Sitting of 3 May 2001

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

  Marks and Spencer
  Helen Jones (Warrington, North): What support he is providing for those facing redundancy as a result of the planned closure of Marks and Spencer Direct. [159055]
  The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The North West development agency has met the local management team at Marks and Spencer in Warrington and discussed possible assistance, including access to the rapid response fund. Other partners, including the Employment Service, the Cheshire and Warrington local skills council and Warrington borough council are also ready to provide support and guidance to the staff affected.
  Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and for the support that we have had from his Department so far. Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that Marks and Spencer works in close liaison with the economic development department of the local council, which is doing its best to find jobs for those who will lose their current posts? Will he also tell me what funds will be available for retraining for those who need it?
  Mr. Johnson: I can assure my hon. Friend that all the agencies will work together to ensure that we mitigate the effects of this announcement. Incidentally, Invest UK has sent details of the Marks and Spencer facilities at Warrington to its key overseas posts, which are making contact with the relevant companies in their regions that might be interested in acquiring the site. It has also achieved agreement from Marks and Spencer that all the facilities in the surrounding outlets, including the distribution centre at Warrington, will be made available. We particularly want to ensure that the call centre is taken over as a going concern, including the facility of financial assistance. My hon. Friend has represented her constituents assiduously in this case and we will do all that we can to work with her to find a satisfactory conclusion.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Is the Minister aware that closures at Marks and Spencer always have a
  962
  devastating effect in my constituency, particularly in Hinckley? Will he reflect on the fact that, after four years of Labour Government, there has been an endless list of closures of firms in the hosiery and knitwear industries in my constituency, including Pex, Brookside Dyers, Smallshaw group, Stannards and Capital Leisure? There is a perception that the Government have done absolutely nothing for manufacturing in the midlands and especially in my constituency.
  Mr. Johnson: I am aware of the job losses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The textiles and clothing industry has been going through a hard time. What we have done, in co-operation with the industry and its work force, is to set up the national strategy for the UK textiles and clothing industry, which includes a whole series of initiatives supported by the industry, to improve its competitiveness. We will continue that work to ensure that the kind of losses suffered by the hon. Gentleman's constituents are mitigated and that there will be a turnaround in the industry.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Denis MacShane: If he will make a statement on the future of the UK steel industry. [159059]
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): This morning, Corus has announced that it intends to proceed with the redundancies that it first outlined on 1 February. I know that many Members will understand and share the bitterness felt by Corus workers at this decision. Our priority now must be to offer practical support to the individuals affected and to put in place measures to promote economic regeneration and job creation.
  For the individual steelworker, we will provide training opportunities and support from the Employment Service. In addition, to assist those individuals we will introduce a modernised form of the previous iron and steel employees re-adaptation benefits scheme—ISERBS. We shall do this under article 56 of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. Under our proposed scheme, we will draw down European Community funds, which are available only until July 2002, so that each worker will receive an additional lump sum of about £2,500. That will complement the support for training that we are also making available and the employment credit for the over-50s.
  The revised ISERBS scheme will cover not only those steelworkers affected by the announcement of 1 February, but all those made redundant from January 2000. About 12,000 steelworkers will benefit. In England, we shall put in place a package of regeneration measures at a cost of £48 million. A programme on a similar scale is being announced by the First Minister in Wales.
  When Corus first announced these redundancies, we said that we would not walk away from the workers affected, their families or the communities in which they live. With a programme of action to bring hope to individuals and economic regeneration and job creation to those areas involved, today we are delivering on that commitment.
  Mr. MacShane: Steelworkers will be sad that Corus has broken off its talks with the trade unions, turned away

  963
  from the path of partnership and put 6,000 men on the dole. It has done so in a context in which the steel industry has inherited politics that have been hostile to manufacturing for 20 years. In the 1990s, Britain was the only country in which steel consumption went down, while it went up in America and Europe.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about people losing their jobs, but he must ask a question so that the Minister can reply to it.
  Mr. MacShane: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning Corus, and will he ensure that the ISERBS money that I first suggested, I think, last year is brought quickly into play? Will he also leave on his desk, for either himself or his successor, some new thinking on how manufacturing can be supported after the election? While he and the Prime Minister are committed, the attitude in Whitehall and the City remains hostile. We need a new deal and a new manufacturing policy.
  Mr. Byers: I will leave a memo for myself on my return to the Department. It will make it clear that manufacturing must be regarded as a priority for any country that wants a stable economy in the future.
  My hon. Friend made two specific points about the modernised ISERBS. We will deliver it as quickly as we can. It is subject to approval from the European Community, but we have notified the Community of our intention to introduce a scheme, and we expect approval to be given very soon.
  As for the actions of Corus, we hoped that the company was genuine when it said that it wanted to discuss with the unions proposals for restructuring to find an alternative way forward. It is a matter of deep regret, to say the least, that when the unions presented their alternative proposals on a plant-by-plant basis, they were rejected out of hand by Corus. I think that when the management of Corus reflect on their actions in this whole saga, they will realise that the trade unions were right and Corus was wrong.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State will know that Corus is maintaining its operations in other parts of the world. Since its decision, Motorola has also had to make a decision about whether to close plants in Britain or in Germany. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a director of Motorola has reminded me that, during his stewardship of the Department of Trade and Industry—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow a question on Motorola; the hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the steel industry.
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman going to ask about steel?
  Mr. Fabricant: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  I was reminded that, during the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship, the United Kingdom's competitiveness has fallen from fourth place to 10th. Would that not have affected Corus's decision on whether to stay open in the
  964
  United Kingdom, just as it affected Motorola's decision? Why is Corus closing in the United Kingdom, and not in Germany and the United States?
  Mr. Byers: If the hon. Gentleman looks at figures showing the way in which manufacturing employment has declined in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States—all the major industrialised countries—he will see that the percentage fall has been broadly the same in all those countries.
  What the hon. Gentleman failed to mention was that this morning Ernst and Young is publishing its latest figures on inward investment in Europe. It has said very clearly that the United Kingdom is the number one location for such investment.
  Mr. Llew Smith: I welcome the package negotiated by the Government, particularly the additional money for Ebbw Vale and the additional £2,500 for each worker who has been made redundant. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that no package deal can compensate for the loss of more than 1,000 jobs in Blaenau Gwent, one of the poorest areas in the United Kingdom? Does he also accept that since Corus was formed, instead of concentrating their energies on building up the steel industry, Moffat and his fellow directors have done nothing but asset-strip the industry and line their own pockets? Does he agree that the honourable thing for Moffat and his directors to do now is resign?
  Mr. Byers: There is no doubt that today's confirmation by Corus of its decision will be a bitter blow for Blaenau Gwent, and for communities in that part of south Wales. The First Minister is making a statement in the Welsh Assembly today, outlining a package of some £32 million to help Ebbw Vale and Llanwern overcome the difficulties that they will face.
  My hon. Friend is right to point out that although there will be a measure of regeneration and job creation, that will not help individuals who face the prospect of losing their employment now. They need to know that they have a Government working alongside them, alongside their unions and alongside their community to find a better way forward, and that is what the package seeks to achieve.
  As I said at the outset, the bitterness and anger felt by Corus workers will be shared by many Members of Parliament. What we must now do is work through this difficult period, and offer individuals, their families and communities, in Blaenau Gwent and elsewhere in Wales and England, some real hope for the future.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): Given the evidence that the Welsh Affairs Committee heard yesterday from the joint chair and chief executive of Corus that the Government have been on notice of huge redundancies since the beginning of last June and that he has met the right hon. Gentleman several times, why has no rescue package whatever been offered to the company until now?
  Mr. Byers: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware, because he has followed the discussion, that a package was offered to Corus, but was turned down. Sir Brian Moffat indicated very clearly that the measures that we

  965
  were prepared to put in place were not significant in terms of the overall problem that he faced, but a package was there. We have had this discussion in the House before. Corus was simply not interested in the package.
  I have noted what Sir Brian Moffat said before the Welsh Affairs Committee yesterday, but I reinforce the point that I have made to the House on previous occasions—we were ready and willing to come forward with a package, but Corus was simply not interested.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Is not it contemptible that this amoral international company played off one group of workers in this country against groups of workers elsewhere? Newport will suffer severely from Corus's decision, but it is a resilient town that will start to fight back now.
  Although we are grateful for the resurrection of ISERBS, will the Secretary of State and the Government look at the proposal by Newport borough council to introduce a regeneration company, which will act positively to rebuild the economy of Newport—which still remains, even after Corus's decision, the most attractive place in Wales for new business investment?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right. Great strengths exist in Newport which will see it through the difficulties that it will face over the coming weeks and months. He makes an important point about the valuable role that an urban regeneration company can play. In his announcement in Cardiff this morning, the First Minister will outline that that is very much one of the options that he wants to pursue with the local partners in Newport and in that part of south Wales.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The Secretary of State is now trying to clear up the mess in the steel industry of his own making and as usual he blames everyone but himself. It is the Government who have been in charge of economic policy for the past four years. Will he confirm that, this week, he received a letter from seven manufacturing trade associations describing what they call a downward spiral in their industries, and demanding the withdrawal of what they term the damaging and unfair climate change levy and a halt to the 10 business regulations a day that the Government have imposed on them over the past four years? Will he also confirm that, according to the Government's own figures, the productivity gap in the steel industry and in other British industries has widened since 1997? Before he denies that, it comes from his Department's expenditure report published two months ago.
  In the face of the mounting job losses and all the complaints from the people at the front line of British industry, will the Secretary of State at last start to listen to what manufacturing is telling him and start to stand up for British industry against the demands of the Treasury, or is he content for manufacturing to be the sector that Labour forgot?
  Mr. Byers: Because it suits the right hon. Gentleman's purpose, he does not mention the fact that large sections of manufacturing are desperate for this country to join the single European currency. He does not mention that because it does not fit in with his political agenda. He wants to make a broader political point, so he ignores the
  966
  situation in steel. He mentioned productivity. He needs to be aware that the 6,000 people who have today been made redundant by Corus are some of the most productive steel workers in the world—that is the reality of the situation.
  Steel productivity has improved dramatically in recent years. Decent, hard-working people have been affected by today's decision. As the main question is on steel, the right hon. Gentleman should consider the steel productivity figures. If he addressed that issue, he would realise that those people are productive workers who have dramatically improved their productivity.
  Steelworkers across the country, whether in south Wales or in Teesside, know what happened to their industry under years of Tory rule—they were slaughtered under the Tories, and nothing was done to help them. They were the innocent victims. The Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member walked away from what they did, but we will not do that.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Minister and to Opposition Front Benchers that I want shorter questions and shorter replies.

  Regional Investment
  Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on his strategy for promoting inward investment in the English regions. [159060]
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): Invest UK is the Government agency that promotes the whole of the United Kingdom as the best inward investment location in Europe, and it works in partnership with the United Kingdom's development agencies.
  As my right hon. Friend said, Ernst and Young's "Investment Monitor" was issued today and shows very clearly that the UK's number of inward investment projects has increased by 13 per cent. on last year. The UK enjoys investment rate growth that is more than twice that of Europe, and we are Europe's favourite investment location. Our market share has also gone up by 2 per cent., so that we now receive 26 per cent. of all investment into Europe.
  Ms Winterton: Almost 6,000 jobs in Yorkshire and Humberside have been created as a consequence of inward investment secured by Yorkshire Forward. However, if our region is to be at the leading edge of the knowledge economy, we will have to increase the amount of high-quality inward investment in research and development. When my right hon. Friend next meets Yorkshire Forward, will he discuss with it what can be done across Government to increase such investment and to help restructure our industrial base in the region, particularly in the light of today's announcement by Corus?
  Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. Regional development agencies, particularly the one that operates in my hon. Friend's constituency in Yorkshire, have been established in the north-west and the north-east to organise inward investment from north America to what they call the greater north of England. Additionally, in our White Paper a few months ago we considered the matter of clusters. We are now rewriting

  967
  the cluster policy as an inward investment prospectus for all those who want to invest internationally in our knowledge economy. I think that that will keep us at the leading edge of technology and ensure that we continue to move manufacturing up the value-added chain.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: What real help is the Department of Trade and Industry giving to businesses that have already invested in the regions, but recently found their business decimated by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease? After examining the small print of the help that the Government are offering, many businesses see very little, if any, real help being offered. It is another example of all spin and no substance.
  Mr. Caborn: There is to be a statement on foot and mouth later today—
  Mr. Baldry: What about the Department of Trade and Industry?
  Mr. Caborn: The regional development agencies in the four worst-hit regions have had an additional £15 million on top of the £8 million available in their own budgets. I know that they have been working very hard. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E—Commerce and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment have been working with the regional development agencies to ensure that they mitigate the worst circumstances being experienced in those regions by the businesses to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: What support he will give to the development of offshore wind energy generation. [159061]
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): Offshore wind will be eligible for the new renewables obligation that we propose to introduce this October. Of the £260 million allocated for renewables support over the next three years, at least £49 million has been allocated specifically for offshore wind, and that sum may well increase.
  Mr. Blizzard: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that East Anglia is in an ideal position to develop offshore wind power. SLP Engineering of Lowestoft, a company with a fine track record in fabricating offshore oil and gas platforms, is in the right place to develop, manufacture and erect offshore windmills, and is already building a prototype offshore wind turbine at Britain's most easterly point. Given the downturn in the offshore oil and gas fabrication industry, will he consider the company's eligibility for diversification grant to provide much-needed jobs in Lowestoft, which has been designated an assisted area by his Department?
  Mr. Hain: By all means, I will consider that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: SLP Engineering has a fine reputation in offshore gas and oil exploration, drilling and platform construction. We would like the company, and the industry around my hon. Friend's constituency,
  968
  to diversify increasingly from oil and gas—although maintaining that where appropriate—and explore the enormous potential for offshore wind development.
  We recently announced 18 new projects, right around the coast of England and Wales. The forthcoming renewables obligation will provide £3 billion of investments, and the Government are supporting that with more than £250,000 of research and development project aid grant. We can drive forward the renewables agenda, bringing to it our unique expertise on the UK continental shelf.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: The Minister said in The Times yesterday that if Labour was re-elected, he wanted a second Labour term to be more radical and left wing. Would that increased left-wing verve mean even more regulation for energy companies and industry generally? Would it mean even more levies on consumers electricity bills and increased electricity costs for both consumers and industry, as he imposes higher and higher renewables targets? Does he accept that a gloves-off second Labour term would be a disaster for the energy sector and a disaster for British industry?
  Mr. Hain: I note that the hon. Gentleman has already conceded the general election. The answer to all his questions is no. I remind the House and the public that the Conservatives' record on renewables in 18 years of government was pathetic. We are now driving forward the agenda. More and more green energy will be the future for Britain, and, yes, I do see myself and the Government championing that. The Prime Minister has put his considerable authority behind it, with the announcement of £100 million of new support for renewables.
  Mrs. Betty Williams: My hon. Friend's answer is of great importance to constituencies in the north-west. Is he aware of the major significance for manufacturing in my constituency, where Cambrian Engineering, based on the Llandegai industrial estate in Bangor, is a leading company in wind farm equipment? Does he agree that offshore wind farms can also be tourist attractions and will be a benefit to the coastal strip in north Wales?
  Mr. Hain: I very much agree. Indeed, I had the privilege of visiting Cambrian Engineering with my hon. Friend before the previous general election. I was very impressed with its desire to increase production so as to rival the Scandinavian producers of wind turbines, and towers in particular, in which the company has especial expertise. We want to harness the enormous potential of offshore and, indeed, onshore wind in Britain, and in my hon. Friend's constituency in particular.

  Consumer Rights
  Mr. Simon Hughes: What plans he has for reviewing the rights of consumers after (a) bankruptcy and (b) insolvency. [159062]
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): I have no such plans at present.
  Mr. Hughes: That is not good enough. With that kind of answer, the Minister may not even get re-elected.

  969
  I have a constituent on jobseeker's allowance, and another who is a pensioner, who each lost about £1,000 deposit when they paid for some furniture offered for sale by Uno for World of Leather, which went into liquidation in March 2000. They are entirely dissatisfied, as are thousands of consumers, because the companies appear to have known that they were going into insolvency when they did the business. They reformed within two weeks, having been sold on to another company, and reopened as New World of Leather.
  If the customers had been able to pay by credit card, they might have been protected. As they were not able to do so—as many poorer people are not—they had no protection. The law needs fundamental change. Can the Minister be much more effective, much less complacent and promise some action from Labour, because otherwise it might have to come from someone else?
  Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious question. Some 21,000 customers of Uno were affected and we immediately asked the administrators to submit a report to the Secretary of State. An interim report was submitted in September 2000 and our insolvency service started working on the question of disqualification. The final report was submitted in April and we shall now consider what action to take on the disqualification of directors. In conjunction with the Office of Fair Trading, we are considering a new code, and a consultation document has been issued. The Government believe that the voluntary code of practice can still play an important role.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, those with credit cards have some safeguard when paying a deposit if it is more than £100, and we recommend that people ensure that it is. We are taking action to ensure that rogue traders are rooted out and, if necessary, disqualified. I remind the House that some 2,800 directors have been disqualified in the past two years.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: It disturbs me to agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but he and I, like many other hon. Members, have constituents who suffered as a result of the closure of World of Leather. I urge that action be taken for the sake of the consumer and for people such as a constituent of mine who runs a small engineering business. He was recently affected by the closure of Wadkin of Leicester, which left him with a £46,000 debt from that company. My constituent's company may go under as a consequence, yet Wadkin knew full well that it was going under at the time. Much more protection should be given to small businesses and individuals in that situation, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to build on the code of conduct and consider further legislation in the next Parliament.
  Mr. Caborn: As I said, a consultation document has been issued by the Office of Fair Trading, and I agree that we need to try to tighten up the operation of the code. However, we do not want to place an undue burden on business because the customer will have to pay for whatever policing we put in place. We will try to root out
  970
  unacceptable behaviour through the voluntary code, and we are consulting with all parties to try to toughen the code of conduct.
  Mr. Richard Page: Instead of giving such a weak and spinning answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), why does not the Minister apologise for the fact that the Government have broken their promise to introduce a consumer Bill in this Parliament? Why does he not say, "We are very sorry, but we have produced only half an insolvency Bill because we were late sending out the second half of the consultation"? Why does he not apologise for spending £200,000 and more persecuting a poor hapless Sunderland fruit and vegetable trader for the heinous and terrible crime of selling 34p worth of bananas in pounds rather than in kilograms? It takes a man to apologise, and I invite the Minister to be such a man.
  Mr. Caborn: I think that is from the World of Leather to the world of blather. The hon. Gentleman has excelled himself in probably the last Trade and Industry questions in this Parliament, and I shall treat his remarks with the contempt they deserve.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The first Bill on which I worked after my election in 1979 was the one that became the Competition Act 1980. We discussed this very issue during our proceedings, and for 20 years since then Back-Bench Members of all parties have pushed successive Governments on the matter. I will not be in the next Parliament, but may I express the hope that the Government will really sort the problem out? It is a major problem, and consumers all over Britain are very angry.
  Mr. Caborn: First, may I, on behalf of the House, thank my hon. Friend for what he has done at Question Time while he has been a Member of Parliament? He has successfully probed many a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for 20 years for consumer protections, and that is to his credit. When the Government are re-elected, I hope that we will take on board the serious comments that he has made over the years, and that we will be able to encapsulate that in the action that we take.

  Manufacturing (Vale of York)
  Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on manufacturing industry in the Vale of York. [159063]
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are supporting manufacturing business in the Vale of York and throughout the Yorkshire and Humber regions. We have allocated an extra £50 million a year over the next three years to regional development agencies. That includes £10 million to Yorkshire Forward to promote innovation and economic development throughout the region.
  Miss McIntosh: Is not the Minister ashamed that the Government have presided over 350,000 job losses in manufacturing industry across the country? More than 600 such jobs have been lost in the Vale of York.

  971
  Samsung closed its plant at Flaxby Moor, and more than 100 jobs were lost. British Aerospace lost its plant at Sutton-on-the-Forest, with a loss of more than 50 jobs. The Monroe shock absorber factory closed last year and 392 jobs were lost, and 76 jobs will be lost when the Lawson Mardon packaging factory closes in June. In addition, 64 jobs are under threat at Range Powermax. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have failed manufacturing in the Vale of York?
  Ms Hewitt: I am astonished that the hon. Lady made no reference to the 1 million jobs lost in manufacturing industry in the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. Many of those jobs were in the Vale of York. The Government will take no lectures about manufacturing industry from the hon. Lady or from any other Conservative Member. It is a great pity that the hon. Lady does not recognise the many strengths of manufacturing industry, in her constituency and across the country.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that productivity in the steel industry has grown, but productivity has grown in manufacturing industry in general at a rate of 6 per cent. a year. There has been an increase in manufacturing output and exports in the past three months, and forecasters generally agree that there will be further growth this year. Unlike the record of the previous Government, that is a record of which we can be proud.

  Chemical Industry
  Mr. Derek Twigg: What contribution the chemical industry in (a) the UK and (b) the north-west made to GDP in the last year for which figures are available. [159064]
  The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): In 1997, the chemical industry nationally accounted for 2.2 per cent. of the UK's GDP, with approximately 0.5 per cent. attributable to the north-west.
  Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recognise the strategic importance of the Ineos Chlor firm in Runcorn, in my constituency? It is the second biggest chlorine producer in Europe and employs about 2,000 people. Will he do all that he can to ensure that the firm's grant application comes to a successful conclusion soon? The background is that there have been 450 redundancies in my constituency, and that ICI may not have given the firm all the details and information necessary to make investment decisions before it was sold.
  Finally, will my hon. Friend do what he can to help the employees and managers at Bush Boake Allen Inc. in my constituency? They are in the middle of a management buy-out at the moment, and redundancies are also possible there.
  Mr. Johnson: We are in touch with both companies. Ineos is one of the most important chlorine producers in the country. We are in close touch with Ineos and the regional development agency in connection with future support for the company. As we speak, we are discussing a regional selective assistance application for the plant.
  972
  We are also in close contact with the other company mentioned by my hon. Friend. The chemicals industry is very important to the country, and in fact is the largest manufacturing sector. It is especially important to the north-west. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the north-west chemicals initiative. We intend to ensure that the sector and the region get the fullest support from the Government.
  Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister will know that the Government's new energy tax will hit manufacturing and chemical industries in the north and the midlands especially hard. It will not hit service industries in the south so hard. What calculations has he made of the net outflow of tax revenue from the north and the midlands that will occur because of the introduction of the climate change levy?
  Mr. Johnson: The DTI has negotiated successfully with the chemicals industry the levy discount scheme of up to 80 per cent., which the industry has greatly welcomed. The plant that has just been mentioned—Ineos—pays no climate change levy. It is exempted because it is part of the electrolysis process, which is very important.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: E-business.
  Mr. Johnson: Yes, but I think the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is exaggerating the effect of a very important process in ensuring that we keep to the Kyoto commitments, which I believe all parties should fully support.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Given the importance of the sector to the north-west, and the fact that, as it is a higher paid industry with lots of housing associated with former workers close by, pockets of deprivation have inevitably been created close to the industry, will my hon. Friend enter into discussions with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the industry to see what positive measures can be put in place to help to regenerate employment in areas close to the sector?
  Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The chemicals industry is so important to the north-west because of the points that he makes. The RDA has made the chemicals industry a priority for that region. However, it is important to emphasise that the growth in chemicals has consistently outpaced the growth in the economy overall. Indeed, the growth in the chemicals sector last year was double that of manufacturing in general. The industry has a good future, but we must ensure, as my hon. Friend says, that we deal with some of the problems that we inherited from the past.

  Chester Street Holdings
  Mr. Alan Campbell: What plans he has to institute a DTI inspector's inquiry into the events leading up to the collapse of Chester Street Holdings. [159066]
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I share my hon. Friend's concern about the collapse of Chester Street Holdings and the dreadful situation of thousands of men who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases and whose employers' insurance policies were held by that firm. We are working across Government to resolve this very complex situation as quickly as possible to help the sufferers and their families.
  Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware of the great sense of anger on Tyneside at the way in which asbestos victims are being denied proper compensation while directors of the company, such as Mr. Robert Hardy, are lining their pockets with huge wage rises and bonuses? What assurances can my hon. Friend give that all asbestos victims will receive proper compensation, and that lessons will be learned from this, not just for workers in other industries, but for the insurance industry as a whole?
  Ms Hewitt: I am indeed aware of the anger and despair felt by the victims and their families. Let me make it clear that we will not allow the insurance industry to walk away from Chester Street Holdings or from the people who thought that their employers had effective insurance cover with that company. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Policyholders Protection Board will protect individuals whose employer no longer exists and whose insurance policy was compulsory. We are working with the insurance industry, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has made clear, to deal with the position of employees whose employer no longer exists but whose insurance cover was not compulsory. Between us, we will ensure that lessons are learned and that matters are put right, not only for these individuals but for the future.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The collapse of Chester Street Holdings needs investigating. However, does the hon. Lady agree that it is no use having a report unless it is published? So before she launches a new DTI inquiry, will she reveal the information that her Department already holds on the connection between the late Robert Maxwell, the business dealings of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), and the funding of the Labour party? Will she confirm that that report was carried out two years ago by her Department, but it remains a cover-up because it had not been—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is narrower than the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises. Any right hon. or hon. Member who is attacked in any way should be given notice of that, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has given such notice. However, the original question was far narrower than the area that he is going into.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not attacking the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West—I am simply pointing out the subject of a report that is held by the DTI and which is not being published, in defiance of all the
  974
  principles of openness and good government. Will the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce publish that report?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. What the Minister will do is reply on Chester Street Holdings. If the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say about Chester Street Holdings, the Minister will have nothing to say, either.
  Ms Hewitt: I think that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has made clear his complete lack of interest in the victims of the collapse of Chester Street. It was the Labour Government who, in 1999, banned the importing, the sale and the use of all forms of asbestos. In relation to Chester Street, we are seeing—in those victims—the effect of years of neglect of asbestos problems by previous Governments.
  On the other matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made the legal position clear. The right hon. Member for Wells does not seem interested in facts of law on that case.

  Euro
  Dr. Julian Lewis: What the implications are for businesses of replacing the pound by the single European currency. [159069]
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Provided the five economic tests laid down by the Chancellor are met, and the Government, Parliament and the British people agree to join, we believe that there would be benefits for British business in membership of the single European currency, particularly in respect of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability.
  Dr. Lewis: I congratulate the Secretary of State on reading out his mantra so fluently. If there are those benefits, how can he explain the discrepancy that, whereas British public opinion is against joining the single currency and scrapping the pound to the tune of two thirds of the entire population, British businesses are against joining the single currency and scrapping the pound to the tune of three quarters of British businesses? What do British businesses know that make them so much more opposed to new Labour's policy of scrapping the pound than even the vast majority of the electorate at large?
  Mr. Byers: I do not know the source for the hon. Gentleman's view that three quarters of British businesses are opposed, but certainly the CBI and British Chambers of Commerce—[Laughter.] It is an interesting change in the political landscape when a mention of the CBI has Tory Members groaning. What a change we have seen! The reality is that the CBI knows that the Government's policy on the single currency is the right one—for the simple reason that we are putting the national interest first, not the interest of party. The issue divides the Conservative party from top to bottom—that is the reality. The Conservatives have therefore cobbled together a

  975
  policy that really does not stand up to the tests. The Government's policy is clear. Our view is: why not simply let the British people decide?
  Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the particular pressures of our being outside the single currency for foreign companies making investment decisions in the UK? He is aware that the US-owned company British Timkin has closed in Northampton, with the loss of 950 jobs. People in Northampton appreciated the prompt response of the Government in setting up a taskforce. I wonder if my right hon. Friend could—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but people in Northampton appreciated that response, which was in marked contrast to anything done about job losses by the Conservative Government.
  Will my right hon. Friend give two assurances? First, while trying to attract inward investment, will there be a focus on bringing high quality engineering and manufacturing jobs to Northampton to replace those that were lost? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend say what the Government intend—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has enough to go on with.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are major international companies, such as British Timkin, that have taken decisions in relation to the weakness of the euro vis-à-vis the strength of sterling, and that, clearly, was one of the reasons behind the decision that British Timkin took. The Government will not walk away from the difficulties created by that decision, but will work with local people, local Members of Parliament and local businesses to see Northampton through those difficulties.
  My hon. Friend is also right to say that there are major inward investors who have made it very clear that, if the Government had ruled out joining the single European currency for a fixed period, inward investment decisions would not have been made in favour of the United Kingdom. The head of Nissan, Carlo Ghosn, said very clearly when he announced the investment in Sunderland that it would not have been made if we had had a policy of refusing to join the single European currency during the next Parliament—and Conservative Members and those on their Front Bench need to answer those questions. What about the effects on inward investment?
  Mr. Alan Duncan: If we were to join the euro, we would have not just a single currency, but a single interest rate, so the only variables left to take the strain of economic management would be taxation, transfer payments, wages and prices. Big companies could spread their activities across national boundaries, but smaller, United Kingdom-based companies would not be able to do so. For them, there would be the pain of the exchange rate mechanism all over again, with the European Union controlling taxes and grants and with domestic wages and prices taking all the pain. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly how he thinks that UK companies could, in any way, escape from that pressure?
  Mr. Byers: Interestingly, there was no mention of the effects that the Conservative policy would have on inward investment. On the particulars of the question asked, the hon. Gentleman mentions the difficulties that arose from
  976
  ERM—a creation of the then Conservative Government, especially the terms under which the United Kingdom entered it. The reason why the five economic tests laid down by the Chancellor are so important is that they will ensure that if joining the single European currency is an issue, it will be done on terms that are in the interests of British businesses, both large and small. The point is that we are not adopting a policy of ruling out joining just for political convenience; we are putting the national interest first and letting the British people decide.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Jon Trickett: If he will make a statement on the progress made by IRISC in the settlement of compensation claims by former miners suffering from vibration white finger and respiratory diseases. [159070]
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): As at 22 April, IRISC, the Department's claims handling agents, have paid out more than £406 million in compensation for respiratory and vibration related disease. It continues to pay more than £1 million a day, and we expect that to rise sharply during the coming months.
  Mr. Trickett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall that, for 18 years, the Conservative party did nothing for the miners in that respect, while closing the pits in a vindictive attack on mining communities? Is he aware that there are still on-going delays in the settlement of claims? Those delays, which often seem to derive from bureaucratic problems and paper chasing, can often lead to frustration and anger.
  Will my hon. Friend continue to press IRISC to settle all claims as quickly as possible, while minimising bureaucracy? Will he consider informing claimants directly of the reasons for the delays, rather than doing so simply through their solicitors? The frustration often arises because the claimants are unaware of the reasons for the delays.
  Mr. Hain: I reassure my hon. Friend that we will certainly take his comments on board. The procedure is laid down by the courts, and the claims handling agreement, negotiated thereafter, requires the solicitors to be the main conduit of communication with individual claimants. I pay tribute to the dedicated work that my hon. Friend does on behalf of retired miners, their widows and the working members of the National Union of Mineworkers. In his constituency, they have no better champion. I reassure him that more money will be paid during the next five months than has been paid during the past three years.
  The whole compensation scheme is being speeded up. Widows are getting interim payments. We are prioritising the oldest and sickest miners so that they go to the top of the queue. Previously, they could find themselves way down it. We are making sure that all the problems that have beset the scheme are ironed out. It is the biggest

  977
  compensation scheme in British history. This Labour Government are delivering it, unlike the Tories who denied miners their rights of justice for many years.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The payment of compensation and individual claims is, of course, complicated. Did the Minister hear the Bishop of Wakefield yesterday saying how disappointed all the people in his diocese were who, after four years of the Labour Government's grandiose promises, expected some delivery but were still waiting?
  Mr. Hain: That, coming from a Conservative Member, takes the biscuit. If the bishop wishes, he should by all means speak to me about this. If he had made those comments perhaps a year ago, there would have been a lot of validity in them. We have reformed the system, ironed out the problems and are driving it forward at the rate of more than £1 million a day. In Yorkshire we have paid out £115 million on the miners' compensation scheme. It is accelerating all the time and that figure will double within the next five months. That is a tribute to this Government's absolute commitment to bringing justice to the retired miners and their widows who were denied it for so long by the Tory Government.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: There is a growing understanding in mining communities of the work being done and the scale of the problem. Let us not forget that week by week more and more miners are diagnosed with the condition, so are added to the books and the numbers that have to be dealt with. Many of us remember when the basis of a claim had to be made on a post mortem. Those hypocrites on the other side of the House—[Interruption]—did nothing to help mining communities when they faced these dreadful problems. The scale of the work and the sums involved require—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will wish to withdraw the term "hypocrite". There are no hypocrites in this House.
  Mr. O'Neill: I withdraw the direct reference to hypocrites and substitute the word "hypocrisy" in the appropriate context.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "hypocrite". I ask him to stand up and withdraw that remark.
  Mr. O'Neill: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend, who represents a coal mining area, is well aware of the anguish during so many years of Tory rule and of the fact that compensation is now being delivered. He makes the important point that 1,000 new claimants join the compensation scheme every week. We are grappling with that pressure as well as delivering on the scheme to existing claimants. In Scotland, we have delivered £28 million so far, and people in coal mining communities there appreciate that.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: As I represent a constituency in the diocese of Wakefield, may I inform my hon. Friend that I am extremely pleased with the Government's delivery both of compensation for
  978
  respiratory diseases and vibration white finger and on equal value claims? As my hon. Friend knows, one of the problems in relation to vibration white finger is the refusal of RJB Mining to accept liability for certain claims applying to periods of service in the company after privatisation. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government, with the solicitors' claims group, are looking into that under the handling agreement, to see whether the problem can be resolved?
  Mr. Hain: Yes, we are. My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of an ex-miner. Conservative Members would not recognise a mine if they fell down one. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, whether about equal value claims or about the decision which we recently announced that there will now he no claw-back of benefit deductions from compensation paid out to 99 per cent. of claimants. That is yet another move forward that we have made in recent months.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: What progress has been made in agreeing a memorandum of understanding with banks concerning the universal bank. [159071]
  The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): Discussions with the banks are at an advanced stage. I hope that they will be resolved shortly.
  Mr. Blunt: I cannot say that I am particularly grateful to the Minister for that answer. In January, the Secretary of State said at DTI questions:
  "I am confident that within a few weeks we will sign a memorandum of understanding with those banks".—[Official Report, 18 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 496.]
  However, in March, in response to a written question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat—Amory), the Department gave precisely the same answer as the Minister has just given, and stated:
  "Discussions with the banks are at an advanced stage."—[Official Report, 12 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 456W.]
  It is about time we had some answers from the Government, not least in view of the report produced by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which states that the Committee
  "can appreciate concern expressed as to the source of funding. In evidence to us a recurring annual figure of around £150 million was mentioned by the Post Office. That is on the low side. The back office costs will indeed be substantial."
  Will he tell us just how much this will cost the taxpayer? The House has a right to know.
  Mr. Johnson: We are in discussions with the 11 major financial institutions, 10 banks and a building society—
  Mr. Eric Forth: Still!
  Mr. Johnson: Yes, still. We are doing so because we have something that is worth arguing for. They are all talking constructively with us about setting up universal banking services that will allow pensioners and benefit recipients not only to draw their money in cash, in full, every week at the post office, but to access network banking there. That is an important development for the

  979
  Post Office and in the war against financial exclusion. We will continue to work on this matter over the weekend—apart from Monday, of course, which is a universal bank holiday.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Minister confirm the significance of the concession that he is reported to have made to the banks, and to Halifax in particular, on not allowing branded bank accounts to be opened in Post Office branches? Does not that mean that the very large number of financially excluded people in inner-city and remote rural areas who do not have access to a bank branch will be restricted to the limited facilities of the card account and will not have the bill-paying accounts that they had anticipated?
  Mr. Johnson: No; the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The discussions are subject to commercial confidentiality. When they are concluded, they will be revealed. Our aim is that people will not have to go to banks to open their accounts. They can start the process at their post office without needing to visit a bank. A very important point that was made in the Cruickshank report is that many people feel inhibited by having to go the banks, whereas they trust the post office.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members that the universal banking services will be a major step forward, and that the very people whom he mentions—the socially and financially excluded—will be able to have the benefits of direct debit, which we assess at up to £200 usage a year, as a result of being able to access those services.

Ballistic Missile Defence
12.33 pm
Mr. Francis Maude(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy towards ballistic missile defence.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President Bush at Camp David, he stressed the importance of taking forward proposals for missile defence through close consultation with allies and through dialogue with Russia.
On Tuesday, President Bush made a statement—[Interruption.] If I may say so, this is a serious matter that I am endeavouring to take seriously. On Tuesday, President Bush made a statement on his Administration's plans on how to proceed with missile defence. We warmly welcome the strong emphasis placed by President Bush on consultation with close allies. We look forward to discussions next week with the high-level team that he is sending to Europe.
We also welcome the commitment to dialogue with Russia in order to develop a new co-operative relationship that is based on openness and mutual confidence. President Putin has also demonstrated his concern about the missile threat from rogue states, and his security adviser recently briefed NATO on Russian proposals for missile defence. We will encourage both the United States and Russia to have constructive dialogue to reach agreement on how to tackle the problem that both have identified.
We also warmly welcome the commitment by President Bush to further cuts in nuclear weapons. We want nuclear arms reduction to be a feature of the new relationship that the United States seeks with Russia.
It should be stressed that President Bush's speech was a commitment to a future goal. The technology for missile defence will take some years to develop and the United States has yet to confirm which technical option it will pursue. Nor do we yet know the diplomatic context of any final decision, such as the potential for agreement with Russia.
However, we must recognise the reality that there is a growing challenge of missile proliferation. A number of states, of mutual concern to the US and the UK, are developing ballistic missile technology. At Camp David our two leaders agreed:
"We need to obstruct and deter these new threats."
In the years that it will take for missile defence to be developed, we will work closely with the US, both to reduce proliferation of ballistic missile technology and to enhance security against those ballistic missiles.
Mr. Maude: Ballistic missile defence is a subject of intense interest and concern throughout the House. Yesterday, the Prime Minister deliberately equivocated when questioned on the subject in the Chamber by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). Not 10 minutes later, his official spokesman said that missile defence was a good idea. The House is entitled to feel extremely angry that it is treated in that way.
982
Next week, a delegation from Washington comes to London to discuss precisely this matter. Given the overwhelming importance of the issue, and the absolute necessity of the British Government speaking with a single and authoritative voice, will the Foreign Secretary now repeat, word for word, what the Prime Minister's official spokesman said yesterday? How otherwise can Britain expect to have influence with either America or our European partners? Does he believe that British people should have less protection against missile attack than people in America
Mr. Cook: I am entirely happy to endorse everything that was said by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday when he stressed that it is impossible to give a firm answer until we have firm details. The Opposition's position is that, although we do not yet know whether the system will be sea-based or land-based, whether it will attempt to hit an incoming missile in the boost phase or in the re-entry phase, or whether it will be done with or without agreement, they know the answer that they would give. That is a betrayal of the national interest and of any influence that one may hope to have on the proposal.
Yes, I do think—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister reply.
Mr. Cook: I do think that it is a good thing that the United States President should be able to say to the United States people that they are secure against any ballistic attack. It may or may not be that missile defence will play a part in that, but, as the Prime Minister's official spokesman said yesterday, nothing is inevitable and no answer can be given by Britain until we know the details; and, in that context, the position taken by the Government to look at the detail and the international context and to take a decision in the national interest compares responsibly and favourably with the position taken by the Opposition, who have adopted an attitude that plainly means that they do not expect to be in government, do not have any intention of taking a responsible approach to the issue, and would put their own party prejudice first rather than the national interest.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Last August, the all-party Select Committee on Foreign Affairs unanimously agreed a report in which we urged the Government to make it clear to the US Administration that they should not necessarily assume unqualified UK co-operation in national missile defence and urged the Government to articulate Britain's strong concerns about NMD.
The Government, in their reply in August 2000, said, in terms, that they value the stability that the anti-ballistic missile treaty provides. Is that still the Government's position? What does consultation mean in practice? What is the agenda? Will my right hon. Friend say clearly that the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition, giving a blank cheque—a yes—to whatever the US Administration says, is absurd?
Mr. Cook: On the anti-ballistic missile treaty, we have constantly stressed to the United States Administration the importance of taking forward any amendment that they wish to make to their agreements with Russia by agreement and through dialogue.

