutual recognition is generally in place we shall disregard it because we believe that one of the members of the EU does not have an adequate system of home regulation? Is that what it is about? That seems to be totally contrary to the spirit of mutual recognition as it is envisaged for financial services. I did not understand that phrase in the Minister's speech and I should be grateful if he could explain it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we are pleased to see that the Government have responded positively to a number of suggestions in respect of their earlier draft. However, there remain some outstanding matters which give us cause for concern.
As with the previous orders, my approach will be to propose particular amendments that I would have tabled had the rules of your Lordships' House permitted me to do so. I comfort myself with the knowledge that the Government have allowed themselves enough time to produce a further revised order to accommodate the amendments that I propose.
526
I turn first to Article 12. We welcome the Government's decision to drop the home state regulation of financial promotion communications where they are received outside the United Kingdom. We also accept the need to place some restriction on unsolicited real time communications, or, more colloquially, cold calls.
However, the exemption for cold calls to overseas recipients still depends on the communicator not carrying on the same business in the United Kingdom. If he does, he is prohibited from making them. We believe it is irrelevant that the communicator carries on the same business in the United Kingdom. If he does so, he is likely to be authorised under the FISMA, in which case the financial promotion restrictions would not apply at all. The importance of widening the exemption is that a financial services firm making a communication from outside the United Kingdom would not be subject to the FSA's financial promotion rules if, as the FSA has indicated, it will not apply those rules to exempted financial promotion communications.
Alternatively, a person may lawfully be carrying on in the United Kingdom a business which involves controlled activities to which the financial promotion restrictions apply, even if he is not authorised under the FISMA. That is because a controlled activity includes not only regulated activities but also activities which would be regulated activities apart from any exemption. Even if an exemption from the need for authorisation applies, the communication may thus, none the less, still be a communication relating to a controlled activity—and so subject to the financial promotion restrictions.
Accordingly, in paragraph (2)(b) of Article 12 the words,
"and which is not carried on in the United Kingdom",
should be deleted.
We also accept that there should be proper procedures to prevent the accidental transmission of exempted communications to non-permitted recipients in the United Kingdom. However, as the prohibition is extended to dealings with close relatives, or group companies, it is important to restrict the prohibition so that it applies only in relation to the communication concerned. For example, a group company may be entitled to make its own communications to the recipient if it was previously a client. Accordingly, in line 3 of Article 12, after the expression,
"engaging",
we propose the insertion of the expression,
"(as a result directly or indirectly of that communication)".
We agree that a communication will still he treated as directed only at persons outside the United Kingdom, even if it is also directed at permitted recipients in the United Kingdom. However, we believe that it would make much more sense to the reader if it is made clear in the order that the permitted

527
recipients are in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, in line 2 of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (5) we recommend the deletion of the expression,
"falling",
and the substitution of,
"who are in the United Kingdom and fall".
Similarly, in sub-paragraph (b), after,
"high net worth persons",
we propose the insertion of,
"in the United Kingdom".
The condition that a communication must not be acted upon by persons in the United Kingdom is supposed to be amended by paragraph (6) of Article 12 so as to allow for the fact that permitted recipients in the United Kingdom may none the less act on it. However, sub-paragraph (b), on its true construction, means that the communication must indicate that it cannot be acted upon by persons who are not permitted recipients, even if those persons are outside the United Kingdom. Instead of extending the prohibition to cover non-permitted recipients outside the United Kingdom, the prohibition should apply only to these non-permitted recipients if they are in the United Kingdom.
In other words, the good intentions of paragraph 6(a) are undermined by the unintended drafting effect of paragraph 6(b). As things stand, the paragraph now covers only individuals outside the United Kingdom if they are high net worth persons.
Accordingly, we propose in sub-paragraph (a), line 2 of paragraph 6, after,
"all persons".
to insert,
"inside the United kingdom",
and in sub-paragraph (b) to make the following amendments: (a) in line 2, delete,
"or by",
and substitute,
"unless they ale";
(b) in line 3, delete,
"do not";
(c) in line 4, delete,
"not".
I turn now to Article 13. The exemption here applies to communications made by a recipient of an investment service. It should cover corporate venturing—for example, advertising the fact that the communicator has money available to invest in startups. That is something which we know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to promote. If in the Minister's view the exemption is not wide enough to cover corporate venturing, we urge that such an exemption is provided.