983
The speech by President Bush was welcomed in Moscow yesterday by my colleague, Foreign Minister Ivanov, who said that he was pleased that the United States
"did not intend to take unilateral steps."
He welcomed the offer of dialogue as beginning
"an era of strategic stability consultations".
We are not a party to the anti-ballistic missile treaty; the parties to it are the United States and Russia. They must resolve between them the way in which they proceed with the new relationship that President Bush has offered. We have a legitimate interest in its progress through co-operation, not confrontation, and by agreement, not unilaterally.
My right hon. Friend is right that members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs take their duties seriously and consider carefully the impact of their words. I wish that Conservative Front-Bench Members considered as carefully as the Conservative members of the Committee the impact on the rest of the world of the comments that they make for party reasons.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I apologise for having to leave shortly. I have a long-standing commitment at the Royal United Services Institute.
No matter how the Foreign Secretary describes the matter, there was a substantial difference in emphasis between what the Prime Minister told the House and the official spokesman's comments to journalists within an hour of Prime Minister's questions. It is highly unsatisfactory to reveal a change of emphasis in policy in that way; there is no getting away from that.
Should not we be anxious about the absence from President Bush's proposals of any understanding of their impact on other treaties and agreements on the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons? What store can we set by consultation that takes place after rather than before a decision has been made?
Mr. Cook: I say to my right hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.] I extend the hand of friendship to my right hon. and learned Friend. [Interruption.] I assure Conservative Members that I shall not describe them in the same way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much noise. Opposition Front-Bench Members wanted a statement.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): We are enjoying it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be enjoying it, but there is other business before the House. If there is more such behaviour, I shall bring discussion on the private notice question to an end.
Mr. Cook: There is no doubt that the United States Administration have made a commitment to proceed with missile defence. However, a range of decisions remain to be taken, and it is important to consult on them. I am confident that all our colleagues in Europe will give the same advice: it is important to proceed through dialogue and agreement, not only with us but with Russia.
984
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) gives me the chance to put the record straight about what was said at 4 pm yesterday. [Interruption.] As Conservative Members are so interested in that, I shall describe the Prime Minister's official spokesman's words in full. His statement and what was said in the House are identical. When it was put to him that we would ultimately go along with whatever the United Stated asked us to do, he disagreed, said that nothing was inevitable and that
"Our decision would depend on the detail of the US plans—something which President Bush clearly understood and accepted."
That is precisely what the Prime Minister told the House yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Tony Benn: It is clear that the Government want to be cautious about this matter before polling day, as they know that there is widespread opposition to it world wide because of the fear of a new arms race, which could involve this country. The United States supplies us with nuclear weapons, which we pretend are independent. Those weapons are dependent upon the American satellite system and, therefore, on the basis of past experience, British Governments do not go against the decisions of the President. Did the Foreign Secretary hear that Admiral Eugene Carroll—a distinguished retired American admiral—came to the House recently and said that if the scheme went ahead, he hoped that there would be a lot of Greenham commons and a large-scale peace movement? My right hon. Friend, as a passionate and articulate supporter of CND, will understand the importance of such a campaign.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I can assure him that the Government will be cautious, responsible and realistic throughout the whole period after we are re-elected on polling day. That is precisely why we are taking a measured and considered approach to the question, totally unlike the Conservative party. However, I say to my right hon. Friend that we are the closest ally and one of the oldest friends of the United States. Plainly, that will be reflected in any judgment that we make if we are asked to be helpful.
Mr. John Greenway: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the early warning radar station at RAF Fylingdales in my constituency has played a crucial role in maintaining peace and security in Britain and the west for more than 40 years? Is he aware that the majority in north Yorkshire overwhelmingly support RAF Fylingdales? However, some of my constituents are alarmed at the more sensational suggestions as to what ballistic missile defence might mean for RAF Fylingdales. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that although no definitive proposals have been put to the Government by America, the clear intention is that the role of Fylingdales will remain limited to early warning radar stations and that there is no question of siting missiles or interceptors in north Yorkshire?
Mr. Cook: At no stage has anybody involved in the debate—either in the United States or Europe—suggested that interceptor missiles be based either in Britain or anywhere in continental Europe. The hon. Gentleman is right; no precise proposal has been put to us and no

985
decision has been taken on what the response would be, or indeed where any such facility would be based. It will not necessarily be Fylingdales.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome the stress that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have put on the need to insist on dialogue between the United States Administration, the Government, our other allies and Russia before the proposals are confirmed. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the current framework of arms control treaties has played an important part in the security of the United Kingdom and will continue to do so? Are there not much easier ways of dealing with the suggested missile threat from supposed states of concern, rather than the current proposals? In particular, the steps taken by the EU to improve dialogue with North Korea are an obvious way of dealing with that missile threat. Finally, given the extreme concern shown by a large number of people across the UK about the proposals and their possible effect on UK security, will he join me in condemning the levity of Conservative Members? Obviously they are thinking only of party political issues and not the security of this country.
Mr. Cook: Mr. Speaker has already reminded the House that we are discussing this question because the official Opposition tabled it. As they went to the lengths of tabling it, I would have expected them to have made a serious contribution on a serious global issue, not simply to have tried to exploit for party prejudice and party interest an issue that should and will be dealt with in the national interest by the Government.
My hon. Friend is right that there are other ways in which to handle the threat of missile proliferation, although I do not know that it is necessary for us to choose between them. They all have a contribution to make. Whether or not missile defence goes ahead, I agree that it is important that we do what we can for rapprochement on the Korean peninsula and it is important that we tighten the technology regimes against the spread of missile technology. I assure her that we shall continue that work and that, as I said at my meeting with Colin Powell in March, we shall ensure that we work closely with the United States to achieve those goals as well.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: We must clarify whether there is any difference of view between the Prime Minister's press spokesman and the Prime Minister himself. I have here an extract from the lobby briefing, which says:
"Pressed as to whether we believed missile defence, broadly speaking, was a good idea, the PMOS said broadly, yes it was … It was now the Prime Minister and the British Government's responsibility to look at any specific policy questions which might relate to the UK."
In other words, there is clear agreement in principle and it is a question of looking at the details. It is difficult to place any other construction on what the Prime Minister's official spokesman said. That being the case, will the Foreign Secretary say whether it can therefore be assumed that the Government do not consider the United States proposals to be in breach of the 1972 ABM treaty?
Mr. Cook: The answer to the last point is that President Bush himself has said that the United States is constrained
986
by the ABM treaty. After all, that is why he is seeking dialogue with Russia and why we are urging both sides to find a way in which they can go forward.
In reference to the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, at risk of wearying the House by repeating what we have already said, that is precisely what the Prime Minister said yesterday and what I have said today. This is an issue that we are obliged to look at. We will look at it responsibly. We will look at it with the national interest in mind, unlike the Conservative party, which is looking at it irresponsibly and without the national interest in mind.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision is of immense strategic importance to this country, that party politics has no part to play in such a decision, which is related to the national interest, and that the British people would expect a responsible Government to wait for the detail of any such proposals before reaching a decision that will have wide-ranging implications not only for this country, but for the international community?
Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Those members of the public who are watching this exchange can make up their own minds as to which side is engaged seriously in the issue and which side has treated it as a matter of levity and party prejudice. They can also resolve for themselves whether it makes more sense to know firmly what we are being asked to answer or to give the answer now, whatever the question may be, as Conservative Members are doing.
Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, once upon a time, this nation gave facilities to the Americans to bomb Libya and that the people in the United Kingdom who paid the highest price for that bombing were the people of Northern Ireland, who suffered because a large number of weapons were imported from Libya? Given that such consequences flowed from that decision, can we have an assurance from him that this country will fall well within any protective umbrella should missile defence be created?
Mr. Cook: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman such an assurance at present. Indeed, it would be odd if I were able to do so, given that there is no precise missile defence system yet proposed by the United States. However, I can assure him and the House that, obviously, that issue will be a major factor in consultations that we have over the coming months.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The Foreign Secretary has already said that we are not party to the ABM treaty, but does he agree that we were a vital party to the nuclear non-proliferation review conference last year at which it was agreed that maintaining and strengthening that treaty was part of the agreement to which all the countries involved signed up? Surely, therefore, we have an important interest in ensuring that missile defence does not undermine the whole non-proliferation and arms control regime.
Is not it vital that the United States engage in discussions not only with Russia, but with China and other countries? Should not we consider the suggestion made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that we

987
should call a conference of all countries, including those that are not party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to discuss how best to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons?
Mr. Cook: I fully agree with my hon. Friend's support for the text of the NPT review conference. Indeed, the British Government were influential in securing the agreement on that text. Our problem is that the countries of greatest concern in relation to the proliferation of missile technology are outwith the NPT regime. I absolutely agree with him that if we could strengthen that regime by bringing those countries into it, a lot of the tension and anxiety would be removed from the United States' debate. We can all continue to press those countries to sign up, and to point out to them that if they do not do so, there will unavoidably be consequences. However, the United States has to take account of the countries that have not signed up, and continue to develop the means of missile delivery of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
None of that is inconsistent with the further cuts in nuclear offensive missiles to which we committed ourselves in that text, and I welcome the fact that President Bush's speech on Tuesday repeated that commitment on behalf of the United States. I hope that he will be able to take it forward through bilateral dialogue with Russia.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Are not the divisions in the Labour party and the hard left anti-defence lobby that sits on the Benches behind him the real reasons why the Foreign Secretary will not say whether he, in principle, favours missile defence?
Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take a collective decision when the time comes, in which we will all participate. The reason that we are not saying now what our answer will be when we are asked a question is that we are in government, we are responsible and realistic, and we want to know what the question is first. The fact that Conservative Members are prepared to answer the question without knowing what it is demonstrates that they do not really ever expect to be in government.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Can I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome his reaffirmation is of the Prime Minister's position, as set out in the House yesterday? Will my right hon. Friend also join me in condemning the Conservative party for once again showing its knee-jerk enthusiasm for as yet non-existent proposals purely and simply for electioneering purposes?
Mr. Cook: I do not think that anybody studying the text of these exchanges or watching them this afternoon will come to the conclusion that a single thing has been said by Conservative Members that would enhance the security of Britain, or strengthen the security of her alliance.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary recall—on the day on which he is possibly making his last outing as Foreign Secretary—those happy, carefree times when he used to describe it as nonsense on
988
stilts for Britain to pretend to be a nuclear power? Does he recall his reactions when the American President of the day originally proposed ballistic missile defence? Will he accept the sympathy of those Conservative Members who have consistently supported nuclear deterrence for his position now, as he finds himself attacked from his own Back Benches by people who stick to the views that he used to stick to but has now abandoned? Does he realise that many of us understand why he has recently taken to lowering his voice when he answers these embarrassing questions?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that I can resist the temptation to accept his sympathy in any circumstances whatsoever. I invite him to reflect on the proposal that I understand him to be supporting, which is that we should support missile defence. Will he reflect on the fact that missile defence is a clear statement that the many people in the United States who support it no longer have the faith in nuclear deterrence in which he still seems to be mired?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bush got elected with the help of a massive amount of money from the defence industries, principally in America, and that he fiddled his way to victory on the back of that money? Is he aware that now is payback time? I suggest that he should be very careful about how the Government tread in the next few weeks. I believe that the Tories are as wrong on this issue as they are on the economy, and on almost every other political issue.
Mr. Cook: I have no problem in assenting to my hon. Friend's proposition that the Conservatives are wrong on a range of issues. I find it startling that there are still Conservative Members who appear to believe that the Government's real success is not in substance, but in spin. The reason why the Conservatives are in opposition is that they presided over the two worst economic recessions in British history, and the reason why they will stay in opposition is that this Government have presided over a sound, healthy, growing economy. Those are issues of substance, not of spin.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: All hon. Members will agree on the importance of this issue, but when we are reduced to considering how effective Mr. Bremner is as a parody of Government and when Downing street is acting as a parody of Bremner, is it not about time that the Government stood aside for people who will deal with the issue in a serious fashion?
Mr. Cook: I am conscious that we are appearing in the House of Commons now, and seeking to debate these matters seriously. I will not enter into any studio comedy with the hon. Gentleman.
Ms Oona King: May I record the grave concern felt by many of my constituents, and shared by me, about missile proliferation and the threat posed by rogue states? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government's position remains that we will await a firm proposal from the Americans before deciding on the merits of any such proposal? Will he put clear blue water—or clear red water—between the parties, by confirming that we will not do what the Conservatives

989
have done and blindly rush in to support any proposal that the Americans come up with before they have even decided on a proposal?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to confirm that the answer to both questions is yes. We will of course consider the details that are put to us—it would be irresponsible to do otherwise—and, as the Prime Minister's official spokesman said yesterday, our answer is not inevitable.
Mr. Francis Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order after the Business Question.

Business of the House
1.2 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 is as follows.
MONDAY 7 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
TUESDAY 8 MAY—Motion to approve Ways and Means Resolution on the Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 9 MAY—Remaining stages of the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 10 MAY—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 11 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 14 MAY—Remaining stages of the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill.
TUESDAY 15 MAY—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 16 MAY—Debate on Defence on a motion for Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 17 MAY—The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 4 o'clock.
FRIDAY 18 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing what will clearly be a fun-packed week—possibly the last week of the current Parliament. It has been a fun Parliament for some. The Government began, four years ago, with a party in Downing street, and proceeded to that great party down at the dome at the change of the century; but, as with all parties, they have left behind a lot of debris. I wonder whether some of that debris can be cleared up in the coming week's business.
One important fact is that the Government have yet to devote any Government time to a full debate on foot and mouth on the Floor of the House. There have been statements and one is to follow but, surely, given the nature of the crisis and the fact that the Prime Minister has taken personal control of it, one could have at least expected the Government to allocate time to discuss foot and mouth next week.
There are other matters of great importance that I hope the Leader of the House will consider fitting in before the end of next week. The Government have made statements and indeed have set up a taskforce to help to support businesses not directly involved in agriculture, but there is a growing problem for all the businesses that have appealed for a temporary reduction in their rating assessments.

991
On 6 April, the Paymaster General informed the House in a written answer that there were no fewer than 23,000 new applications as at 6 April. It does not seem that those are being processed; indeed, the Treasury has been unable to give up-to-date figures. I hope that the Leader of the House will find time for the Paymaster General to answer questions in the House on how those applications are to be expedited.
We have still not had an annual debate on small business, which the Government promised when they came to glorious victory in 1997. Nor have there been any statements on the Floor of the House on, for example, many matters to do with procedure. The fact that we have just had a private notice question based on what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions yesterday and what was said in contradiction subsequently by his press officer surely merits some debate before the end of the Parliament; and what about a statement from the Government about their so-called modernisation programme, which has been inflicted on the House during the Parliament?
The Government have failed to reintroduce the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No.2) Bill despite its being a high priority for them and being announced in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech last December. Has that Bill now been taken off the party invitation list? The Government have only published a draft transport Bill, even though they promised to develop a fully integrated public transport system. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could tell us exactly what the intention is so that the House can question Transport Ministers on that subject.
There has been no legislation to enforce the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery, which makes it a criminal offence for a United Kingdom national to bribe a foreign public official. On that subject, not much time appears to have been allocated for the House to discuss very important matters that have been considered by Select Committees in respect of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), for whom the party has been so exciting that he has had to go home and spend a bit of time getting over it. It is important that such matters be discussed on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that those important matters will be tidied up before the party is over at the end of next week because, clearly, for the Government, the party will be well and truly over.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady complains that there has been no debate in Government time on the foot and mouth outbreak, which, if I recall correctly, first came to light in February, so we are talking about a comparatively short period, during which there have been, as she rightly acknowledged, extensive statements. I remind her that we went through at least two years, if not three or four, when the Conservative party was in government without any debate in Government time on health, which is an on-going issue and which was in crisis at the time. It is not unusual for there to be pressure on Government time, but, by contrast with the Conservative party, we have made extensive statements covering those issues.
992
The hon. Lady raises a valid point about the handling of applications with regard to rate relief. I believe that we have Treasury questions next Thursday, but in any case I will draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had not heard the concerns that the hon. Lady expressed, but clearly it is a matter of some interest. We already have in mind the issue of a small business debate.
As for the hon. Lady's remarks on procedure, I am not quite sure to what she is referring, although she complains about the handling of statements. It is a matter of record that, in this Parliament, on average, the Government have made a statement every two sitting days. We have certainly made substantially more statements—just as we have taken substantially more questions at Prime Minister's Question Time—than the previous, Conservative Government made. I therefore do not think that it lies in the mouths of Conservative Members to complain about that matter.
The hon. Lady then gave a list of matters that she felt should be debated, including some Select Committee reports. She treated us again to her views on the Modernisation Committee, but I remind the House that a consequence of the work of that Committee is that we now have four to five times as much time for debating Select Committee reports, and more time for Back Benchers than was available under the previous Government.
In her list of matters not covered, the hon. Lady also included a draft transport Bill that she wanted to discuss. I am not quite sure where she was last year, but it is my recollection that we had a Transport Bill which became the Transport Act 2000.
As for the party being over, it sounds very much to me like the hon. Lady's party is definitely over.
Mr. David Winnick: For all those who are genuinely concerned with the national interest, should it not be a matter for congratulation that foot and mouth is now well under control? Everyone involved should be congratulated on what has been done. May I also make what I hope will be seen as a helpful suggestion, relating to what we have just been discussing? Would it not be much better for statements on very serious policy matters to be made by the relevant Minister and not outside the House? Not only would that save a lot of perhaps unnecessary work, but the Opposition would of course have less to exploit.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the whole House should take pleasure—although I am not sure that everyone does—in the very considerable success in handling what has undoubtedly been a very difficult outbreak. I think that most sensible people congratulate all those who have been involved on the enormous work and effort that they have put in—often with a huge amount of second-guessing. Action that was demanded one week was criticised the next, and a great deal of undeserved abuse was heaped on the unfortunate heads of those who were doing most of the work to tackle the impact of the disease. My hon. Friend is entirely right about that.

993
As for how statements are handled, I hope that my hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Agriculture Minister hopes to make a statement shortly. Additionally, he answered a written parliamentary question on the matter this morning.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House accept that Ministers must be accountable to the House rather than to the media for the actions of Government? Does she accept that, despite what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has just said, there are still very real concerns—in my part of the country, if not in his—about the devastation left by the foot and mouth outbreak? There is therefore absolutely no room for complacency about the outbreak; nor is there any room for complacency about the way in which the Government have handled the whole episode.
May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention specifically to the fact that there are still real problems with co-ordination of the Government's activities in their different forms to deal with the outbreak? That is why, on several previous occasions, I have asked that the Prime Minister—as he has insisted that he had to take personal charge of the whole exercise—should himself come to the House and answer questions on the co-ordination of Government activity to deal with it.
May I particularly draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the problems that obviously will arise if we do not have a swift public inquiry into the matter? I accept that she may well be able to say that the previous Government refused a public inquiry into the BSE scandal, but two wrongs do not make a right, and that is not an excuse for inaction now.
Specifically, we want to know whether the Agriculture Minister was right when, on 27 March, he told the House that entry into this country—presumably through the ports—of the foot and mouth virus had still to be examined and established. Is that true? If it is, why have we had no further statement on the matter?
Moreover, why have the efforts that my colleagues and I have put into trying to see what is happening at our entry ports been blocked at every stage, to the extent that civil servants themselves have told me that we have been given the Whitehall runaround? We have been wanting to go and see what checks are being made at our ports into illegal meat imports, and we have been told by the Association of Port Health Authorities that large quantities of such meat are coming into this country. Why have we been blocked from seeing exactly what is happening, and when will we have the remit for that public inquiry?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman says that matters should be reported to the House. Perhaps he failed to hear me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that a parliamentary question was answered this morning. He will know that successive Speakers have ruled that that is a perfectly acceptable way of making an announcement. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food intends to make a statement later.
I wholeheartedly endorse, as does everyone, the idea that although, to nearly everyone's relief, the disease is apparently on a downward trajectory, there is no cause for complacency. Indeed, nobody feels complacent.
994
The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North were timely, in that a great deal of abuse has been heaped on the heads of those who have been attempting to deal with the outbreak, not least the officials, and it is right for us to place on the record our real gratitude for their efforts.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he frequently asks for the Prime Minister to make a statement on this, that or the other.
The issue of what inquiry should be held, and in what form, will continue to be considered. Perhaps in calling for further statements the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that some of the issues may become a matter for prosecution, which always means that what is said in public must be handled with caution. He will have the opportunity to put many of these questions to my right hon. Friend later.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Can we have a statement next week on the slow progress of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill? It completed its stages in the House of Commons on 13 February, about 11 weeks ago, had its First Reading in the other place the following day and then took some five weeks to get its Second Reading, since when there has been no progress whatever. Along with many of my hon. Friends, I am concerned about the situation. We made a commitment in the Labour party manifesto to ban tobacco advertising. Can we have a statement to find out whether the Bill will make further progress, especially considering the rumours that abound suggesting that we may be embarking on a general election campaign very shortly?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses. He has been a strong and ardent campaigner on the issue for many years. He will know, however, that there is a great deal of business in the other place and that the Government do not control the business there: it is a matter for that House itself to decide what business to take and how long to spend on it. There are always problems and pressures.
My hon. Friend will know that, in the event of any change in business, there are long-established parliamentary conventions on how the issues may be handled. I am not aware of any reason to suppose that those conventions will not be observed.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on the financial situation faced by hospices that care for the dying, of which we have 102 in this country? Information just published shows that, over the past three years, the proportion of hospices' funding that is public has gone down from more than 35 to just under 30 per cent. Will she pay particular attention to the independent report that has just been published showing that half our hospices now face serious financial problems? If we had not raised a great deal of additional money over the past year, Southend, too, could have been in that position. Does she agree that this is an urgent and important matter that deserves parliamentary attention?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, nor do I know whether the change in percentage may not, at least in part, be due to

995
the substantial efforts made to raise funds for hospices from the private sector. The whole House strongly applauds the excellent work done in hospices and would not want it to be undermined in any way. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on them in the near future.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Those of us who were present in Westminster Hall on 11 July 1996 were afforded the great honour of listening to one of the greatest statesmen of our time address both Houses of Parliament; I refer, of course, to Nelson Mandela. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 643, which seeks to commemorate that event?
[That this House notes the historic importance of the speech delivered to both Houses by President Mandela and of EDM 1155, tabled on 11th July 1996, supported on a cross party basis; and calls upon the House authorities to install a permanent reminder of the occasion by the setting of a brass plaque on the steps of Westminster Hall.]
I realise that the solution to that request is not entirely in the gift of my right hon. Friend, but I would be grateful if she would bring it to the attention of the Lord Chancellor, who is one of the people involved.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will recognise the sentiments expressed in the motion on a cross-party basis, as you are one of those able to take action on the matter.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is partly right in saying that I do not have entire responsibility in the matter, because I do not have any responsibility for what happens in Westminster Hall, which rests with the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. However, I fully recognise the important point that my hon. Friend makes. The tremendous warmth of the cross-party welcome for Nelson Mandela was evident on the occasion that my hon. Friend mentions, and I am confident that those who have responsibility for the matter will hear his remarks with sympathy.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is no great pressure of massively important legislation next week and that therefore—if necessary after 10 o'clock—the Government should bring forward the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on the new level of salary for Members of Parliament? They will not affect me, but they should not be held back until after the election by people who fear that voting in favour of them might affect their position at the polls. One section of the House will be affected—those who are retiring or who are defeated at the election and have only a low level of pension. That pension is based on Members' final salary when they leave the House, so to hold back a recommendation based on what has been supposedly earned over the past three years is to be unfair to a host of Members of Parliament in terms of their pensions. The Government should have enough strength to overcome any opposition and get on with it.
Mrs. Beckett: Although the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no pressure of legislation next week, the
996
House will in fact discuss some very important legislation. He will know that the issue has been raised with me, and I fear that I cannot undertake to bring the matter forward in the near future. I shall take the opportunity to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is characteristic of his many years of service in the House that he should raise the issue on behalf of other people.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has the Leader of the House had time to read early-day motion 619?
[That this House believes that the Halifax, Yorkshire's biggest financial company, must keep its headquarters in Halifax, the town whose name it takes; does not accept that all major financial centres in the UK should be located only in capital cities; notes that Leeds is a growing centre of financial excellence and that if the headquarters are moved to Edinburgh this would be a major blow to the Yorkshire Region as a place in which to invest and locate.]
It has been signed by 87 Members and opposes the relocation to Scotland of the headquarters of the Halifax bank, in the event of a merger between it and the Bank of Scotland. Feelings are running so high in my constituency against such a relocation that the Halifax Evening Courier produced a special edition to oppose it. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Government for a statement on the issue, which is vital to investment in Halifax and the wider Yorkshire region?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's clearly expressed concern and the Evening Courier deserves praise for ensuring that an issue of such importance to the local community is raised in that way. My hon. Friend and others also deserve praise for the way in which they have raised the issue. We are keen for organisations to take factors such as the impact on local communities into account when they make their decisions. I fear, however, that those decisions are ultimately a commercial matter for the company, although I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of any of my right hon. Friends who have any standing on the issue.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Historically, the Government have purported to support the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, but Government Whips last night were actively discouraging Ministers from voting for further progress on the Bill.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If only that were true.
Mr. Brooke: Effectively, that prevented the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who heard the debate, from stating the Government's current position with regard to the Bill. In the circumstances, may we have a statement on the Government's position?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has long campaigned on this matter on behalf of his constituents, he will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) say, "If only that were true."
Mr. Mackinlay: In the period of quarantine that will prevail during the general election and until the following

997
Queen's Speech, will it be possible for the Government to reflect on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill and decide that it should not be resuscitated? If a motion on that matter is put to the House, should not it be subject to a free vote? There is no majority in the House in favour of this squalid little Bill, and the sooner it is consigned to the dustbin, the better.
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my hon. Friend, the Bill is private business. Its resuscitation is therefore not a matter for the Government. It has always been subject to a free vote, precisely because it is private business. That will no doubt remain the case if it is reintroduced.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on the extraordinary actions of Barnet council, which is under joint Labour and Liberal Democrat control? Last year, it targeted the half of the borough in which it thought that its greatest support lay, and sent a letter encouraging postal voting to every householder. At the beginning of the year, it promised to do the same for the other half of the borough. It printed the letters, but then took the political decision not to take any further action. Will the right hon. Lady at least condemn what is political gerrymandering of the worst type?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not precisely familiar with the situation in Barnet to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but, in the light of what he has said, I wonder whether there was a great deal of criticism of the council for taking the steps that it did, and whether that has anything to do with his question.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Bearing in mind the expeditious way in which the House has dealt with business this week, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on today's announcement by Corus, which makes it clear that the company never had any intention of changing its plans to sack 6,000 workers in the United Kingdom? Such a debate would give us the opportunity to show that Plaid Cymru was more concerned to back Corus in this matter than to support the Government's attempts to get the company back on track and keep workers in jobs. It would also give the House a chance to show how effectively the Government have responded to the Corus debacle—for example, they have provided some £66 million in Wales to try to ensure that steelworkers receive adequate compensation and the opportunity for new jobs.
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that it would be desirable to find time for such a debate, as it would make plain how much the Government have done to try to help people in that difficult situation. It would also expose those more concerned with scoring political points. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate next week.
Mr. Stephen Day: The right hon. Lady is assiduous is carrying out her duties as Leader of the House, and enjoys the respect of hon. Members. However, I hope she will agree that it is wrong that major policy announcements should be made by the Prime Minister's press secretary when, 10 minutes before that announcement, the Prime Minister had steadfastly refused
998
to do make the same announcement in the House. The same is true of announcements by any press secretary and any Minister. The right hon. Lady has always stood up for the House's rights; will she do so on this occasion by agreeing with me?
Mrs. Beckett: That is a good try, but no such major announcement of a change in policy was made. That has already been made plain, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that the issue was aired earlier today.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on asylum? That would give the House an opportunity to discuss the success of the Government's Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, particularly the success of the civil penalties, which have had a dramatic effect on the numbers of illegal immigrants coming into the port of Dover, and of the accelerated process, which means that the backlog of unheard cases is at a 10-year low? In addition, the success of the dispersal system has meant that since last April hardly a single new asylum seeker has been placed in the port of Dover.
Is my right hon. Friend encouraged by the comments of the Conservative leader of Kent county council, who told Radio 5 just last week:
"I think the dispersal system is working well"?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is quite correct. I am encouraged to learn that the leader of Kent county council is, at least on this occasion, more in touch with the real world than those who represent his party in this House. My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify that there is merit in paying attention to the accelerated process in dealing with the backlog. I find it hard to keep a straight face when I hear Conservative Members talk about their record on asylum, when people waited years and years, not least in my constituency, without any decision being taken. My hon. Friend is also quite correct to identify this as an area in which Government policy has tackled a problem of enormous consequences that we inherited. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it next week.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is it not time that we had a proper debate in the House about the real role of Alastair Campbell in the Government? Yesterday, the Prime Minister waffled about missile defence. Just after that, we are told, Mr. Campbell gave a clear statement on the Government's policy on missile defence. Today, we have had the unedifying spectacle of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs being not quite unable to deny what Alastair Campbell had said but trying to waltz around it in his gnomic way. Can we please have a debate in which it will be made clear beyond all doubt what the role of this man, Alastair Campbell, is in Government? Is he running the Government, does he speak for the Government, does he decide policy? Why is a Secretary of State unable to deny to the House what Alastair Campbell is reported as having said the previous day?
Mrs. Beckett: All I can say is that it is a clear indication of the priorities of Conservative Members that they spend so much time on this kind of nit-picking point

999
and are not the slightest bit interested in debating issues of major importance such as the economy, on which they have nothing at all to say.
Mr. John Cryer: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on speech therapy? This is, to some extent, a local problem. I discovered three or four years ago that there was a shortage of speech therapists in my borough, and despite the best efforts of the local community health trust, that shortage has not been addressed. I suspect, from speaking to other right hon. and hon. Members, that it is a national shortage which needs addressing at a national level, which is why we need a debate or a statement on it.
Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I should like to emphasise that it is the view of probably the majority of right hon. and hon. Members, if there were a completely free vote, that the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill is an attack on democracy and on representative democracy. It is the first extension of the business vote since 1832. Can we just kick it out after we win the election?
Mrs. Beckett: First, my hon. Friend is right to say that although there may be a particular local problem with regard to the availability of speech therapy, there is a general problem and has been for quite some time. That is due not least to the previous Government's record of administration in running the health service, when many of these specialties and valuable contributors to health care were neglected and actively undermined.
With regard to my hon. Friend's remarks about the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, I have nothing to add to what I said before.
Dr. Julian Lewis: As these may be the last business questions of this Parliament, and as I am one of the regular attenders, may I say on behalf of several of my right hon. and hon. Friends how much we have appreciated the way the Leader of the House has discharged her duties, typified by the courtesy with which she responded to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) only a few moments ago?
Now back to business. I have repeatedly raised the point that, a year and a half ago, the President of the European Commission described the Commissioners as the Government of Europe, and this has been repeatedly disregarded by Ministers, including the Prime Minister, whenever it has been raised in the House. Now that the Chancellor of Germany has made the same statement—proposing to formalise the European Commission as the Government of Europe—and has been backed, according to press reports today, by the Belgian Prime Minister, will the right hon. Lady find time for a statement by an appropriate Minister on the serious constitutional question whether this country will continue governing itself, or will indeed become part of a European superstate? The Prime Minister's counterparts in other countries clearly wish that to happen.
Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a draft policy paper
1000
that is under discussion in Germany and raises issues as to what the respective powers of the EU and member states should be, and notes that there should be clarity about them. That is very much an issue that the Prime Minister has addressed. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he has on several occasions raised remarks made by the President of the European Commission: one of the reasons that no one talks much about that is that those remarks are not taken all that seriously.
Finally, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I tell my right hon. Friend about the case of six of my constituents who were arrested by the Greater Manchester police early last summer? In the autumn, their case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, where it remains. By a remarkable coincidence, all six were members of the Bury, North Conservative party—two of them were elected members of the local authority. They stand accused of election fraud, following last year's municipal elections; specifically, they are accused of tampering with postal votes in private residential homes.
In view of the likely—welcome—increase in postal voting in the forthcoming general election, will my right hon. Friend discuss that general issue with her Home Office colleagues to ensure that adequate guidelines are given to local authorities so that the risk of fraud in postal voting is reduced to a minimum? Will it be possible to find time, during next week's business, for a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers. I am aware, however, that cases of such fraud have occurred in the past—the one that comes to my mind was also in connection with a residential home. That suggests a particular and clear vulnerability in handling postal votes in respect of such places. It is the responsibility of the electoral registration officer to check that someone is a properly registered elector and that electoral fraud of that kind is not being undertaken. Obviously, guidance has gone out to electoral registration officers stating that they should take such matters seriously in view of the sensible and welcome easing of the availability of postal voting. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time during the coming week for a debate of the kind to which my hon. Friend alludes.
Mr. Graham Brady: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), the right hon. Lady was unable to give an assurance that important policy statements from the Government would be made in the House. Perhaps we could approach the matter in another way. Would it be possible to find an opportunity for Members of the House to attend the Lobby briefing, so that we could end the constitutional anomaly that arose yesterday whereby members of the Lobby were able to question the organ grinder, whereas Members of the House had to put up with the monkey?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I made it extremely clear to his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) that the Government make very many statements—and all statements of importance—in the House.

1001
On Lobby briefings, first, as someone who attends them, I can tell the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that he would not find them nearly as illuminating as he thinks. Secondly, if he does have an interest in them, they are of course available on the No. 10 website.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend at all surprised by the huge amount of support received for my early-day motion 572 on the business affairs of working members of the royal family?
[That this House applauds the decision of Buckingham Palace to consider issuing guidance on how the business affairs of working members of the Royal Family might be conducted in future; believes a register of royal interests, along the lines of the House of Commons Register of Members' Interests, should be considered; hopes the Palace will invite the views of Right honourable and honourable Members on any draft guidance; and invites the Select Committee on Public Administration to review current practice and offer suggestions for change where it considers appropriate.]
The motion was signed by 108 Members. Will my right hon. Friend put out feelers to the Palace and use her good offices to set up a meeting between the Lord Chamberlain—Lord Luce—myself and other Members who expressed an interest in the matter by tabling the early-day motion? Is it not the case—indeed, I know that my right hon. Friend will agree with me because I know the kind of person she is—that, if guidelines emerge and are secret, they are no use at all?
Mrs. Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point; it is helpful if guidelines generally are understood. As for his early-day motion, I understand that those matters are
1002
under consideration by those who are properly charged with such responsibilities, who will, no doubt, issue any statement that they have to make in due course.
Mr. John Bercow: May we please have a debate on the proposed national works council directive, which would, in this country hit more than 36,000 companies with more than 50 employees? Given that the European Union Employment and Social Affairs Council's meeting on that matter has been conveniently postponed from 7 May to 11 June this year; that Germany's opposition to the directive is said to be weakening; and that, as the right hon. Lady is well aware from painful experience, the matter is ultimately determined by majority voting under the European social chapter because of this Government's crass stupidity, why does not she just admit that, as we have long suspected, the Government have in mind a craven capitulation on the subject to the advocates of European corporatism in the EU?
Mrs. Beckett: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman attaches any great significance to the postponement of further discussion on that issue. To hear his remarks, anyone would think that the matter had suddenly arisen out of the blue and was for urgent discussion, whereas it has been discussed since at least 1997; it has been discussed and argued about for years. As for the notion that, in some way, it is a consequence of actions taken by this Government, it is in fact a consequence of the discussions that were under way before we came to power. However, I assure him that the Government will continue to fight the case that we believe to be right with the utmost vigour and, if I may say so, with rather more success than the party that he supports when it was in government.

Foot and Mouth
1.42 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the foot and mouth outbreak.
This is the 10th time that I have updated the House on the outbreak. Once again, I should like to provide details of the latest position on the disease, to set out the measures the Government are taking and to give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to raise points with me.
As of midday today, there had been 1,537 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease in Great Britain. Since I spoke to the House last week, the average number of cases per day has fallen further, from 16 in the week ending 22 April, to 11 in the week ending 29 April. That continues the decline of the disease from the highest point of 43 cases per day in the week ending 1 April.
More than 2.4 million animals have now been slaughtered for disease control purposes. A further 630,000 animals have been slaughtered under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. May I remind the House that in the 1967 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which lasted for more than seven months, only 434,000 animals were slaughtered in total? The current outbreak is, as I have said before, unprecedented in scale and in the speed at which it spread.
There is no longer any backlog of animals awaiting disposal, anywhere in Great Britain. The disposal backlog in Devon, to which I referred last week, will have been cleared by the end of today. There are small numbers of animals awaiting slaughter, but the position has improved greatly during the past few weeks. That achievement is the result of a concerted effort in the past few days and weeks, using all the disposal methods—rendering, burning, incinerating, landfill and burial—according to need and as appropriate in the local circumstances.
We have been able to lift restrictions in 10 different areas, where there have been no new cases for 30 days and where thorough veterinary and serological testing has taken place. Some 16,000 farms have now benefited from the lifting of the tighter movement restrictions associated with infected areas. That represents about 13 per cent. of the number of farms that were ever restricted.
We can therefore be optimistic about the future course of the disease, although the epidemiologists warn us that cases will continue to occur for some time yet. What is clear is that our policy was the right one: to bear down on the outbreak swiftly and prevent greater spread of the disease by rapid slaughtering, within 24 hours of the report of a new case, tracing dangerous contacts and tackling the disease on contiguous premises within 48 hours. This has been crucial to the control of the epidemic.
Last week I was able to announce to the House a broadening of the existing areas of discretion for local veterinary judgment in relation to culling on a neighbouring farm. That has provided some relief from automatic slaughter of cattle and has been generally welcomed by farmers, as has the move towards making special arrangements for rare breeds of sheep and hefted flocks.
On vaccination, it remains the position that the necessary support among farmers, consumers and the food industry for a vaccination programme in Cumbria and
1004
possibly Devon has not been forthcoming and I cannot see that situation changing now, given the decline in the number of daily confirmed cases. Contingency plans remain in place for the rapid introduction of a vaccination programme should the situation change.
I announced last week a number of ways in which we have re-established routes for healthy livestock to be sold into the food chain. I am pleased to say that we are now issuing instructions to veterinary staff so that they can issue licences which will allow healthy stock from premises within 3 km of an infected place to move after a period of time to slaughter and use in the human food chain. Farmers who wish to take advantage of this should contact their local animal health offices. Access to the livestock welfare disposal scheme remains open to anyone who can demonstrate a real welfare problem that cannot be addressed in any other way. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State will be meeting farming organisations tomorrow to review the operation of the scheme and its future.
The Government also want to do something to help with welfare problems on farms in infected areas which cannot move animals because of the local intensity of foot and mouth disease cases. I therefore propose to ask our veterinary staff to examine these problems on a case by case basis and to permit movements on farms provided that the fight against foot and mouth disease is not compromised. The most common problem which this change will address will be where animals are not able to cross public roads to fresh grazing. The change will be introduced by the middle of next week at the latest.
We continue to pay large sums in compensation and other payments to farmers resulting from the foot and mouth outbreak. We have already paid over £100 million pounds in compensation and the latest estimate is that this figure will eventually be over £600 million. The livestock welfare disposal scheme is expected to provide more than £200 million. This is all in addition to the £156 million being paid in agrimonetary compensation to livestock farmers and all the other funding that the Government are providing to support the rural economy and the tourism industry more generally. We are in discussion with the devolved Administrations and the farming unions about the longer term recovery plan.
The Government have also taken steps to safeguard farmers' entitlements to CAP payments. Following consultation with farming unions, the deadline for submitting IACS forms will remain 15 May. However, we have agreed with the European Commission that it will amend its rules on changes that may be made to IACS forms after 15 May. This flexibility will make it easier for farmers to adjust their claims to take account of individual circumstances. My Department has written to all IACS applicants to give them full details of the flexibilities we have secured and the procedures to follow. Farmers whose cattle or sheep have been culled and who are currently unsure of their future prospects should take steps to safeguard their entitlement to future subsidy, if and when they decide to restock their farms. This means that they should submit an IACS form in the normal way by 15 May. Where appropriate, they should also tick the boxes on the form for hill farming allowances and extensification premium.
When I reported to the House on 27 March, I drew attention to the need to enforce the rules on commercial and personal imports of meat and meat products into the

1005
United Kingdom. I should like now to inform the House of the steps that the Government have taken and are taking in this context.
The control of meat and meat product imports into this country involves the inspection of commercial imports at border inspection posts, effective controls on personal imports and action in shops and other food premises against sales of illegally imported food. The Government are taking action in all those contexts to build on our existing controls.
First, we have set up improved arrangements for the pooling of information in government about known or suspected illegal imports. That will help the authorities concerned—MAFF, port health authorities, local authorities and Customs and Excise—to target their activities on the areas of greatest risk.
Secondly, the Food Standards Agency has undertaken a programme of visits to ports and airports to examine the effectiveness of public health controls on imported food.
Thirdly, we shall be taking early steps to ensure that the restrictions on what may be brought into the United Kingdom from outside the European Union and the European Economic Area are made known to travellers by a publicity campaign involving the travel industry, airports, ports and Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts abroad.
Fourthly, the FSA has asked port health authorities and local authorities to ensure that, as part of their routine inspection of food premises and imported food, they check for illegal imports. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has laid before the House an amendment to the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 that will clarify local authorities' powers to seize suspected illegal imports. I understand that equivalent action is being taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Imports of meat and meat products into the United Kingdom, as into other member states of the European Union, take place within the framework of European law. As I promised the House on 27 March, I have asked the European Commission to give urgent attention to ensuring that the law on personal imports into the EU is clear and robust. Commissioner Byrne indicated at last week's meeting of the Agriculture Council that the Commission attaches great importance to ensuring that there is a high level of protection from disease at the Community's borders. I understand that the Commission's current thinking is that the main scope for tightening the EU's policy on imports lies in ensuring that the current rules are properly policed and in identifying and closing any loopholes.
I referred last week to the banning of pigswill and undertook to make a further announcement. I can inform the House that we are today making an order that will ban the feeding to livestock swill of catering waste that contains or has been in contact with meat. The ban is extended to include poultry and fish waste. The order will come into force on 24 May, after a three week phase-in period that is designed to ensure that animals can safely be weaned off waste food and on to an alternative diet.
The order has been made after consultation with the industry and other interested parties. The possible banning of all catering waste was considered in the consultation, but was subsequently deemed unnecessary, although the
1006
feeding of all types of catering waste from premises where meat or meat products are handled or prepared will be banned.
As I said, we can be cautiously optimistic that the worst is over, but we know that there will be sporadic outbreaks for some time and that we cannot afford to let our guard drop for a moment. All the resources that are required to overcome the disease will remain in place where they are needed, for as long as they are needed. We are determined to see this operation through to a successful conclusion. It is in all our interests to ensure that the job is done properly, so that farming and the whole of the countryside can get back to normal as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the Opposition spokesman, may I say that it is my desire to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak on the statement? However, I need the co-operation of the House and I expect questions to be as brief as possible.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, which was supplied to me in advance. I want to begin by repeating the tribute that Conservative Members have paid previously to everyone in the front line of the crisis—the Army, the vets and the many others who have been working extremely hard to get on top of the disease.
I warmly welcome the improved position that the Minister described. It is very good news that the measures that have been taken—it has to be said that some of them were taken belatedly—are now working. Nevertheless, he should know that the crisis is far from over in many parts of Britain. What he describes as a small number of animals awaiting slaughter was, last night, 107,000—more than three times the number that was awaiting slaughter on the day that I first called for the Army to be deployed in an operational role to bring the crisis under control.
In Cumbria, the situation is still so serious that the Army has just been forced to establish a new crisis management centre in the south of the county. In Somerset this week, the disease has struck in a new part of the county for the first time. In Scotland, the disease is still spreading from west to east in the border country. In the Welsh valleys new areas have suffered infection.
On top of that, there is growing criticism from farmers and vets, in places as far apart as Devon and Essex, that the Government may have changed the way in which cases are counted. In Essex, for example, antibodies were found in sheep at Great Wigborough, but the Ministry decided not to include that as an infected case. If foot and mouth was present in those animals, as local farmers and vets believe, why does the Ministry refuse to classify it as a confirmed case?
Will the Minister explain what changes have been made to the basis on which the daily total of new cases is now calculated? Does he agree that, if cases of infection are not recorded as such, there is a danger that an area may wrongly be assumed to be free of the disease and that that may lead to restrictions being lifted prematurely, and the risk of a flare up of the disease at a later date? Was it not one of the lessons of the 1967 outbreak that the foot was taken off the pedal prematurely?