So far as concerns Article 15, we do not understand why the exemption for communications consisting of introductions to FISMA-authorised or exempted firms only applies to so-called real-time communications. If the exemption is so restricted, it means that. if someone writes a letter to effect the
528
introduction, he will be committing a criminal offence. The previous draft of the order did not have any such restriction.
I turn to Article 18. It is sensible to provide an exemption to those who merely publish communications written by someone else, such as newspapers and Internet servers. However, the exemption should apply even if the principal purpose of the business carried out by the conduit is not, as presently required, transmitting or receiving material provided by others—for example, a newspaper or Internet server, such as Reuters, communicates both its own news items and information supplied by other persons.
We also believe that two other conditions to this exemption are too restrictive. Clearly, the communication should be mainly devised by someone other than the conduit. However, to say that it must be wholly devised by that other person may mean that the exemption will not apply if the conduit—for example, for reasons of space—changes only one or two words. Moreover, although it is right to provide that the conduit should only exercise control over the contents of a communication in certain specified cases. it must be inappropriate to provide that acting at the request of a regulator should only provide an exemption where the regulator is actually empowered to make the request. That would throw the risk of a regulator acting beyond its powers wholly on the conduit which, surely, the Minister must agree, is unfair.
Accordingly, we ask the Minister to make the following amendments to Article 18: first, in paragraph 2(a), line 1, delete the words after,
"carried on by him".
and, in paragraph (2)(b), delete the words,
"wholly devised by another person"
and substitute,
"mainly devised by another person who is identified in it and the communication clearly identifies that that is the case".
Secondly, in paragraph (3)(b), line 1, after "which", we propose the insertion of,
"that person reasonably thinks".
I now turn to Article 30. This is an exemption allowing persons outside the United Kingdom to respond by telephone, or, as they say nowadays, other real time communication, to persons in the United Kingdom who have asked him to contact them. However, as currently written, the exemption does not apply if the overseas communicator carries on the same investment activities from a UK branch. This means that, if he has a UK branch, he cannot carry on a conversation with a person who telephones him from the United Kingdom, even if the financial promotion relates to his non-UK business. We do not understand why somebody who is outside the United Kingdom cannot talk to somebody who is inside the United Kingdom, and who wants to talk to him. merely because he is carrying on the same activity in the United Kingdom.

529
Accordingly, in the definition of "overseas communicator", we propose to delete everything after "means a person who" and to substitute "makes the communication", and then move down after "communication" the last two lines of paragraph (1).
Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that my final remarks are addressed to Article 48, which concerns high net worth individuals. The exemption for communications to certified high net worth individuals should be expanded to apply to communications to recipients who, the communicator reasonably believes, meet the financial tests for high net worth. This is the only way to ensure that the communicator does not commit a criminal offence when he tries to find out whether the recipient falls within the exemption. If the exemption applies only if he really is a certified high net worth individual, the communicator will be committing a criminal offence if he gets it wrong—because experience shows that most high net worth individuals will not, without knowing what the investment opportunity is all about, want to indicate that they are, indeed, properly certified.
Accordingly, in paragraph (1)(b) of Article 48, we suggest the deletion of the word "certified" and the substitution of,
"person the communicator reasonably believes to be a",
and after "individual" the insertion of,
"because he falls within paragraph (3)(c)(i) or (ii)".
In addition, at the end of paragraph (1)(d), I suggest the insertion of,
"and (e) results in the recipient engaging in the investment activity referred to in it if he signifies to the communicator that he is a certified high net worth individual".
The certificate has now been amended so that it relates to future promotions. However, the change has not been made throughout the certificate. Accordingly, further changes ought to be made to paragraph (2)(b) to that effect. Article 50, which deals with so-called sophisticated investors, ought to be amended to the same effect.
I apologise for inserting so many oral amendments in my remarks, but it is a sad fact that your Lordships are unable to amend orders. In these days of skeleton legislation, often the most important rules appear not in the Acts themselves but in the regulations. I hope that one day your Lordships will think that these matters are sufficiently important to change the rules of the House so as to permit amendments in the circumstances of tonight's order.
10.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I may begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that I very much appreciate and sympathise with the point he made about small firms and the need for them to be given an opportunity to understand the regulations to which they are subject. If I then go on to say that we have already tabled
530
15 statutory instruments and that there are likely to be a further 50 instruments, I do not think that he will be much reassured.