1007
When the Prime Minister abandoned his plan five weeks ago for an election today, I set out the four tests on which judgment about whether the crisis had been resolved should be based. Good progress has been made towards satisfying two of those tests—the report-to-slaughter time down to 24 hours for infected cases, and the fall in the daily total of new cases. But the other two tests have not been met. The geographical spread of the disease has not yet been reversed, and many farmers with healthy animals are still not allowed to move them, for very good reasons.
How many farmers are subject to movement restrictions on healthy animals and how long does the Minister expect those restrictions to remain? Does he agree that farming cannot return to normal until all those restrictions are lifted, and the crisis cannot therefore be said to be fully resolved until all four of my tests have been met?
In the context of the welfare disposal scheme, I welcome the steps that the Minister has announced this afternoon. How long will it be before farmers with healthy animals within 3 km of an infected place are allowed to move those animals to slaughter for the human food chain? Will the Minister confirm that help will continue to be given to farmers whose premises now require disinfection?
It is now clear that the disease reached its present horrific scale because of the Government's failure to take the prompt action suggested by the Conservative party and recommended by the report to the Northumberland inquiry and the report of western command after the 1967 outbreak. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary says that this crisis is less serious than the one in 1967.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): It has been dealt with faster.
Mr. Yeo: The Minister has just said that, in 1967, fewer than 500,000 animals were slaughtered. In this crisis already 2.5 million animals have been compulsorily slaughtered and the movement restrictions on healthy animals, which have been imposed directly because of the crisis, have led to farmers asking for another 1.5 million animals to be voluntarily slaughtered. We are talking about a loss of livestock eight times that of 1967. That scale of crisis is the result of Government inaction.
Will the Minister confirm that, when the inquiry into the handling of the crisis is set up, independent experts will be asked to assess by how much the spread of the disease could have been reduced, how many animals might have been saved and how many businesses might have survived if the Army had been given the full operational role that we called for on 11 March, and if the policy of slaughter on suspicion had been introduced more promptly to cut the report-to-slaughter time to less than 24 hours at an earlier date?
On compensation, is the Minister aware of the anxiety about the retrospective cut that he announced last week in payments to farmers whose animals had been accepted for the welfare disposal scheme before 27 April? Will he reverse the decision and eliminate the element of retrospection? Will he speed up compensation payments generally? His statement suggests that approximately
1008
£500 million is currently owed to farmers whose animals have been slaughtered. Why has he not acted to help farmers whose cattle have passed the age of 30 months and cannot be sold because of movement restrictions? They have suffered an unrecoverable loss directly because of the epidemic.
I welcome the steps that the Minister announced for dealing with import controls. Is he now ready to introduce long overdue measures to stop meat entering Britain from countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic and to block the importing of other sub-standard meat, which may endanger human or animal health? Will he assure hon. Members that swift action will be taken if the Food Standards Agency decides that controls at ports and airports are too weak? Does he realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised the problem of personal imports through Heathrow, and that the Ministry was asked to take action in May last year? Nothing was done. Only last Sunday 444 kg of fish and meat in 43 bags were discovered on one flight from Ghana. I recently visited the port of Dover, where no controls are exercised on food imports.
Livestock farmers are not the only people who have suffered through foot and mouth disease. Thousands of businesses in tourism and other rural activities such as equestrianism have been devastated. Why has nothing further been heard from the Government's taskforce? Why has the Conservative proposal of offering interest-free loans to affected businesses not been accepted? That proposal was suggested in the House more than six weeks ago and has widespread support even among Labour Members.
If today's statement is the last to Parliament on the subject before Dissolution, will the Minister confirm that full details of the progress of the disease will be available to all candidates on a constituency basis throughout the election campaign?
The 10 weeks of the foot and mouth disease crisis have exposed muddle, incompetence and delay at every level of Government. Farmers, other businesses and taxpayers will pay a high price for ministerial negligence, especially in the early stages of the epidemic. At each stage, the Prime Minister has acted with his eye on the headlines and not on the problems. First, he played down the crisis. He was afraid that admitting that we were facing a national emergency would wreck his precious election timetable. Now he claims that we are on the home straight, but millions of hard-working men and women whose livelihoods have been put at risk by Government dither are nowhere near it. They face an uncertain and, in many cases, bleak future. They will have listened in vain today for any genuine encouragement and assurance that the Labour Government care enough about the rural communities that they have done so much to damage in the past four years to take the necessary action to ensure their survival.
Mr. Brown: Let me repeat that it is a mistake to milk a serious disease outbreak for party political purposes. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I encourage those on the Opposition Benches to give the Minister a hearing.
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

1009
Having asked the questions, it would be as well if the Opposition allowed me to answer them rather than behaving like overgrown public school boys.
I shall answer the questions in reverse order. I shall continue to put all the information that I can into the public domain. That has been my policy throughout the outbreak. We will make public and act on any advice that we receive from the FSA.
There has been no retrospective cut in rates under the welfare disposal scheme. It is essential to all those who care about the livestock industry, however, that our introduction of the welfare scheme does not create a false market. In the long term, that would be ruinous for the industry and suck in imports.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) questioned our prompt action—this, incidentally, from a party that took 11 years to get the proper public protection measures into place to deal with BSE—and referred to when the Army were called in. The advice of the 1967 outbreak report was followed. Ministerial correspondence was exchanged in government, and the Army was called in before the first call for its deployment by the parliamentary Opposition.
The House will know that the Agriculture Select Committee has already begun an inquiry into the outbreak, and I have appeared before it twice, so far. There is also bound to be a Public Accounts Committee inquiry. I pledge that whatever inquiries are held, I will co-operate fully, as will my departmental officials, and we will give evidence willingly.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the comparative scale of the 1967 outbreak. In spite of the much larger scale of this outbreak, we have brought it under control and are moving towards a conclusion more promptly than in 1967.
I answered the question about the 3 km zones in my opening statement. The hon. Gentleman also asked how many farms are still subject to movement restrictions. The answer is some 160,000, as Great Britain is still a control zone.
On the question of the compilation of statistics, where infected premises are confirmed as such, they are reported as such. There are no exemptions. If blood tests turn out negative, however, we cannot report such a case as a positive case.
The hon. Gentleman said that the outbreak was far from over. Yes, there will be cases for a while yet, and it is right that we remain vigilant, do not drop our guard and bear down on those cases.
Finally, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the fact that the position has improved and for his support for the public servants—both civilian and military—who are working so hard to bring this terrible disease outbreak to a firm conclusion.
Mr. David Drew: May I be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his steadfastness through this difficult time, but on his good humour, which is often needed in these difficult circumstances? Will he look at how he can begin to shrink the ring around infected premises—those farms that are subject to form D restrictions—as quickly as possible because that is where the biggest problems are arising in the recovery period?
1010
Will my right hon. Friend make sure that payments are made expeditiously? People who have been waiting for a good number of weeks need to know not only how they will restock, but how they will afford to do that and other things on their holding. Will he conduct an investigation into the state veterinary service—which was cut to ribbons by the Conservatives—to see how we can rebuild it?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the size of the state veterinary service is one of the issues that we will want to consider in the aftermath of this terrible disease outbreak. On prompt payment, I have already asked officials what can be done to make sure that we are making prompt payments in these terrible circumstances.
As for shrinking the 3 km infected zones, where that is possible I have asked that it be done, but it has to be consistent with disease control. We are trying to find ways of enabling livestock from premises under form D restrictions to get to the market. As I said in my opening statement, I hope that that is under way by the middle of next week.
Mr. David Heath: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the prior notice that he gave me of his statement? I welcome it and the general tenor of the improving situation that it described. However, I express caution; any suggestion that the crisis is over will be seen as a joke in the affected areas. If the epidemic is abating in livestock, there will still be many business casualties in the coming months. Given the new case in Wiveliscombe in Somerset, can the right hon. Gentleman scotch any rumours by stating categorically that no feral deer have tested positive for foot and mouth disease?
May I welcome the flexibility now exercised in the contiguous cull? Will the Minister pay particular attention to valuable pedigree herds that may be caught up in an infected area? On the welfare schemes, how is it that in Devon, where there is already a great deal of concern about the changes in compensation rates, the first newsletter issued by MAFF in the county gave the old, incorrect rates to farmers?
Has the Minister given further consideration to re-establishing the over-30-months scheme? We are approaching spring calving and a lot of cows would normally be moved on at that stage. A backlog will build up unless a suitable measure is put in place in the relatively near future. I welcome the relaxation on form D restricted areas. Does he agree that the best course of action for farmers caught in such areas is to enable them to move non-infected animals for sale?
On import controls, is not it extraordinary that the elementary advice in the statement—that the FSA has asked port health authorities and local authorities to check for illegal imports—should have been given at this stage in the crisis? Perhaps that explains why my hon. Friends and I have been refused permission by Customs and Excise to talk to the authorities at ports.
On pigswill orders, can the Minister confirm that what he has said today means that whey will be excluded from the restriction and, therefore, that the cheese-making industry will not be affected? I had expressed concern about that.
Lastly, will the Minister join the Minister for the Environment in saying that there should be an independent public inquiry on the handling of the foot and

1011
mouth disease outbreak? The Minister should have nothing to fear from some aspects of that inquiry, but clearly there is scope for improvement. We need a clear commitment to allowing someone to consider the evidence of the past few months.
Mr. Brown: Of course, we shall consider all the issues arising from the disease outbreak. On whey, my understanding is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. On enforcement, it is perfectly reasonable for the FSA to highlight those issues with the appropriate regulatory authorities. On the over-30-months scheme, I want to return it to normal working. On the welfare schemes, I understand the point that he makes, but ensuring that we are not setting rates that create a false market is essential for the reasons that I set out earlier.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about pedigree herds, the crucial issue is biosecurity on the farm. If farmers want their animals to be given due consideration when their farm is contiguous to an infected premise, the correct way to achieve that is to pay scrupulous attention to biosecurity. Clearly, the owners of pedigree herds are already well aware of that.
On feral deer, I am still not aware of any case of the disease having been found, although I have discussed what the Government would do in such circumstances, because we would not automatically seek to cull it out. I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about acting with caution and not saying that the outbreak is over. There is still much to be done, and that includes disease control measures.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: A number of farmers in Pendle have been in touch with me to express concern about the 20-day standstill period. I appreciate that the Government are consulting on that, but can the Minister tell the House anything about the issue? Is he minded to make a policy change?
Mr. Brown: The consultation period is not over yet, and a number of matters of detail have emerged already. Although the principle of a 20-day standstill for sheep and cattle has been welcomed, people want the Government further to consider a number of caveats, so I have extended the consultation period. The Government have not reached a firm conclusion.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister confirm that there will be a full judicial inquiry, on which the Government so enthusiastically insisted for BSE, into the foot and mouth outbreak? If not, surely the Government will be accused of being interested in the problems of previous Governments, but not in their own.
Mr. Brown: I have nothing to add to what I have already said to the House.
Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for the measures that he has announced today and inform him that, unfortunately, the 18th outbreak in Monmouthshire occurred just last week. It has affected seven contiguous farms.
The main concern of the farmers with whom I have been dealing this week are delays in compensation and the reduction in the rates of the welfare disposal scheme.
1012
It is particularly unfair on those farmers to experience unreasonable delays in dealing with their applications. Will my right hon. Friend consider the operation of the Intervention Board, which is a rather confusing institution for any of us to deal with? I hope that designated officers can deal with regions or sub-regions of the country at least, so that we can speak to someone in person.
Mr. Brown: The purpose of the welfare scheme is to deal with genuine welfare problems whereby animals cannot be managed where they are or cannot be moved under licence, which is the preferred option. My hon. Friend asks about making payments as expeditiously as we can. I have asked officials to see what more can be done.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The very measured tones in which the right hon. Gentleman has talked about the problem today represent a marked contrast with the reported comments of the Prime Minister, who is said effectively to have remarked that the crisis is over. The case in Wiveliscombe has been referred to, and MAFF has already identified 15 dangerous contacts.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if the measured tones that he uses are replaced by those of the Prime Minister, the public will be given the impression that the crisis is over and will drop their guard? There are already reports in the west country of farmers moving their stock around without having received the appropriate licences, and if the Prime Minister's tone is adopted, we may yet reap the whirlwind.
Mr. Brown: The Prime Minister has not said that the outbreak is over. It is not. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying very firmly to all involved in the livestock industry, but to farmers in particular, that they must not move their livestock without a licence. Unauthorised movement of livestock is the surest way to keep the disease outbreak going.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank the Minister for all the hard work that he and his staff have put in. He has visited my constituency twice.
There has been a severe problem in Cumbria, but over the 10 weeks a lot of local labour has been employed in the cull. Many of those people lost their jobs because of foot and mouth. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that local people will be the last to lose their jobs as the handling of the epidemic winds down? A senior official of the Lake district national park has said that it is unlikely that access to the fells will be possible this year. Did that official get his information from MAFF and does my right hon. Friend believe that that is the case? If it is, the tourism industry in Cumbria will have severe problems.
Mr. Brown: That is not my understanding of the situation, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend gets a written statement on access to the fells. In Carlisle we have tried to employ those who have been displaced from their normal work because of the outbreak on disease control measures. Although I cannot give him the specific assurance for which he asks, I can say that we will do what we can to try to maintain the local employment base where that is possible.

1013
Let me take the opportunity to express my admiration for the community that my hon. Friend represents, and the neighbouring communities, which have been resilient throughout this most terrible outbreak.
Sir Peter Emery: I wish to put to the Minister a question that was not asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the shadow Minister of Agriculture, who has greatly enhanced his reputation over the past 11 weeks by his sensible handling of the problem for the Opposition.
The Government, understanding that the outbreak was a national emergency, rightly introduced the funding of hardship relief.
That is proceeding, but one understood when it was introduced that the expense was to be met by the national Exchequer. We now find that the areas that have been hit are being called on to meet between 5 and 25 per cent. of the cost of the hardship relief. The local authorities that have had no problems have no extra expense, whereas a quite small district council in East Devon that has had cases of foot and mouth, and where hardship relief is being provided, is faced with an extra bill of £123,000. That is something that it never expected. Surely that cost should be met by the total Exchequer. May I urge the Minister to take this matter to the Treasury and to the Prime Minister—the Minister will not decide this himself—because it stinks of Treasury control, and is not a proper and sensible relief?
Mr. Brown: There is no contributory element to the agriculture schemes for which I am responsible. I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for the scheme to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Mrs. Diana Organ: The policy of culling animals on contiguous premises has been successful in bringing this disease under control, but in the forest of Dean 26 premises have been served with A notices as part of the contiguous cull as a result of dangerous contact with free-roaming sheep from the statutory forest. People have objected to that on the basis that the animals can either be counted in penny numbers or are pets. Will my right hon. Friend respond to the request from me and others for a serological study in relation to the A notices, so that we can move on to the flexibility involving testing before culling that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned? Secondly, may I press the Minister to put pressure on Forest Enterprise to lift the restrictions on some areas of the statutory forest, when we have resolved the issue of the 26 outstanding A notices, so that we can rebuild the tourism that has been so badly damaged in my area?
Mr. Brown: I will be discussing that issue with Forest Enterprise, and I have asked for veterinary advice about the unique circumstances in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Is the Minister aware not only of the effects of an approach to businesses in the agricultural, tourist and retail sectors that has effectively been a sticking plaster on a haemorrhage,
1014
but of the real damage that is taking place for many businesses in rural areas affected by foot and mouth, not least the Clacher pipeline business in my constituency and many others like it? Do the Government have a policy for compensation and assistance, rather than a series of measures put together in a somewhat ad hoc way?
Mr. Brown: I have said this before, but let me repeat it. It would be quite wrong to imply that the Government can somehow buy out all the consequential losses resulting from foot and mouth disease. That is true of agriculture and of the other rural businesses that have been so terribly affected by this disease outbreak. By far the best thing that I can do for everyone employed in the rural community is to bear down on the disease and eliminate it, and that is what I am setting out to do.
Mr. John Maples: May I raise two questions with the Minister that have been raised with me by farmers in the restricted zone on the Warwickshire-Worcestershire border? The last outbreak was nearly six weeks ago and we are now going through the process of inspections that we hope will result in the lifting of the zone restrictions. Part of that process involves the blood testing of sheep in the zone, and those blood tests all have to be analysed at the Pirbright laboratory. Is the Minister confident that there are enough resources available at Pirbright to do those tests without causing unnecessary delay?
Secondly, on the movement of healthy stock in a restricted zone for slaughter for human consumption, I understand that such stock has to be moved to an abattoir in the zone. That restriction makes it almost impossible for many people to get their animals to slaughter. Would it be possible to allow the animals to be moved to abattoirs slightly outside the restricted zone, if adequate safeguards were in place in the form of a veterinary inspection before the animals left the farm?
Mr. Brown: It may be possible for us to adopt such a scheme in future, but it is not at the moment. Although it is possible, under strictly controlled conditions, to move animals in an infected zone, we do not want to move animals from an infected zone to one that is currently clear, for obvious disease control reasons. I am not saying that it will not be possible to free up the movement restrictions as we continue to bear down on the disease, and I can see the desirability of the right hon. Gentleman's case from a trade point of view.
On the question of resources for testing at Pirbright, we have enhanced the available resources and I am confident that they are enough to carry out the serology tests that we need.
Mr. John Burnett: The Minister announced that there are proposals to allow healthy stock within 3 km of an infected place to move to slaughter "after a period of time". Will he help the House and my constituents by telling us what he anticipates that period of time to be? Secondly, it was dreadfully unfair to reduce the payments under the welfare cull. That is especially true for farmers under D notices, and I detect grave misgivings in all parts of the House about that.

1015
Finally, will the Minister tell us when Dartmoor will be reopened to the public? The tourist trade on Dartmoor remains at a standstill and it is critical that it should be reopened as soon as it is safe to do so.
Mr. Brown: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. I want to get Dartmoor opened up as soon as possible. However, that must be consistent with disease control. On the D class restrictions for people in the 3 km zones, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are continuing difficulties with movement restrictions, although I hope that what I have announced today will help. My noble Friend Baroness Hayman, the Minister of State, is meeting farmers' representatives tomorrow to discuss the welfare scheme, and I have had some discussions with farmers' leaders on how to help those categories of animals that are compromised for market reasons rather than welfare reasons.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about the period of time, that will be a matter of clinical and veterinary judgment. That judgment will vary from place to place depending on circumstances, but a veterinary judgment will say whether the animal in question is disease-free.
Mr. David Curry: The Minister will know that this crisis will not end on the first day that there are no new cases to announce. That is true for farmers, and also for the hundreds of thousands of other businesses that have no cash or customers and face the prospect of their summer being shot to pieces as well. Will the Minister draw the attention of the Government to the need to persuade more British visitors to come to the countryside, through advertising campaigns? In Yorkshire, £80 out of every £100 spent on tourism comes from British visitors, and the quickest way to get economic life back into the countryside is to get Britons back into visiting their own country.
Mr. Brown: I agree with both the right hon. Gentleman's points. Yes, we need to promote domestic tourism, and my right hon. Friend is setting out to do just that. The disease is not over yet, and it requires continued vigilance not only from public servants, Ministers and Members of Parliament representing their constituents, but from the farming industry as well. Any unlicensed movement of animals carried out by people who believe that we are on the home straight could cause a resurgence of the disease outbreak. We must all remain vigilant and committed to bearing down on and eliminating the disease.
Mr. Tim Collins: May I say that nowhere will there be more people praying that the Minister is right to be even cautiously optimistic than in Cumbria? Unfortunately, however, in south Cumbria things are not getting any better; they are still getting worse. In fact, there have been more outbreaks of the disease in my constituency in the past fortnight than in the whole of the period up until then. We have now lost at least half the irreplaceable rare breed sheep on the upland fells that play such a vital role in the ecology and look of the Lake district. Lake district tourist businesses in my constituency report that business is quieter and losses are greater now than they were before Easter.
1016
May I press the Minister to consider taking two steps that need to be taken, as a matter of urgency? First, will he make it Government policy to ensure that rare sheep breeds such as Herdwick and rough fell are not wiped out? Will he declare today that no sheep belonging to those breeds will be wiped out unless there is specific blood-test evidence that they have the disease, and that measures will be introduced to ensure that a major ecological disaster does not take place in the coming weeks, when the last of those animals could be wiped out without MAFF's even knowing that that is what it is doing?
Secondly, will the Minister please convey a clear message to the Treasury and the rural taskforce that Cumbria is bleeding to death? Its Labour-controlled county council estimated this week that losses already amounted to £500 million in that county alone, and were escalating steadily. Businesses in my constituency and beyond need more help, and need it desperately.
Mr. Brown: I am considering what I can do, in the context of my ministerial responsibilities, to help the areas with highest infectivity—Cumbria and Devon specifically, but not exclusively. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's other remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
What the hon. Gentleman says about special breeds is entirely right: we need to devise a strategy that gives them the best possible chance of survival. I believe that we have done that in discussions with breed societies and representatives of local farmers. I am advised—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows this—that a management rather than an automatic-culling strategy has the best prospect of achieving what we both want to achieve.
Mr. Peter Luff: I could raise many issues relating to the mishandling of the disease in my constituency, but I would not do so in a spirit of political partisanship, because I was sent here by my constituents to scrutinise the Executive. I shall, in fact, raise just one issue on which the Minister seemed to be prepared to move further. I refer to the form D restrictions.
A farmer in my constituency, Mr. Jeremy Boaz of Willow Bough farm in Grafton Flyford, stands to lose thousands of pounds because he is still under a form D restriction. If he has disposed of his animals under the livestock welfare disposal scheme, he will receive not £50 to £60 per sheep or lamb, but about £28.80. Moreover, he will receive nothing for animals that are slaughtered simply because he cannot afford to feed them. Meanwhile, the farm that caused the outbreak that led to the restriction is, quite rightly, receiving full compensation for its animals. Can such injustice be justified?
Mr. Brown: I hope that by the middle of next week the hon. Gentleman's constituent will be able to move his animals commercially, and receive a proper price for them in the marketplace.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Minister has spent some of his time providing some gentle reassurance that the Government have the issue of illegal food imports in hand. Is he aware of the sheer scale of the problem at

1017
airports such as Heathrow, where dozens of flights end every day? The vast majority will not be checked for such illegal food imports. The episode of last Sunday night, which I witnessed—444 kg of food was seized—resulted from a random check carried out by Customs and Excise. It is unlikely to be repeated frequently, if at all, and nothing of the kind had happened for many weeks before that.
The Minister mentioned port health authorities, but they have no statutory powers to search passenger luggage for imports of commercial scale. Responsibility rests entirely with Customs and Excise, whose priorities at present relate to class A drugs and tobacco. Customs and Excise currently has no recourse to sniffer dogs, or to any of the resources or logistics that are necessary for the carrying out of checks on food imports.
Will the Minister confirm that he has been aware of the current state of affairs at least since 30 May last year, when he was written to directly about this very problem by those involved in the detection of such imports at Heathrow airport?
Mr. Brown: Yes, but as the hon. Gentleman says, enforcement of the law is a matter for Customs and Excise. Strategy powers reside with Customs and Excise, and any representations made to me, as a Minister, would be sent to Customs and Excise as well because of its powers to enforce the law.
I think that we should take a robust line on illegal imports. We have upped the checking and testing regime, which involves agencies throughout public service, including local authority trading standards officers. If more needs to be done, more will be done. I consider it unacceptable for the whole country to be put through the pain and turmoil that we have been put through over the past two months because of an illegal import of the disease. We must take firm action to ensure that that cannot happen again.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Minister visit Northumberland, which seems to have been forgotten, although we are seeing new cases nearly every day? Will he heed the anger of people in the Widdrington area, who have witnessed the burial of more than 100,000 carcases and the burning of 3,500, but are told that—although we are supposedly on the home straight—their burial site is to be kept open for another month? Will the Minister pay particular regard to the need to protect the Chillingham wild cattle, and to the impact of all this on tourism businesses? He could even make his trip enjoyable by fitting in a visit to one of the many attractions in Northumberland that are still open.
Mr. Brown: I am aware of the attractions. Given my constituency, Northumberland is high on the list of areas that I am unlikely to overlook. Even were I to do so, it should be borne in mind that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who represents Gateshead, is a frequent visitor.
Of course we will make arrangements to deal with special breeds, including Chillingham cattle. What I cannot do is give all hon. Members the special assurances that they would like about particular disposal sites or disposal routes. I know of the concern that these issues occasion locally—although people feel that the policy
1018
may be right in principle, no one is enthusiastic about having a disposal site as a neighbour—but I cannot assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will manage to intervene, and change decisions made by those who are responsible for these matters regionally.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister, with whom I have worked closely, will know that the two suspected cases in my constituency, at Adlington and North Rode, have proved negative. Unfortunately, however, D form notices and movement restrictions are still in place. I am receiving an increasing number of representations from the Macclesfield branch of the National Farmers Union, and from individual farmers: they want movement restrictions to be lifted immediately.
A number of farmers are what I would describe as examples of economic tragedy in the current crisis. For instance, Mr. J. L. Mellor of High Lee farm, Sutton, has store cattle that are long overdue for sale. He can no longer afford to feed them. Mr. P. J. Simcock of Brink farm, Pott Shrigley, has 300 hundred horned sheep that are available for slaughter immediately. Abattoirs are ready to accept them, but they cannot be sent to the abattoirs. They are clean beasts.
Farmers can no longer afford to feed their animals. Will the Minister examine such cases very carefully, and then tell me—and the Macclesfield NFU—that the D forms and movement restrictions will be lifted in my constituency, as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Brown: I will do what I can to help the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
For every three suspicious cases reported, only one turns out to be a case of foot and mouth disease. When cases are reported, however, it takes longer to prove that the animals are clear than it takes to confirm the disease. If it is possible to lift the 3 km movement restrictions, consistent with disease control, I will ask the regional veterinary authorities to consider the matter carefully, and to treat the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Michael Jack: The Minister was uncharacteristically sharp in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). She asked whether there could be a full-scale public inquiry into the matter. Many would want to contribute; many lessons need to be learned. Will the Minister, in the spirit of openness, take this opportunity to explain why the Government do not want a full-scale public inquiry, if that is the case? Many are calling for such an inquiry.
May I re-emphasise the point about the welfare scheme? My constituent Lyn Horrocks received approval for the slaughter of pigs under the scheme, but there was a delay, and she may now receive a lower price for her animals. Does the Minister consider that equitable?
Mr. Brown: If we are talking about the same case as the right hon. Gentleman asked me about at the Select Committee hearing, I do not know whether he has been able yet to drop me a note to explain why the animals cannot be moved or managed where they are. If he could drop me such a note, I promise that I will look at the particular constituency case.

1019
I will co-operate with whatever inquiries are set up. Throughout the disease outbreak, I have put all the advice to me into the public domain and tried to explain my decisions as the disease has taken the course that it has. Where circumstances have changed, and therefore public policy has had to be adapted, I have explained that candidly in front of the House, the Select Committee and, where appropriate, at press conferences, too.
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford): Can the Minister explain why the MAFF website states that there have been no confirmed cases of foot and mouth in Essex for over three weeks when, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said, very recently, 1,600 sheep and 112 pigs were slaughtered after antibodies were found in the blood of animals at a farm near Colchester? Does the Minister understand farmers' fears that they may not be being given all the facts? Can he take this opportunity to state exactly what he believes the position to be in Essex?
Mr. Brown: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he has a factual answer to the individual case, but the most likely explanation is that the animals tested negative and were taken out as dangerous contacts. [Interruption.] The presence of antibodies does not necessarily mean that the disease is present. If the animals tested negative for the disease, they would not be included as a positive case. That seems to be the most likely explanation, but I shall arrange for a formal reply to be sent to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). However, there is no question of the Government excluding positive cases from the total statistics.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman has tried to be helpful throughout this terrible outbreak. In view of the fact that those who are suffering may shortly be deprived of parliamentary representation for a few weeks, will he set aside a day next week when he and his officials can see Members of Parliament who have particularly difficult cases, rather like the surgeries that we hold in our constituencies?
Mr. Brown: I always try to be as helpful as I can and will continue to be so while I am the Minister.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Recently, I had a discussion with the Minister about the lack of communication between his officials and those in the devolved Administration in Cardiff. A week last Wednesday, I saw the officials in Cardiff, who sanctioned the movement of sheep within enclosed common land in several parts of my constituency on welfare grounds and because it was risk free. All they needed was the rubber stamp of the chief vet of MAFF. I was assured that those animals could be moved on Monday this week. That has still not happened. May I ask the Minister to intervene personally in the matter? It is an animal welfare problem of quite large proportions.
Mr. Brown: Veterinary authority in these matters is devolved: not only is there regional discretion, but operations on the ground are the responsibility of the
1020
Welsh Assembly, not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The veterinary advice comes from the same final source: the chief vet is the chief vet for Great Britain, not just for England. I will ask him to examine the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I say gently that day-to-day operational responsibility lies with the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Development in Wales.
Sir David Madel: The Minister will recall that he answered a question from me last week about vaccine strategy for zoos. I am grateful to the civil servants in his office, who have listened to my representations since he answered that question. He knows how important that is for Whipsnade zoo in my constituency. Is the vaccine strategy document for zoos now in the public domain? If not, when will it be? When it is, please will he ensure that Whipsnade zoo rapidly has a copy of it?
Mr. Brown: I shall send a copy of the document to Whipsnade zoo and to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy in the Library.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Minister has reiterated his commitment to MAFF being as open as possible about the progress of the disease. My understanding is that MAFF has been publishing the total number of outbreak cases on a constituency-by-constituency basis, but so far it has not been publishing the lists of the locations of those outbreaks, although it could easily do so because, obviously, it has those at its fingertips in order to arrive at the totals. Does he accept that it is important that that information should be published, particularly if there is a general election campaign going on, when hon. Members will not be able to question the Minister directly on the progress of the disease?
Mr. Brown: My understanding is that I continue to hold ministerial responsibilities regardless of whether a general election is called. I shall continue to treat all hon. Members who are standing for re-election with courtesy and do what I can to help with individual constituency cases.
I shall continue to publish constituency information. I had some reservations about putting the individual addresses of farmers that might be affected into the public domain. My preference was to give the parish where the outbreak had occurred, rather than the individual holding, but I found in the early days of the outbreak that the identities of the farms were appearing in all the newspapers. They were well known locally. I will examine what it is reasonable and fair to publish. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give an absolute commitment, because I have reservations which relate solely to protecting the privacy of farmers, who are going through difficult enough circumstances with the disease outbreak without putting their names into the public domain, with all the consequences of that.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister will recall that I raised the case of my

1021
constituent, Mr. Tom Fudge of Neighbrook farm, Aston Magna near Moreton-in-Marsh. On that occasion, the Minister replied:
"The hon. Gentleman's point about the rates that the Government pay when we purchase animals for destruction is a fair one … I have urged the big retailers and others in the trade to behave responsibly and fairly throughout the supply chain. I have received a sympathetic and supportive response.—[Official Report, 15 March 2001; Vol. 365. c. 1226.]
That same constituent telephoned me this morning. He said that he was feeding 1,400 sheep out of his savings. He has not been able to sell any owing to restrictions and is being offered £30 a lamb, when a couple of weeks ago the price was £45. He says that the foot and mouth crisis is going from bad to worse and asks what the Minister can do to help farmers such as him throughout the country.
Mr. Brown: One thing I cannot do is to organise the welfare disposal scheme in such a way that it acts as a substitute market. Seventy per cent. of the sheep sector is operating, admittedly under licence—under constrained circumstances—in a market-oriented way. If the hon. Gentleman drops me a note setting out the circumstances of his individual constituent, I will see what can be done to help. I am afraid that that is the best offer that I can make.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Will the Minister put out more information to all farmers—not only those with access to the internet—about the restrictions that will apply over the next few months as they try to rebuild their businesses? I welcome the news letter that has been sent to all livestock farmers, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, it contains out-of-date figures for the welfare scheme. Does the Minister understand the frustration of farmers who submitted claims under the welfare scheme some weeks ago, but who are now told by the Intervention Board that the paperwork cannot be found? What exactly is the logic of paying farmers who have kept the animals on their farms for more and more weeks, with all the costs that that incurs, a lower figure than farmers who submitted claims a long time ago and had less costs to cover?
Mr. Brown: The answer is that I must not set up an alternative market. We are trying to enable farmers to get their livestock moving through the food chain, rather than being purchased by the state. If the rates that the state is paying compromise the rates that the market would pay, clearly, the market will be supplied by imports and the farmer will be farming a welfare scheme, rather than running a livestock business. That is the answer to the
1022
question. It is in the longer term interest of the British livestock industry to get it operating as normally possible as we bear down on the disease outbreak.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister quite rightly said that livestock should not be moved without a licence. However, is he aware of the bureaucratic delays, hurdles and obstacles placed in the way of farmers applying locally for such a licence? Will he personally take an interest in the matter and intervene to speed up the granting of licences while we remain in the throes of this dreadful disease? Will he also consider the human rights provisions of which the Government are such a fervent supporter and explain to local farmers in the Vale of York why they will receive a lower compensation rate under the welfare disposal scheme than will those who applied before 17 April?
Mr. Brown: I have answered the welfare question on a number of occasions. The danger is that we will create a false market and that people will farm the scheme rather than the market. I think that it is right to try to get animals moving through the supply chain, and I am putting considerable effort into trying to reinforce the strict licensing schemes that we already have in place.
Tomorrow, my noble Friend Baroness Hayman will meet representatives of the farming community to discuss farms that are under form D restrictions and consider what more can be done to help them. They will also be discussing what more can be done more generally to get the market working normally and the time scale for the welfare scheme—which is, after all, supposed to be a scheme of last resort, after moving the animals in the marketplace or managing them locally has failed as a strategy. It is not, and it cannot be, an alternative market.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I am glad to have the last word on this subject. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there continue to be muddle, confusion and sheer incompetence in the Administration, as evidenced in the case of my constituent, Mr. Huntbatch of Hope farm, Minsterly? Last week, he was told that it would be a month before he could move his animals. This week, on Monday, he was told that it would be two months before he could move any of his animals. On Tuesday, he moved animals to an abattoir.
Mr. Brown: Actually it is I who get the last word, and I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. However, if there is anything that I can do to help his constituent, of course I shall.

International Development White Paper
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
2.52 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short) I: I very much welcome this opportunity to debate the Government's second White Paper on international development, "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor". As the House knows, I greatly regretted the fact that time was not allocated for a statement when the White Paper was published. However, as they say, everything comes to those who wait. I am sure that we all agree that a debate is better than a statement and are pleased to have this debate.
As the House will know, in the past, little time was devoted to discussion of international development, which has for many years been regarded as a residual political issue. We had neither a Department nor a Select Committee to address it. I tell the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that I hope that we do not have too many more international development events in this Parliament because I have already paid so many tributes to him that any more from me might embarrass him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Perhaps later.
Previously, very little time—10 minutes, I think—was allowed for a Question Time on international development. Now, we have a separate Department for International Development and the Select Committee on International Development, which has done a superb job under the able leadership of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. I have already made clear, and I really mean it, my respect for his commitment to international development and for the work that he has done on international development policy throughout his life, both when he worked at the Commonwealth Development Corporation and ever since he became an hon. Member.
Nevertheless, although we have had two White Papers, legislation on the CDC and an International Development Bill—which I hope will soon be enacted—there is further to go. There is no doubt that, as those who have reflected seriously on such matters probably agree, the biggest moral issue facing humanity is the fact that one in five of those who share this little planet of ours live in abject poverty. The consequences of that inequality for the world, both morally and in terms of world safety and stability, are one of the most important political, strategic and economic issues that the world will have to tackle.
We have a way to go in persuading the political system and all political commentators, both in the United Kingdom and around the world, to face up to the seriousness of the issue and to stop treating it as charity or a residual issue outside mainstream politics. We have to make it clear that, if we are to have a safe and decent future, our priority must be to manage the world more sustainably and justly.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I should simply like to reiterate the Secretary of State's point. On Tuesday, hon. Members debated HIV-AIDS in the developing world. Horrendous numbers of people are dying from HIV-AIDS, which she and I entirely agree may be the biggest catastrophe facing the world. Sadly, despite that 90-minute debate, the matter was not picked up at all by
1024
political commentators. I hope that she will reiterate, as I think many hon. Members will, that the disease is a disaster, particularly in the developing world.
Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentlemen. I also know that he has taken great interest in the subject and frequently tried to draw it to the attention of the House and anyone who would listen. I agree also that the failure of most media political commentators to take seriously that and other international development issues is both worrying and perplexing.
Some time ago, I read an article about the industrial revolution in the United Kingdom, which was a time of profound historical change. The article, however, said that not only contemporary debates in the House, but contemporary media reports, novels and cultural activity were all about landowners. Opinion formers of the time took no notice of the transformation that was caused by industrialisation. I think that we have a comparable situation now. The fact is that the world is becoming increasingly interdependent, and it will be increasingly at risk if we do not act to make it safe.
As I said, both political systems and political commentators treat international development as a residual issue of charity. That is a serious problem for the future safety of the world. However, those of us who do attend to these issues realise that fact and are trying to convince people of the issue's seriousness and the need to address it by making the necessary changes.
Our first White Paper on international development was published in November 1997. It committed the Government to focusing all our development efforts, both our bilateral programme and our influence in the international system, on the systematic reduction of poverty and on meeting the international development targets. Since then, we have worked hard, with considerable success, to try to build that type of commitment right across the international system. We have probably been more successful than I could have hoped for when we started out on the task.
My Department has also published a series of targeted strategy papers—which are not, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) once suggested, the reason for my Department's increased publication costs. The papers are in no way vanity publications, but serious documents on the international effort necessary if the targets are to be met. They are also being used worldwide to try to mobilise international collaboration and energy to meet the targets. The targets are not an accidental collection of good things; they track all types of policy necessary in poorer countries to lift people up and create sustainable improvement in their lives. They deal with subjects such as higher income levels, better health care, more education, clean water and better governance.
I became committed to moving on to the second White Paper, on globalisation, after the Seattle meeting. As hon. Members will remember, there was chaos, with large and destructive demonstrations, at that badly run meeting. More worrying was the muddle of some of the commentary on the meeting from around the world. We should seek urgently to clarify in world public opinion the definition, the promises and the threats of globalisation. We also have to clarify how we can manage it to ensure that the poor of the world benefit and that future of the world is stable and safe.

1025
After Seattle, we had Prague, Washington and the May day demonstrations in our own country. There has been a strange mixture of forces, including some very nasty elements determined to use violence. It is extraordinary that people travel across the world at great expense to smash up McDonald's, even though there are plenty of McDonald's in their home countries. Such people are destructive and unhelpful.
There are some forces that are simply protectionist. The trade union movement in the United States is very small—only about 8 per cent. of American labour—but mobilised large numbers in Seattle to march for protectionism. It was strange, at a time of unprecedented growth in the US, before there had been any glimmer of a downturn, that they wanted to put up trade barriers, because they blamed any job losses—it was a time of major changes in technology, so some jobs went—on international competition and the fact that labour is cheaper in China. Such thinking is dangerous and muddled.
There are some environmental fundamentalists who, in a completely self-contradictory way, organise on the internet meetings at which they discuss how to prevent any investment in modern technology in the poorest parts of the world. They show deep double standards. In a muddled way, they think that the poverty and closeness to nature of a lot of people in Africa and southern Asia gives them a better standard of life. They enjoy all the fruits of the technology brought to us by multinational capital, but do not want the poorest continents and people to share in that.
All those groups advocate very undesirable policies and can be taken on one by one, but when I came back from Seattle, I found that many caring, decent people were deeply confused about the World Trade Organisation and how best to manage international trade. That is dangerous. The last time countries drew back into themselves in a knee-jerk reaction, as many in the United States want to do, was in the 1930s. Because trade and investment flows are becoming so rapid and bringing so much change, there is a danger of isolationism and recession returning.
Against that backdrop, I thought it important to amplify the analysis in our first White Paper, analysing the effect of globalisation on the poorest countries and setting out an agenda to be read more broadly, we hope, and influence public opinion at home and internationally. We need a commitment from Government to seek to manage this era in a way that benefits the poor and gives us a more stable and safer future.
That is the purpose of the second White Paper. I am pleased to say that it has attracted wide international attention. We published 4,000 copies of the first White Paper, which was considered influential and a success. Already, 14,000 copies of the full text of the second White Paper have been distributed in English, with 1,000 in French, Spanish, Portuguese and German. There has already been a reprint of the short introductory version, and 60,000 copies have been printed. The website has had half a million hits, with 11,000 serious visits in which the whole White Paper has been downloaded.
That is good. We need an international debate, and I know that some of the leading figures in the international system have read the White Paper, because they have talked to me about it. I hope that some of the MobGlob—I understand that some of these people who turn up to destroy international meetings call themselves that—
1026
might read it, and that some of the more intelligent among them might be encouraged to think more seriously and in a more forward-looking way about what is to be done.
From meetings in this country, I have detected a change of view about the WTO, and an understanding that it is membership-based, with countries joining by choice. People used to think that it was run by multinational companies. Three quarters of its membership are developing countries, and that gives us the possibility of having a multilateral, rules-based international trading body that makes decisions by consensus, holding the world together and bringing more justice to the poor of the world. To lose such institutions would throw the world into far more division, with the rich and powerful bullying and further marginalising the rest.
Apart from its attempt to influence public opinion on how to manage this era in a forward-looking way, the White Paper—I say this largely in honour of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)—contains a strong series of commitments across Government to trying to manage change in a way that benefits the poor, securing greater world stability.
There is a superb historical role for Britain. I think that it was Dean Rusk who said that we had lost an empire and never found a role. We all understand that comment. We are an open, trading, multicultural country with links with all parts of the world. We have a lot of influential positions on the international stage, because of both the bad and the good in our history. We are involved in the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Commonwealth and the European Union, which is the largest single market in the world and the biggest destination for the exports of developing countries. To use our international influence to work for a more inclusive and just world that takes better account of the needs of poor people and countries is a fine role for the UK.
I hope that, across parties, we can hone a deeper and more informed commitment to that objective. In that way, Britain could make an important contribution to the world in the coming era.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most useful things that the Commonwealth could do is to identify the big global issues—electoral practices could be one example—on which it could make a major contribution, rather than, as it sometimes seems to do, trying to produce valuable programmes that are very like those produced by other organisations?
Clare Short: Yes. There is such a clear role for the Commonwealth. It has tantalised many people, because it involves relationships of genuine affection that people want to sustain, despite historical forces pulling in the other direction. There are many countries outside it that could join: one thinks of Afghanistan, the US and the Palestinian Authority. Rwanda would love to join, and is trying to convince us that there is a small part of Rwanda that was once colonised by Britain. We are all worried about its not having a role, yet people have such affection for it and there are still countries wanting to join.
In this era, in which we need to strengthen multinational institutions and reach agreements about how to manage the world economy by consensus—that is a

1027
fantastic task—the Commonwealth has a distinctive potential role, as it encompasses so much of the world. The consensus that it can generate could be taken into the appropriate multilateral institution to facilitate agreement on how to create a fairer world.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am enjoying the Secretary of State's exposition of her vision, which I share, of Britain's future role in the world. Does she agree that, by pursuing policies of globalisation and development, we will help to solve the problem that the media are interested in and go on about day in, day out: asylum seekers and economic migrants?
Clare Short: I strongly agree. There are more refugees and asylum seekers in the world than there have ever been, and more of them are being housed in some of the poorest countries. There are more displaced people in Africa than ever before—from memory, about 10.5 million. Tanzania, one of the world's poorest countries, is host to 300,000 refugees. That is misery for the people concerned and for their continent and its future. Clearly, many people are also seeking to come to Europe, where there are better economic prospects. It is cruel to turn refugees away without examining the forces that are pushing them out of their own countries, because everyone prefers to stay in their own countries, given the chance. The creation of a world of equal development, where people have the chance of education and a decent life at home and the opportunity to travel out of interest and to share ideas with each other, is achievable in a 50-year time span. That should be our objective, instead of the erection of barriers around our own country. That cannot be the solution.
No matter how privileged a country is, it cannot control the future of world trade rules, the international environment or the level of conflict. Africa, the continent in the greatest trouble with disease and other problems, is on Europe's doorstep, so we cannot make even the richest and most privileged children or countries safe. We either manage the world more effectively or the catastrophes will bite back at all of us, wherever we live.
I am proud of the fact that, increasingly, it is the UK's view that we should have a coherent attitude to the international economy. For example, we should examine international trade negotiations not only from the perspective of what we can achieve for the UK—although of course we must look after our own interests—but from that of whether they will lead to a more sustainable and fairer international system. We are getting a reputation for taking that approach, and our influence on making the international system more collaborative, coherent and focused on the systematic reduction of poverty is increasing. I hope that that work will continue for many years, whichever party forms the Government. It is a profound, historical and moral approach, but we cannot be complacent whatever we do because so many people are so poor and suffer so greatly.
Some people talk themselves into depression on those issues, as if everything is getting worse. That is not so. More human beings are being educated—including more girls—living longer and having access to clean water than ever before. Partly because of that, more human beings are surviving and the world population is growing.
1028
More people have done better; but there are more people, so we have to ensure that the solutions we have found reach those people. The world population will stabilise as girls go to school and more people have a chance of a decent life, but if we do not increase our efforts there will be more and more catastrophes. We have made a contribution, but there is more to do and no one who cares about the issues can be complacent and think that enough has been done.
The White Paper starts by clarifying the term globalisation, because it is the source of muddle in the international debate. Some people think that it means what neo-liberalism meant some years ago: letting the market and inequality rip and rolling back the state. In the era when those ideas were dominant, public services were run down and poor people were excluded from health care and education, as happened in Africa, Latin America and other areas. Those people opposed those ideas, see globalisation as a continuation, and therefore oppose it. I understand those emotions, but that is a muddled view of what globalisation means.
Globalisation started, perhaps, with the ancient Egyptians. It has existed since humanity started to trade, share ideas and technologies and move around the world. It accelerated at the time of the industrial revolution, with more production, manufacturing and trade across the world, and it has accelerated massively recently for two reasons. The first is the end of the cold war. We now have one global economy, instead of two blocs, and that integration has speeded up the movement of capital, investment and ideas across the world. The second is the new technologies. Information technology moves ideas around the world very fast, so capital is more mobile. That has led to a reduction in barriers to trade and a fall in the cost of international transactions. The global economy is therefore much more integrated now than it was even 10 years ago.
The good side of globalisation, which is rarely mentioned, is the diffusion of global norms and values, including the spread of democracy. More people—around 62 per cent., although some would argue about some countries on the margins—live in a democracy. The proliferation of global agreements on the environment, such as those on ozone-depleting substances, biodiversity and development targets, are the beginning of a global ethic of morality and the inclusion of all. That expectation of the same norms and values is an attractive part of globalisation.
Globalisation also brings with it rapid change and new challenges. The scale and rapidity of the change has generated uncertainty, anxiety and alarm across the world, including in our own country. Rapid change is difficult for us all to deal with, but that distrust and worry creates the danger that regressive political movements could start to appeal to people. There are also worries about the impact of globalisation on people's culture. For example, some deplore Hollywoodisation, with everybody eating hamburgers and watching the same films. The White Paper acknowledges those fears, but it argues that we are more likely to end up with such a world if the poorest countries are all marginalised and their cultures disrespected. In a world of equal development, in which different languages, cultures and music are respected, that danger will recede.

1029
People rightly also worry about the environment and the inequality within and between countries. Many people believe that such inequality is growing, but international equality has narrowed recently; it depends on the speed of development and economic growth in the poorest countries. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries tend to trog along at 3 per cent. growth a year, and inequality will grow or shrink depending on whether poor countries do worse or better than that. The White Paper analyses the performance of individual countries, and some of the poor and middle-income countries that have opened up and liberalised have become more equal. Others have become less equal, but that is a matter of political choice, not a result of an invincible force that responds to globalisation.
The White Paper proposes ways in which the world can manage the forces of globalisation so that they are beneficial to humanity. The lesson of history is clear: open societies that learn from and trade with others are enriched materially and culturally. Societies that encourage education and services for all, that use modern technology and that distribute the resources of economic growth broadly are more civilised, just, decent, comfortable, happy and stable. That is how we should manage in this era, and those who turn their back on that approach will not bring its benefits to their countries.
In recent decades, those countries that have seized the opportunities offered by more open world markets to increase exports, and attract inward investment and modern technology, have made the greatest strides in reducing poverty. More people have been lifted out of poverty in the past 30 years than in the previous 500. The east Asian countries have performed spectacularly. China's performance in the past 15 years in the systematic reduction of the numbers of people living in abject poverty has been welcome, even though China may have other aspects—such as its treatment of Hong Kong—that we do not find attractive. Countries that liberalise sensibly, educate their people and have decent standards and access to modern technology can achieve the sort of economic growth that reduces poverty rapidly. We want to bring those lessons to parts of the world that have not benefited, especially Africa.
We are on track to reach the target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015, but that is because of the performance of China, India and Bangladesh, although there is much to do still in those countries. Some countries in Africa have reached that level, including Uganda, Mozambique and Botswana, but many have not. We could reach the target, yet large parts of Africa could continue to experience the misery of high levels of conflict and human suffering. We have to do better to bring progress to all countries.
Globalisation is creating an unprecedented opportunity to lift millions of the world's poorest people out of poverty. That can be done if we organise ourselves and share the ideas that make it possible, but it is not inevitable.
We are at a crossroads. Many countries could be marginalised and left to suffer in squalor and poverty while the rest of the world gets more wealthy. That would be morally repugnant and dangerous. As information is globalised, people will be able to see their own poverty and others' prosperity, and they will not accept it. The anger thus created could cause all sorts of disaster for everyone.
1030
The White Paper argues that if the poorest countries can be drawn into the global economy and are thereby able to export goods and increase their access to modern knowledge and technology, the world could make massive progress towards the removal of abject poverty from the human condition. If we define poverty in relative terms, it may be true that the poor will always be with us, but abject poverty can be eradicated. It disappeared from Europe and north America at the time of the industrial revolution in the 1840s and 1850s. That shows that eradicating abject poverty from the world is an achievable objective.
Ms Oona King: I apologise to the House for being in and out of the debate because of my duties in Standing Committee, but my right hon. Friend spoke about drawing poorer countries into global trade. Is she going to speak about the definitions of pro-poor growth, on which I know that the Department has been working? Does she consider that some areas of growth are more likely to draw more people out of poverty more quickly than others? If so, will the Department do more work on that possibility?
Clare Short: I am coming to that, but it is not a complicated proposition. More research can always be done into how progress can be made more efficiently, but pro-poor growth is inclusive. Non-governmental organisations and people working in the development sector used to argue about whether growth was necessary or desirable when it came to reducing poverty, but that was ridiculous. Population growth without economic growth means that poverty will grow invincibly. That has been evident in some countries, especially in Africa.
However, growth that is not sustainable—such as that depending on the extraction of mineral resources that are not replaced—does not lift up a country. Growth whose proceeds go exclusively to one group does not reduce poverty, but rather maximises the risk of conflict. The research clearly shows that if all a country's people do not benefit from growth, the excluded group is more likely to resort to conflict in the absence of democratic opportunity.
Economic growth has to be sustainable. That means that a country's environment and resources must be taken into account but also, in the modem world, that good education and health care are available.
Education and health care are not just desirable: the technologies of modernity require people to be educated so that they can contribute to their countries and participate in the global economy. The fair distribution of the proceeds of growth means that education and health care are available to all. Economic change often disbenefits one group of people, and Governments have a duty to help them to adjust and find new avenues by which to go forward. If that happens, the sort of growth that brings benefits to everyone, and especially to the poor, can be sustained.
I want to mention inequality. Some of the Latin American countries are the most unequal in the world. For example, enormous wealth and desperate poverty exist side by side in Brazil. It takes longer for growth to reduce poverty in such countries. Unless a country's economic development is strange, the proceeds of growth tend to be distributed fairly evenly, but in very unequal countries the

1031
proceeds that go to the poor are very limited. Questions about the degree of inequality are questions of justice, but removing inequality depends on stability and the speed with which poverty is reduced. That lesson is clear, and measures must be taken to ensure that action is put in hand to reduce poverty.
As I said, extending education and health care to everyone is a fundamental requirement. Ill health is undesirable and causes suffering, but the research shows that poor people work endlessly. They are creative people but they work harder than anyone else in the world as they try to lift their families out of poverty. However, ill health constantly throws people back into poverty. If a family's breadwinner cannot work because of ill health, that family has no income. If a child or a dependant is unwell, the family borrows money—or begs, or sells belongings—to get drugs and health care that is often of very poor quality. Better health is desirable not only for its own sake, but because it helps people improve their lives and the lives of the next generation.
Education and health care are crucial for development. They are to be paid for out of the proceeds of development, but investment in those sectors is one of the ways to secure the conditions necessary for development.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State mentioned the terrible disparity between the very wealthy and the very poor in South America. Will she comment on the drug barons and the regimes in that part of the world, where there seems to be a vested interest in feeding drug habits and keeping as many people as possible oppressed in poverty? Should not the western world take even more interest in that than it does at present?
Clare Short: The problem of drugs extends world wide. Drugs involve criminality, illegality and instability. Their use by people who are marginalised and often damaged is evident even in countries such as our own. Drug use is a crisis of the era.
Colombia is an example of a country with poor governance, widespread violence and an absence of justice or law. In such countries, very poor people who do not use drugs grow them, as they are the only crops that will secure an income. It is no good persecuting those people: they must be offered the chance of a legitimate life. They need to have the economic well-being that comes with taking legitimate produce to market, and which gives them the chance to send their children to school and to enjoy decent health care.
Too often in the past the focus has been on bombing campaigns. Unless a decent future is promised, people return to growing drugs because that is all that they can do. The drug barons are the only people who will buy such crops, and we must work hard to find more constructive solutions that offer people the chance of decent lives.
For example, the UN spent a lot of money in Afghanistan on paying people not to grow drugs. They stopped, but they started again because they were not offered the chance of decent lives that did not depend on drug production.
Mrs. Gillan: The Secretary of State may know that I have been trying to champion the cause of growing
1032
pyrethrum as an alternative to poppies. It is possible that pyrethrum could be a crop substitute for drug production. Will she look again at my letters to the Department on crop substitution, which offers a way forward for families that depend on growing drugs to feed and clothe their children?
Clare Short: I should be delighted to do so, although I do not think that the hon. Lady has sent me any letters, as I would have read them. I am ashamed to say that I do not know what pyrethrum is.
Mrs. Gillan: It is a variety of chrysanthemum.
Clare Short: Oh, I know what chrysanthemums are. I should be delighted to look at her letters if she sends me copies, but there is more to the problem than finding just one crop substitute. People must also be able to get crops to market and their children to school. If the package on offer is not sufficient to allow people to have legitimate lives, the men with guns will remain in control and people will be unable to move forward.
Pro-poor growth and establishing educated and healthy populations are key requirements in achieving progress. Development assistance is also vital, and we need more of it, but it must be deployed differently. In the past, it has been associated with the charitable mindset. I do not deny the value of charity—we should all care for those in need—but charity consists of handouts to the poor, and it is not development. The task is to use overseas development assistance to create the conditions that enable people to lift up their lives.
To achieve that, we must stop having lots of different, fragmented projects and instead help countries establish the effective institutions of a modern state. Those institutions provide services to a country's people and run the economy in a way that ensures that savings stay at home, that inward investment is secured and that people have access to modern technology. In that way, a country's economy can grow in a way that benefits all.
The White Paper commits us to increase United Kingdom development assistance as a proportion of gross domestic product to 0.33 per cent. by 2003–04—a 45 per cent. increase. We are also allocating progressively more to low-income countries and untying our development assistance, for which we have had all-party support. However, we could do better and that I hope we will have all-party support to help us continue making progress so that we reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. I am delighted to tell the House that after 32 years of trying, we have agreement with the OECD Development Assistance Committee that aid to the least developed countries will be untied. That is very important, because when aid is tied, supplies have to come from the giving country. It is motivated by trade connections, leads to growth inefficiency and does not enable countries to put in place the institutions that they need to go forward.
We must build an international system focused on the systematic reduction of poverty. We have been working on that with some success, but there is more to be done. The UN is precious—nothing can replace it—but it could be more efficient. I am haunted by Sierra Leone. We will succeed there, but UN peacekeeping could be more efficient and effective, and we must all work together to achieve that.

1033
We must have fair international rules and strong international institutions to harness private capital and trading opportunities to improve the life of the poor. We must challenge the MobGlob, the mobilisation against globalisation. What they preach is a disaster for the world and for the poor. The systematic reduction of poverty requires greater, not less, international co-operation. Without rules, the strong and the rich will bully the rest. Sovereignty now stays with nation states—it does not go to any other institution, but must be pooled to be exercised. There are some things that countries cannot do on their own. Countries must collaborate with others to produce rules that will benefit everyone. If we cannot do that, we will be in trouble.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I agree with everything that the Secretary of State has said, something that I cannot always say, and I congratulate her on her speech. Will she say something about the need to encourage greater charitable giving in the west? I know that progress has been made with the gift aid scheme and other measures. There is a limit to what the taxpayer in the developed world will pay, yet we would all like to spend much more on international development.
Clare Short: People in this country are very generous. That is also true of the USA, which is not always as governmentally committed to development and often thinks, perhaps because it is such a big country, that it can secure all that it needs unilaterally. In the United Kingdom, people provide £400 million a year to development NGOs and the taxpayer tops that up with another £195 million or so a year. Dues paid into the international system have come to just over £3 billion this year, and at 0.7 per cent. of GDP, that figure would be roughly £7 billion.
People are generous when it comes to charitable giving, but we also want to make a contribution to countries, and there are some things that charities cannot do. Some countries have rotten financial systems and need better management of their public finances. A charity cannot put that right. We are working to educate public opinion in this country; there is no question that people, especially the young, who will inherit the future care about the poor of the world. However, when asked what can be done, they say "Give to charity." That is honourable and I admire it, but we need to call for fairer trade rules and international environment agreements along with stronger UN peacekeeping capacity so that citizens can use their democratic power to achieve the conditions necessary to make the progress that we want to see.
I have three final points. First, it is increasingly clear that no matter what one's economic, political or geographic perspective, in a globalising world, eliminating poverty is more important than ever. We live in a world in which great wealth and great squalor exist side by side. The immorality of that is clear, but in a globalising world we also need to focus more actively on poverty elimination to secure future stability and prosperity for all. The dangers for the future are environmental degradation, conflict and diseases for which we have no cure, such as HIV/AIDS and multi-drug-resistant TB. Some 20 per cent. of the population in our neighbouring continent, Africa, live under conditions of conflict. That causes enormous suffering. Refugee movement is a barrier to development, and the issue of asylum seekers will affect Europe.
1034
This is about our safety and more justice in the world. It is a priority; we know what to do. We live in a time of unprecedented knowledge, technology and capital. We know the conditions that produce development; we must be intelligent in applying them more broadly and collaborating internationally. In that way, we can make massive progress.
Secondly, we are living in a time of profound change. There is intellectual and political mind-lag in the world. Some institutions are attending to the agenda of 50 years ago. We must move our political institutions and thinking forward so that these issues are regarded as a priority for the safety of the future. We must do everything that we can to get more people to involve more people. The White Paper is designed to help in that way.
Finally, I believe that there is more cynicism and negativism in the media and in much political commentary than there has been in my lifetime. Everyone is supposed to have an ulterior motive. There is no room for decent and honest disagreement—we must all carp and sneer. I do not like that—it is not a pleasant way of proceeding politically, and it is also dangerous. We could achieve massive historical change, but for that, people need to work together and believe that it is possible to collaborate. If cynicism takes over, we will not achieve that.
This is a wonderful role for Britain; we can make an important contribution to the world. However, people must raise their sights to see where the need is and what is possible. If they work together to achieve that, we could have a world in which the extremes of poverty that existed in this country in the 1850s have gone from the world. Every child would be educated, and the world would be safer and more decent. All of us who have been able to contribute to that in any way can be proud of our part in political life.
3.37 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: I am very glad to follow the Secretary of State. I hope to make a speech in a similar vein. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I agree with everything that the right hon. Lady said—to my concern and, probably, her distress. The silent one on our Front Bench is now scribbling furiously in a little blue book.
I share the Secretary of State's vision about the contribution that this country can make to international development, peacekeeping, diplomacy and bringing people together. We are uniquely qualified to do those things. We are not a superpower; we have lost our empire and have, for some years, been in search of a role, and I think this is it. We can punch above our weight, bring people together and seek to make real inroads into abject poverty. I agree with the right hon. Lady that we are at a crossroads in terms of globalisation. The international community and Governments throughout the world need to make the right choice. We must ensure that we encourage them to do so.
As has been said, the British people have repeatedly shown their concern for the world's poorest through their generous response to recent crises in Kosovo, central America, Mozambique and Gujarat, the inspirational Jubilee 2000 campaign and their consistent support, year in, year out, for excellent British aid agencies. Many of our constituents have already sent us a clear signal: they

1035
want our country to be at the forefront in the attack on global poverty. I certainly agree that, at present, the House does not do justice to the seriousness of that subject.
At this point in my speech, I had intended to make some sneaky and sneering party political points about the absence of debate, but I have decided not to make them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on, go on!"] No, I am overwhelmed by the spirit of consensus and am reluctant to break out of its orbit.
The Conservatives broadly welcome the thrust of the Government's White Paper. We certainly pay tribute to the Department for International Development for all its excellent work on behalf of the whole House and of the country. I want briefly to explore the working title of the White Paper. I do not want to consider its chapters in detail, because we have all grown familiar with the contents over the past few months; I want to look more closely at its excellent title—"Making Globalisation Work for the Poor". That is much more than a title; it is the very essence of what we have to achieve as we go forward in the next 20 or 30 years.
One of the key points about development is that there must be a long-term view. As politicians, our focus is usually on the next general election, which is probably in about four weeks—not much time to achieve anything significant—while international institutions and multinational corporations are worried about their next shareholders' meeting and so on. However, if we are really to make progress, we have to act on a much longer-term basis than that.
There is no question but that the abject poverty we see in the world is wholly unacceptable. As the Secretary of State said, we know that throughout history a significant proportion of the world's population has always been extremely poor. Perhaps the difference nowadays is that we are much more aware of that fact and that if we have the will and if we get our act together, we have the wherewithal to do much, much more about it.
In the developed world, we do not have to look back far to find a time when in this country, other western European countries and the United States of America, there was rampant poverty, with disease, child labour, sweatshops and urban squalor. In this country, not long ago, the poor were completely disfranchised, but through trial and error, and by pursuing sound social and economic policies during several generations, we and other countries have established the rule of law. Usually, benign governance, free markets and private enterprise produce material comforts and security for all.
As the Secretary of State said, our challenge is to ensure that the same progress is made throughout the entire world. The good news is that it can be much quicker for developing countries which choose the right way than it was for us. They can learn from our mistakes and our experience. Despite some of the mindless chanting and banners of the protesters in London on May day, the truth is that globalisation, if correctly harnessed, is not the enemy of the poor but the very vehicle whereby the world's poorest can be lifted out of poverty.
It is worth reminding ourselves why our goal should be to seek the eradication of abject global poverty. I am sure that everyone in the House at present—although perhaps not everyone in the country—agrees that it is morally
1036
unacceptable to witness the horrors of grinding poverty, especially when we have so much wealth. As I said, not everyone feels like that—we should not condemn those who say that charity begins at home and that global poverty has nothing to do with us. Such things are said, but we should gently remind those people of two facts.
First, global poverty leads to global instability, conflict and disease. One way of minimising the risk that future wars will affect our own country is to help to improve living standards and to establish proper democratic frameworks in developing countries. This is a passion of mine: even in greater Europe, the one way to ensure that our children do not have to engage in a 21st century European war is to make sure that the former Soviet countries in central and eastern Europe are welcomed into the European Union as soon as is reasonably practicable. Momentum towards the EU will underpin the rule of law, market economies and fragile democracies in the states that suffered so much under communism. There is a price for us in taking on board those new members, who will need much support for many years. However, the cost of the alternative is immeasurably higher.
Secondly, as living standards improve and market-based economies begin to flourish in more and more places, so the trading and investment opportunities for our businesses will increase, underpinning our own economic prosperity in the north. Thus, for the person who is not minded to go down the route of moral acceptability, there are two reasons why compassion and self-interest combine to motivate our attack on global poverty.
I am convinced that globalisation is the key to unlocking global poverty, and it need not take the many generations that it took us to figure it all out. A stable political framework, the rule of law, open economies, free trade. competition and a strong private sector are all part of the conditions necessary to produce economic growth, jobs and prosperity. A real consensus is growing among politicians, economists, financiers, commentators and some leading NGOs about the true benefits of globalisation, and about the key political and economic policies that will bring benefits to the countries that pursue them. The evidence is clear: countries with more open economies, and which have implemented policies to support and attract inward investment and trade, have recorded the best growth performance.
Not many years ago, Asia was poorer than Africa. However, because many Asian countries embraced strategies and policies that transformed many of them, they have made significant advances, while Africa, in most cases, sadly has not. Those Asian countries encouraged savings, investment, education and the rule of law and many of them have reaped the benefits.
The great irony, however, is that while that consensus has been growing among politicians, commentators, experts and economists, another consensus has been building to the contrary—as the Secretary of State mentioned. More and more people see globalisation and global capitalism not as the vehicles to defeat abject poverty, but as problems in themselves. That opposition has been growing for several years among people who profess to care for the world's poorest—and I am sure they do care. So we have had the Seattle riots and our own May day protests—egged on by such books as the best-selling "No Logo", by Naomi Klein, which takes a pot shot at globalisation.

1037
That situation should concern us and I want to make several points about it—I did not know that those protesters were called the MobGlob, but the expression is apt. As we know from our own surgeries and postbags and from the public meetings we sometimes attend, there seems to be a growing belief that there would be no global poverty if multinational corporations did not exist, if the World Bank and the IMF stopped imposing conditions on their financial support, and if debt everywhere was cancelled. That simplistic approach is mobilising more and more support against the very policies and organisations which most of us believe contain the long-term solutions.
Many decent, caring, well-intentioned people are beginning to hold those views. I am sure that I cannot be the only Member to be receiving more letters and more visits to my surgery from people who express those views and who want us to take that simplistic approach. Does that matter? I think it does, because if those views spread in people's minds, they become a distraction from solutions that might work. It does matter if a lot of well-intentioned people put their energies into ideas and solutions that are likely to make things worse for the world's poorest. Those protesters need to be told that they are fighting to keep people poor. Rather than breaking windows in McDonald's, would not it be a better idea to set up businesses that employ people in the developing world and so create prosperity?
I agree with the Secretary of State that if such opinions grow and take root, they could easily pull us back into a protectionist world that would be very serious and dangerous for us all. It is interesting that commentators acknowledge that just before the first world war, the world was extremely integrated—possibly even more so than today, given the lack of technology. It took shifts in public opinion, increased protectionism and global conflict to drive a wedge into that growing integration.
The onus is on us consistently to make the case for the free trade economic growth model and not to allow ourselves to be distracted. I congratulate the Secretary of State as I believe that she has done that; she has been brave in some of her speeches. I encourage her to continue doing that for the next three or four weeks while she remains in her position—[Interruption.] I did not say where she would be after that.
We must pose the question: what is the alternative? Now that centrally planned economies have failed the world over and modern technologies have rendered untenable an exclusively local and protectionist approach, what is the alternative to globalisation harnessed in the right way?
Clare Short: I do not think that we should be embarrassed by such agreement; we are talking about enormously profound and important issues for everyone's future. Indonesia grew with horrible corruption and repression, but the beauty of the lessons of the Asian financial crisis—provided that we can help people and that the suffering is not too great—is that we have reached the point where that model is not sustainable. In fact, democracy, inclusion, dealing with corruption and bringing education and health care to all represent the
1038
stable model, so we have refined the model that is most successful economically in a way that advances the condition of humanity.
Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention. It is absolutely right to look for sustainable models, not flashes in the pan. We are looking for things that will last, and the Indonesian model and perhaps those of one or two other Asian tigers have shown themselves to be unsustainable, because they did not put in place the necessary political stability, transparency and perhaps the freedom from rank corruption, so I certainly agree with the Secretary of State.
We must make the case for globalisation, harnessed as best we can, although I am sure that many mistakes will be made. If we do not make that case, we will be in danger of letting the arguments go by default and increasing the sense of alienation and disenchantment with the political process as a whole that is felt by a growing number of people.
I would be the first to accept that globalisation is not producing equality. Richer nations have thus far benefited more than poorer ones. Indeed, some of the world's poorest nations have so far been almost entirely excluded from the real economic benefits, but that does not mean that globalisation is not the solution, just that we have not yet driven the process far enough forward. However, that does not need to be the case if those nations can be helped to choose a different path by which they, too, can prosper.
Decisions made in Uganda in recent years have been better, on average, than those made by the Government in Zimbabwe, and the people of Uganda have benefited. Policies pursued in Taiwan have helped its people march into prosperity, while the decisions made in North Korea have had the reverse effect. Countries can choose prosperity in a globalising world.
Our goal is not equality—although some people think that it should be—and perhaps it is not even relativity; it is surely to see absolute living standards rise, so that everyone has access to shelter, food, water, reasonable education and health care. That should certainly be our goal. Some people point the finger at the multinational corporations and blame them for not doing enough to improve living standards for the poor. Of course, their primary goal is to make a profit. That will always be the case, which is as it should be, but by investing in developing countries they will, over time, bring economic growth with them. That is happening all over the world.
The best of our multinational corporations are increasingly aware that they have some responsibility for the communities in which they invest, on wage levels, child labour, environmental stewardship and other issues. I shall cite some famous names that are bound to fill the MobGlob world with fury, but BP, Nestlé, Gap and Nike all employ people in developing countries. They are not the anti-Christ. No doubt they can do things differently and no doubt they can improve their commitment to local communities; and they should be held to account—through whatever stakeholder power is available and through our consumer choices—for the commitments that they make to corporate and social responsibility, which are now a common feature of their annual reports. They say such things, and we are entitled to hold them to account for them, but they do not deserve the vilification that the anti-capitalists have heaped on them.

1039
Globalisation is happening. It has been going on for generations. Modern technology has speeded up the process and, short of unforeseen disasters, the momentum of globalisation seems set fair to continue. We in the Conservative party recognise that and broadly welcome it, and we have designed development policies that are intended to help to shape globalisation in a way that benefits the world's poorest. In the second part of my speech, I shall therefore briefly set out the four key development policies that we shall pursue in government to help to maximise the forces of globalisation for good, not ill.
First, we shall focus on good governance, as we have made clear in our policy papers. I have talked about that endlessly; I am even getting bored with hearing myself speak about it—a serious state of affairs. I accept that the DFID is currently focused on good governance, but we shall make it an even higher priority. My observations and experience, drawn from the past two years, show that the state and quality of governance in a developing country is absolutely critical and fundamental to its success in choosing to enter into prosperity.
Decisions by national Governments remain at the heart of a nation's fortunes. Although globalisation is all about what happens in the entire world, we all recognise that nation states still remain extremely important. Without good governance, the rule of law and a willingness to embrace market economies, the framework for prosperity is simply not in place. I am not talking about a "one size fits all" approach, but I accept that we can advocate nothing but democracy. Some countries have embraced market economies when they are not fully democracies—we are all a little concerned about Uganda and the succession strategy there; but, from our experience, we can only advocate democracy and, certainly, benign government—one of the key fundamentals that must be in place.
I should like to read a brief extract from the World Bank report "Poverty in an age of Globalisation", just to make the point. Page 9 states:
"Good governance has emerged as one of the most important prerequisites for development. This is both because of the role of government as a builder and provider of institutions, and because the failure of governance can lead to an overall political breakdown. Weak governance has been an overriding characteristic of the poorest performing economies"—
no surprises there.
The next Conservative Government will do more to help to build good governance. That is our unique governmental contribution to global poverty. I know that the policy is long term, intangible and difficult to measure, but it is vital. As part of our policy, we want the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the British Council to increase their work in democracy building and governance. We want to see more support for political parties overseas. Strange as it may seem to some of us, political parties are actually rather important organisations, and their establishment in many of the countries that we are talking about is very important, especially if they are rooted in the community and open to all. We will seek to support strong civil society, and we will draw upon the experience of the know-how fund and make British expertise available, especially in the civil service, judicial and security sectors.
1040
There is one thing that we know how to do well in this country—collect tax. That represents the sort of expertise that many countries would be very keen to draw on, and we will make that the primary focus. That will be the best way to meet international development targets, which we support. The best contribution that we can make to poverty reduction and to producing a poverty focus throughout the world is to help to strengthen the framework of countries with which we are working, so that the private sector and foreign direct investment can do their jobs in increasing living standards in such countries.
Our second and related focus will be to bear down on corruption. We all know of the reality in many countries. I was interested to read some recent research by Mr. de Soto, a Peruvian economist, who found that corruption and poor bureaucracy represented a real block to enterprise in many countries. He wrote:
"In the Philippines, to formalise a squatter's house built on state-owned land can require 168 steps involving 53 public and private agencies and taking between 13 and 25 years.
In Malawi, the bureaucracy that administers property law is, in the words of an official report, riddled with jurisdictional overlaps and internal conflicts, and is often the cause of delays, errors of judgment, lack of coordination, rampant corruption and dereliction of duty."
We want to bear down on such corruption, wherever we possibly can. We shall be rigorous in withdrawing development assistance where there is evidence of misuse, and we shall encourage other donors to do the same. We will review the increasing use of sector-wide funding plans, which are clearly more open to misuse than more strictly monitored financial support.
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. An effective modern state goes beyond democracy and human rights, proper tax collection, the proper management of public finances, the rule of law and people having the right to property so that they can build houses, which is important for many slum dwellers, and so on. All that is absolutely key and we are increasingly moving towards it, but sector-wide approaches involve building an effective state, and they replace an old approach that went outside the state because there was corruption. We must take the risk and become engaged in helping countries develop their financial management systems and those by which they deliver services to their people. That is what sector-wide approaches involve. I therefore agree 100 per cent. with the hon. Gentleman about wanting to work more on corruption and effective government. I agree with the diagnosis completely and that is what we are doing, but he has a contradictory objective in wanting to move away from sector-wide approaches—they go together.
Mr. Streeter: The jury is still out on this. Even the Overseas Development Institute said in its recent report of 1 May that the sector-wide plans
"have lacked good evidence on how poverty is being addressed and with what effect."
The Secretary of State may well be right, but I was simply saying that the jury is still out and that I would review sector-wide funding, not abolish it, on 8 June.
We do part company, however, on my third point for putting in place the best possible development policy to harness the forces of globalisation for good, not ill.

1041
I profoundly disagree with the Secretary of State about the charitable sector. We Conservatives want to build a new partnership with the charitable sector. We want to do much more to encourage and harness the energy and compassion of the British people and our aid charities. I accept that there are many developments that only Governments and multilateral organisations can undertake, but there is a massive role for the charitable sector. Most important, it can build long-term, committed relationships, people to people, which Governments can never do.
The Secretary of State said that charities are really about handouts and that she was talking about sustainable development. Of course we want sustainable development, but I visited a project in south-west Rwanda—I could list several dozen and I am sure the Secretary of State could, too—where a few years ago people were hungry. World Vision was sponsoring a project there whereby an agricultural expert from Ghana was teaching farmers how to increase massively the yield on their hilltop farms, partly by terracing and partly by better husbandry. After the three-year project, the yields were significantly increased and the people were no longer hungry. Indeed, they had surplus to sell, with which they bought cows. I was introduced to the cows, of which they were so very proud.
Clare Short: Did they have foot and mouth?
Mr. Streeter: No, they did not have foot and mouth.
Clare Short: They have it in Rwanda.
Mr. Streeter: I hope that those dear cows to which I was introduced do not have foot and mouth. They were of the "Phoenix the calf' variety: extremely desirable—I do not mean to eat. As I was saying, the farmers were no longer hungry and they could sell their surplus crops. Most significantly, they were passing on their new skills to other farmers in the region. I think that that is sustainable development and I know that the Secretary of State does too. That was achieved through a long-term relationship established by a charity that was doing the right thing. I could cite many other examples. That is absolutely at the heart of international development.
Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend think that we have anything to learn from US tax regimes in making sure that we are a generous society in terms is of donations to charities?
Mr. Streeter: That is the direction in which we want to go. Government cannot do it all. The British people are very compassionate and give generously and often in response to humanitarian crises, but they do not have much confidence in our public development schemes—or at least that is what the recent survey indicated.
We must do more to encourage the charitable sector. We want to encourage people to give more and we want the charitable sector to do the right thing in terms of a strategy that we agree with it. We Conservatives have thus pledged ourselves to double the amount that the DFID spends through NGOs and charities over the lifetime of a Government. We want to make sure that money is available to large and small NGOs and that we work more closely with the charitable sector in making a real long-term difference.
1042
We will set up a web-based, one-stop-shop information and advice service. As I have said before, I really believe in this; I ought to as it is my idea. I offered this idea, called aid direct, to the Secretary of State and I hope that she has looked at it. The idea is to provide up-to-the-minute information about the situation in each developing country, with inputs from embassies, NGOs and major corporations working there. It is so often the case that people who want to make a contribution and a difference do not know how to start or what to do for the best in a particular country. As a result, we get overlap and duplication and people get frustrated and turn away. More information and up-to-the-minute advice, matching needs and resources, is what we have in mind. It could be a very effective facility for encouraging an even better performance from the charitable sector.
Clare Short: I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen on this. In the course of my life, I have found that most good ideas have already been thought of by someone. The Royal Bank is in the process of trying to do that for the whole international development system, so that in any given country everybody knows what everybody else is doing and they all have access to the information. The idea is a good one, but it is in hand.
Mr. Streeter: The Secretary of State said that the idea is in hand, but it is not yet in existence. We have checked carefully but there is nothing in the whole world or on the world wide web along the lines that I am suggesting. It would be great if it were put in place. We do not mind our best ideas being pinched. Indeed, in this party we are used to that—it has been happening for at least 10 years and we were getting pretty cheesed off with it. However, we want this to happen because it will provide a real service to people who want to make a difference.
Finally, in government we propose to make sure that globalisation is harnessed for good, and not for ill, by reviewing the performance of all multilateral organisations. We recognise that although the nation state remains dominant, there is a need for multilateral agencies and combined resources. We accept that, but we want them to perform well and to offer value for money. We have often spoken about the European Union aid programme. Our policy on that is well known: unless the recent reforms produce vast improvements, we will work for a treaty change to allow member states to opt out of much of the EU aid contribution, and so spend the same money much more effectively.
We are unhappy about the lack of true accountability of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and about the performance of the UN. The UN should do less, better. We want to champion the cause for reform of the important organisations which, sadly, have too often been under-achievers. We want the World Trade Organisation to concentrate on smoothing the path of global free trade.
Mr. Robathan: I hate to disagree with the profound consensus that has built up in the Chamber this afternoon, but does my hon. Friend share my unease from the White Paper that Britain will be channelling more money through multilaterals and the UN family than we have

1043
done up to now while working for reform? Does he agree that it would be best for reform to take place before we channel more money into such agencies?
Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right. When I launched our well-received policy documents, I said that on the day we came to power—on my first day as Secretary of State for International Development—I would seek an urgent review of all our contributions to all multilateral agencies, particularly UN agencies, to make sure that we were getting value for money and doing the right thing in spending British taxpayers' money in that way. We can use the threat of withdrawal of that money to push for more reform.
Clare Short: The House might like to know the figures. As a Government, of our £3 billion we give £195 million through British NGOs, £172 million through the World Bank and £152 million through UN development agencies, some of which is compulsory as a member of the UN. People think that the UN is massive, but the British NGOs take more of British taxpayers' money than the UN development system or, indeed, the World Bank.
Mr. Streeter: Is the Secretary of State right on that point? My recollection is that £1.4 billion is spent through multilateral agencies—half through the EU and half largely through the UN and various organisations which are part of it—but we can take this offline. We need to make sure that whatever is spent through the UN represents value for money and that British taxpayers are getting the best possible bang for their buck.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to two colleagues who are retiring at the general election. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has been a champion of many causes throughout the developing world. Of course, I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). I think that this is the fifth such tribute that has been paid to him. He has retired several times already. [Interruption.] Yes, he is doing an impersonation of Frank Sinatra. He has been an outstanding Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development and is respected on both sides of the House. We will miss him very much and hope that he will find new life in the development sector after 7 June, if that is when we leave this place.
In conclusion, globalisation is happening and is part of the world in which we live. As all of us have said, we are at a point where there is a historic opportunity to make a genuine difference for the world's poorest people. The choices that we make will determine whether we seize that moment. The next Conservative Government will seek to harness the forces of globalisation by helping countries to strengthen their Governments, bearing down on corruption, entering into a new partnership with British charities and championing reform of global financial architecture. All that we need now is an early opportunity to put our ideas into practice.
4.11 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). I did not say that last time that I
1044
did so, because he did not deserve such comments, but I think that he is getting a little better. I was impressed with his optimism, as I think that the whole House was. Perhaps he went a bit over the top about what he would do in his first day in office, but I think that we can forgive him for that. As always, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rose to the occasion and was massively impressive in leading the debate.
Having mentioned those two speeches, I hope that I can be forgiven for opening my remarks by referring to another speech that was made a long time ago. I am inspired to do so because one of the documents provided by the Department for international Development refers to the commanding heights of the global economy. I suddenly realised on reading those words that it had rightly become fashionable again to quote Aneurin Bevan. I hope that I might also be allowed to introduce a bit of empiricism, as I want to refer to the first Labour party conference that I ever attended. Indeed, I made my first speech at the conference. The Leader of the Opposition made his first such speech at 16, but I was an elder statesman, as I made mine at the age of 18.
However, the conference was remembered not so much for my speech as for what was, sadly, the last speech of Aneurin Bevan. I think that he died seven or eight months later. I want to draw to the attention of the House to the following point: Aneurin Bevan said that, in his experience, the burdens of public office were far too heavy to be borne for trivial ends. I genuinely believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken that message on board. Her Department is not about red boxes and chauffeur-driven cars. The work that is going on in the Department at Victoria—and, if I may say so, at East Kilbride—and elsewhere is constructive and is based on responding to the modern world and the challenges that are presented by the universe of today.
The White Paper reflects those views. It is practical and relevant, but it is also thematic in terms of tackling poverty and of grasping the possibility of promoting global social justice My right hon. Friend will agree that those two aims often go together. The White Paper raises issues such as humanitarian relief, education, health and the great problem of world debt, but it also does something else to which this debate has added: it challenges us to remember that there is still a poverty of ideas.
That is why I believe that the media have not quite caught up with the need to respond to the problems, although in the very nature of things, they have made a substantial contribution in bringing those problems into people's living rooms. Among other things, that explains why international development has taken off in the current Parliament. Day after day, people are seeing on their television sets starvation in Ethiopia and the tragedies in India, EI Salvador, Mozambique, Kosovo and East Timor. They rightly expect the sort of response that the Government have provided. Tragically, they are seeing fratricidal warfare in Rwanda, Burundi and elsewhere, and they know that we must deal with the consequences of those terrible situations. They have also seen the obscenity of landmines in Angola and Afghanistan. I think that they genuinely welcome the progress that the Government are making in that regard.
The media are to be commended for bringing those issues to people's homes and into the public domain, but they are failing by not examining as they should the

1045
question of how we can deal constructively with those problems. Their failure to give full coverage to the White Paper shows that they must catch up on that.
Nevertheless, the White Paper, the Government's thinking and the progress that has been made in the past four years have given me great hope. People want the sort of matters that have been raised, including those that are relevant to the environment, to be addressed. When President Bush made his announcement about his Administration's attitude to the Kyoto protocol, there was an instinctive and genuine feeling of revulsion throughout this country. That feeling was rightly reflected in the House. Apart from the fact that we expect better of a great nation—I am not anti-American in any sense—we also know that more than 77 per cent. of people, if the opinion polls are to be believed, disagree profoundly with the President on this matter. I do not believe that the production of 20 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions in a country where 4 per cent. of the world population live is acceptable.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made important points about the environment during the recent proceedings of the Standing Committee on the draft Asian Development Bank (Seventh Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 2001. I think that Cambodia was very much in his mind and I am delighted that these matters are now being addressed.
I am also delighted about the genuine inclusiveness in the Department for International Development. That inclusiveness is seen in its work with NGOs and charitable organisations, which is to the advantage of both. The organisations include Oxfam, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, War on Want and many more. We have gained from such pluralism as we approach international affairs in the way that the White Paper sets out.
For example, I am grateful to CAFOD for the information that it has given us on Peru. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will bring us up to date on that later. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to a written question that I tabled a week or so ago. Less than a year ago, there was no democracy in Peru and the election was rigged, so it is encouraging to hear from CAFOD that the Minister for Women's Affairs in Peru, Susana Villaran, has set up a truth commission and that her Ministry is assessing the plight of about 600,000 people who were displaced by political violence.
We want to address such matters and we want the international community to be involved in seeking a solution. That dialogue will continue.
I welcome the fact that the Government—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly referred to this today—are committed to an aid budget that will increase by 45 per cent. in real terms between 1997 and 2003–04, and have refocused all the UK's development effort on the reduction of extreme poverty. I am glad that my right hon. Friend constantly underlines that challenge to extreme poverty wherever we find it in whatever part of the world.
We have led the world in dealing with the dreadful problem of debt repayment and its implications for the poorest people in the poorest countries. I do not talk with any sense of complacency, because I know that that view would not be shared by those on the Front Bench.
1046
However well we happen to be doing, organisations such as Oxfam continue to remind us of the challenges that lie ahead.
For example, Oxfam, in a parliamentary briefing, states:
"Of the twenty-two countries receiving debt relief under the HIPC initiative, three-quarters will be spending over ten per cent of government revenue on debt this year, leaching vital resources away from poverty reduction efforts. Sixteen countries will still be spending more on debt than on health care. Ten countries will be spending more on debt than on primary education and health combined. Zambia is a case in point—this year the Zambian government will spend a quarter of its national budget on debt, more than its entire spending on health. This in a country where one out of five children will not live to see their 5th birthday, and where the impact of the HIV/AIDS crisis has reduced life expectancy to 40 years."
Oxfam makes a relevant point.
Clare Short: Of the 22 countries receiving debt relief under the HIPC initiative, which is designed to remove the overhang of debt so that they can borrow and trade sensibly and use aid and their own revenues for other purposes, all, on average, spend less than 11 per cent. of their revenue on debt relief—that is lower than the rest of the developing countries. If we focus only on the heavily indebted poor countries and on debt, we start distorting need. In the case of Zambia, President Chiluba is talking about breaching or changing the constitution, going for a third term and ripping up the agreed economic reform programme that brought debt relief to Zambia. That is the threat to Zambia—bad governance. We must go on with the debt relief programme, but the obsession with having more and more debt relief for a small number of countries is getting a bit out of proportion.
Mr. Clarke: I am delighted by my right hon. Friend's response, and the House and Oxfam will take on board the important points that she has made. However, I hope that she will forgive me for quoting from another parliamentary briefing from Oxfam on the related but equally important subject of global education. It states:
"Today 125 million children are not enrolled in school; two thirds of these children are girls … We are witnessing a global crisis—children throughout the world are being denied their fundamental right to education … In developing countries, one in four adults—some 900 million people—are illiterate, 64 per cent. of them are women."
My right hon. Friend has seen that as a huge challenge, particularly remembering the role of women; women seeking emancipation, and rightly so—the poorest people in the poorest countries. The Government's response is progressive.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon referred to institutions such as the EU, the World Bank, the IMF and the United Nations and its agencies. It may be that I and many others share some of his criticisms, but the main thrust of such international organisations, including the EU, cannot be changed by giving the impression that we are half in and half out. In such a situation, nobody takes us seriously. We made a grave mistake in leaving UNESCO, for all its faults. I am glad that we are back. We should be in there fighting—in the EU, in the UN, and playing our part in seeking the transparency and improvement in the World Bank, the IMF and elsewhere, as the White Paper tells us. That is the way to achieve our objectives, not self-imposed isolationism, for which the hon. Gentleman seemed to argue.