I am not sure that I agree with him that regulators tend to fear that infringements will be made by small firms. If I think of some of the debacle regulations under the previous regime, I first call to mind BCCI and Barings rather than any small firms which may have committed infringements. That may not give the noble Lord much comfort, but in my view that is the truth of the matter.
The noble Lord asked me about Article 6(1) concerning cold calling. I understood him to say that he was appreciative of the definition of high net worth, although I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was appreciative in the same way. He asked me how cold calling would qualify in the case of an invitation to what appeared to be a neutral meeting outside the recipient's premises. According to the definition of when a call is solicited, it is solicited only if it is clear that the meeting has been requested by the customer, who knows that financial promotions are going to be made during the meeting or conversation. That is made clear in Article 8(3)(b) of the order.
The noble Lord also asked about Article 36(b) which concerns the protection of UK investors from other states in the European Economic Area. The article makes it clear that any promotion of that kind has to conform with FSA financial promotion rules which will provide the appropriate safeguards. I do not know the answer to his question about Article 62 as regards whether employees are included. I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.
I am grateful for what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. Clearly he has picked up one of the most important aspects of this order; namely, the question of the move towards home state from host state regulation. He asked me why I should have said that we would consider introducing home state regulation for the sake of consumer protection. If I understand his thinking, he is right to say that we are considering here a gradual move rather than an all-in-one move towards home state regulation.
On the issue of consumer protection, only when it is clear, for example, with "boiler room" operations from the United Kingdom, would we require these communications to be approved. We are dealing not only with EU member states in this regard, but also with promotions from third countries. The UK may not be able to question the adequacy of a regime set up under a Community instrument. It might want to scrutinise the adequacy of the regime in a third country.
I believe that I have already dealt with the issue of mutual recognition and how it will come in gradually. However, we want to manage the transition in a way which continues to protect UK consumers, to minimise the burden on business of double regulation and. as I said, to take into account the position of non-EU countries.

531
I shall turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I must say that, while I have heard of manuscript amendments, I do think that oral amendments go a little further. I think that the noble Lord will understand if I say that, to listen to amendments produced in such a way, does not encourage me to believe that I can understand them as fully as he would wish.
I have to make it clear at the outset that we intend this order to proceed as drafted. The noble Lord's comments and his oral amendments are on record in Hansard; I have no doubt that the appropriate authorities will pay attention to them. I shall try to respond to the points he made, if not to their drafting.
The noble Lord spoke, first, about the need for restrictions on cold calls; on unsolicited real-time communications. He suggested that the exemptions for cold calls to overseas recipients still depend on whether the communicator conducts the same business in the United Kingdom. Where unsolicited real-time communications are by a promoter who does no UK business and the recipient is also not in the UK, then, although the promotion may be,
"capable of having effect in the UK"—
perhaps because it relates to a UK investment—it is indeed exempt.
But where a promotion is made from outside the UK, is not directed at the UK but the promoter does do business in the UK, issues of consumer protection arise. A complete exemption would allow UK firms, or firms which operate in the UK, to avoid UK regulation simply by promoting UK products from a branch in another country. We do not think that that is acceptable. I would not accept the noble Lord's amendments on that basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, then said that he hoped that Article 12 would provide that a communication would be treated as directed only at a person outside the United Kingdom even if it were directed at investment professionals and persons of high net worth. I can confirm that a communication can still be regarded as not directed at the United Kingdom even if it is directed at investment professionals and high net worth companies—but not high net worth individuals—in the United Kingdom. I can further confirm that Article 12(6)(b), on which the noble Lord suggested there was some doubt, should not be construed as meaning that promotion to investment professionals and high net worth companies outside the United Kingdom are outside the exemption for promotions to recipients outside the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord queried the drafting of the territorial provisions in rule 3(4) of the FSA rules. Section 145(3) of the Act—which he called skeleton legislation but I do not think anyone who was involved in the legislation last year would call it skeleton legislation—prevents the FSA from making financial promotion rules for authorised persons other than in circumstances in which, if the person were not authorised, he would contravene the financial
532
promotion restriction. If the current draft of the FSA rules do not meet its requirement, they will have to be amended.
As to Article 13 and corporate venturing, I wish to make it clear that Article 13 is not intended to cover corporate venturing. The exemption in the article applies to communications made to one other person only.