1047
International development is a wonderful subject, but there are difficulties, some of which I have seen for myself, as have other hon. Members. It was no great pleasure to stand by Lake Victoria and see bodies floating down from the terrible carnage in Rwanda, and to see how the locals had to deal with mass graves and the pollution of their rivers and their fish, upon which they were almost exclusively dependent for their food supply. That is the negative side of our work. That was sad and something that we wanted to erase, and it is right that we should continue to seek to do so.
I want to end on a more positive note by remembering two countries where tremendous progress has been made. The first is northern Iraq. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) has not been given the credit that he deserves for setting up the safe havens. Having visited Iraq in the early stages and then again about 18 months ago, I could see the transformation in that country, much of it due to the UN, which is extremely commendable. It is a remarkable and welcome change.
But for me, in this Parliament, and perhaps in the previous one, my greatest memory was of visiting South Africa in the week when we saw almost a miracle—the democratic election of Nelson Mandela and the end of apartheid and oppression, the progress for which we are all now striving. With that came the message that, if Mandela can spend 27 years in prison, as he did, and yet come out with such huge optimism, as we in Britain saw this week, what we see in the White Paper is inspiring to us all and I warmly and genuinely congratulate my right hon. Friend.
4.28 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I should warn the House about the mutual admiration society that we seem to be creating this afternoon. Despite that, I still want to say how grateful I am for the kind remarks made about me by the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).
However, I am not alone on the International Development Committee. We have a superb Committee, whose members are dedicated and work extremely hard. We have produced more reports than most Select Committees, all of which have provoked enormous interest. I should like to extend the kind remarks that have been made to the members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who played a remarkable part in the first two years of that Committee. The Committee has supported and helped DFID's effort to build consensus and to make this the important subject that it is.
The Secretary of State's energy and conviction have undoubtedly driven, led and inspired the Department for International Development and others. Discussions on pro-poor policies and achieving international targets have taken root in all international organisations, although some are not as good as others. We recently discussed regional development banks. The Asian Development bank will focus on and operate a pro-poor programme, which will totally change the way in which it has operated since its foundation. The Secretary of State has encouraged that sort of achievement and vision, and we should congratulate her on the globalisation White Paper, which is the second such document that the Department has produced since she took up her post.
1048
The globalisation White Paper encompasses almost all the subjects that the Select Committee on International Development has confronted. One of our early papers was on conflict. We all agree that conflict drives back development, and it is important to find ways in which to reduce it, especially in places where it is rampant, such as sub-Saharan Africa.
Another important report covered women and development. We cannot begin to tackle the problems of the poorest of the poor until we empower women to take charge of their lives, their children and families. Currently, 70 per cent. of those in abject poverty cannot do that. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Many others who are very poor are not in a position to take control of their lives or begin to contribute to their escape or that of their countries from abject poverty.
I want to complain to the business managers about the lack of opportunity for debate on the Floor of the House. The first White Paper that the Department produced was never debated or the subject of a statement.
Clare Short: It was the subject of a statement.
Mr. Wells: Yes, but not of a debate. That was disgraceful. As the Select Committee report on globalisation requests, business managers should provide for a debate on international development at least once every Parliament. I believe that we should debate it more often. After all, the Department's budget is set to increase every year and it will soon spend more than £3 billion. If the Secretary of State continues her success in getting money from the Treasury, the Department will have an even bigger budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has attended our Committee proceedings more than once to discuss debt, which the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) mentioned, and I know that he is also dedicated to tackling the problems of abject poverty not only through debt relief but in other ways.
The expansion of the budget should be seriously debated. We do not have to worry about the press. I am sure that all hon. Members will have noticed that no members of the press are here because we do not intend to have an argument, slag each other off and make their news. I am grateful for that, but it does not make the debate less important. Indeed, it probably makes it more important.
Mrs. Gillan: Opposition Front-Bench Members have strongly supported the Secretary of State's efforts to secure an annual debate. Today, the International Criminal Court Bill is being considered in Committee. I was supposed to attend the proceedings and several hon. Members, who take a specific interest in international matters, are serving on the Committee and cannot be in the Chamber. That applies not least to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who interviewed earlier. Surely it is not outwith the wit of man or the usual channels to timetable our business so that those who take a special interest in international development can be in the Chamber.
Mr. Wells: I agree with my hon. Friend. Select Committee members often serve on Standing Committees.

1049
Those hon. Members should be spared their duties on Standing Committees, including the Committee that is considering the International Criminal Court Bill, and given time to attend the debate.
The approach of The Economist to globalisation has infuriated the Secretary of State. It claims that she has abandoned her convictions and ideals by wholeheartedly adopting the liberal free trade ideas of the past. Such commentators miss the point. The Secretary of State constantly says that we need growth and extra money to tackle poverty. I agree with her. Contrary to the old liberal theories on free trade, she and I believe that the process must be managed. As she constantly says, there is nothing automatic about growth leading to the diminution of abject poverty in any country. It has to be managed and the goal of diminishing poverty must be wholeheartedly pursued if we are not to find that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and we make no progress on expanding the wealth of countries, and introducing good governance, democracy, the rule of law, a sound civil service, an independent judiciary and a free press.
That is the difference between the globalisation White Paper and old-style liberal economics. The Economist is almost always profoundly wrong about everything. If The Economist claims that something will happen, almost invariably it will not. If hon. Members want to know what will not happen, they should read The Economist. The Secretary of State was right to take it to task for accusing her of being a Whig, an old liberal in the 19th century sense. The Secretary of State is trying to create the right conditions for growth. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon also wants to do that.
In 1996, sub-Saharan Africa earned six times more from exports than from overseas development assistance. Exports, trade, the expansion of agriculture, surpluses and markets to which surpluses from rural areas can be transported over good roads will lead to growth, education, health for women and children and thus bring under control the serious problems that population increases will cause. In 25 years, there will be 8 billion people in the world. At the beginning of the 20th century, there was a world population of 1 billion; we are now contemplating a population of 8 billion. The idea of doing nothing, sitting still and not searching for methods to create economic growth is not sustainable. The population in developing countries will increase by 97 per cent. in the next 25 years. If we are not careful, abject poverty will increase, not decrease.
As a result of HIV-AIDS—on which the Committee produced a report—life expectancy is being driven back in some countries. Life expectancy had grown from 46 years, on average, to 64 in 20 years. It is now being driven back. As we discussed with the Under-Secretary of State in Westminster Hall, we will be driving back 30 years of development in Africa if we do not help the African countries to manage HIV-AIDS. We cannot ignore that important issue.
However, let us not get too depressed. In a publication, the World Bank—commenting on international development targets—says:
"The Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Morocco belong to a select group of countries that halved the proportion of their people living in poverty in less than a generation. So did the Indian states of Haryana, Kerala and Punjab. Another dozen countries—including Botswana and Mauritius—reduced the proportion by a quarter in a
1050
generation. Other countries can learn much from the well-documented lessons of this experience, for if it has been done, it can be done again.
Empowering poor people is the starting point—providing opportunities for women, opening political space for poor people to organise. Democratisation has to go beyond simple rule by the majority to include minorities."
The task to which the globalisation White Paper is putting our shoulders can be achieved. We are not pursuing a lost cause. We must strengthen our determination that we are going to achieve our targets.
We are not doing as well as we should at the moment. The publication to which I referred mentions the target of reducing abject poverty by half by 2015, and suggests that we are running below the target level that we should be achieving at the moment.
Clare Short: We are on track for the target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015, but we are below the target on maternal mortality and some of the others. The trouble with the target is that it is an average across the world and Asia is doing a lot better than Africa. I agree that people who see the sad images care but feel very depressed. They should know that we have had a lot of success and that if we could universalise that success, we could make progress. We are on track for the target of halving the proportion of people in poverty; it is achievable, but we have to do better in the countries that are missing out.
Mr. Wells: That is a perfectly good correction. We are below the target in Africa but we are beyond it in some Asian and Latin American countries; although, as has been pointed out, the inequality of the distribution of the increased growth in Latin America is causing difficulty.
In the original White Paper and the globalisation White Paper, it has been acknowledged that the private sector will have to drive the programme. We must encourage that but, in 1996, £11.3 billion was invested in developing countries by the private sector in this country. In 1999, that fell to £3.8 billion. There is a serious problem, although I accept that that is related to the Asian crisis. We must resume that level of investment by the private sector; not just to the seven or so fastest-developing countries, but to the least-attractive countries. That is important if we are to achieve anything like the targets that we have set ourselves. Those figures need to be investigated.
I attended a conference at the Foreign Office yesterday for British Trade Partners for Africa. I was alarmed that DFID was not mentioned at all by British Trade Partners, in spite of the fact that more than £1 billion of the DFID budget is planned to be spent on Africa in the next year. DFID's work in Africa is vital to exports from Africa to this country and from us to Africa. When will the Foreign Office stop being jealous of DFID and start co-operating? When will the DTI recognise that trade is a part of DFID's responsibility—as is recognised by the Secretary of State for International Development—and must be integrated in the effort to increase trade and investment into the poorer countries? We could do that.
In many African countries, the infrastructure is not as it would be in more developed countries. Often, there is no clean or reliable water supply, and no adequate telephone system. Roads may be very bad and everything that can be expected in a developed country in which we

1051
invest is not there in a developing country. If through grants and assistance from DFID, infrastructure problems were addressed—including health, education and housing needs—and that was followed by private sector investment, we would make a greater contribution than by simply giving ODA.
I ask the Foreign Office and the DTI to work properly with DFID. We would then all gain hugely, because we would be creating wealth in developing countries and we would have a competitive British industry. I am so glad that untying has taken place, but we have to get that to take place in other competitive countries. None the less, the British should be able to get the lion's share of the DFID expenditure, simply because they are the best people to do the work at the lowest possible price, with the best possible quality.
The agreement to introduce a longer period of tariff-free access to the European Community will enable the management of change to take place. Change has to take place, but in introducing tariff reductions and championing free trade we must not be seen to be threatening.
In the example of the Caribbean, some trading arrangements have existed for more than 400 years. These people are our friends and they are part of the fabric of the British nation. A demand that they must change their entire economy in a brief period—forget producing bananas, rice and sugar—would have represented a problem and they would have needed time to tackle it, but wisdom has prevailed and what has been agreed is probably fair.
I do not agree about bananas, however, because, under the arrangements being negotiated by the United States and the EU, there is no way that the east Caribbean banana trade will be able to continue. Why? Because producing the same quantity of bananas costs twice as much in the east Caribbean as it does in central America. There is no way in which we can overcome that, except through diversification.
Clare Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want the record to suggest that I have no concern for the future of the Caribbean. I agree that the Caribbean must be helped to adjust on sugar, rice and bananas, although I do not think that the longer adjustment period that has been agreed is necessary. However, I agree that an adjustment period is necessary.
For the eastern Caribbean, there is a niche in organic bananas, about which some of our supermarkets have made proposals, but encouraging the Caribbean to stay in products that it produces expensively, but which are available cheaply elsewhere in the world, will not help. In the end, it would get producers into trouble. They are good on education, however, and Barbados has figures as good as any in the rest of the world. It is a beautiful island that could achieve even more from tourism and value-added activities.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the Caribbean and I agree that its countries are vulnerable because they are small. They need additional help and they need to phase in the adjustment. I do not believe that a longer period is necessary, but we have one and we are absolutely dedicated to supporting the Caribbean in the
1052
transition. I am sure that there is a prosperous and comfortable future available for the Caribbean if the change that needs to be made is embraced and carried through.
Mr. Wells: I believe that that is the intention and I very much hope that change will take place. However, I note that Stabex payments are being made because of lack of banana production in the eastern Caribbean following price falls in the British market. They have helped, but the trouble is that they are paid to Governments. The Governments of the eastern Caribbean are using them not to modernise the banana industry, but for other purposes. It would be all right if they used the payments for diversification in the economy, but I am afraid that they are not, nor are they putting them into education, where standards have been falling. Health standards, too, have been falling.
Banana farmers are not rich and the payments are being absorbed by other Government expenditure. A lot more work and management has to be done in the Caribbean if we are to enable them to maintain their current standards of living, which are not luxurious. I cannot afford the prices of the hotels on the west coast of Barbados and the Barbadian community as a whole, unless supported by Government money, could not afford to buy even a gin and tonic in the new Sandy Lane. That is not the issue, however, and we are concerned with the general standard of living in those islands. It is important that we bear that in mind.
Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those problems still exist in the Caribbean and that, with the Americans determined to pursue Plan Colombia, there is a great danger that Caribbean farmers will turn to coca as an alternative crop?
Mr. Wells: Yes, but that is not merely a possibility. I could take the hon. Lady to areas around the volcano called Soufriere in St. Vincent where coca is being grown.
Dr. Tonge: Is that a promise?
Mr. Wells: Perhaps we can make an arrangement.
I could take the hon. Lady to that area or to Dominica, where I know coca is growing very well. It is a wonderful crop with few enemies, it has no diseases and there are no insects that eat it. Indeed, it grows so well that three crops a year can be produced, so it is a major temptation—the Secretary of State referred to that matter when discussing Colombia. There is a serious problem and our help, sympathy and support are necessary while people are making those adjustments, which, I agree, have to be made.
I want to discuss human migration, as $70 billion is generated by those who have left the countries in which they were born for countries such as the United Kingdom. From those countries, they send money back to their own countries to help to maintain the families from which they came. That is a huge sum and, in some countries, such money represents the largest single source of income. I welcome that, but the question of human migration will dominate such discussions for the next 100 years.
The trouble is that we attract some of the most skilled people from those countries. There is a bar on the national health service recruiting doctors from those countries to

1053
help us through the NHS crisis. However, although the Government are debarred from such activities, the private sector agencies are recruiting nurses from South Africa, a country that can ill afford to lose them, having trained them and spent money on them. Yet those nurses are now coming to work here, which I think is immoral and quite wrong. If anything, we should be lending our skilled people to deal with HIV-AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases prevalent among the poverty-stricken people of South Africa.
Economic migrants come to this country, and we are having difficulty processing them once they claim political asylum. They are fleeing terrible regimes and countries that hold out no economic hope for them or their children. They should not be described I as inferior people or as criminals who are breaking the law. They should be treated with great courtesy, as is the tradition in this country in welcoming people from overseas. If they are breaking the laws on immigration, their cases should be treated seriously; they should quickly be examined and then asked to go back to the country from which they came. We cannot take the numbers that are coming here, and they are breaking the immigration laws that have been agreed.
However, we cannot send those people back to those countries unless we make an effort to develop those countries in the way in which the globalisation White Paper suggests and demands. When we explain why they have to go back, we should also explain what opportunities the British and the international community will offer them for a better life in their own country. That is the human and sensible way to deal with the people who come here—who are among the most skilled, energetic and innovative people—to the discomfiture of our immigration service and our Customs and Excise service.
That discomfiture is irrelevant, however. Those people are human beings just as we are, and they are seeking to achieve a better life. We would do the same if we were in their position, and they should be treated with dignity and courtesy. None the less, they should not be admitted unless there are genuine political asylum reasons. It is a disgrace that we have let our immigration system get into such an appallingly incompetent state.
On corruption, the International Development Committee has produced a report worthy of serious study not only by the Government—who will undoubtedly have to introduce a Bill to enable us to comply with the OECD legislation to make it a criminal offence to seek to bribe foreign public officials—but by the civil service. The civil service will have to be organised in several Departments, including the Home Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. There are 14 such organisations dealing with this problem spread across government, including the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Services Authority.
The Government must put that matter in order, but we must also address the fact that London is one of the major money-laundering centres of the world. We must get our banks, lawyers and accountants to stop laundering money from overseas. They must also stop harbouring money stolen from third-world countries and enabling it to come here to be cleansed so that it can be used by families and relatives elsewhere in the world.
1054
That is what we have to do, but the countries in which we are investing must also clean up their act. We can make a major contribution by not giving them a means of disposing of the money. This must be an international effort. If we close our doors, it is possible that the money will go to Switzerland, Frankfurt, New York or elsewhere. We must ensure that there are international agreements, which will stop some of the corruption in the countries with which we are dealing. If they continue to be corrupt, private development and private investment will not take place.
When the International Development Committee held a seminar for business men, we asked them what inhibited them from investing in some of the world's poorest countries. The main problem turned out to be corruption. Corruption is an important issue, which we must address as soon as possible in the next Parliament. We must drive out corruption, or at least drive down the level of corruption to which we contribute, and which inhibits the private-sector investment that is so badly needed.
The White Paper—14,000 copies have been sold, and the Secretary of State gave figures relating to translations and the website—has aroused debate and interest throughout the world. That is a tribute to the Secretary of State's work, and that of the Select Committee, in leading discussions in the international-development world in Europe and elsewhere. I am thinking of the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations development programme, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, all which bodies the Committee has visited during the current Parliament.
The White Paper is a major contribution to discussion on this issue. I trust that it will produce a consensus that will drive the current programme towards maximum success.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several hon. Members clearly wish to speak. If speeches are brief, more may succeed in catching my eye.
5.2 pm
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on publishing her Department's second White Paper. It is not simply a wish list of noble aims; it constitutes a practical approach to lifting millions out of poverty. I am proud that our Government are setting realistic targets, and leading the push for positive change. If the ambition is to be realised, it will take many years but decisions made now and in the coming months will help to shape a better future for people in developing countries.
It was encouraging to note the consensus among Opposition Members, and their support for the White Paper. I confess, however, that the vast majority of my constituents are hostile to the idea of accepting anything that is said by the Conservative party.
I have a special interest in the debate. Having been born and brought up in Pakistan, I understand the importance of investment in health and education for developing countries. Moreover, I represent the Scottish constituency

1055
with the highest ethnic minority population. The vast majority are from Pakistan and Kashmir, but many come from India and Bangladesh.
Interest is heightened when decisions made now will affect constituents with families on the other side of the world. Let us bear in mind the stark figures. A fifth of the global population live in abject poverty: that means that more than 1 billion people exist on the equivalent of less than $1 a day. We live in a world of growing material wealth, yet the outrage of abject poverty persists. Now we have a real chance to end poverty. It is our moral obligation, but it is also in our interest.
The biggest problems facing Scotland and the United Kingdom are fuelled by poverty. I am thinking particularly of the drugs trade, which breaks up families and communities and kills young people in Govan and other parts of Scotland and Britain.
The heroin trail starts in some of the poorest and most underdeveloped parts of Asia. It is very much in our national interest to make globalisation work for the world's poor. When Martin Luther King said around 40 years ago,
"Before you finish your breakfast this morning, you will have depended on half the world",
we may have seen his point most clearly in our cereals, coffee, tea and fruit, but it has now taken on greater significance.
Greater movements of people, goods, services, capital and information are bringing every part of the world closer. With every passing day, we are increasingly dependent on people thousands of miles away in our modern world. Globalisation is powered by advances in technology, particularly e-mail and the internet. It is as fast and simple now for someone in Indonesia or Peru to contact me by e-mail as it is for my constituents in Ibrox and Pollokshaws. The costs of international transactions have been reduced and capital is much easier to move. The poorest developing countries must be part of that. We must not allow them to be left on the fringes of progress. Decisions by political leaders throughout the world now and in the immediate future can end poverty.
We must not underestimate the importance of good government. Globalisation will work for people in poverty only where their Governments are effective and responsive to their needs. Where there is conflict and corruption, the people who have the least will always suffer the most. I am pleased that the White Paper makes it clear that reducing world poverty is a goal for all in our Government—for all Departments.
At present, there are great disparities through globalisation. The far east has clearly benefited, while millions in Africa have yet to see any change. Thirty years ago, Korea was poorer than Ghana. Now it is richer than Portugal. Governments of poorer countries must create conditions that help the poorest in their communities to find work or a marketplace for goods that will keep their families. Developing countries must attract foreign investors who can conduct their business safely and with a reasonable return. If not, investment will quickly go elsewhere. That demands a stable legal system that punishes theft and bans bribery and corruption. By the same token, people's human rights and working conditions must he protected.
1056
If a developing country has good government, it will have a better chance of growing economically. We must do everything that we can to encourage decent education and health care, fair law enforcement and proper financial management. It is noticeable that healthy democracies with a free media and open debate about government have the best chance of making globalisation work for the poor in their countries.
Those investing in basic infrastructure such as water and sanitation, electricity, transport and telecommunications have a key role in giving poor communities access to global markets. One of the biggest barriers to development is armed conflict and the threat of conflict. India and Pakistan invested vast sums of money developing nuclear capabilities while large sections of their populations lived in abject poverty. Conflict threatens investment, stability and security and hinders any chance of growth. I warmly welcome the White Paper's commitment to increasing international efforts to resolve conflict and regulate the arms trade.
The greatest disparities in wealth are caused by disparities in the availability of education to rich and poor. More than 110 million children of primary school age have never attended school. Moreover, 150 million other children have dropped out of school before attaining basic literacy and numeracy. Education is the quickest way out of poverty. Countries that invest in primary education develop much more quickly, and girls especially benefit from it. Women constitute two thirds of those living in extreme poverty, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for giving such priority to providing education and health care for women and girls in poverty.
Better-educated countries attract business investment because of their skilled and flexible work forces. Education makes globalisation work. Nevertheless, there is a danger of what the White Paper describes as a "digital divide". Only one in five people in the world have access to reliable telecommunications, fewer than half of people in Africa have ever used a telephone, and there are more computers in New York city than in the whole of Africa. Ever more international business is conducted by the fast global transfer of information. Such technologies must benefit traditional industries, as is beginning to happen with the development of internet marketing.
Investment in education must be coupled with affordable access to telecommunications. The introductory version of the White Paper provided a good example of how such arrangements can work. People in remote villages in Bangladesh can obtain a loan to purchase a mobile telephone, enabling them to establish a tiny call centre for community use.
Good health care also is needed to lift people out of poverty. More women will die in India during pregnancy this week than will die in Europe this year. Illness can ruin a whole family's livelihood. When one family member becomes sick, another family member often has to care for him or her. At such times, the family may need more money for medicine.
I welcome the decision to hold this debate during save the children week. Children are most at risk from sickness and disease, but they have to be healthy to get the most from any available education. We must act now to provide decent health care for the 600 million children around the world who live in poverty.

1057
Globalisation should enable us to share medical knowledge and make a real difference to the health of the poor. At the most basic level, people must have clean water and sanitation. Every year, diarrhoea ends hundreds of thousands of lives although it could be treated with simple rehydration. However, globalisation also entails increased travel and the spread of more killer diseases such as tuberculosis and AIDS; 16,000 new HIV infections every day decimate communities. Zambia lost 1,300 teachers to AIDS in less than one year.
International institutions are badly in need of reform. I congratulate our Ministers on leading the debate on poverty reduction and reaching agreement with bodies such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. However, those bodies do not provide a strong, clear voice for developing countries. We must make bodies such as the World Trade Organisation fully involve the world's poorest countries and include them as part of an open and fair global economy. International trade rules must change and not simply serve the most powerful interests. The greatest growth in developing countries has consistently been achieved where exports have received the greatest promotion. Such promotion has been most clearly evident in the far east, where poverty has decreased most rapidly.
We must also ensure that the trade rules work for all countries. Britain's largest merchant shipbuilder is in my constituency but it has suffered at the hands of heavily subsidised overseas yards. Recently, Korea has taken the lion's share of world shipbuilding but its yards have undercut competition by building ships at a loss. We need the WTO to work fairly for all countries, including the United Kingdom.
The tide is not always against developing countries. ActionAid is among the many British groups campaigning to stop patents on food crops. This week, the United States patent office threw out 13 of 16 claims by the American company Ricetec seeking patents on basmati rice plants and grain. Farmers in India and Pakistan were appalled by the patents, and there was considerable lobbying and campaigning worldwide to have them struck off. International pressure may have paid off in this case, but crop patents are still a reality under WTO rules.
The world's poor must be heard on this issue through the WTO. I am not advocating flagrant disregard for intellectual property rights. In my constituency, there is an established firm of highly trained intellectual property attorneys, Murgitroyd and Company. I have seen the importance of its work, protecting and enforcing property rights over ideas and inventions. It could operate from anywhere in the world, but chooses to base itself in Glasgow. What I advocate is proper respect for intellectual property. The idea that an American company could claim a patent for basmati rice would be treated as a bad joke in the Punjab if it were not so serious. There is much to do before the WTO shakes off its image as a rich man's club.
There is also much to do to meet our global responsibilities towards the environment. The goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by a fifth by 2010 received a major blow when President Bush decided against implementing the Kyoto agreement. I do not envy my right hon. and hon. Friends the job of trying to persuade the Governments of developing countries that we must all act to protect the environment while the United States disregards the agreement with impunity.
1058
We must lend support to those in America who continue to press their President to take action to protect the world's environment and future.
The best chance of progress comes when people are organised in their demand for change. In Britain, that has been seen in the successful Jubilee 2000 campaign to end crippling debt, leading to substantial commitments to cut the burden on heavily indebted countries. Most recently, in my constituency, Queen's Park and Pollokshields church members have written to me expressing fears over ethnic conflict in Indonesia between Muslims and Christians driving more people into abject poverty.
There has also been a successful postcard campaign by the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund calling for global trade to work in the interests of the poor. Hundreds of constituents have expressed their personal commitment to the issue, focusing the minds of Scottish Members on the White Paper. There is a broad alliance of Church and faith groups, charities and campaigning organisations, amounting to a huge 3 million people throughout Britain, demanding policies that will meet the target of halving extreme poverty by 2015.
There is also pressure to provide more funding for development, rising to 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product, and to allocate more of our aid to the lowest-income countries. I welcome the Labour Government's strong commitment to the issues outlined in the White Paper. While such a movement can influence Government policy in Britain, we see a need for similar action by civil society in developing countries. Their Governments are more likely to address the needs of the poor if their own people demand that they do so.
I welcome the assertion in the White Paper that globalisation can work for the world's poorest people. It is a great challenge for developing countries, and for our country, but we now have the framework for success and can look forward to ending abject poverty for millions.
5.19 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I warmly welcome this debate and thank the Department for International Development for its two very fine White Papers. In one sense, this debate is poorly timed, coming, as it does, at the end of the Parliament—we are all rather frustrated that it did not come earlier—but in another it is well timed, because the May day demonstration on Tuesday should have highlighted to the rest of the country and of the world what we in this Chamber are about. Unfortunately, the media seemed to be searching for a riot. Every time I turned on the television, the media were waiting for a riot to develop, but it never came.
I have a suggestion for the demonstrators and the police. We could save all the money and spend it on development causes if the demonstrators and the police would each nominate a small group. The two groups could then execute a modern morris dance in Trafalgar square, with wooden planks, instead of staves, and riot helmets. That would be a token demonstration of the protesters' point, because we all know that they have a valid one. It has not been said often enough this afternoon that globalisation is exploiting poor people and the environment, and trying to make us all the same the world over—all eating burgers, wielding mobile phones and drinking coke.
In an editorial, The Times mentioned a banner waved by the demonstrators that said, "Replace capitalism with something nice". I asked myself whether communism was

1059
nice. It was tried, and it did not last because the people who lived under it did not think that it was nice. Is the primitive life style nice? The Victorians spoke of noble savages, living in their wonderful villages and engaging in subsistence farming to try to stay alive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) mentioned Gladstone's hill villages of Afghanistan in a debate last week. If anyone is interested in globalisation and needs inspiration, I refer them to my right hon. Friend's speech. I am only sorry that the official Opposition missed it, because it was an extraordinarily good speech—
Mrs. Gillan: I was there.
Dr. Tonge: Apart from two Front Benchers, the Conservatives missed it totally.
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Lady's colleagues are missing her speech.
Dr. Tonge: It has been handed round to them. I have visited villages in India and Bangladesh and across sub-Saharan Africa. In southern Sudan, people want peace more than anything, but they do not see their previous life style of crop growing and cattle grazing as especially nice. It was grinding slavery just to keep alive. In all the places I have mentioned, globalisation of communication has occurred; people know now what our capitalist life style is like, and they think it is much nicer than theirs. The villagers of India and Bangladesh want their fridges and cars. The people of southern Sudan would accept decent housing and a few roads for a start. To them, capitalism looks nice, and they do not want it replaced by anything else until they have sampled it.
I have tried to point out to people terrible working conditions, including the use of child and slave labour, filth and disease in the workplace, and the destruction of the environment by mineral extraction and the cutting down of forests, but they ask me, "Who are you to criticise us? Sorry, British people, but your country became rich in the 19th century on the backs of the poor at home and abroad."
I originally hale from the black country and if I had enough time I would read out passages from J. B. Priestley's "English Journey", which describes that area, just before our lifetimes, as a hell hole.
Mr. Dennis Turner: Read it!
Dr. Tonge: With that encouragement, I will. Priestley said:
"There was the Black Country unrolled before you like a smouldering carpet. You looked into a hollow of smoke and blurred buildings and factory chimneys. There seemed to be no end to it."
He added:
"I could easily believe that there were no people down there."
He spoke of the area's
"iron face lit with hell fire."
1060
I remember from my childhood the hell fire of the blast furnaces when they opened at night. Priestley wrote of yards
"filled with rusted metal and great patches of waste ground, shocking as raw sores and open wounds."
That is very familiar to me. We did that here, so who are we to criticise people abroad who want to get rich?
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) accused Tuesday's demonstrators of mindless chanting, but they are right to be worried about globalisation and the activities of the multinationals. Those activities often benefit people in this country, and a few people in the developing countries who are already rich, but no benefit accrues to the poor in those countries.
The multinationals, of course, disagree. They produce wonderful, glossy brochures extolling their own virtues. They say that they would not dream of disobeying OECD guidelines on the environment and labour standards. However, NGOs and representatives from countries all over the developing world frequently tell me stories of exploitation and destruction allegedly carried out by British companies.
Sometimes it is worth naming names, and this debate is one such occasion. I shall use the word "allegedly", even though I am in the House of Commons. Weir Pumps and Rolls-Royce are accused of contributing indirectly to the terrible civil war in southern Sudan, where people were killed, abducted, enslaved and murdered. BP is claimed to have been involved with paramilitary organisations to protect its oil interests in Colombia. Shell's involvement in Nigeria is legendary, as is Nestlé's promotion of baby formula in Africa and India.
Chocolate manufacturers everywhere—Cadbury, Nestlé, and Thornton—are alleged to have used child slave labour. Rio Tinto's exploits in south-east Asia offer numerous examples of bad practice. Other stories circulate about Balfour Beatty's involvement in the Ilisu dam project. Supermarkets such as Tesco and Sainsbury's are alleged to use third-world countries to grow foods and flowers for the western market.
The list goes on, but I stress that these are allegations. The multinationals tell a different story. I have mentioned their brochures, which describe their aims and their missions to educate and treat the sick as part of their projects. Members of the Select Committee on International Development have seen those projects. I recall the model clothes factory in Bangladesh making clothes for Gap. In that factory, the Department for International Development was providing health care for the women. We were troubled about that at the time, but good practice does exist.
I am sure that the Select Committee was shown the best examples, but hon. Members are not easily fooled and we know that that was not the whole truth, unfortunately. Local managers in developing countries cut costs to attract more multinational investment, and they will do so by exploiting people and the environment. Because OECD guidelines and WTO regulations are not legally binding, the multinationals will continue to turn a blind eye for the sake of profits for their shareholders.
Clare Short: I am not saying that there are not some multinationals that exploit, especially in the mining and extraction sector, but the standard of jobs offered by multinationals in agricultural sourcing and textile

1061
production, for instance, in developing countries across the world is greater than what is otherwise available in those countries. We want improvement, but those people need investment. A million young women in Dhaka work in the textile industry who previously lived in rural areas and had no income. It must not be suggested that such investments do not bring benefits, because they do.
Dr. Tonge: The Secretary of State must not think that I am condemning all multinational companies, but NGOs and others constantly report examples of multinationals not following good practice, and of people being exploited.
I remember a wonderful film on television called "Mangetout"—everyone must have seen it. People in Zimbabwe—or perhaps it was Tanzania—went up and down the mangetout plantations singing something like, "Up the hillsides, down the valleys, Tesco is our greatest friend." They sang that little song as they picked the mangetouts. They were happy and well cared for; it was a good project. I am not suggesting that all is bad.
What can we do about the deficiencies that used to exist in our country and now exist in other parts of the world in the name of economic growth? How effective are we in our own policies? As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) asked, how joined-up is our policy? We have no criticism of the Department for International Development. It has made tremendous strides and produced two White Papers. There have been other positive steps such as the cross-departmental initiative to combat conflict in Africa. That is excellent stuff. The export credit guarantee review is being carried out, and efforts on debt relief are being made with the co-operation of the Chancellor. Again, that is all wonderful stuff. A draft export controls Bill will be introduced in the next Parliament. I welcome greatly the pre-Budget support for the vaccines for TB, malaria and AIDS. However, the co-operation of other Departments, which is so essential, seems to be lacking.
The Department for International Development did not sign the annual report on human rights this year, having done so for the past two years. It is not a permanent member of the Cabinet Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy. I think that it should be—after all, as DFID cleans up all the mess, the Secretary of State should be a member of that Cabinet Committee.
Clare Short: I think that the hon. Lady was a member of the Select Committee when that recommendation was made. Since the conflict in Africa cross-departmental review was set up, which I chair, I am now a full member of that Committee. That is not so important for me, because I used to attend; it is more important that the Department is recognised.
Dr. Tonge: That is excellent news. However, I note that the Secretary of State still does not sign the annual report on strategic arms exports, which is a significant factor in poverty in the developing world.
The Department for International Development supports ethical trading and ethical foreign policy, but I sometimes wonder whether the Department of Trade and Industry does. We certainly worry about whether the Foreign Office does any longer. There was confusion a few weeks ago about arms to Morocco. The Foreign
1062
Office said in a written answer that it had not supported the arms going to Morocco, but that the DTI decided such matters. So the buck was passed to the DTI. We need more joined-up Government, even though progress has been made. We certainly need more progress on the aid budget and on alleviating debt.
Incidentally, I think that development will be set back hugely if the Government support the United States on national missile defence. The world could not sustain another arms race; it would be anti-development.
The WTO is, in theory, one of the most democratic global institutions, and it must be made to work. However, it is in need of reform. A significant co-ordinated effort is needed to ensure that developing countries establish the administrative capacity to be able to participate in WTO proceedings. I understand that 38 of the world's poorest countries are unable to send representatives to the 50 or so meetings held in Geneva. If we are to encourage good governance and good world trade, it is important that they should be encouraged to attend those meetings and given the expertise that they require. WTO dispute settlement proceedings must be made more transparent and must be resolved more quickly. I think that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford would agree with that.
That surely means that the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF must somehow be brought under the umbrella of the United Nations. There must be world regulation of those things. It can work; it has already happened—for instance, global certification for conflict diamonds is under discussion and is being agreed by 159 countries. That is surely proof that such worldwide systems are possible. We must work towards them.
I shall not say much about HIV/AIDS—as hon. Members know, in my view, that is probably the biggest problem facing the world at present. If we do not do more about HIV/AIDS, it will stop development—it will engulf the world. It is not a problem only for developing countries, but for all of us.
As I said in a debate on HIV/AIDS held at the beginning of this week, among the earliest examples of globalisation were the Christian and Catholic Churches. If only the Vatican would promote the use of condoms in developing countries—really go for it, make it public and produce a big statement on the subject—that would help so much in what is really the only defence of the developing world against HIV/AIDS at present. I hasten to add that that would be a pro-life measure, not anti-life. I hope that the Special Assembly of the United Nations in June will command the attention of the world's media. It must do so, because as I said, this is a global emergency.
In conclusion, we need global monitoring and global legislation to tackle globalisation so that it will be a force for good for all the people in the world. Without concerted international and domestic cross-departmental action, without moving from declaration to implementation and tackling those problems, the 2015 development targets and the noble aims of DFID will be irrelevant.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I point out to the House that several right hon. and hon. Members are trying to

1063
catch my eye and that, unless contributions are considerably shorter, a number of them will be disappointed.
5.37 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: Out of respect for my colleagues on both sides of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall attempt to follow your advice and cut my remarks short.
The globalisation White Paper just about gets it right: as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development says—rather than in the words attributed to her—she is not pro-globalisation, but pro managed globalisation that serves the needs of the poorest people in the world. We have resources that must be used for the poor.
My right hon. Friend and I agree, above all, that that means getting our ideas right. We have to conceptualise the problems in the right way. I have four brief examples of that. The first relates to the way in which we think about HIV/AIDS. A recent judgment in the Pretoria high court was greeted with triumph; it was seen as a wonderful achievement—as indeed it was. However, in a sense, that triumph was one for the drug companies, because it means that we think about HIV/AIDS almost exclusively in terms of finding drugs for it. That is wrong.
No matter how cheap those drugs are in South Africa, only a tiny number of people will benefit from them. What matters is that we stop AIDS and prevent people from catching it—not that we manage death better, but that we keep people alive by stopping them catching that appalling disease.
When I looked into the subject, my immediate thought was that the drugs companies would make more money from managing death than from saving life through anti-retrovirals. There would be less money to be made from a vaccine and even less from microbicides. The World Bank estimates that $2 billion is being spent annually, world wide, on treatment research, for example, on anti-retrovirals—primarily by the private sector. It is estimated that the total research on a vaccine was not $2 billion, but $300 million, and private research accounted for less than half that sum. Public money is being spent on a vaccine, but only a little bit of private money. In 1999, the sum spent on microbicides to protect women was about $35 million, of which $3 million came from the private sector.
We have a very clear picture and if those figures are correct, the private sector spends $7 or $8 on managing the disease for every $1 it invests in research on finding a cure or preventing it. Virtually nothing is spent on microbicides to protect women who are reliant on men. That is not a sensible policy. The challenge for us is to find out how to structure the fight against AIDS—where to spend the money and on which basic services—but we must somehow get the research right.
Another way to structure ideas is in terms of manpower and the mobility of labour. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has suggested, we tend to think of ourselves as a given in such matters. We use the language of aid, but I think that we should ban the word "aid"; it is damaging because it implies that we are the good guys. I suspect that an audit of whether we gain
1064
from the developing world or give to it in terms of labour would show that we are the gainers—certainly the United States is. It is unbelievable that a country such as India, which has to struggle to find resources to train its doctors, IT workers and scientists, finds that it has used its own scarce resources to help the United States, and we must audit those exchanges.
We must consider another inhibitor of development. When we studied corruption, I started by thinking that it was about good governance in the developing world and that the developing countries were exploiting the poor with their appalling practices. They are, but by the end of that piece of work, I became convinced that the problem lies here.
Let me cite some unfair figures. According to last year's annual report, we put about £14.9 million of bilateral aid into Nigeria. However, the Nigerian Government are trying to trace £4 billion that the Abacha regime took out of Nigeria and invested in the western world. So for every £1 that we put into Nigeria, one Nigerian family took out £200 and invested it in the west, and it is not the only family in Nigeria and that happens not just in Nigeria.
Let us consider what has happened in Russia. We used to have know-how funds for Russia—perhaps we still have them—but I think that those funds should come this way because enormous rackets have been involved in placing Russian money in this and other countries. If we are to promote development, we must be a bit sharper than the Home Office, the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury in closing down money laundering in this country and elsewhere. That would be in our own good and in everyone else's.
Next, I turn to the way in which we consider trade. I am amazed when people demonstrate against the World Trade Organisation. It is amazing that one of the few agencies for bringing trade under control should become a bogey figure. We have to consider multinationals such as Cargill. People in this Chamber have never heard of it, yet it is the world's largest agricultural company and private firm. It has huge control over every stage of food production: from the supply of seeds, fertilisers, and pesticides right through the food chain to shipping and transportation. Its interest is not in ending poverty. When it offers miracle seeds to the developing world, it is interested in making profits and dominating the market. If, as a consequence of that, it reduces poverty, that is a useful by-product. However, its by-product is more likely to be depleted land, which is likely to be dependent on Cargill fertilisers and pesticides, the elimination of small, self-sufficient farmers and the destruction of the biodiversity of the area. That must be stopped on behalf of the poorer people of the world. We should work with the poorer countries in the WTO to bring democratic control to the world's marketplaces, not campaign on the streets against one of the only mechanisms that we have for controlling multinationals.
I have tried in my speech to say how futile it is to protest against globalisation. People are right to say that this is an area of major concern. I have tried briefly to look at four areas: AIDS, the mobility of labour, money laundering and trade. It is important for the Secretary of State and all of us who remain here to get our questions right about how we manage globalisation. If we accept the questions as they represented to us, we are in danger of intensifying rather than curing poverty.