Article 15 refers to an exemption for communications which consist of introductions to firms authorised or exempted by the Financial Services and Markets Act applying only to real-time communications. That is because there is a separate exemption in Article 28 for one-off communications, which should cover introductions to firms, which applies to all non-real-time communications.
The noble Lord suggested that the exemption in Article 18 should apply even if the principal purpose of the business carried on by the conduit is not that of transmitting or receiving material provided by others. Those who pass on promotions should exercise some due diligence in ensuring that the promotion is either exempt or has been approved by an authorised person. Organisations such as the Post Office or Freeserve, whose principal purpose is transmitting or receiving material provided by others, cannot he expected to undertake such due diligence for information which they transmit, but that does not apply to companies which, although they do not exercise control, are not merely passive transmitters. We think that it is appropriate that such companies which do not meet the principal purpose test should be required to operate a degree of due diligence or restrict their promotions to those who fall within one of the other exemptions.
The noble Lord suggested that the communication should be devised by someone other than the conduit—in other words devised wholly by the other person. He said that the provision could mean that the exemption could be challenged. What matters is the extent to which the communicator, under the provision in Article 18 in respect of promotion, selects, modifies or otherwise exercises control over its content. This could only be considered on a case by case basis. But if a communicator is more than a passive transmitter of information, then he is not a mere conduit.
The noble Lord suggested that it is inappropriate that in certain cases we provide that acting at the request of a regulator should provide an exemption only when the regulator is empowered to make the request. If the mere conduit acts reasonably in responding to the request of the statutory body but it later turns out that the body did not have the power to make the request, the mere conduit would be able to rely on the defence in Section 25(2)(b) of the Act:
"that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence".
The noble Lord then referred to Article 30 and queried why someone who is outside the United Kingdom cannot talk to someone who is in the United Kingdom just because the person outside the

533
United Kingdom is carrying out the same activity within the United Kingdom. Articles 30 to 33 essentially replicate the position for overseas communicators in previous legislation. There is a risk of persons doing business in the UK avoiding UK regulation if they can simply locate their promotional activity in another country. People outside the United Kingdom who are also doing business in the UK can, of course, take advantage of all the other exemptions.
The noble Lord queried in some detail the definition of,
"certified high net worth individuals"
in Article 48. The whole point is that it is selfdefinition—that those who have chosen to be certified should receive these promotions, not all high net worth
534
investors. Those who do not want them do not need to have them, because they do not need to go through the certification process. So we propose to retain the requirement that a third party should certify and that certification should be a prior condition for receiving a promotion. The same applies to sophisticated investors.
I hope that that has covered the majority of the detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I do not believe that he has dented the wording of the regulation and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Magistrates: Political Affiliations
  Magistrates: Political Affiliations
  Civil Procedure Rules
  Civil Procedure Rules
  Public Trust Office
  Public Trust Office
  Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill: Draft
  Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill: Draft
  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: Consultation on Orders
  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: Consultation on Orders
  Rural Tourism Initiatives
  Rural Tourism Initiatives
  Silbury Hill
  Silbury Hill
  London Underground: Escalator Replacement
  London Underground: Escalator Replacement
  London Underground: Delays to Trains
  London Underground: Delays to Trains
  Maritime Safety: IMO "White List"
  Maritime Safety: IMO "White List"
  Foreign Seafarers' Qualifications: Scrutiny
  Foreign Seafarers' Qualifications: Scrutiny
  Experience Corps Company Proposal
  Experience Corps Company Proposal
  Pensioners Living Abroad: Pensions Uprating
  Pensioners Living Abroad: Pensions Uprating
  Asylum Applications by Zimbabwean Nationals
  Asylum Applications by Zimbabwean Nationals
  Immigration Act Detainees, Lindholme and Haslar Prisons: Telephone Calls and Faxes
  Immigration Act Detainees, Lindholme and Haslar Prisons: Telephone Calls and Faxes
  Immigration Act Detainees, Belmarsh Prison
  Immigration Act Detainees, Belmarsh Prison
  Winson Green Prison: Action on Chief Inspector's Report
  Winson Green Prison: Action on Chief Inspector's Report
  British Citizenship Application Procedures
  British Citizenship Application Procedures
  Special Educational Needs Children: Inclusion Costs and Resources
  Special Educational Needs Children: Inclusion Costs and Resources
  Afghanistan: Humanitarian Assistance
  Afghanistan: Humanitarian Assistance
  BSE
  BSE