1065
The Secretary of State is right to point out the impact that her globalisation White Paper is having throughout the world. DFID has been useful in getting a focus in this place for crucial ideas on subjects such as AIDS, corruption and trade. We have not had such a focus here before. The existence of DFID has enabled us to do that.
5.47 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I start from the Christian position, which is that every human being is of equal value in God's eyes. We do not always live as if we believe that, but it is the Christian position and it drives us to have a responsibility for those less fortunate than ourselves. That responsibility carries a cost. In my view, the developed nations of the world have been playing at helping the poor of the world. Their bottom line is: how cheaply can we do this job? Can we invest a small enough percentage of our wealth so that our electors will not notice?
Let me give the House some figures. If someone in the United Kingdom earns the minimum wage, which from next October is to be set at £4.10 an hour, and works a 35-hour week for 48 weeks, he or she will earn £6,888. That is little enough. Goodness knows, I could not live on it. The present percentage spent on development is 0.3 per cent., which is just under £21. More important, 0.3 per cent. of a Member of Parliament's pay of almost £51,000 per annum is £150. I have no idea how my colleagues spend their money, but when I look at the price of a restaurant meal or an opera ticket, it makes me realise how small a proportion of the UK's national income we are prepared to devote to the poor of the world. We can and should do more. We should engage our population in the debate and stop pretending that we can look generous without cost to ourselves.
Secondly, we need to practise what we preach about empowering the poor. In Government agencies and NGOs there remains a culture of patronising the less well educated and the poor, and it is time that that stopped. Part of the problem stems from the understandable desire among aid agencies to protect their own way of life, their career prospects and sense of self-esteem, but few attitudes do more to perpetuate a culture of dependency or to fuel a sense of helpless envy and resentment.
Let me tell the House a true story. I know a black African who has considerable experience of development work in a number of different settings. He tells me that he was once asked to go to Ethiopia as a consultant. At meetings with white-led NGOs, he was treated with patronising condescension. As he said, that treatment would have been inexcusable if he had been, as they assumed, one of the Ethiopians whom the project was designed to help, but as he was a professional consultant, it was even less tolerable.
The Secretary of State has on many occasions made welcome and trenchant remarks about the contrast in overseas projects between the glossy new Land Rovers that are deemed to be indispensable to the aid workers and the inability to provide the local health workers with the bicycles that would allow them to be more effective. I sometimes think that too much development assistance is like that. A much greater proportion of our assistance budget should be ploughed into enabling local people to find the resources to enable them to take the skills that they have learned to other parts of their own country,
1066
and successful projects in one country should share their experience with other countries. Too little use is still made of the information revolution, and too much of the travelling to spread good practice in, for example, sub-Saharan Africa, is undertaken by white professionals.
One of the advantages of globalisation should be that it makes it much easier for development to be taken forward on the basis of south-to-south information exchange. I also look forward to much greater use being made in this country, where community development is mostly at a very primitive stage of evolution, of consultants from Africa, South America or other parts of the globe where community development has been carried to a much more sophisticated level. That implies, of course, that in coming years the huge development industry that has grown up since the end of the second world war will become increasingly controlled by organisations in the developing countries themselves and that the expatriate industry will shrink. That change will not be welcome to the international NGOs, which will resist it, however much their rhetoric claims the reverse.
That brings me to the-issue that I raised in Westminster Hall earlier this year: the accountability of NGOs. I am glad that some of the bigger international NGOs are addressing that matter in a joint working group and I look forward to seeing the results of their endeavours. However, the fact remains that international development is an arena in which public compassion can be manipulated to secure funding for organisations whose agendas may be idiosyncratic and whose standards of work may be below what should be acceptable. If NGOs are to continue to play such a key role in the global development strategy, they need to subscribe to a code of conduct and to inspection.
In passing, it is worth noting that one possible benefit of globalisation could be that it makes the pooling of expertise and resources across some of the great international organisations such as the Christian Church easier to achieve. I understand that the budget of the worldwide Christian Church is three times as great as that of the United Nations Children's Fund, but, in terms both of standards and global reach, its contribution does not match that huge potential. Globalisation could help to change that.
Mr. Streeter: Before my hon. Friend moves on from that point, will he confirm that although rationalisation, mergers, acquisitions and pooling of resources have occurred in almost every other sector, they rarely—if ever—happen in the NGO community? Will he say a word about that?
Mr. Rowe: I could not agree more, but I think that the establishment of competitive organisations that must risk public compassion fatigue in order to obtain funds is a mistake.
I turn now to other aspects of globalisation. I should like to deal first with its impact on national sovereignties. When the United Nations was established, it was taken for granted that it could proceed only on the basis of the nation state. That remains the position and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future, but we should not ignore the considerable change that globalisation is bringing to the world in that regard.
The most obvious sign is the emergence of the great trading blocks. Few nations believe that they can continue to stand aside from membership of a trading area,

1067
although I realise that some of my hon. Friends believe that we should do so. As we all know, such membership carries rules that circumscribe the freedom of action of national Governments. This process will continue and accelerate, and there will come a time when the nation state is no longer seen as the best guarantor of liberty and prosperity.
The emergence of international criminal courts and many other institutional innovations are heralds of that change. It will be important to ensure that whatever takes the place of the nation state protects the interests of the poor. For example, that is why it is of cardinal importance that poor nations should be resourced to play a full and well-informed part in negotiations that involve international bodies such as the World Trade Organisation. It is no use the rich countries claiming that they are keen to help the poor and then skewing the international instruments of world trade in their own favour, either by accident or design.
As an element of the interaction between sovereignty and globalisation, the future of cultural diversity will be a key area of debate. For example, it is already clear that, in many countries and in many religious communities, practices have evolved over the centuries which are regarded by their practitioners as inalienable elements of their cultural identity. Yet in the modern globalised world, many of those practices are no longer regarded as acceptable. An extreme example of that is the fact that the Taliban's insistence that girls should not receive a modern education is almost universally condemned.
One of the defining moments of the new globalisation was the Beijing conference, at which almost every country on earth signed up to treating women in a way that flies in the face of many of the practices glorified with the name of culture and carried out in many places on earth.
In the United Kingdom, the practice of some immigrant families of coercing their daughters into marrying a man from their former home so as to preserve their traditional culture is repudiated both by the girls and by the vast majority of British citizens. Of course, those who cling to such practices are quick to cry "Racism" when they are rebuked, but it is vital for the world's health that we have a grown-up debate about such issues and are not paralysed by the fear of being automatically and wrongly branded as racist.
The mother tongue is another such global issue. The advantages to the world of having a lingua franca in which to transact business and international relations are clear, but there is are powerful arguments in the other direction about the advantages of diversity and the damage done to a people's diversity if their language is ignored.
Britain has enjoyed a huge advantage in speaking English, not least because it is the language of the most powerful and richest nation on earth, but that advantage is eroding fast. Already, English no longer commands more than half the internet transactions in the world. When China and India achieve internet access on the scale already enjoyed here, the position will change again.
In the USA, Spanish is growing faster than any other language. Unless we are to trust to technology to provide cheap, instantaneous translation, we shall need to have an international debate on this issue also. It matters to the poor because there is no doubt that many poor people will
1068
not be able to enjoy anything like equal opportunities if they are not taught in a language that commands international understanding, yet it is precisely the poor who need to have their cultural identity protected.
I am astonished at how little use is made of parliamentarians in international discourse. We can and must do better. For example, in the EU the scandal of the incompetent aid budget needs parliamentary attention at every level. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) instituted a meeting of the Chairs of International Development Committees. That is a start, but we should also be having regular dialogue with our opposite numbers in our fellow European Parliaments.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union should be taking a lead. There is no reason why international development should not feature much more prominently on their agendas. For example, there is no reason why parliamentary pressure should not be being applied in every country on a co-ordinated basis to encourage companies to assist their work forces to resist the ravages of AIDS or to deal with corruption, yet we do not do it.
In passing, I must confess to utter astonishment that when I asked the DFID if there were any opportunities for me to help with development education—on a part-time, voluntary, or even paid basis—once I had retired, it could think of only one, and that in two years' time. I do not suggest that I would be very good at it, but after four years on the International Development Committee, there might be an audience somewhere sufficiently ignorant to learn something even from me.
The global challenge of poverty is, above all, the challenge of children. Not all countries are like Cambodia, with 46 per cent. of their people under 15, but in Brazil, the Philippines, India and many other countries, the population is disproportionately young. If those children have no worthwhile education, no job and nowhere to live, they will steal, fight and emigrate, and we shall rue the day.
If we cannot hope to make globalisation work for the poor at nil or almost nil initial cost to ourselves, it will eventually cost us serious money. If we do not commit the resources, we shall fail the biggest moral test of the century. Moreover, we shall find ourselves paying out far more a little down the track as we try to contain global instability, global disease, global movements of population and, no doubt, a growing disenchantment with global capitalism and global democracy.
6 pm
Jane Griffiths: It is good to have an opportunity to debate the White Paper, especially as the previous international development White Paper was not discussed on the Floor of the House. I am especially pleased to take part in the debate because international development is one of the most important issues in my constituency. In Reading, East, only banning hunting has generated more letters. I do not know whether that is unusual. That interest was highlighted when the previous Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), visited Reading last autumn. We had one of the best—and best attended—public meetings for some time.
Each July, music, arts and food from around the world can be experienced in Reading at the famous world of music, arts and dance—WOMAD—festival. There is a

1069
standing invitation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to join me and the world on the banks of Thames this July.
Reading's interest in the world is reflected in its many active voluntary groups, which campaign and work on international issues. I am pleased to have visited many of them in the four years that I have been a Member of Parliament. My views are informed by visits to such groups, including those of Reading Oxfam, Amnesty International and the World Development Movement. Two constituents in particular, John and Jackie Oversby, keep me informed about international development issues almost weekly. The people whom I have contacted have been delighted with the Government's and the Department's achievements so far, especially the leadership that we have shown on debt relief. However, they have anxieties about some other matters, which I shall outline shortly.
We should consider the White Paper against a background of positive progress on international development issues. Development assistance is 0.31 per cent. of gross domestic product and is moving back up to the target of 0.7 per cent. The previous Labour Government achieved 0.5 per cent., but the previous Conservative Government almost halved that figure, which dipped to 0.26 per cent. in 1997. We all welcome ending the practice of tying aid to trade.
The impact of economic growth on poverty is shown in the change in the number of poor people who live on a dollar a day. In east Asia and the Pacific, it fell from 452 million in 1990 to 257 million in 1998. It is expected to fall much further and that decline is most welcome. However, I am worried that the pattern has not been repeated elsewhere. Other hon. Members have also drawn attention to that. The average per capita income in African countries has fallen by more than half in relative terms since 1965. Not so many decades ago, many African countries were among the richer countries; that is no longer the case.
Reports from the World Bank show that the world is dividing into those who benefit from globalisation and those who do not. I should like to know the Department's plans for assessments to identify the impact of growth, trade and investment on poverty. I know that the Department has given some consideration to the problem of the increasing inequality in and between regions. Globalisation seems to have exacerbated those problems, and I am especially keen to know what thought has been given to them.
Growth offers a great chance to lift people out of poverty, and we need to ensure that everyone benefits from it. However, conflict is a great generator of poverty and inhibitor of growth. For example, Sudan has been in conflict for decades. The presence of oil reserves literally fuels the conflict.
Two years ago, I had the privilege of visiting Bangladesh with Population Concern, and I witnessed the difference in affluence that can occur in regions. In Bangladesh, a woman in the wealthiest fifth of the population is 16 times as likely to have trained assistance in child birth as a woman in the poorest fifth.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure me that the question of institutional reform will be addressed when we look at development assistance. European Union institutions have been far too slow in
1070
disbursing their funds. The Committee referred recently to the slow release of funds which meant that, for example, a director of an NGO working in Pakistan had to take out a personal loan to prevent a project from foundering because of the slow release of funds. That is unacceptable; we must have a payment code for the EU.
We must find ways to encourage the use of unspent funds—funds that are unspent because, for example, the conditions for disbursement are not there, as in Sudan. We must encourage the use of those funds, which may be just sitting in accounts, to benefit highly indebted poor countries.
Does my right hon. Friend support the World Wide Fund for Nature's call for land tenure reform to minimise poverty? There are suggestions about that subject in the White Paper. The WWF has also highlighted the devastating reduction in species diversity in many countries, which has been exacerbated by conflict and by unsustainable over-consumption by impoverished populations who have little choice in the matter. Does she agree that reduction in species diversity is a time bomb that could destroy the future of stable food supplies for the world's poor?
In my constituency, we have the BBC monitoring service at Caversham Park, where we listen to and, I hope, help to inform the entire world. I thank the House for listening to me and I thoroughly welcome the White Paper. I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to visit my constituency, where she will be assured of a warm welcome and a listening ear.
6.6 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: This is a very important debate on a vital issue, and it is a wake-up call. If we in the west do not take more interest at the highest political level, we will reap the whirlwind in the next century.
I have been reading a lot about the Spanish civil war and I have been struck by the divisions in European society in the early part of the previous century and by the huge cruelty engendered by civil wars within Europe as a result of grotesque inequalities of opportunity and wealth. In Europe, we have created a real consensus—there has also been a consensus in the debate—based on the belief that we should allow free enterprise to flourish and have effective social security, health and education systems for everybody. As we have been so successful, we have created far calmer societies where the enormous hatreds that spawned fascism, communism and civil wars have declined.
It is often said that the public are disillusioned with politics, but part of that disillusionment is because we are so successful. But while we have been successful within our own societies, the general political system has overlooked the massive divide between the developed and the developing world. If we do not take action soon, we could face enormous conflict throughout the next century.
Everybody here takes a great interest in the subject, and I do not need to remind the House of the enormous well of misery and despair; 1 billion people live on a dollar a day and 5,000 Africans have died from AIDS over the past few days. These facts are familiar to us.
Despite the tremendous consensus among those on the Front Benches, how much interest in the issue is there outside? We have had a splendid speech from the

1071
Secretary of State, but a lot of her natural supporters are falling away from her and support many of the sentiments expressed by the anti-globalisation activists. I am not referring to the rioters, whom only a tiny minority would support. There is no point in Members on both sides of the Chamber agreeing if support is being lost outside, so I am speaking to alert people of a conservative disposition—a right-wing disposition, even—to the fact that we have to handle the issue correctly.
Many people who share my prejudices and political instincts are worried about asylum seekers. We can have all the controls in the world—indeed, we can do whatever we like—but nature abhors a vacuum. If there are huge inequalities of wealth, the strength of a system does not matter, because no matter how many times people are thrown out of a country, they will come back again, and can we blame them? Many people of my disposition care passionately about defence, but we shall have to spend a lot more on it in the next century if we do not take the issue of inequality seriously.
I want to alert conservative-minded people so that they wake up to their responsibilities. It is easy for us to lecture people about paying more tax and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) showed just how derisory is our contribution to development—0.3 per cent. of gross national product. However, will any of us tell our electorate in the next three weeks, "We're spending too much on the national health service and the pupil:teacher ratio"? No, we will not. Will we tell people that we will increase taxation? No, we will not. That is the reality of the situation.
We face an appalling dilemma, which has a moral aspect. From a Christian or any other perspective, how can we allow such a large proportion of the world to live in such abject poverty? Those who are not interested in morals should be interested in the threat to freedom, the defence threat or any other threat posed by allowing people to live in such dire poverty. However, none of us has the moral courage to ask our electorate to pay more tax.
I do not know what the solution is, but I must deal with three points, the first of which I made during interventions: there is a lot of scope for encouraging charitable giving. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) began the process with gift aid and I pay tribute to the Chancellor, who has widened its scope considerably, but we must ask ourselves why American society is so much more generous.
Charitable donations come off the tax bill of American citizens, which is a tremendous incentive, so they can say, "I do not believe in a lot of what the Government do, but if I give to charities I can decide which good causes my money goes to."
Clare Short: That is important. Americans are generous individually, but America is very mean in its contributions to international development. The richest country in the world is also the meanest, as it contributes only 0.1 per cent. of gross national product, so we do not want to imitate that. Charitable giving by individuals is good, but Governments must fulfil certain obligations, because some things only Governments can do.
Mr. Leigh: Of course, I accept that and I am not suggesting for a moment that Governments are not
1072
important. I want contributions to increase towards the level recommended by the United Nations, but I am trying to be realistic about how quickly we can convince our electorate that we can deal with the problem through taxation. We can learn from the United States model; it encourages charitable giving and we should consider it. Furthermore, the Government have made progress on payroll giving.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) put the second point again and again, and it is an important one. This country leapt forward when it introduced good governance, whereby it began to pay judges and civil servants properly and started to root out corruption. That is achievable today elsewhere, and if we divert more resources in that direction, we will do much.
The third point is set out in the White Paper in the excellent chapter 4, which is entitled "Harnessing Private Finance". I refer hon. Members to paragraph 159 on page 51, which states:
"Domestic tax policy is crucial. In recent years, many developing countries have offered investment subsidies, including tax incentives, to attract transnational firms. Such subsidies are intended to generate new employment. But in practice they often fail to alter the investment decisions of firms … The experience of Uganda and other countries suggests that simplification of a country's tax regime may be a more effective way to encourage companies to invest."
Those three measures—harnessing private finance, encouraging charitable giving and promoting good governance—are the means by which we can take forward this debate. If we do not do so, we could be in serious trouble. This is the most important issue facing this Parliament. It could unite right and left, and I hope that this debate will help that process.
6.15 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: There has been a lot of talk about consensus from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and others. I suspect that part of the consensus in the Chamber is due to the fact that there is a great deal of admiration felt between the Select Committee and the Department for International Development, and that they often see eye to eye. Indeed, the Select Committee agreed on 32 items out of 42 in one departmental report. The consensus goes beyond that in many respects, but I suspect that there is no overriding consensus. This could be a bit like those Venn diagrams that interlink: the area in the middle represents the part where everyone agrees. To a great extent, that is the area that we have been discussing. However, the contents of the other areas of that diagram might enliven our understanding.
I am not going to cause discontent by discussing the issues on which I have a difference of opinion. I want to use this opportunity to concentrate on one item, although I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the House will not think that I am just a single-issue campaigner with no other ideas, or that I do not want to link my remarks to a wider analysis of the subject.
Paragraph 36 of the report that the International Development Committee recently produced on the globalisation White Paper referred to the Tobin tax. It pointed out that a number of submissions had been made

1073
about a tax relating to international currency speculation, and that the Secretary of State had been attracted to the idea but was
"not optimistic about it being implemented in the near future."
The report also stated that the Secretary of State had promised to forward to the Select Committee a note on the Government's policy on the Tobin tax. I do not know whether that has been made available yet, as the report came out only recently. The note has certainly not yet been produced by the Select Committee, so perhaps it is still on its way. I would be interested to see it. I am not arguing that investigating the case for the Tobin tax—or even producing such a measure, in the end—would be a panacea for all the problems that we have discussed today. However, it would be a significant advance.
International currency speculation involves exchanges of money worth up to $1.5 trillion a day, mainly unrelated to trade in real goods and services. Instead, it involves the advantage to be gained from trading in other people's currencies. Many of the problems of disruption in the third world have often been associated with earlier occurrences of currency speculation. In fact, the economic causes of the break-up of Yugoslavia should also be examined in terms of its then currency problems. Such problems can create social disruption and allow people with extremist ideas to find a ready market for their particular approach.
Those speculative currency flows undermine the powers of national Governments and regional blocs, and create massive instability. Tobin suggested that a small levy of 0.25 per cent. on those speculative transactions would dampen down the scale and scope of speculation, and raise a substantial revenue of $250 billion a year. Those revenues could be used for the very purposes that we have discussed today: they could be devoted to health care, environmental protection and other forms of development. I suppose that this is a bit like the tax on smoking: the tax does not end smoking, but it raises revenue. As long as globalisation produces the gains that it is currently producing—for that is the reality—there will clearly be a huge opportunity for the raising of funds.
The levy would have to be universal, or nearly universal, and safeguards would be required to minimise diversion. At present the proposal is backed by the Canadian Parliament, the Belgian. Parliament, the Finnish Government, the Indian Prime Minister and the Swedish deputy Prime Minister, as well as George Soros. The campaign in this country is led by War on Want, and 144 Members of Parliament—on a cross-party basis—have signed an early-day motion supporting the measure.
I should like the Government to take the lead on the Tobin tax in the way they took the lead on debt relief. That strategy is not operating fully yet, but we played a large role in connection with it. We have led the argument internationally, and have made some distinct achievements.
The Secretary of State's responses to the Select Committee suggest that the Department for International Development is rather more sympathetic to the issue that we are discussing than the Treasury. Perhaps it is just as well that I am now pushing at a half-open door. One of the Treasury's many objections is that speculation would go offshore, and that evasion would result from the refusal of certain areas to agree to provisions that might operate in some major dealing countries.
1074
About 12 countries could be linked with the proposal, which might tie down a great deal of world development. It would limit scope for evasion, and onshore organisations could be registered so that guarantee payments were legally protected. Electronic processes relating to trade would make the taxing of currency transactions relatively easy to administer, and would reduce the possibilities of tax evasion. Stock exchanges themselves could refuse to trade or quote with those dealers or rogue areas.
The Treasury has produced another set of objections, which were presented to me following a meeting during which, along with the director of War on Want and others, I visited the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. It was suggested that four of our proposals were already being dealt with, which, in my view, did not rule out the principles involved in the Tobin tax.
Alternatives were offered. The Government emphasised the existence of codes and standards which could deliver transparency and accountability, and which covered fiscal policy, financial and monetary policy, corporate governance, best practice for financial institutions and the surveillance machinery that should be associated with that, on an international scale. If the Government can advocate such policies, there is surely no reason why they should not accept our argument about the Tobin tax.
The Government propose bringing together the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and key regulatory authorities in a financial stability forum, which would tackle many problems relating to instability in world markets. They have stressed two points that are very third way and new Labour: partnership needs to exist between the public and private sectors on an international scale and there needs to be agreement with the G7. I might not be into the mixed economy or an advocate of it, but I am realistic enough to realise that we must operate in the world as we find it, rather than as we would like to find it, although sometimes, as well as making concessions to reality, we should mention what we are after.
The Government have also said that new social principles should come to the fore of the work of the World Bank and the United Nations. That is equivalent to the principles on freedom of the market and social justice which are also advocated by the third way. They are now projected on an international scale.
Those principles are relevant to the argument about the Tobin tax. We are approaching a general election. I believe that those parties that agreed to advocate that measure would win enthusiastic support. I note that what we consider to be our sister party in Northern Ireland, the Social Democratic and Labour party, has adopted the Tobin tax provisions.
I ask the Secretary of State to explain the situation in the UN. Kofi Annan helped to set up a panel to investigate the Tobin tax, but it is beginning to look as if it has been pushed to one side. Some of us believe that the decision that the panel will make on that tax is not that which we feel that it should adopt.
I appeal to the Government to take the matter on board. They cannot produce a tax on international currency speculation by themselves; it must be a matter of massive international agreement. The Secretary of State said that it might be something for our grandchildren to consider. I realise that it will not be introduced tomorrow, but I hope that we may make progress on it in my lifetime.

1075
The Government are in an ideal position to get it up and running because of their achievements in international development, so I hope that the matter will be taken on board and seriously considered.
6.28 pm
Mr. Paul Goggins: It is a privilege to contribute to this interesting debate. I have been an hon. Member for four years and I think that it has been one of the best debates that I have heard on an important issue. The quality of the speeches has been superb. The issue on which we all seem to agree is that self-interest and the common good are two sides of the same coin, and that to survive as a sustainable planet we must not only create wealth, develop skill and talent, but ensure that no one is left behind.
I should say that I am a member of the board of CAFOD—the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development—the development agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. I am delighted that, this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) has sponsored a display of CAFOD's work in the Upper Waiting Hall. I am also delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to visit CAFOD next Tuesday to sign the programme partnership agreement between her Department and the organisation.
The display upstairs carries a short extract from a speech by a woman from Zambia, Mulima Kufekisa Akapelway, in St. Chad's cathedral, Birmingham during the G8 summit in May 1998. My right hon. Friend may remember that—not only is the cathedral in her constituency, but she was in it when the speech was made. It is worth recalling Mulima's words:
"Calling from Africa, standing by ourselves, we have to beg for debt relief. But standing alongside you … we are in a position to demand justice."
I think that that statement encapsulates not only the work of non-governmental organisations such as CAFOD, but what we as politicians, and everyone else who is concerned about the issue, are trying to do—forge a new solidarity between rich and poor and powerful and powerless people, to work together for a more just world order.
I think that the Secretary of State is right to say that, of itself, globalisation is neither good nor bad, but that it is how we shape it and what we make of it that really matters. What is clearly undeniable is the fact that globalisation is here, changing our world profoundly and rapidly. Every day there are 3 million international travellers and $1.5 trillion travels round world markets. I was astounded to learn that, in 2000, there were more than 100 billion minutes of international telephone calls. That is a staggering statistic.
Whether we like it or not, we are all caught up in globalisation. Food and clothes, telecommunications and manufacturing industries are all part of the global market. For me, one of the great ironies of Tuesday's demonstrations was the fact that, in Wednesday morning's newspapers, every photograph of the events showed people who wanted an end to global capitalism wearing Levi jeans, Adidas track suits and Nike trainers—
Mr. Wells: And using mobile telephones.
Mr. Goggins: Yes.
1076
One of the problems that we face in trying to gain a better understanding of globalisation is the fact that globalisation is very hard to measure. I was interested recently to read about the work of A. T. Kearney and Foreign Policy magazine, who tried to draw up a globalisation index in which they analysed 50 developing countries and some key emerging markets around the world. Although I would not say that their findings are the gospel, they are certainly worth some consideration.
One of the findings was that globalisation is not uniform and that some of its aspects work faster than others. In the late 1990s, for example, when there were some trade difficulties in other sectors, the telecommunications industry grew apace. Moreover, some of the global gaps are not only between rich and poor. The digital divide, for example, distinguishes the United States, Canada and Scandinavian countries, where almost half the people have access to the internet. There is therefore a gap not only between those countries and developing countries, but between them and other developed countries.
Perhaps the most interesting claim made in the study was that there is a link between globalisation and income equality, which is quite the reverse of the usual arguments with which we are familiar. The study said that the link was particularly distinct in some of the emerging-market countries. Using the index, the study highlighted Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as countries that are both more globalised and more equal than other countries, such as Russia, China and Argentina, which tended to be less globalised and more unequal. As I said, although I am sure that the study is far from perfect, it gives us at least a start or handle to measure the impacts of globalisation.
The international development targets are clearly crucial in attempting to ensure that globalisation makes the world a fairer place. They include halving world poverty, providing universal primary education and reducing mortality rates for under fives by two thirds, all by 2015. In trying to achieve those goals, it has been absolutely essential to get the support of the IMF and the World Bank. I certainly applaud the Secretary of State's efforts in striving also to obtain the commitment of the World Trade Organisation to those international development targets. Targets are often dull and meaningless things, but I think that those targets can inspire and energise us. As many hon. Members have said today, it is also possible to achieve them.
Many hon. Members have also already made the point that growth alone is not sufficient. The World Bank has estimated that, if we keep growth at current levels and remain as unequal as we are now, the proportion of the world's population living in poverty would decrease from 24 per cent. to 22 per cent. by 2015. Clearly, therefore, growth is essential—but so is redistribution. I am talking not about old-fashioned redistribution in which money is taken from one group and given to another, but about a much more dynamic process in which we have real investment, real opportunity and skills and real development that really connect those who live in the poorest parts of the world with the rest of us.
I should conclude my remarks now. However, as I said, this has been a tremendous debate on a very important topic.
6.35 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I echo the closing words of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins). I, too, think that this has been an extremely valuable debate. I am very pleased and privileged to be here to wind it up. This is a rare opportunity for a decent debate on international development. I do not want to labour the point, because the Secretary of State and the Minister know that, however often we clash across the Chamber, we have a commonality of purpose. Conservative Members have been genuinely distressed that she has not had as many opportunities as we would wish to come to the Dispatch Box to discuss what is an extremely important topic.
In the spirit of the debate, I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State, as we approach what may be a general election—this may be one of the last occasions on which I stand at the Dispatch Box on this side of the Chamber—on her tenure in the Department. The final White Paper that she has produced covers a large number of topics under the umbrella of globalisation and represents a significant contribution to the debate both at home and abroad, which is much to be praised. To have carved out the new Department, and to have had the complementary Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), has been another noteworthy achievement.
The Secretary of State has made great personal efforts, and I hope that, by paying her this handsome tribute, I make up for the witchy comments that I sometimes make from this side of the Chamber, which needs must be made, because we cannot always agree and it is only right that we should challenge the Government, as she did so ably when she was in this position.
The Secretary of State made an excellent speech in which she condemned the violence of the demonstrators at Seattle and elsewhere. She and many other speakers showed up the double standards often displayed by such people. She did not even mention what she was up to in Seattle, but I happen to know, because I took part in a Standing Committee debate on a statutory instrument earlier this week, connected with the fact that she signed up, in the margins of Seattle, to the WTO advisory centre on law, which will give the poorest countries access to legal advice in trade disputes. As I said in that Committee, I thoroughly commend that. I supported the approval of the statutory instrument and asked some questions that the Minister answered satisfactorily.
1 was very interested to hear what the Secretary of State said about the downloading of the White Paper. I wonder whether the systems can identify the people who access the information, because it is all very well knowing the number of people who clock in to receive the words of wisdom but we would also like to know the qualitative element, and whether technology will be developed quickly enough to enable us to identify those people with whom we are communicating.
The Secretary of State outlined a vision that is not dissimilar to our own and made some valid points on the international situation. We all agree that we are at a crossroads in relation to international organisations and we all hope to see the reform of the relevant institutions, not least the United Nations and the European Union. For once, the EU did not come in for much criticism in this debate. I suppose we take it as read now. We certainly
1078
hope that the path to reform will be trodden at a much quicker pace than heretofore. That is common ground between us. It should not be impossible in this new millennium to ensure that people throughout the world achieve basic standards. With correctly targeted programmes and the identification of the key elements for each area—because they all have different requirements—it should not be outwith the wit of man to make progress.
Clare Short: Or woman.
Mrs. Gillan: I shall come to the role of women shortly.
The Secretary of State kindly took an intervention on the pyrethrum issue, and I have had my file copied for her. A marvellous company in Penn in my constituency, Agropharm Ltd, produces that alternative to organophosphate and organochiorine-based insecticides, made out of chrysanthemums. I wrote to the Secretary of State on the issue on 5 March, but I understand that she has had other things to do. She has undertaken to consider the issue, and we would be grateful for her comments on it.
The Secretary of State mentioned some relevant institutions. I hope that the absence of mention of the British Council and scant reference to the Commonwealth does not mean that we have forgotten those institutions. I wish to take this opportunity to praise the work that is done by the British Council and to point out that the Commonwealth should be a great force for good in the future.
The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) was the first Member I met when I came into the House, and I think that he was the Opposition spokesman on the subject at the time. He has an impressive track record and made a wide-ranging contribution. He touched on Kyoto and the environment, praised Oxfam for its advocacy and briefings, and discussed debt relief under the HIPC initiative and the role of education in the third world. He was also generous enough to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) for his creation of the safe havens in Iraq, and he also referred to Nelson Mandela's inspiration, which is an inspiration to us all. I was pleased to see Nelson Mandela at the concert on Sunday celebrating South Africa, and I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution to this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was elected Chairman of the Select Committee on 16 July 1997. He is truly the Frank Sinatra of politics, but he is really going away this time and we will miss him. In fact, I do not know what we will do without him. He spoke passionately about the empowerment of women, and I agree that if we can reach the women of a society and ensure that they are enabled and empowered, we can improve that society's hopes and aspirations.
I also share my right hon. Friend's complaint about timetabling. He echoed a theme that has become common in this debate, which is the need for better co-operation between the Departments, including the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. We all know that cross-departmental issues are the most difficult to solve for Ministers and Secretaries of State, and many hon. Members explored that theme during the debate. I am sure that the Secretary of State will take those points on board.

1079
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) welcomed the White Paper and spoke about his constituency. When he said that India and Pakistan had wasted money on nuclear proliferation at the expense of their people, a murmur of assent ran around the House. He also championed women and children, and their education, and that was another common theme of the contributions from hon. Members today. The hon. Gentleman spoke about shipbuilding in his constituency—rightly so—and about GM crops. We all know that GM crops will not solve all the food shortages in the developing world. GM technology may be of benefit in the future but, before large-scale planting begins, we need to ensure that proper trials are undertaken and that crops are safe. We should not threaten the poorest nations with crops that could reduce fertile land to desert.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) allowed her frustration to show a little at the beginning of her contribution. She gave a poetic glimpse into the history of the black country, and managed to talk about a song from the film "Mange Tout" that mentioned Tesco. However, she named some companies—Rolls Royce, BP, Shell, Nestlé, Cadbury, Thornton, Rio Tinto, Balfour Beatty, Tesco and Sainsbury's—and I should be keen to see the examples of alleged wrongdoing to which she referred. I should like the hon. Lady to write to each of those companies so that they can provide an explanation.
Dr. Tonge: I have done that.
Mrs. Gillan: I am glad that she has done that already. I should be interested to look at her correspondence, to see exactly what the complaints were and how the companies responded. We should not always rail against multinationals and tell them to keep away from development, as their foreign direct investment is often most important to the countries that receive it.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) as usual made an excellent contribution. He made four points—on AIDS, mobility of labour, money laundering and trade—and they were well expressed.
What can I say about my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)? Once again, his outstanding contribution made us all think. I hope that the Secretary of State will find something for him when he retires—although he should not be allowed to retire, as he has a wealth of experience and education to offer.
The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) spoke briefly. I believe that people in Reading, East are more interested in foxes than in international development, but the hon. Lady spoke with fervour about the slow release of funds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke in his usual thoughtful and thought-provoking way. He issued a wake-up call.
The hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Wythenshawe and Sale, East also made excellent contributions—especially the latter, who is a member of the CAFOD board.
I reserve my final praise for my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who has led me in this brief for some three years. He has led the
1080
shadow team on international development from the front. He gave a reflective speech, in which he spoke of our three aims—good governance, working with the NGOs, and reforming the multilateral organisations. My hon. Friend has moved the discussion on and has given a blueprint for the future in the work that he has put into "First Things First".
Finally, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who will answer the debate. I, too, have enjoyed this debate and I feel that, at least in the past four years and thanks to the Secretary of State, the debate on international development has been moved forward.
6.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): As all hon. Members I think agree, we have had a very good debate. I am only sorry that more hon. Members could not take part, but some have been tied up in Committee duties upstairs. I hope that debates on international development will become a regular feature of the parliamentary calendar, and it may be a better test of demand if they are not always surrounded by one-line Whips.
I want to add my tribute to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who has made yet another final appearance—although I think that this one was positively his last. He and the Select Committee on International Development, which he chairs, have played an important part in the sea change that has taken place in our attitude to overseas development over the past few years. We are grateful for the constructive, positive and rigorous oversight of the work of the Department that the Select Committee has offered under his wise stewardship.
We shall miss the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), not least because they belong to that dwindling band of one-nation Tories that is so fast becoming an extinct species in the modern Conservative party. Whatever their next incarnations, I wish them well.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) made a constructive and thoughtful speech which rose to the spirit of the occasion. In his final point, he talked about withdrawing from some of the multilateral institutions with which he was not happy. I hope that that will be a last resort. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) said, it is generally better to stay and fight one's corner than to take the ball and play elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford gave us a long list of the countries in which the number of people living in poverty has been halved during the last generation or two. That was a worthwhile point, because we need to remind ourselves from time to time that we are not up against impossible odds. It can be done and it has been done, and we must get used to publicising successes. He also asked about the Proceeds of Crime Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). The Bill was published last March and will be introduced in the next Session. I agree that it is an important and necessary piece of legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) mentioned the outrageous attempt by a number of multinationals to claim patents on things such

1081
as basmati rice. I was delighted to hear that they have been seen off this time around. I understand that patent offices around the world have cancellation procedures, so it is worth bearing it in mind that once a patent has been granted, it can be retracted if sufficient evidence exists to suggest that it should not have been granted in the first place. Perhaps we should look at a few more of the patents that have wrongly been granted, as my hon. Friend outlined.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly reminded us of the misbehaviour of some multinationals. I think that she would agree that there are good ones and bad ones. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, many of them operate higher standards than local employers, so we should not lump them all together. One of the most effective ways of mitigating misbehaviour by multinational companies is to empower the consumer. Many of those companies want to be loved, and they can be embarrassed into changing their behaviour—witness the outcome of the recent court case in South Africa over the HIV/AIDS drugs. There have been other examples in which the power of the consumer has faced down mighty corporations when sometimes not even Governments have been successful in doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, quite rightly, that prevention of AIDS is more important than a cure. We had a very good debate on this in Westminster Hall the other day, which I think that most right hon. and hon. Members who are here today attended. The point was repeatedly made that even if the drugs were available at a relatively low price, most of those who are most affected are beyond the reach of effective health systems. Therefore, the most useful things that we can do are to encourage prevention and help establish effective health systems.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made an interesting speech, and a good one. He said that we ignore at our peril the scale of the crisis that is growing, and that if we continue to ignore it we will reap the whirlwind. He was right to make that point, and we shall bear it in mind when we talk about what prompts asylum seekers to come to this country and the desperation that exists. One has only to look at some of the perilous ways in which they make their way here. Would we put ourselves and our children in a truck or send them to a destination, without adults, unaccompanied, as some people do? They know that they will never see their children again, but hope that they will at least lead a better life. Such desperation lies behind any rational discussion of asylum seeking.
The hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that he would alert Conservative-minded people to that problem. I share his hope and trust that his voice will be heard in those parts of middle England that my right hon. Friend and I cannot reach. I look forward to the day when the main political parties compete for votes through an appeal to the best instincts of middle England rather than the worst.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) asked about the Tobin tax and the response to the Select Committee report. The response will be
1082
issued tomorrow and a note on the Tobin tax will be attached. I am sorry that it was not possible to provide the House with the response in time for today's debate. As hon. Members may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been attending the spring meeting of the World Bank in Washington. She returned only yesterday and has thus only recently been able to approve the text; that is the reason for the delay.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire is well aware that the great difficulty with the Tobin tax is that to make it effective we have to persuade everyone to sign up to it. It is rather like the proposal to tax aviation fuel. It is another desirable objective but unless we can persuade everyone to sign up, some countries could drive a coach and horses through the plan.
Mr. Rowe: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to respond to any of my points. I hoped that he might mention the fact that we are still in danger—both in DFID and in the NGOs—of acting de haut en bas towards the people we most want to help.
Mr. Mullin: That may be so. I am sorry that I do not have time to reply to all the points made in the debate. During the few minutes that remain, I should like to make one or two points of my own. I am happy to repeat to the House what a good fellow the hon. Gentleman is and how useful his contributions have been over the years—[Interruption.] I cannot promise him a job.
We have a good story to tell. Thanks in no small measure to the robust leadership provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there has been a sea change in the way that we manage overseas development. DFID is an independent Department with its own seat at the Cabinet table. Overseas aid is no longer a tool of foreign policy, still less a tool of trade policy. As a share of gross national product, it is rising year by year, although it is still far too low. Furthermore, our aid is now firmly targeted on the poorest people in the poorest countries.
We are setting an example that other countries and, more important, international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, are beginning to follow. What is most heartening is that both sides of the House have signed up to our approach. Indeed, I hope that it is about to be enshrined in law.
As many hon. Members have remarked, however, there are no grounds for complacency. As many of the speeches have shown, no one is under any illusions as to the scale of the task that we face. However, at least we can move forward in the knowledge that there is a fair measure of agreement about where we need to arrive and how to get there. We can take heart, too, from the fact that the international community is increasingly pulling in the same direction. What matters is the political will to achieve what we all know must be done, and I assure the House that there is no lack of political will on the part of the Government.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Child Abduction
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
7 pm
Sir John Stanley: The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that we last met on 24 October last year, when I secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall before the special commission meeting in The Hague to review the operation of the 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. I am very glad to return to that extremely important subject now that the special commission meeting has taken place.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I am a vice-chairman of the all-party group on child abduction, but I am speaking entirely in my individual capacity and in no way on behalf of the parliamentary group. I am sorry that I feel impelled to say that the responses that the all-party group has had from the Lord Chancellor have been singularly less than helpful in the run-up to the special commission meeting.
I wish to refer to two specific issues, the first of which relates to the letter that the members and officers of the all-party group sent to the Lord Chancellor on 20 December, in which an entirely reasonable request was made. We said:
"we also consider it would be desirable to have some parliamentary representation at the Special Commission meeting. Previously, Parliamentarians have been almost totally absent—indeed in the entire list of delegates to the 1997 Special Commission meeting there is only one Parliamentarian. We should like to propose therefore that two members of the British Parliament are included in the UK delegation, one from the Government and the other from the Opposition."
As we live in a parliamentary democracy and as—not entirely surprisingly—there are a relatively small number of hon. Members who have in-depth expertise on the 1980 child abduction convention, we believed that the Lord Chancellor would support our request, but we were disappointed. In his letter of 21 January, the Lord Chancellor replied:
"I do not propose to increase the delegation to include parliamentary representation this time. I think that this would cause difficulty with other States".
So it was somewhat galling, to put it mildly, to find that a Member of the European Parliament was present at The Hague, as were two American Congressmen, who were, of course, part of the official United States Government delegation. I must make it clear that the presence of those three parliamentarians caused absolutely no difficulty whatever to the member states present at the special commission meeting, and the grounds on which the Lord Chancellor rejected our proposal were shown to be wholly spurious.
The Lord Chancellor's correspondence with the all-party group was less than helpful in the provision of information. We wrote again to the Lord Chancellor on 14 February, making this request:
"The Group would wish to comment on the specific contents of the communique that the British Government would like to see agreed at the forthcoming Special Commission. We should be grateful therefore if you could provide the Group at the earliest possible date with the text of the current UK draft of the proposed final communique or a summary of its terms as wanted by the British Government."
1084
The all-party group clearly wished to have the opportunity to comment on the objectives that the United Kingdom Government were trying to achieve at the special commission meeting. But the Lord Chancellor replied to the Chairman of our group, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Ol er), on 6 March, offering no information whatever, although by this time we were less than three weeks away from the start of the special commission meeting He said:
"Ahead of the Special Commission the Central Authority for England and Wales together with the Central Authority in Scotland and Northern Ireland is currently drafting a working paper for submission to the Permanent Bureau about topics which we feel ought to be on the agenda. I would be happy to send you a copy of this document upon completion."
Although on 6 March the Lord Chancellor was offering no information to the parliamentary group about what the British Government were trying to achieve at the forthcoming meeting, on 20 March I received a helpful and fully informative letter from the Foreign Secretary. He attached the full record and papers of a meeting which took place in the Foreign Office on 13 February, chaired by Baroness Scotland, at which officials of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department were represented, as well as those from outside, including Reunite. So the meeting was effectively in the public domain. One of those papers is headed "UK Aims For The Special Commission" and details the nine objectives of the British Government. In other words it provided precisely the information which the all-party group had sought and which the Lord Chancellor had declined to give us in his letter of 6 March.
I earnestly hope that lessons will be learned. I do not make that criticism of any other part of the British Government. Indeed in my extensive dealings with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Foreign Secretary, ambassadors overseas in their posts, including in Sweden where I went in January, and officials in the consular department of the Foreign Office and in the child abduction unit have been singularly helpful and informative. I hope that in future the same will be true of the Lord Chancellor himself.
My own Government having given me the thumbs down made me that much more determined to attend the special commission meeting, which I indeed did on behalf of the international NGO, the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. I want to raise five particular issues in connection with what happened at The Hague.
The first concerns ministerial attendance. For a considerable period the all-party group had been pressing that for the first time there should be a ministerial presence for at least part of the special commission meeting. We felt it important in terms of the profile of the meeting—and of the child abduction issue—that the Governments who are parties to the 1980 convention should demonstrate at ministerial level that there is a deep desire to see that the operation of the convention was improved.
I acknowledge that the British Government made strenuous efforts over a considerable period to get international agreement to ministerial attendance. There was no lack of effort and it was not the British Government's fault that that was not achieved. It was somewhat disappointing, however, that the British Government did not move to the fall-back position which

1085
was to include a Minister in the British delegation at The Hague. The composition of the British delegation was entirely a matter for the British Government. The Hague secretariat and other countries have no role to play in the composition of individual delegations. It would have been possible for the British delegation to include a Minister. It might well have included the Parliamentary Secretary, who would have been an excellent leader if she could have been present for even part of the time. An opportunity was lost. If the British—and perhaps the British alone—had sent a Minister as leader of their delegation, it would most surely have been noted by a considerable number of countries. It would have been a litmus test of the British Government's commitment to the importance of the issue. If they had blazed a trail on the special commission meeting, other Governments would have followed subsequently. I hope that that can be borne in mind for the future.
Secondly, I want to raise the question of the good practice guide for the operation of the Hague convention. Some of us have been deeply concerned for a considerable period about the wide variations of practice in the operation of the convention. We have also been concerned about what appears in individual cases to be conspicuous non-observance and non-compliance with the letter—and often the spirit—of the convention by countries that are party to it. That weakness of the convention could be materially overcome as a result of the production of a good practice guide by the permanent bureau of the Hague secretariat.
In my view, agreement on the guide was the single most substantive and important outcome of the meeting. It was a considerable achievement. I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary, who was unhappily, unable to be with us at The Hague, that that achievement was by no means easily brought about. The whole process by which agreement was reached was fraught with difficulty. A number of countries were undoubtedly worried about the production of a good practice guide. I suspect that some of them felt that the production of such a guide might expose deficiencies in their application of the convention.
Agreement was secured, however, and it was a signal achievement that is now reflected in the conclusions and recommendations of the Hague secretariat. I am delighted to see that paragraph 1.16 of that document states:
"Contracting States to the Convention should co-operate with each other and with the Permanent Bureau to develop a good practice guide which expands on Article 7 of the Convention. This guide would be a practical, 'how-to' guide, to help implement the Convention. It would concentrate on operational issues and be targeted particularly at new Contracting States. It would not be binding nor infringe upon the independence of the judiciary. The methodology should be left to the Permanent Bureau."
We now have a tremendous opportunity in terms of the production of the good practice guide. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain how the British Government will contribute to work on the guide, the time scale that they envisage for producing it and how they will try to ensure that it is of the highest quality and helpfulness in terms of the operation of the convention?
Thirdly, I want to comment on access. As we all know, the question of access by left-behind parents to children who have been abducted from them is one of the most difficult aspects of child abduction. In my view, it is the provision of the convention that is most widely flouted.
1086
Happily, article 21 of the convention sets out the obligations for central authorities in unambiguous and clear terms. I should like to quote the two key sentences from article 21, which states:
"The Central Authorities are hound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfilment of any condition to which the exercise of those rights may be subject."
That first sentence is followed by the crucial second one, which states:
"The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights."
Those are unambiguous terms.
Ms Oona King: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me briefly to reflect on the issue of access. It would be inappropriate to raise individual cases falling under the convention, but having a constituent who has experience of the grave problem of access, I wish merely to support the right hon. Gentleman's comments and to request that the Minister elaborates on how British citizens and our constituents facing such problems will be helped to overcome them by the British Government and through the good practice guide.
Sir John Stanley: The hon. Lady will be glad to know that paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 contain some positive recommendations on how access and adherence to the access provisions of the convention can be carried forward. Will the Minister, in her reply, set out how the Government will work towards the implementation of those recommendations? In particular, do they envisage a special commission specifically on access, which I believe was agreed at the special commission meeting? The broad view, which was not challenged at the meeting, was that there should be a special commission solely on access within one year of the meeting that took place in March. That was a valuable suggestion, which I hope has the Government's support.
The fourth point concerns new member states, which, again, was a considerable issue at the special commission meeting. I am aware that the Government are concerned about new member states that are not adequately equipped to carry out the convention's provisions becoming parties to the convention.
On 21 November last year, I received a reply from the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), listing a total of nine countries—Belarus, Brazil, Costa Rica, Fiji, Moldova, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Uzbekistan—which have each acceded to the Hague convention but whose recognition under article 38 has so far been withheld by the British Government.
The Minister of State, in his reply to me, said:
"We take our own obligations under The Hague Convention very seriously and will only recognise the accession of states whom we are confident can implement the Convention effectively and efficiently. We are not planning to recognise the accession of any new states (apart from Fiji) to the Convention until the 4th Special Commission to review the Convention which will take place in The Hague from 22–28 March 2001."—[Official Report, 21 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 132–33W.]
That special commission has now taken place and it would be helpful to know the Government's view on the recognition of the remaining eight countries and whether they will give their approval under article 38.

1087
I hope that the Government will not be over-stringent about giving such approval. Where countries are willing to try to operate the convention, they should be given every encouragement to do so and, once they have acceded, we have an additional ability to help them to raise their standards and apply the convention in full.
Fifthly, several new obligations and a new work load have been given to the permanent bureau as a result of the special commission meeting. It is vital for the bureau to have sufficient funds to discharge its obligations under the convention, especially those that arose through the special commission meeting. It is no good conducting such meetings and asking the bureau to produce a good practice guide without funding the bureau so that it can fulfil the objectives that have been set. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the British Government will carry out their full financial obligations to the bureau, which has quite properly asked for a supplementary budget, and encourage other states to do that.
The special commission meeting was the most significant of the four such meetings that have taken place. It had the biggest attendance, but most important, it had the most substantive outcome. I try to be objective, but, as a Brit, I am probably biased. Having followed the matter closely, it is my considered view that of all the state parties to the convention, the British Government, in their preparation for the meeting, the working papers that they submitted and their work on the conclusions, made the greatest contribution to the meeting. The all-party group and international non-governmental organisations, such as Reunite and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children also made a significant contribution.
I hope that the progress that was made in March at The Hague will be followed by an equally significant contribution on implementing the special commission's recommendation, with the British Government in the van.
7.22 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) for creating the opportunity to discuss child abduction and allowing me to report to the House the outcome of the recent Hague special commission. I also thank him for his courtesy in alerting me in advance to the main points that he wanted to make. He is clearly aggrieved by the responses of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to the all-party group. If I have time, I hope to deal with those points in my speech. However, if the short time available does not permit that, I shall write to the all-party group and the right hon. Gentleman in more detail. I congratulate him on securing the debate.
Yesterday, I placed in the Libraries of both Houses the official report of the special commission, which was produced by the permanent bureau at The Hague. As the right hon. Gentleman said, he attended the special commission as one of the representatives of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. He and his colleagues, who represent different voluntary organisations from around the world, made a valuable and distinctive contribution to the special commission's work alongside that of the various national delegations.
1088
I shall briefly consider the role of special commissions. In the past, they have been criticised for not achieving as much as they might, and for having a focus that was too narrowly retrospective rather than looking forward to ascertain how the convention's operation might be improved in future. The United Kingdom Government, other member states and the permanent bureau of the conference were determined that the last special commission meeting should be a more high-profile event with an additional impetus to achieve positive improvements in the operation of the convention, to the benefit of abducted children and their parents. That determination was shared by members of the all-party group.
I am pleased to report, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms, that we substantially achieved our aim. The meeting was a considerable success. We gained agreement that there should be good practice guidance, to which he referred, and more guidance to states that wish to join. Having agreed that, it is important not to lose momentum. The agenda that was agreed at The Hague should be driven forward successfully. We are determined to play our part, and I hope to reassure the right hon. Gentleman about that.
The success of the special commission owes a great deal to the hard preparatory work that went into it beforehand, both by the permanent bureau and by officials in the UK and elsewhere. I am particularly grateful to the Foreign Office and to our embassies abroad for the tremendous work that they put in, lobbying other countries to agree to the proposals that the UK delegation would be putting forward.
I wish to address the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the responses and role of the Foreign Office in drawing the work together and liaising with other countries to achieve the right outcome from the special commission. There was also criticism that we were less than helpful in the provision of information. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor committed to provide that information as soon as it was completed. In the event, we did not draft a communiqué; instead, a number of working papers were drafted. Unfortunately, these were not finalised in time to be provided to the all-party group before the meeting at the Foreign Office to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. My colleagues at the Foreign Office, which chaired the meeting, sent the details to the all-party group as soon as they were available. Clearly that was not quick enough. We are always willing to accept criticism where it is justified but, on this occasion, we simply did not get the information ready to provide it in advance of the meeting.
In the past, special commissions have essentially been gatherings of civil servants and lawyers, representing the different central authorities. We also thought that, this time, it would be helpful to have a judicial contribution and a political contribution, with Ministers attending for at least one session.
The first of these proposals went down better than the second. I must confess that although the special commission was attended by a very large number of distinguished judges, it had already become clear before the commission that the great majority of member states did not think that attendance by Ministers would be

1089
helpful. It would have been wrong in those circumstances for the UK to have gone—even led by such an eminent Minister as myself—if it would have been unhelpful. I had been looking forward to going, so I did regret that. However, it was right for the special commission that the delegation should go ahead without ministerial involvement.
In the event, the politicians were ably represented by the right hon. Gentleman, by Mrs. Mary Banotti of the European Parliament and by US Congressmen. I should stress that ministerial non-involvement should not be taken as an indication of lack of concern by the Government. It was a judgment that we had to arrive at, given the feedback that we got from other states participating in the special commission.
There was also a question as to whether representatives of the all-party group should be included in the UK delegation. The Government decided that that would not be appropriate on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman will disagree with the view we took, but the national delegations—as opposed to the representatives of the other interested voluntary and international bodies—spoke for and represented their Governments and their central authorities, or the judiciaries of their countries.
I do not think that hon. Members who are not members of the Government would have wanted to be constrained in that way. The right hon. Gentleman will have found that he was freer to lobby; he may not have felt constrained anyway. He will have been more able to express his point of view, as a representative of the
1090
organisation that sponsored his visit, than he would otherwise have been. Obviously, we can consider before the next special commission who should attend next time.
I wish to pay tribute to the four very distinguished and senior British judges who assisted the British delegation: the president of the Family Division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss; Lord Justice Thorpe; Lord Bonomy from Scotland; and Mr. Justice Gillen from Northern Ireland. One of the advantages of the way in which Hague cases are dealt with in the UK, as we pointed out, is that all cases are dealt with by a small pool of very experienced senior judges. This contrasts with the position in, for example, the United States, where there are an incredible 30,000 judges who could be asked to do a Hague case, probably for the only time in their lives.
The special commission has recommended that each contracting state should identify a judge able to facilitate communications between judges at the international level, and to act as a contact point between different systems. Lord Justice Thorpe undertakes this role in relation to England and Wales.
I am conscious of the fact that I am about to run out of time, and there are many other important points to address. I will undertake to write to the right hon. Gentleman—
The motion having been made at Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Border Controls
[Relevant documents: First Report of the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2000–01, HC 163; and the Government's response thereto, HC 375.]
2.30 pm
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Dowd.]
Mr. Robin Corbett: The report that we are debating is well timed, as asylum and immigration have zoomed almost to the top of the political agenda in the past few months, not only here but elsewhere in the European Union and as far afield as Australia. I had a conversation in the House with the Home Affairs Minister of Australia about the matter, and although it comes from a different source in that country, that shows the scale of the problem.
My colleagues and I took part in discussions on the issue in Brussels, Rome and Stockholm, as well as in those places that we visited in the course of our inquiries, including Budapest. The statistics are stark. The estimated number of illegal immigrants coming into the European Union has risen from 40,000 in 1993 to 500,000 last year. That is an astonishing increase. Of those who apply for asylum in the EU, one in six apply in the United Kingdom. We are seventh out of 15 in the European league table for the number of asylum applications per head of population. As we note in the report, family and language links are important for those who decide to apply for asylum here.
We said early on in the report—it hardly needs saying, but I shall say it anyway—that it is right that there should be a proper, wide public debate about immigration and asylum and the policies that surround the subject. Paragraph 22 of the report states:
"We acknowledge that such debate should be conducted in a sensitive fashion, and we note that the United Kingdom has a long and honourable record in providing refuge for those genuinely fleeing persecution."
I am pleased to note that the invitation was picked up by The Sun in a series of articles. I commend the general tone and content of those articles, and the balanced way in which the newspaper reported conflicting and opposing views. In an opinion piece on Tuesday 1 May, under the heading "Asylum facts", it wrote:
"The debate over illegal asylum seekers in this country is far more complicated than many think."
That is a fair statement, and I hope that it will encourage readers of The Sun and everyone else to accept that as the starting point for the debate.
Having handed out the bouquet, I shall now deliver the brickbat. On 1 February, when reporting the results of our inquiry into border controls, the Daily Mail said that the report branded Britain as
"a soft touch for bogus asylum seekers".
296WH
No phrase like that appears in the report. The newspaper continued:
"The report by the influential committee is a huge embarrassment for the Government, even though its findings were watered down by the Labour majority."
That comment is totally untrue: it was sucked out of someone's finger. I wrote to the editor the same day, but I did not see the letter printed in any of the next day's editions, stating that those statements were both "tendentious and wrong". I added:
"The unanimous all-party report contains a balanced assessment of the realities of mass migration and records the measures which have been taken to deter illegal entrants—including greater resources for the Immigration Service, civil penalties and quicker decision-making on asylum applications. To say that the Committee has branded Britain "a soft touch for bogus asylum seekers" is a complete misrepresentation and does not contribute at all to a sensible debate about these complex issues, against the background of the UK's long and honourable tradition of giving asylum to those genuinely escaping persecution."
I am sorry that the Daily Mail did not—as far as I could tellȔsee its way to publishing that letter, given the prominence given to its attempt to deal with the report the previous day.
There were three important images behind our report. The first was an X-ray photograph taken by a scanning machine of some people outlined in the back of a lorry, sitting on crates of bananas. It came from a brochure about scanning equipment and it demonstrated vividly the conditions that people are prepared to tolerate to come to this country. However, it also showed how technology could be used to deter and detect those people.
Throughout the inquiry, we asked about the use of scanners and other modern technology. Until last Wednesday, we were led to believe that they could be used by Customs and Excise only in the detection of drugs, tobacco and explosives. Although the scanners show up the presence of human beings, we were told that they could not be used specifically for that purpose because of the health risks involved. We were not totally convinced of that, since I had been told by one of the manufacturers of the devices that they are in place on many of the borders of the United States, and they are also used to screen visitors to the White House. I could not believe that anybody in the United States would take risks with people's health in those circumstances.
I am glad to say that my disappointment was overcome by an announcement made in the House last Wednesday. I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Even if we were slightly disappointed in the Government's response to the part of our report that deals with scanners, we were delighted last week when it was announced that £9 million had been made available to buy five X-ray scanners to help to detect and deter illegal immigrants at points of entry to the UK. Some of the scanners will be deployed in France to try to detect people and prevent them from boarding trains and ferries crossing the straits of Dover, and that highlights an important conclusion of our report, the most effective recommendation of which is that border controls should be applied when people board the vehicles bringing them to England—the ferry, the train or the plane—rather than on arrival in the United Kingdom.

297WH
There have been some very welcome developments with the French. I will say quite openly, because we have said it in the report and elsewhere, that members of the Committee were bitterly disappointed when we visited the port of Calais and found it to be almost totally insecure. Indeed, on the way from a meeting with the president of the local chamber and other dignitaries, who were explaining all that they were going to do to secure the port, we passed a group of three or four obvious asylum seekers making their way towards the ferry, probably in the hope of jumping on the back of a lorry. That was taking place under the eyes of the authorities, if the authorities had had their eyes trained on it.
It is good to know that steps have been and are being taken at Calais. They are long overdue, but very welcome none the less. I also welcome the increased cooperation through, for example, the introduction of controls in the Gare du Nord to screen those boarding the Eurostar to Waterloo. It has taken a long time, but it illustrates the point that we can only move as fast as we can persuade somebody else to move. That is one of the frustrations of our job, on all levels, because it is obvious what needs to be done, but lots of bureaucracy has to be gone through.
The second poignant image from our inquiry was that of a huge warehouse, which had been used during the construction of the channel tunnel, in featureless countryside just outside Calais on a grey day. That is the Sangatte centre, used by the Red Cross to offer a temporary home to hundreds of people, many of them young single males wanting to come to this country. Desperate people from all over the world are drawn to that place as a jumping-off point for a hazardous crossing of the channel by one means or another. The absurdity of that struck us throughout our year-long inquiry. Everyone knows why those people are there and that they will repeatedly attempt to smuggle themselves aboard a lorry and on to a ferry to make their way to the United Kingdom, but in the past, little or nothing has been done to try to deter them.
That does no one any good, but it highlights another aspect of the matter, which I mentioned when I began the debate. No single action by this country can deal with the issue; it is something for the whole EU to tackle. Encouraging progress has been made and the United Kingdom can take certain action, because of our island nature, but the problem is certainly Europe-wide and in many senses worldwide. The relative simplicity of international travel in a world where there are still too many despotic and tyrannical regimes makes it easier for people to take the hard decision to leave their home country for safety or a better way of life.
The third image is of a port that we visited in the south of Spain, Algeciras, the landing point after crossing the straits, which can be seen all the way across the water on a clear day. The vehicles from the ferries are routinely stopped and searched and we were present when the rear engine panel on a coach was opened. I am sure that the incident was not staged. There before our very eyes, snuggled under the engine and, I should think, half baked to death, was an illegal immigrant. A machine for detecting heartbeats was in use in a building for vehicles to be driven through, and that had alerted the officials
298WH
to his presence. That incident showed the superiority of some countries over us in the use of technology to deal with these issues.
Perhaps the worst image, which we all still remember—and in a sense the worse for being an imagined one—is that of the 58 Chinese people found dead in the back of a lorry in Dover last June. We met one of the immigration officers who were on duty on the night the dreadful discovery was made. I suppose that the event and the publicity that it received all over the world focused attention here and throughout Europe on the pressures of migration and highlighted the networks of people smugglers who make a living out of that appalling, evil trade.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems facing Britain and our European partners concerns how effectively we can deal with criminal gangs, such as drugs-related gangs, who show no concern or compassion for their victims? If those people are able to enter Britain illegally, no doubt every pressure will be exerted on them, or on their relatives back home, to obtain money. The evil criminal gangsters should be exposed in every way. The media would be doing a positive job if they contributed to that.
Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend is right. An example from this end of the country concerns four members of the same family, engaged in a small way in farming and a major way in haulage, who have recently been jailed after being convicted of smuggling illegal immigrants into this country. Hon. Members will recall that raids were recently made in Southampton. Although I suppose that it is silly to expect criminals to have consciences, one of the astounding aspects of the matter is that people could knowingly do such a thing—deliberately and for gain break the law and subject people to all kinds of misery.
We have evidence that some people smuggled into the country illegally in this way are sold into what is akin to the slave trade. They dare not go to the authorities, they are paid very low wages and they live in the most dreadful conditions. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about that. I believe that there are plans to create a team—I have forgotten its name—that will work its way along the travel routes to find the "Mr. Bigs" behind this evil business. Other measures can be taken, and I shall mention them in a moment.
The lorry in which those Chinese people were found dead in Dover was opened not because there were legions of officers on duty that night with nothing to do, but on the basis of intelligence. With all but a handful of the 4,000 or so lorries a day coming through Dover, never mind the millions of travellers coming through major airports such as Heathrow, there are no problems at all. It would be a waste of resources to create systems to check all those movements. They are not the ones that we should be bothered about. We should concentrate on those that give cause for concern. That means the gathering and analysis of up-to-date intelligence. Another point that we make strongly in the report is that such intelligence should be shared among the agencies that operate separately at the borders, although I acknowledge immediately that co-operation in that area is increasing.

299WH
Those points are worth remembering, especially by those who think that there are easy and instant answers. There are not. "Send them back, dead or alive" is not a solution; life is not that simple.
The report addressed five or six major issues. We wanted to find out why demand for asylum in the United Kingdom had risen and how it compared with what has happened in other European countries, and to evaluate the effectiveness of controls at UK borders by the responsible agencies. We examined whether border controls would be enhanced by the creation of a single border agency, as exists in other countries, and we wanted to see whether there were more efficient ways in which the UK could meet its international obligations to those coming here to apply for asylum. We were especially interested in investment in modern technology.
We found no radical solutions, and certainly no simple ones that could, by themselves, deal with this complex issue. As for the effectiveness of border controls, the agencies are well organised and increasing in number. We learned that not only from the governors, as it were, but from the rank and file immigration and Customs and Excise officers, who had been through some lean times and who welcomed the new investment and the extra colleagues who were to join them in their important work However, in some areas, modern technology, as long as it works, would be of immense assistance to the people who are doing this extremely difficult job. Everywhere that we went in the UK, we were deeply impressed by the commitment of those carrying out those duties. They were completely immersed in what they were doing, and that was reflected in their morale—one could almost feel the bubbles in the air. The situation was enhanced by the recognition that new investment was on the way in the shape of extra people and better equipment.
We concentrated on border controls to deter and detect illegal immigration. However, that quickly led us to examine the work of Customs and Excise, particularly that relating to tobacco and drug smuggling, and, to a lesser extent, that of the police. Some lessons can be learned from that. It is worth recalling that, in the case of the Chinese found in the lorry in Dover, it happened to be customs who stopped the lorry. They had little or no idea of what was in the back when they did—no one in his wildest dreams could have anticipated what they found. We suggest that a single border agency should be developed in the longer term. While that is being considered, however, agencies at the ports of entry must have increased scope to work closely and effectively, which they are doing at present.
I want quickly to illustrate one of the issues. Someone in the immigration service—I think that it was at Dover—told me, "Yes, of course we should share intelligence, but we've got to have confidence in the person in the other service with whom we're sharing it." People do not want to feel that they are simply scattering information on the wind. A lot will depend on the relationships between people on the ground. They must respect each other's different skills and experiences and, on that basis, feel that others can be trusted with sensitive information. We welcome the Government's moves to give some immigration officers extra powers, in particular those announced on 25 April. That should help.
300WH
As to why demand for asylum in the United Kingdom has risen, there are some obvious pull factors. We had an empire. When I was a little lad at school—I am going back into deep history—we had little scented cards for something called Empire day. We used to pay a penny for them, and the money would go into a fund to help children in other parts of the empire. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will not remember this, but when we looked at a map of the world, many parts of it were coloured pink, which meant that we owned them, as it were. I am not making light of the issue, because those links are important. In many countries, we left our language behind. We are proud of the fact that English is the language of the net, and we must not be surprised if it then becomes a pull factor, because many people in the world speak English.
The other factor that we must recognise is strong family links. People who flee their countries to apply for asylum and illegal immigrants who are seeking a better way of life will, if they have family links and speak the language, find this country much more attractive than one whose language they do not speak and which they might have difficulties learning.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Chairman of the Committee makes a good point. Does he follow it through to the same conclusions as I do? First, people who start their asylum-seeking journey from within the old empire, the new Commonwealth or those parts of the English-speaking world which formerly had links with Britain, might well want to end up here, irrespective of where they go first. Therefore, it is not reasonable to say that they must always limit their aspirations to an application in the first country in which they arrive, or the third country under the Dublin convention. Secondly, is it not reasonable to assume that Britain might have to accept a relatively greater burden because of the greater number of countries that have links to us rather than to other European Union states?
Mr. Corbett: I am not sure about the last point. A lot will depend on the state of the economy and the jobs market. Last September, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), tried to open up a sensible debate on the subject, and the responsible Minister in Spain told us that his country was 200,000 people—200,000 heads and pairs of hands—short for the jobs that needed doing in agriculture and construction. There is a real debate to be had about that.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Committee came to the conclusion that it wanted the asylum application made in the first safe country, certainly as regards the EU. However, the application need not be for that country. If someone leaves Afghanistan for Pakistan and wants to apply for asylum in the United Kingdom for family reasons, we do not see why his asylum application should not be dealt with in Pakistan. Issues follow on from that. Pakistan is not the only country that has turned down such applications. We have tried to say that the EU, and others outside it, should stand ready to assist countries that border states from which large numbers of people flee for their lives. At the moment, the policy forces people to use people smugglers and cross half the planet in conditions that

301WH
pose great risks to themselves and their families. That does not make sense, which is why we want agreement in the European Union on the implementation of a common policy on the subject. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that things are on the move on that score.
There has been some evidence of what is known as "asylum shopping", when people weigh up what is good and bad and which country is best. I recall a story that everyone from Romania who landed in the UK and applied for asylum was immediately given £800. I do not know where the figure came from, but presumably someone involved in people smuggling put the story round to develop the business. Such legends are in no one's interests.
Mr. Charles Wardle: The pressure on immigration into this country, especially the great volume of asylum applicants, does not come from former Commonwealth countries, those that the hon. Gentleman described as the old empire when he mentioned Queen Victoria's birthday, Empire day.
Mr. Corbett: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. Countries with evil regimes and civil wars top the table—Iran and Afghanistan spring immediately to mind. No one would claim that Iraq was democratic. Applications from Sri Lanka have increased because of its continuing civil war. The United Kingdom is not without links to most of those countries, although they may go back a bit. Such countries are bound to top the table, which is what makes it difficult to predict numbers. Increasing numbers of people will want to leave their homelands and go somewhere safer with more respect for human rights, if their countries have civil unrest, civil war and vile regimes that deny human rights and worse, as in Iran,
We considered the effectiveness of current controls at UK borders, against the background that the number of illegal immigrants estimated to have come into the UK has more than doubled, rising from about 10,000 in 1995 to more than 20,000 in 1999. The number of clandestine entrants more than tripled, increasing from 5,000 in 1997 to more than 15,000 two years later. Three quarters of illegal immigrants now arrive in a clandestine way.
In a sense, that is no surprise, but it makes another point about the UK. One might have thought that our borders were easier to defend than those of our EU partners with land borders. However, that is not the case, because some people are willing to take money and smuggle people in in the back of lorries. The majority of people in jail in France for such offences are United Kingdom citizens, mainly minor criminals from Kent and that part of the country. That is food for thought for everyone in the Chamber. People used to get under, over and all around the iron curtain when it was in place. It is virtually impossible totally to seal a border, but one must obviously take a stab at it.
We know from the amount of tobacco—let alone drugs—being smuggled of the effort involved. Some years ago, my colleagues and I went on a trip to the United States and witnessed the efforts being made there to deter drug smuggling; everything short of nuclear
302WH
weapons was used. We discovered on that trip that when the papers report that customs have been successful in seizing heroin with a street value of £20 million, it is viewed by some as a sign not of success but of failure, because customs, by and large, get hold of about the same percentage of the stuff coming in, so the bigger the haul, the bigger the amount being smuggled.
We must get smarter at solving the problem of drugs and tobacco smuggling, and of the smuggling of people, putting controls in place at the ports from which people embark to come to the United Kingdom and on the long and winding road used by people-smugglers from the other side of the world.
As the figures, when they are available, will show, one effect of tightening the controls at Dover and Calais will be to displace some of that traffic to Zeebrugge and Harwich, for example. That is bound to happen. I spoke to an airline liaison officer who had spent three or four weeks in Budapest on a voluntary basis trying to get airlines to tighten their procedures for verifying passports and travel documents. He had a telephone call from Bucharest, where he had been previously, saying, "You did good work here, but now you have turned your back. It is as bad as it was before you came here." People are not playing around; there is lots of money to be made from smuggling.
A single border control agency has been discussed. Someone driving off a ferry in Portsmouth, for example, can be stopped and searched by three separate officials—Customs, immigration and police—and we heard stories of people who had that experience, although not at Portsmouth. The division of agencies risks wasting resources because of duplication, gaps in communications and so on. The Government do not accept the proposal, but our recommendation for a single frontier force was designed to overcome the inefficiencies of three separate agencies operating at ports, not to create a new body for its own sake, but to show that cost savings could be achieved by such a unification and put to better use across the board. Kent police, for example, put forward the idea of a single force but the police border control budgets are spread over 50 separate forces, so they will show less significant savings.
On the use of modern technology, I was pleased with the Home Secretary's announcement last week of an extra £9 million. It is a good feeling, especially as the Government's response to that part of the Committee's report was less enthusiastic than we would have liked. We felt that we had a substantial point, which has now been acknowledged by the Home Secretary. That was gracious of him, and I hope that the Minister will convey our thanks to him. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge the help of our reports in getting the money from the Treasury when she speaks to her colleagues in that a Department. I am proud that there was a positive and quick response to our report. I hope that that is a good sign that the work of Select Committees across the board will be taken a little more seriously than in the past and that the Government not only listen, but understand and respond to suggestions made by those important Committees.
There was a little surprise in the report. None of the evidence from the Home Office told us about the three separate pieces of research on asylum claims. Will the Minister say how they are progressing and when she

303WH
expects reports on them to be published? It would also be helpful if she could say whether the new scanners announced last week by the Home Secretary will be operated by joint immigration and customs teams or by one service at a time. That is important because, apart from detecting illegal immigrants, the scanners should act as a visible deterrent. The mere existence of scanning equipment at airports deters some people. We also very much welcome the announcement about the promised mobile fingerprint equipment, although perhaps more for the detection and removal of people who are already in the country illegally rather than at ports of entry.
I pay tribute to the members of the Home Affairs Committee, because the report could, frankly, have been split along party lines. We avoided that, but not by fudging the issues, all of which were debated openly and at some length. We were lucky enough to be able to agree on a form of words to which we could all sign up, which is important. I do not pretend that we can always do that, but one of the system's strengths is that, when agreement is possible, it gives a report much more weight that it would otherwise have.
We have no doubt that the UK has, as I said, a long and honourable record of offering asylum to people seeking to flee for their lives from persecution in their home countries. Nothing should be done to take away from that, but effective steps can be taken the better to deter illegal immigrants and people who use the asylum system without just cause because it is seen as a convenient way of getting their feet on UK soil. I understand that that is not known until cases are investigated.
That is why we especially welcome the effort being made to review, revise or replace—I am not sure which—the Dublin convention. There is agreement all round that the convention—let me put this kindly—does not work as it was originally intended to when it was agreed and signed. It was supposed to facilitate the return of those whose asylum claims were refused, but that has not proved to be the case. I think that, somewhere in the evidence, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that there were many times when he could not fully understand what the Dublin convention was about. Work is being done to clarify and revise it, which is welcome.
The Committee's view is that it is important for us to consider asylum alongside the need for each EU member state to have a clear and stated immigration policy. In other words, they should set out the classes of immigrants, with the relevant skills and experiences, whom they are prepared to admit for settlement in their countries. It came as a surprise to learn, for example, that the Italian Government had got round to doing that only in the past two years. That is part of the jigsaw. Another part is the general agreement, certainly in this country, that EU development aid is not sensibly or effectively applied. We would like a much more coherent use of that in the countries from which most illegal immigrants and asylum seekers come—a key to which is giving people more and better reasons to stay in their homeland, particularly where there is a prospect of improving the economy. It bears repetition to say that there is a huge head of steam in the European Union to achieve agreement on common policies on immigration and asylum and all the procedures around that.
304WH
I attended a meeting in Stockholm of those who chair home affairs and justice committees in the member states of the European Union and was astounded at the strength of support on that issue. Indeed, people wanted to go further up the road than any of us here would want in having the European Union rather than national Governments implement those policies. I assure the Committee that I did not go anywhere near the end of that road.
This is likely to be the last time that I speak in Parliament, if what we all expect to happen on 7 June happens. We call the first speech that we make in the House a maiden speech, and I was trying to find a way of describing the last speech that we make. That was leading me into some politically incorrect terms, which I shall avoid.
I should like to end by thanking my colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee for their help with the report. As I said, it had serious potential to divide us but we managed to avoid that. I also thank the Clerk and his staff; Angus McIntosh, our special adviser; the Minister; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; officers at all levels in the various services of the immigration and nationality directorate; the immigration service; Customs and Excise; the National Criminal Intelligence Service; the Association of Chief Police Officers, and all the other bodies.
It has been a deep honour to chair the Home Affairs Committee. We have worked well together and done a first-class job of work on the report—and on other reports. I do not single out that Select Committee as special; all Select Committees are productive. However, the inquiries on which we have been engaged have had a real influence on the outcomes and on the Government's decisions. I am pleased and privileged to have been associated with that.
3.13 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I wish him well in his retirement. He can look back on his career with much satisfaction, particularly in regard to his work as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I congratulate him and the Committee on the report, which sheds much light on a difficult and important area of public policy and makes many extremely useful and well-judged recommendations, with most of which I agree. I do not agree with all of them, however—or with all of its judgments.
To be reasonably brief, I shall confine my remarks to the areas on which I am not in complete agreement. I shall start with what is almost an incidental, throw-away judgment made quite early in the report, at paragraph 18, where the Committee considers what it calls the "pull factors" relating to asylum. It states:
"Even those"—
that is, those pull factors—
"which can be affected by policy decisions within the UK cannot be changed in a short time."
That sentence can be understood in several ways, at least one of which is not true. History demonstrates that it is not true. When I was privileged to have responsibility

305WH
for such matters, action was taken that had a dramatic impact on the number of asylum seekers. In 1995, the number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom was 43,965. In 1996, the last full year of the Conservative Government, the number fell by approximately 40 per cent. to 29,640. If the comparisons are made on a month-by-month basis, which is actually more accurate, the numbers fell by 50 per cent.
The decrease was directly the result of legislation for which I was responsible and which the previous Government brought forward, and the associated benefit changes introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who was then the Secretary of State for Social Security. Last year's figure for asylum seekers was 76,000.
Those figures give the lie to those who, like the Liberal Democrats—the Government do not take this view—say that nothing can be done to influence the number of asylum seekers. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) shakes his head. I refer him to an article in my local newspaper, the Folkestone Herald, which was written by his leader just a few weeks ago. It says that nothing can be done to influence the number of people who apply for asylum in the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to rise to defend his leader, I am happy to give him the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a claim about the reduction of numbers at the end of the Conservative Administration. His claim is correct, and I do not disagree with it. However, he has not proved that there is a direct link between such a reduction and the policy decisions and legislation that is passed in this country. Research has been referred to in the debate; I know of no research that shows that connection. It seems simplistic to say that what we do in this country is a greater relevant factor in determining the pull or the lack of it than factors outside this country over which we have little control.
Mr. Howard: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a ludicrous point. The change in the number of applications followed directly on the changes in the law that we introduced. One does not need to carry out research to see the connection; it is there for all to see.
If one goes to Sangatte, as I did the other day, and talks to the people there who are waiting to enter this country illegally, it becomes clear beyond doubt that people choose the country in which they apply for asylum. I was told at Sangatte that the choice is based largely on the amount of money and the type of accommodation that they expect to get in the country in which they apply for asylum. There is a direct link between those factors and the numbers that apply. It is true that if the Government make changes in policy, as we did, the numbers will decline.
It was not only in the numbers applying that the previous Government had a good record. The number of applications decided rose by 50 per cent., and the backlog fell by 10,000. We were making real progress in bringing the problem under control. However, that is
306WH
not the whole story, as the Minister will doubtless be quick to point out Shortly before the 1997 general election, the courts did what, alas, they so often do: they intervened to sabotage the policy.
Mr. Hughes: They upheld the law.
Mr. Howard: I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happened. The courts held that because our legislation had not expressly and specifically repealed certain sections of the National Assistance' Act 1948—an Act that had largely fallen into disrepute in the light of the rise in the national social security system, which had been introduced in the intervening period to deal with benefit problems—they still applied. That, of course, brought in new responsibilities for local authorities, which had not been the intention of Parliament, and largely sabotaged the policy that we had introduced.
That matter could easily have been put right. All that was needed was a one-sentence Bill making it clear that the National Assistance Act 1948 should not apply. That was the previous Government's original intention, and that is what I would have endeavoured to do had I returned to the Home Office after the election. It is something that the present Government could easily have done. I believe that, had that been done, there would not have been the exponential increase in the number of asylum seekers that has since taken place.
The present Government did nothing for three years. They then introduced the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and I wished them well with that Act. I hoped that it would succeed, but alas, it has completely failed. The Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that the Government had inherited collapse and chaos, which is what they always say, but that is far from the truth. On the contrary, they inherited a situation in which the problem had been brought under control. There had been a hiccup because of the intervention of the courts, but that could easily and quickly have been put right.
That is one of the false alibis on which the Government rely in that context. The other is the Dublin convention. We should understand the intention behind the Dublin convention and what the present difficulties are. The Dublin convention was agreed in 1990, against an entirely different background in relation to asylum. Asylum was not the problem in 1990 that it has since become. However, we should not be too critical of the authors of the Dublin convention. The Home Secretary, in his evidence to the Committee said:
"This is an area where I am convinced we would benefit by a greater degree of co-operation with our EU partners and by there being a greater degree of commonality between the approach which each EU partner adopts".
That was the whole purpose of the Dublin convention. Indeed, in the context of that convention, the Committee's recommendation 21 states:
"The basic principle should be that asylum applications should be made in the first EU country reached. Any subsequent EU country to which the applicant travels should have the right to insist that the application for asylum be made in the previous country, except in those cases where the applicant has valid grounds, such as a visa or immediate family already settled, for making the application in the subsequent country."

307WH
That, too, is exactly what the Dublin convention provides for. So what the Home Secretary and the Committee now say should happen is what the Dublin convention set out to do.
Mr. Martin Linton: I am glad of the opportunity to put questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject, since he was so intimately involved in drawing up the Dublin convention.
Mr. Howard: No, I was not. That was in 1990.
Mr. Linton: I mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was involved in administering it. Although it states that asylum applications should be dealt with in the first country of arrival, it fails to establish a method by which to prove what that country is. People arriving in Italy or France can subsequently enter the UK and refuse to say where they entered the Schengen area, leaving this country's immigration authorities with the impossible task of proving it. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is a major flaw of the Dublin convention?
Mr. Howard: Let me make it cleat that I had nothing to do with the drafting of the convention, which was agreed in 1990, or with its administration, because it did not come into force until after the 1997 general election. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, how could the Dublin convention possibly deal with the issues that he raised?
Of course it is difficult when people arrive in this country and refuse to say where they first entered the EU or where they should have applied for asylum. How can a convention deal with people's behaviour in that respect? The convention laid down the principles that ought to govern the way in which people apply for asylum in their respective countries. No one would disagree that the convention is not working properly. As Mr. Boys Smith told the Select Committee:
"We wish it were quicker and slicker".
and so do I. It should work more effectively; it should achieve what it was intended to achieve; and it should do what the Home Secretary and the Select Committee say it should do. If the convention were working properly, it would reflect their aspirations.
Mr. John Bercow: It might complete the equation if I remind the Chamber that during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act in 1996, the Opposition home affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), said:
"all of us who have been involved for the past two months and more in Committee know that the Dublin convention makes sense"—[Official Report, 21 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 447.]
It was not a matter of party dispute then, and it should not be now.
Mr. Howard: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention. It reinforces everything that I have said.
When the convention came into force in the summer of 1997—under the present Government—and it became clear that it was not working as intended, the
308WH
Government, who had nearly four years to do so, should have built on their supposedly excellent and wonderfully close working relationships with their EU partners and co-operated to ensure that it did so.
I am aware that there is a presumption against purely partisan attacks in this Chamber, but we must discuss these serious matters robustly, and I must point out that part of the Home Secretary's evidence to the Home Affairs Committee was particularly disreputable. It was a pretty shoddy attempt to rewrite history in respect of the so-called "gentleman's agreement" between the United Kingdom and France that obtained under the previous Government. It allowed us to return quickly to France people applying for asylum at the Channel ports who had obviously come from France. That significant factor made a difference in the number of people who stayed to apply for asylum in this country.
In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Home Secretary on page 61 of volume II, said:
"Yes. We used to be able to do that"—
return people to France—
"under a gentleman's agreement which was in existence, and that gentleman's agreement still exists in respect of immigration—people who have been refused leave on an immigration basis and who do not claim asylum. Although it was not perfect, it worked pretty well. The extraordinary thing is that Dublin, which was signed up to by the previous administration in 1990, came into force in October 1997 and as night follows day, sadly, led to the abolition of that gentleman's agreement, and it has made matters worse. That is where we are. I have looked at whether we can re-establish that gentleman's agreement by doing other things, but if you see it from France's point of view, they say, 'Well, the United Kingdom agreed Dublin, we have all signed up to it, we have all ratified it.'"
Nothing in the Dublin convention prevented the continuation of that agreement, which could, and should, have continued after the convention came into force.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche )rose—
Mr. Howard: The Minister would be well advised to wait before intervening.
In the Home Secretary's next answer to the Committee Chairman, he made it crystal clear that there was no reason for the agreement not to continue. After he had said that France would mention that we all signed up to Dublin, the Chairman asked the Home Secretary:
"So did Germany and Spain presumably?"
The Home Secretary replied:
"There is a bilateral agreement between Germany and Denmark by which people are returned across the border, but it is infinitely easier to do that at a border crossing than it is across the Channel."
Germany and Denmark are both signatories of the Dublin convention, and are bound by it in the same way as the United Kingdom and France. If the fact that they are both signatories does not mean that they cannot return people to each other, the Dublin convention cannot be a basis for preventing the previous agreement between the United Kingdom and France from continuing to operate in the same way as that between Germany and Denmark.
Mrs. Roche: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that part of the agreement—when he

309WH
was Home Secretary, I think—between the previous Conservative Government and the French Government was that the gentleman's agreement would last only until the Dublin convention came into force?
Mr. Howard: That is not my understanding, but if the Minister could show me some document to that effect, I would like to see it.
The sequence of answers that I have read out makes it clear that there is no reason for such an agreement not to co-exist with the Dublin convention. If they co-exist between Germany and Denmark, they may do so between the United Kingdom and France.
Further on in the Home Secretary's evidence, he went into great detail about the closeness of his relationship with his opposite numbers in France. At the top of page 63 of volume II of the evidence, a list of French Ministers' names is trotted out, and the frequency of their meetings with those Ministers is lovingly embellished. Undoubtedly, they were wonderful meals out; I like to think that I had good relations with my French opposite numbers over equally excellent meals. The difference was that my relationship produced an agreement between the two countries that worked and enabled us to return to France those who should have applied for asylum in France, but who wished to do so in the United Kingdom.
I have made my two principal points, but I should like to make two or three more short points before I sit down. First, I want to comment on one of the Government's exercises in spin, which I was sorry to see had been wholly accepted by the Committee Chairman. He referred to the position of the United Kingdom in relation to other members of the European Union and the number of asylum seekers per head of population of the receiving country. That is an entirely new measuring device; it is an entirely new piece of spin devised by the Government.
I cannot see any greater reason for measuring asylum by reference to the numbers per head of the receiving population than by reference to the acreage of the receiving country or the number of take-aways it has. It is a completely irrelevant criterion. The point is simply which country has the greatest number of applications. Last year, for the very first time, there were more applications for asylum in the United Kingdom than in any other EU member state
Mr. Corbett: I do not want to get in the way of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but paragraph 8 on page viii shows that the Refugee Council suggested measuring the number of asylum applicants against head of population. If he thinks about the matter, he will realise that it is possible to get a wholly disproportionate picture of a small country with a tiny population, and a massive misrepresentation of the real position. That is why we recorded the measurement.
Mr. Howard: I am happy to accept the attribution of this new method of measurement to the Refugee Council, but I do not accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The truth is simple. Not until last year was the United Kingdom the country in which
310WH
more applications for asylum were made than any other European country. In view of the geography of the UK in relation to the rest of the European Union, the countries of origin of asylum seekers and the fact that most of them have to travel through other EU member states before they reach the UK, that is extraordinary. One would not expect more people to apply for asylum in the UK than anywhere else unless the pull factors were such as to cause them to do so—and that is precisely what is happening.
I hope that the Minister can give me the up-to-date information that I asked for in a written question some time ago, which she told me she would answer as soon as possible. How many illegal entrants to this country have been apprehended this year at the Eurotunnel terminal at Cheriton in my constituency? I have been told unofficially—I should like to hear the Minister's comments on this—that before the end of April, the number stood at 1,650. That is quite astonishing. I am told that the number who were apprehended there in March exceeded the total of those apprehended last year.
The hon. Member for Erdington, the Select Committee Chairman, talked about how, when one avenue is blocked off, people find others. There is a good deal of evidence that Eurotunnel freight trains are now being used because it has become more difficult to use the ferries. One problem of key significance is the failure of SNCF to erect proper security fences at the Eurotunnel terminal at Sangatte. Eurotunnel is improving the fencing for which it is responsible, but some of the fencing is the responsibility of SNCF, a French nationalised industry.
The Minister has told me that she will raise with the French Government the failure of SNCF to make good the promise that it made as long ago as June last year to see to the security fencing in that part of the Sangatte terminal for which it is responsible. SNCF has done nothing about that. I hope that the Minister will tell us what action she has taken to get her French colleagues to force this French nationalised industry to accept its responsibilities in the matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next Member, I should say that I know two things for certain—I have to bring this sitting to a close at 5.30 pm and I have three Front-Bench Members to call. I am unsure of how many other Members wish to speak, but I would like to be able to call all those who do, and I hope that hon. Members will take that into account when making their speeches.
3.37 pm
Mr. Martin Linton: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on what should perhaps be called his valedictory speech. I imagine that to be the opposite of "maiden", and I would hate to try to find another word. I pay tribute to his work as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. The inquiry that resulted in the report under discussion was the largest that took place during his chairmanship, and it is a fitting tribute to his approach to the job that he succeeded, on this sensitive and difficult subject, in achieving unanimity on the recommendations.

311WH
I preface my comments about the report and the Government's response to it by commending the approach of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and that of the Secretary of State, on the issue of asylum. Their approach has the interests of genuine refugees at heart, but is tempered by the realisation that one can help such refugees only if one prevents asylum from being exploited as an alternative to ordinary immigration. If asylum is used in that way, that casts doubt on the veracity of genuine asylum seekers. It discredits them in the eyes of people in this country and undermines the welcome that this country should be giving to those who are genuinely fleeing torture and persecution in their country.
One of the paradoxes that make this subject so difficult is that, in order to help genuine refugees, one has to subject them to tougher tests, relative indignities such as dispersal to other parts of the United Kingdom and the voucher system. Such measures are part of defending the integrity of the asylum system itself and preventing it from being discredited.
We are all familiar with the difficulties that have been put in the way of genuine asylum seekers in the past—I am familiar with them from my constituency surgery, where they have been an issue right from the moment that I was elected to the House. Asylum seekers are prevented from working for at least six months; they are often prevented from travelling, because they do not have travel documents; and they often have no access to their relatives—even if those relatives are dying in another country, they cannot go and visit them or attend their funerals. They often have no access to education, benefits or services that the rest of us take for granted. Worst of all, they suffer from the terrible uncertainty of not knowing, sometimes for years, whether they will be given the right to settle permanently in this country.
I know, from many graphic examples in my own constituency, how difficult that uncertainty can be for asylum seekers. Genuine asylum seekers are kept in suspense and uncertainty for years. One's heart goes out to them.
We should be aware of the work that the Government have done to try to tackle that situation. They have tripled the staff of the immigration and nationality directorate. Last year, the backlog was cut by a third—it may have increased again, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will supply the figures. Under the new system, asylum cases are being dealt with within six months. Indeed, it is taking only four weeks at the Oakington centre. They have taken action against migrant smugglers, and an extra £6.3 million has been made available this year. They are fining lorry drivers who carry stowaways; about 4,650 stowaways have been found so far. They have replaced benefits with vouchers plus cash and introduced an asylum dispersal system. They have increased the number of staff in the enforcement agency and thus its effectiveness; about 9,000 people were removed from the country last year. By any standard, the Government have done much to improve the system.
I was interested to hear the contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He was Home Secretary in the previous Government and was able to point to a 50 per cent. reduction in asylum seekers in 1996. However, that was a temporary phenomenon. That shows how one can
312WH
make a different point by choosing a different time, because the whole of the Tory Government's time in office showed a tenfold increase in the number of asylum seekers. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not want that to be seen as the result of his Government's policies, but he cannot have it both ways. Whatever temporary effect those measures may have had, the end result was a tenfold increase.
The introduction to the report includes a list of "pull factors". I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman pays a little more attention to the sixth and seventh factors, which were slow decision-making and the lack of an enforcement procedure. I have no doubt that those were the two most important pull factors, certainly the most important of those that were under the Government's control, because by the end of the last Government's time in office it was clear that many people applying for asylum knew that their cases would never be agreed but believed that it would take six or seven years for a decision to be reached. I know of many people who, in 1997, had been waiting since 1990 or 1991 for their asylum cases to be heard by the Home Office. That delay had a simple cause: there were too few staff at Lunar house, the Croydon headquarters of the immigration service, to handle the number of people claiming asylum.
I know from Lord Dubbs, my predecessor as Member for Battersea, that in the 1980s, long before I became a Member of the House, it was thought to be the deliberate policy of the then Government to keep staffing levels at Lunar house low so that the staff could not deal with the case load, in the belief that it would put a brake on immigration. In a way, that policy worked because it delayed the process. With asylum, however, it has the opposite effect. People claiming asylum are already in the country, and taking longer to deal with their claims is of benefit to them—especially non-genuine claimants—because they spend those years working here, which is all that they want. Add to that the unofficial amnesty allowed—I nearly said declared—by the previous Government in the early 1990s, which was intended to cope with the fact that so many people were waiting for asylum interviews, but which had the effect of encouraging more people to come because they knew that their friends or relations who had already come to the UK to apply for asylum had been given an amnesty, and they reasoned that they, too, would be allowed to stay.
Many of the previous Government's decisions contributed to the problem, most of all the decision taken in their dying months to lay off a large number of staff at Lunar house, in the belief that they would be surplus to requirements as a result of the new computer system—a laughable notion in retrospect, as it lengthened the queues and encouraged even more people to come to this country to seek asylum. That is why it is so important that this Government have taken firm action by tripling the staff of the immigration service, so that we can deal with asylum claims in a reasonable and humane time and genuine asylum seekers do not have to be kept in limbo for years.
I hope that the Minister has found the report helpful, as the Government response was not as positive as I and other Committee members had hoped. Too many issues raised were answered with "we are already doing that", "we are already thinking about doing that" or "we remain unpersuaded".

313WH
I do not have time to go through all the cases in which the Government are either already doing something or thinking about doing it. I am glad that they were doing all those things unbeknownst to us—perhaps even unbeknownst to themselves—and that they did not need our prompting. However, we like to think that some of our ideas have speeded up the process and have got them to think about an issue.
I shall concentrate on the two issues for which the report uses the wonderful phrase, "they remain unpersuaded". One is the single frontier force, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington. The Government remain "unpersuaded" that it is useful to have a single frontier force instead of the three agencies that currently operate. My hon. Friend mentioned the case that a member of the Dover harbour board cited. I refer to it, because it illustrates so graphically why a single force is necessary.
A family in an Escort van were on an innocent day trip in Dover—I think that their only crime was that the van was white. Immigration officers stopped the van to check the family's passports. Two minutes later, they were stopped by Kent police ports unit and asked to unpack the entire van and to load it again, and were then told that they could go. Ten yards down the road they were stopped by customs, who also asked them to unpack the van, again found nothing and told them to load it up.
Looked at from the customers' point of view, how can it be right that someone can be searched three times within the space of 50 yards by three different Government agencies? How can we defend that on the ground that we cannot prove that a single frontier force will improve the efficiency of the service? It seems obvious that a single frontier force will be better for customers.
I am glad that the report goes on to say that the issue might benefit from further consideration, and that the Committee looks to the relevant Departments to take the matter forward. I hate to say this, but our experience of customs and the immigration service is that, like all arms of the civil service, they will be reluctant to take this forward because it will mean surrendering part of their independence. However, the work of the joint entry clearance unit and the National Criminal Intelligence Service shows that co-operation between Government agencies that are concerned with the same function can be fruitful and effective.
I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 26 of the Government's reply, which concentrates on clandestine entry. In the course of one paragraph, the following agencies involved in the job of catching clandestine immigrants across the channel are mentioned: Police aux Frontieres—PAF; the IND intelligence section; the facilitation support unit; the NCIS; the National Crime Squad; and OCRIEST, which is a French acronym. I shall not spell them all out, and most of those present will probably know what they are. However, the fact that so many organisations must work together on the simple job of checking clandestine immigration across the channel surely shows that we need more co-ordination between the different agencies on our side.
314WH
The other issue on which the Government have not been persuaded is entitlement cards. I recognise that that is a difficult and sensitive issue; indeed, it was one on which the Committee found it difficult to agree, although we did in the end. I want briefly to go through the reasons that the Government gave for not having even a review of the subject. First, they said:
"The suggested range of Government services that would be accessed by the proposed entitlement cards is so great that the cards would need a large data storage capacity that would require encryption technology such as integrated circuits (chips) or optical stripes."
I have never seen a better example of the technique of blinding Committees with science. The argument is not that the entitlement card is unnecessary, but that it is so necessary that we cannot introduce it—an argument that is surely worthy of Sir Humphrey.
The Government's second argument was that the
"entitlement card would carry the potential for considerable fraud."
That is another clever argument. We are suggesting an anti-fraud device, and the response is that the anti-fraud device itself could be subject to fraud, so we should not try it. We must base the discussion on our intention, which was to find a device that will help us deal with fraud. Of course, cards by themselves can be subject to fraud, as we have seen with credit cards. However, cards represent information on databases, which cannot be tampered with. Once one can call up that information, such a card becomes an effective anti-fraud device.
The Government's third argument related to civil liberties, and we considered it carefully. They said that the cards
"would risk being seen as a compulsory identity card."
They accepted that it would be a voluntary card, which would need to be produced only when people wanted to access Government services. However, they said that it risked being perceived by the public as a compulsory card. That, of course, is the classic thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, which implies that although there is nothing wrong with our suggestion, people might see something wrong with it.
Mr. Winnick: The Committee managed to find suitable words to make the report unanimous, but my hon. Friend knows that I have the deepest reservations about an entitlement card. Moreover, he minimises the dangers of the card becoming an identity card. Does he accept that ethnic minority organisations have many reservations, although he might not agree with them? Those groups feel that, even though someone from an ethnic minority was lawfully entitled to live in this country, he or she would need to produce a card to demonstrate that.
There are dangers. Although it may be the view of a minority of one on the Committee, I welcome the Home Office's rejection of our recommendation.
Mr. Linton: I certainly referred to—and happily emphasised—the great doubts that my hon. Friend and, indeed, all of us had about some aspects of the entitlement card. The most dangerous possibility is that ethnic minorities would see it as a discriminatory measure against them or that it would be seen as leading to a compulsory identity card. All that I can say is that,

315WH
as far as I know, no member of the Committee had that in mind. As with all thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments, we must deal either with perception or with someone with a sledge hammer who intends to push the wedge in. If no one is trying to do that, it is unfair to draw attention to what might happen as an argument against what is being proposed. Like my hon. Friend, I never want to see a time when people are stopped in the street in this country and asked for proof of their identity. However, I do not agree that giving people an opportunity to have a way of demonstrating what they are entitled to when they want to access services is in any way comparable with that. At the same time, I do not want to take away from the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, which are entirely legitimate.
The fourth argument against entitlement cards was that of cost. We do not need to dwell on that, because it is an argument put forward against any reform, and I do not think that the measure would be particularly costly.
I was very interested to hear the opinion of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe on the Dublin convention. It is encouraging that, as the Government response explains, a draft proposal, which was promised for this spring, will take the place of the Dublin convention. We are now at the beginning of May, and I had thought that spring was largely over, even if we have not had one. Its publication was promised for sometime during the Swedish presidency, which takes us up to the end of June. I hope that a proposal is issued soon, and that it does not take us as long to go from proposal to law as it did in the case of the Dublin convention, because as the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly observed, the Dublin convention was prepared in the late 1980s and signed in 1990, but did not become effective until 1997. If it took that long for it to be amended, the process would finish long after the amendments were needed.
The Committee's essential point was that, in principle, asylum applications should be dealt with in the first country within the EU. That is enshrined in the Dublin convention. In the Schengen area, where there are no immigration or customs controls, it is impossible to return people passing from one country to another to the country from which they have just come. They have to be returned to the country that they originally entered, and nobody except the people in question knows which country that was, and They will not reveal that fact.
The whole Dublin convention can be turned into a dead letter because of a fundamental flaw in the drafting. It does not entitle countries as of right to say, "You have just come from France, which is a safe country. If you wanted to apply for asylum, you should have done so there." The convention simply states that, if it can be proved through which country the person entered the EU, that country can be asked if it will accept the person back, which is a completely different proposition. I should be interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on that fundamental issue.
We now have the issue not only of genuine and non-genuine asylum seekers and refugees in Europe, but of those who are genuine asylum seekers in that they are fleeing persecution of the worst kind, but are economic migrants in that they have chosen not to exercise their right to claim asylum in several countries—sometimes
316WH
six or 12 countries—before they reach the country of their choice. That issue is very different from that of whether or not asylum seekers are genuine.
The question is the extent to which such asylum seekers should be able to choose their destination. The Committee's view was that it is important for the Government to put money into the neighbouring countries that shoulder the greatest burden of asylum seekers and refugees. We also recommended that Britain take refugees directly from trouble spots such as Kosovo where it is necessary, on a multilateral basis, according to which they would be shared among all European countries.
It is not necessarily a good idea for people to be able to go from country to country seeking asylum, far away from the country from which they are fleeing. We do not yet have a clear statement of the Government's view on that matter. I appreciate that the issue is thorny and needs to be discussed at a multilateral level in the EU and the United Nations. It involves redrawing not only the Dublin convention, but possibly the 1951 Geneva convention. A question lies unasked at the heart of the issue, and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's reply.
4.4 pm
Mr. Charles Wardle: First, I commend the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) on his brazenness in seeking to gloss over the recent chaos at Lunar house by saying that it was the result of pre-1997 staff cuts. He has shown a degree of hutzpah. If he reads the Public Accounts Committee report on the subject, he will find that the responsibility for implementing the changes in information technology lay with the Minister and her colleagues. It is extraordinary that, at the same time as those changes were implemented, some physical changes were made in the layout of the office space and accommodation in Croydon.
I cannot resist saying a little in response to what the hon. Gentleman said about asylum shopping. The Geneva convention is clear on the subject, as he suggested. What matters is the first safe country that an applicant reaches. Much of the confusion that has dragged the principles of the Dublin convention into disrepute has been because people want to duck the issue. If an immigration officer or someone dealing with an asylum applicant at the port of control at least establishes the previous safe country in which the applicant was present, the applicant must be returned to that country in the absence of better information. Some may feel that that threatens to put into action an undesirable chain of events, but it is the only way to enforce the principle of the convention.
I am aware of time limits, so I say immediately to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that I sympathised with him when he talked about his valedictory speech in this place. I have made a few of them recently. I made one on 30 March because I thought that a general election was imminent, but now I am making a speech today. Before walking into the Chamber this afternoon, I checked next week's Adjournment debates and discovered that this is not my valedictory speech either.
In passing, I think that I am right to say that you and I, Mr. Pike, made our maiden speeches on the same day. Another hon. Member who did so on the same day in

317WH
the summer of 1983 was a Mr. Dave Nellist. He had the office next to mine and, well as I came to know him in the following few years, I did not imagine that he and I would have something in common, but we do: we both wound up without our Whips. When I received the fax from the Opposition Chief Whip, I do not think that even he thought that I had so much in common with Mr. Dave Nellist that I would back a militant tendency candidate in the next general election.
I congratulate the Select Committee Chairman and his colleagues on raising an important topic and dealing with it effectively. There is a great deal of public concern and much media attention, and there are some real problems. The social pressures that exist, especially in inner cities, have spread further afield with the dispersal of asylum seekers. As I have said time and again in broadcasts on the subject over many years, we should never forget that the first people to feel the tensions and pressures of growing immigration numbers are British-born and bred ethnic minorities in inner cities, not people living in leafy suburbs. In inner cities in such circumstances, there has been and will be
pressure on local authority housing, general practitioner lists, school places and so on. Tensions are likely to rise there.
I agree with those who have already spoken that this must be an open, constructive and level-headed debate, without anyone playing the race card. To do so would be highly regrettable. Whether it is done deliberately, or inadvertently in the excitement before a general election, it is to be deplored.
The report has made a valuable contribution to the debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few observations; I am not trying to come up with a comprehensive list. The Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Erdington, referred to the "pull factors" listed in the report. Much research has been done on the subject, especially by European Commission Ministers, notably from Germany, for understandable reasons, given the immigration pressures that that country has faced. The idea behind much of the research is that if enough aid is given and there is enough direct investment in the source countries to create stable conditions of economic prosperity, the desire to move out and move on will eventually abate. That theory is fine, but the emphasis should be on "eventually" because it will take generations for things to settle. No one should be confused about that.
No one would disagree that the three "push factors" in the report are valid: fleeing persecution or simply getting out of the way of civil strife, whether or not it is targeted at a particular family; wanting to find work; and wanting to join family members. However, there is a broader reason that needs to be understood when considering what control measures to take: people want what they perceive as a better life in the west. Often, people who are, or have been, in work in their own countries are trying to save money to pay racketeers in whatever part of the world they live so that they can move on. People can see what life is like in other countries on television and the internet; now that the iron curtain has gone, there is the visible evidence of affluent tourists from the west who go to eastern
318WH
Europe, for example, and that desire has grown. People want what they have heard about in the west for themselves, and no one can criticise them for that.
The desire of people to better themselves, however understandable, is not a reason to relent on implementing immigration controls. That must never be; the two concepts must be separated. Three of the big four reasons that pull people along the path of economic migration, and in some cases asylum shopping, are the English language, which is most important; the perception about social security, to which the report alludes; and, possibly, United Kingdom asylum law. The big attraction, however, is not so much our asylum law as the fact that the queue is there and if people get to the back of that queue they can stay. That is a bee in my bonnet and I am unashamed about repeating it before the Minister.
Another "pull factor" that is not mentioned in the report is north America, as I know from my experience at the Home Office. Many economic migrants get it into their heads that the United Kingdom, where English is spoken, is a stepping stone to north America—to Canada or the United States.
Not long ago, a Russian immigration officer said to me, "You ain't seen nothing yet. People are on the move in tidal proportions." There is no time in the debate to go into the fortress Europe arguments, but the report mentions international co-operation to exercise some measure of fair but firm control on such movements. No one would dispute that co-operation with our EU partners is a good thing. The EU policy of harmonisation, the member states that have signed the Schengen agreement and the bilateral co-operation with the French should all be borne in mind.
It is also worth considering what happens in practice. No matter what statements come out of Councils of Ministers or what conclusions are made by joint working parties of officials, the plain fact is that co-operation does not always occur in practice. While that is not a reason to give up on cross-border liaison and joint working, it is worth bearing in mind that to many —possibly all—member states, home priorities come first. I said earlier that Germany faced a huge scale of immigration—it all comes down to a question of geography. It is not surprising that Italy, faced with the increased influx of "clandestini" from across the Adriatic, is not too worried when a little encouragement is given for people to move on. The same applies in Austria and in France. One has to ask for what possible purpose the French transit camps on the channel coast exist. There is only one possibility. People who arrive in them intending to travel across the channel into this country to apply for asylum should be—but I am sure am not—told there and then by the French authorities that, under the Geneva convention, they should apply in the first safe country they reach and therefore should not contemplate coming here. We need to co-operate with French intelligence on clandestine entry but, as we have heard, co-operation often founders when it comes to returning manifestly unfounded asylum applicants across the channel to the first known safe EU country they reached.
Because of pressures of time, I shall not dwell on the Dublin convention. The report places emphasis on advance controls at the point of departure for the United Kingdom—juxtaposed controls, as they are

319WH
described—and refers to stringent application of carriers' liability. Carriers' liability has never been a popular topic of legislation; it was not popular when it first came into force with airlines, with the channel ferries, or subsequently with Eurostar. It is, however, essential to legislate on that. It was sensible and practical to introduce measures to penalise lorry drivers; it may not have been pleasant to enforce it, but it was right to do so.
In considering those controls and the system of immigration control in this country, which has not changed since 1971, it is worth bearing in mind that control pivots on a stamp in the passport—which is why border controls, the headline subject of our debate, are so important. If a third country national's passport is not checked at the port of entry and he or she is subsequently arrested and questioned under the enforcement procedures, he or she could say, "Well, I came through a port of entry last week but nobody stamped my passport." There is no way of proving that that is not the case because the person could have got rid of the ferry ticket, for example.
The issue of overstayers gets forgotten when one focuses solely on border controls, but a huge amount of pressure in terms of illegal immigration is also created by people who are welcomed here as visitors for a maximum of six months and who then overstay. The theory held by successive Governments since at least 1971 on overstaying is that it is similarly controlled by the stamp in the passport.
We must not forget the accident of our island geography, which presents a natural advantage that we should not sweep aside. Although enforcement can and should be pursued, controls at the port of entry remain one of the biggest deterrents—even allowing for the increase in clandestine arrivals. I come back to the bee in my bonnet and say that that should be combined with the removal of the queue, which requires a brave stand against the Treasury. I say that to the Minister, as I said it to predecessors in her job. I have said it to the Home Secretary time and again, and to his predecessors. The Treasury must understand that sometimes money has to be spent to save a lot more money and, in the process, to create a climate of fairness and decency in which one can tackle difficult problems.
I agree with the recommendation in the report that the border control working group should remove obstacles to improve joint data collection and sharing. However, I am wary of the proposal to merge the work of immigration officers, police and, from the Treasury side, customs into a single frontier force without first addressing the important subject of training for those people. I hope that the Minister agrees. Some people who sweep through the EU channel when they arrive at a port of entry to this country might think that there is not a lot to an immigration officer's job. There is a heck of a lot to that job. Some fine men and women work hard in that job, exercising sophisticated judgment based on their experience. I am sure that the people from customs have rules to follow, but it is terribly important not to assume that immigration officers' responsibilities can be shared at the drop of a hat. For a long time, those who processed asylum applications had their own special training as well.
320WH
There is a plea in the report for more modern equipment. I disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about that matter. I have long respected his views; we have not always agreed, but we have had many discussions about the subject and have a common interest. I understand his concern about identity cards, but I do not share it. If everyone carried an identity card—if the libertarian arguments and the arguments to which the hon. Member for Battersea alluded were set aside—one would have to ask why anyone would not want to carry a card.
The problem with identity cards—this might please the hon. Member for Walsall, North—is that more money must be spent on the technology before we rush down that road. The Minister knows what progress has been made with hand prints, thumb prints, voice prints and all the rest of the technology that can be used to verify identity. A few years ago, one of the biggest problems for immigration officers at ports of entry, particularly on the channel coast, was forged French ID cards. They are not difficult to forge and require secondary verification. My feedback is that that is still a problem. I come back to the question of Treasury funding and, dare I say it, the asylum queue that acts as a lure—in this country, at any rate.
I mentioned the first safe country principle. Another simple, pivotal principle in the Geneva convention is that a successful applicant must have a well-founded fear of persecution. That should remain the case. Siren voices say that the convention is not working, that the problems today are too large and that we should scrap the convention. I disagree with them. The problem today is the number of people on the move, and it will not be solved by tinkering with the Geneva convention. It is a separate, parallel problem but, in seeking to deal with it in a firm but fair and humane way, it is important to keep in place and focus upon the cardinal principles of the Geneva convention.
One should always welcome media attention, but immigration and border controls is an issue that has been confused by media attention. The public, perhaps understandably, does not always know what is going on. That is why the report is so important. If there is sufficient Government funding and a tough resolve to say to our EU partners, "Look, if somebody transited your country first, at the very least they come back to you", there is a better chance of holding the line.
Finally, EU enlargement will inevitably add to the problems. That may influence EU priorities and the desire to look afresh at the subject. We may decide to change a policy of zero immigration with a few minor exceptions, and allow people in in larger numbers. If that happens, the UK needs to fight its corner. There will always be pressure within the EU for us to make further concessions in the name of harmonisation, and they should be resisted unless they are in the UK's interests. The public deserve to understand that, with enlargement and closer harmonisation of the policies, a price that this country will pay for closer EU integration is that the larger problems in other EU member states will be passed over in part to this country. Concessions should also be resisted for those reasons. That is why we should not lose sight of our island, and why we should not be afraid to insist on our own control priorities, even if that means resisting further EU harmonisation.
4.27 pm
Mrs. Janet Dean: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), not only on his speech today but on the way in which he has controlled the Home Affairs Committee for over a year. He has been a fair Chairman. We should also mention the years of dedicated service that he has given to the House. I thought of calling his speech his "retiring speech", but he has never been retiring.
The subject of immigration and borders is important, and it sometimes dominates media headlines, as hon. Members have said. One could mistakenly believe that we are the only country that has seen increased numbers of illegal entrants. I reiterate that the Select Committee was told by the Refugee Council that EU countries, with 6.2 per cent. of the world's population, take 4 per cent. of the world's refugees. While, among EU countries, the UK was second to Germany for the total number of entrants—that may be where I and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) differ, as he talked about asylum seekers—we were only ninth for the number of entrants in proportion to the population. That is important because, as other Members have said, the number of entrants has a greater impact on a small country.
However, there is understandable concern about the dramatic increase in asylum applications in recent years. The Committee looked at how illegal entrants could be deterred and detected. The inquiry lasted nearly a year, during which time there were some developments, including the implementation of civil penalty provisions, followed by the action taken by P&O Stena Line to increase security measures at Calais and Zeebrugge. As other Members have mentioned, the tragic death of 58 Chinese people in a container lorry, some months after we began the inquiry, served to emphasise the desperate measures that people will take to flee their country and the despicable trade in human life.
As the Home Affairs Committee Chairman said, the Committee was shocked to see the hundreds of people at the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. We were disturbed to hear that the numbers housed there have increased since our visit. We shall probably always remember the smell from the chemical toilets, which cannot be sensed on our television screens. As the report states:
"We found the situation there disturbing on three grounds: the conditions in which they are living… the fact that they are just waiting to enter the UK illegally and their lack of any legal status in France."
Circumstances in Sangatte emphasised the need to revise the Dublin convention and for European nations to work together to deal with the problem. I am pleased that the Government agree and that they are working within the EU to develop an alternative to the Dublin convention.
Members have mentioned that establishing where someone first entered the EU is the key difficulty. It is easy to discover that someone was last in France before entering the UK, but not to ascertain first entry to the EU. I welcome the Government's recent attempts to tackle such problems—tripling the staff of the immigration service last year, speeding up assistance, increased funds to fight organised crime and the
322WH
introduction of a mobile fingerprint unit. I particularly welcome the extra money provided for X-ray scanners to detect illegal entrants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erdington mentioned that members of the Select Committee were bemused to receive contradictory advice on the possible use of X-ray equipment for detecting human beings. It was said to be safe, but could not be used by the immigration service. The change in that position is welcome.
We must address the problem of illegal entry in different ways, not least by examining the "pull factor", which draws people to Britain. The report recognises that perceptions may be more significant than reality in attracting people to seek asylum. A recent television programme showed Romanians who had been told that asylum seekers were given£800 a month in the UK. People here also believe that asylum seekers receive more money than they do, which causes further friction. It is a sensitive subject and it can stir up considerable concern.
Together with our European colleagues, we must ensure that when conflict arises, people are helped to remain close to their own countries. People should not feel the need to trek across the world at great risk to themselves and their families. We must also ensure that the United Kingdom continues to give asylum to those genuinely escaping persecution.
4.33 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to participate in the debate, to which this forum is ideally suited. Whatever our differences of emphasis, we have so far had—and are likely to continue to have—a reasoned and intelligent debate on the basis of good work by colleagues. It has led to a common view across the parties on a highly controversial issue of public interest.
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and join others in thanking the Select Committee for its work. I, and others with responsibility for home affairs in the House, have benefited from it. I wish him and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) well in their now somewhat deferred retirement. I feel slightly older than I am because while they were talking about when they entered the House, I realised that I came here before almost every Member in this Chamber, with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary.
The debate is, rightly, centred on border controls, but hon. Members have stepped back before dealing with that specific issue. We have had three debates on the subject in the past couple of weeks—two in European Standing Committee and now this one. The Minister has certainly been earning her pay for duties in the House recently.
There were no border controls until Napoleonic times—200 years ago. People travelled around Europe and the world without passports. Now we have controls. There is a perfectly reasonable, free-market argument that things might be better controlled if there were none, although before the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe gets excited, I should point out that neither I nor my party has adopted it.

323WH
I have always taken a view which sometimes, arguably, puts me in a slightly less eurocentric corner of my party, and with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle: we should take advantage of our island status for the time being. It gives us additional opportunity for control, and I have always said, on the difficult issues of managing immigration generally rather than asylum in particular, that we should reserve and not sign away our rights. At the moment, we should not be party to a common European Union policy that means no frontiers between us and the rest of the EU. That would not be pragmatic. The difficulties experienced by other countries outweigh the advantages of dropping that form of control.
The report was initiated to examine the number of illegal immigrants that we have and the pattern of such immigration, and to remind us that there are always two categories of people seeking to come here. The other category is those who are exercising their asylum rights under the convention. We should always keep the categories separate, as the Minister and I publicly agreed recently, and have a separate debate about immigration policy. I think that then is now agreement that the two categories are interrelated, but we need to keep separate their definitions, rules and processes.
This morning, I attended an event to help the Christian Council for Racial Justice to launch a report and a pre-election leaflet entitled "Bonus not Bogus", which deals with the myths about asylum seekers. The Church seeks to counter those. No figures in that report or elsewhere suggest a crisis—only a challenge.
I understand the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe that one relevant consideration is how many people come here, whether as immigrants, visitors—including those from other EU countries—or asylum seekers. It is also relevant, however, to talk about how we can cope with the numbers given our wealth, population and historical links. There has been a failure, which I do not attribute to any past or present Minister in this debate, adequately to deal with the number of people who required their admission to be certified and agreed to. For significant periods over the past 10 years, the backlog has grown.
The more extreme press has reported a crisis simply because of the number of people waiting to enter the country. Huge numbers enter and leave all the time and from all over the world. Most immigrants come, perfectly lawfully, from other EU countries. A crisis has been perceived only because there has been a great queue of people waiting to have claims processed.
As the Minister knows, exactly the same situation arose when the passport system suddenly did not work. Every year, thousands of people apply for passports. That became a crisis only when the processing system stopped working. As soon as it started working again, the crisis went away. I hope that we can agree that we should not find the numbers anything more than a challenge. Yes, they are higher than they have been, but it should not be beyond the capability of the fourth most successful economy in the world to deal with them. Compared with Ireland, and relative to head of population, we have had half as many people. We are only 10th in the European league table relative to population, but about 75th in the world relative to our wealth.
324WH
I reflect on the places that I have been to. You have visited some of them too, Mr. Pike, as have other colleagues. I have been to Palestine, southern and central Africa and Kosovo; huge numbers of people are being dealt with by much poorer countries. They just get on with it. That is why I endorse the part of the report that recommends assisting, via the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, countries that must deal with many people just outside their frontiers who seek refuge.
There is an important distinction to be drawn between asylum and immigration. Asylum applicants must be treated without discrimination under the convention. They have to be dealt with individually and then treated fairly on the individual merits of the case. It is interesting how monthly figures show that, as the hon. Member for Erdington pointed out, the league table of countries varies considerably from one year to the next. At the moment, it is headed by Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Somalia; a year or two ago it was headed by countries in southern Europe. At the time of the most violent conflicts in Sierra Leone, the table was headed by Sierra Leoneans, and at the worst times in Sri Lanka, by Sri Lankans. That is why the push factors are just as important, if not more so, than the actual or alleged pull factors.
We cannot discriminate on the ground of the nationality of the asylum seeker, but it is proper to do so for the purposes of immigration—for all sorts of historical reasons. We discriminate in favour of EU applicants. We have a discriminatory policy towards people who have Commonwealth and other links. That is a perfectly proper basis for an immigration policy, on which we are now building. The Government are right to move in that direction. We should now have a sensible debate with our European partners about how we meet our economic shortages and the needs gap.
We must be careful that we do not allow into the country only those with high academic qualifications. We are not short of people at that end of the market. Yes, we are short of people in the IT industries, but we are equally short of people in some of the most low-paid and less-skilled jobs. The example that I have given before is of cleaners in our public services. People who come here also work in the catering industry. The best car wash within striking distance of the House, for those who need it, is at Elephant and Castle and is entirely run by Kosovans. They do a brilliant job at very good rates and work furiously well. We must understand that it is proper to discriminate in immigration policy, but not in asylum policy. Having done so, we still need a border control system, and therefore need to consider how we deal with it.
An interesting debate, quite rightly prompted by the Select Committee report and taken up by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and others, is how one deals with the simple process of the person leaving his country and going somewhere else. Once this great fury of a debate has begun to settle, I hope that people will be able to come to this country as economic migrants without having to pretend to be something that they are not. People often pretend to be asylum seekers because that is how they think that they will succeed.

325WH
We then must ensure that the asylum seeker can get here lawfully too. As the Minister knows, I argue that, currently, they cannot do so. They cannot leave any of the countries that we know about and arrive in the UK lawfully to claim asylum; they have to enter the country illegally. There are sensible and obvious ways of dealing with that problem. One is to allow British missions around the world to deal with the applications. Another is to allow EU missions or agencies around the world to act on our behalf and to deal with applications at the nearest safe place outside the country from which the people are fleeing—or alleging that they need to flee. I am in favour of a system that tries to process applications as near as possible to people's homes; that seems intelligent. However, that leads us to a more difficult question.
Effectively, under the present system, people are entitled to put their case only at the place where they land, yet the accident of travel may land people in places with which they have no linguistic or family links, and no ties. I often cite the example of those who fled from the civil war in Sierra Leone to French-speaking neighbouring countries in west Africa such as Ivory Coast. They were not in those countries because they wanted to be there. When they came to leave, they found that, because of the historic links between the French-speaking countries of the former French empire and France, the only European flights available went to Paris. Despite landing in Paris, all their links were with the UK, since our links with Sierra Leone are strong.
We must have a system that reasonably allows people to express the wish to go to the place to which they are logically attached and with which they have links, irrespective of where they are when they make their applications. I welcome European Union discussions on the matter, and I hope that, when reflecting on the economic issues, we remember natural links and linguistic, historical and family ties. The nature of the historic link means that Britain may take more people from some countries such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan and African Commonwealth countries than from others.
Although it was mentioned only once and not pejoratively, we should remember that a so-called fortress Europe would be extremely dangerous and unhealthy. To her credit, the Minister made the same point. Europe is successful not because it is populated only by generations of Europeans; EU member states are successful not because they are populated only by people from those countries whose families span 17 generations. The mixture and sharing that Europe has accommodated makes us what we are.
On the push-pull factors, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I had our usual exchange. I do not doubt that what we do here has an influence, but I do not believe that the evidence that he cited in support of his view, which he said had been communicated to him by people who are waiting for asylum, is the overwhelming or even the predominant view. For example, I do not believe that having to wait a very long time for cases to be processed is as much of a pull factor as others have argued. However, under the
326WH
old system, which I criticised, cases were so delayed and there were so many chances of appeal and re-appeal that it became a nonsense. That system worked to the advantage of some good lawyers, and of many far worse or pretend lawyers. That certainly needed to be dealt with.
I do not believe that a voucher, as opposed to a benefits, system acts as a pull factor. Indeed, it works to the contrary. If the Minister is still in office when her review is concluded, I hope that she will remember that a benefits system is cheaper and fairer than the voucher system. Some things act as incentives. For instance, those who think that they will never be caught break the rules, and those who believe that they can slip through the net and earn money will do so. They are just as much push factors because of the criminals who try to exploit immigrants. Those are the same criminals who, 10 or 20 years ago, were exploiting drugs; who, 10 years previously, had an interest in pornography; and who, 10 years before that, were interested in armed robbery. They go wherever the pickings are to be found, and need to be dealt with strongly.
Mr. Howard: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell us how the problem will be resolved by his party's recent commitment to a review of the dispersal system.
Mr. Hughes: I can answer that. The review of the dispersal system is a marginal issue. As I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the current dispersal system often sends people to places that are unprepared for them, with the result that they do not stay.
I can give an example that I know to be factual because I was there. I was in Newcastle when a Czech family arrived under the dispersal system—driven in a taxi from the station to a housing estate. The house was boarded up and there was nobody to receive the newcomers or anybody of the same nationality available. They were settled in, but they had no community and no likelihood of assimilation. They are not likely to stay there for long. As the Government have said in one of the responses, regional centres should meet people's language, health and educational needs. I have always supported the introduction of reception centres and reception—not detention—arrangements that provide support in appropriate locations around the country. The review would not force people to go to places from which they were bound to return, but would send them to places where there were known to be back-up facilities that worked.
We also need to address the question of how to set up permitted routes for asylum and for economic migration. We need to do better on both and to be clearer on both and, so far as is possible, to adopt a common European approach.
In any system that the House controls, there must be better police intelligence, better services intelligence at home and abroad and better technology. Criminals must be dealt with increasingly severely. That is done by Interpol, Europol and other agencies, and our Ministers need to approach them.
The interesting and provocative matter, on which the Select Committee and the Government did not agree, is that of whether immigration, Customs and Excise and

327WH
the police should be integrated. I subscribe to the view that they should be. I have not yet reached the stage where I am so committed that that will appear in an immediately forthcoming manifesto, but I am persuaded. I am persuaded for all the reasons that the report gives, and for one other. That is that, for perfectly understandable reasons, different incentives drive different agencies, especially Customs and Excise and the police. The police want to catch the people; Customs and Excise wants, to catch the goods. Customs and Excise wants, to stop the loss to the economy; the police want to stop people breaking the law. They are often in conflict.
I have been told clearly by both agencies that people often slip out of the loop because of the agencies' rival aspirations. One agency wants to score its points at the expense of the other. The illustration given in the report and quoted by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) about the triple stop is a silly but practical one. I am sure that we would do better by integrating those agencies, and the only reason why we are not going down that road is what I might call institutional conservatism—the Government are being led by their civil servants. People will always say, "No thank you, we want things to stay as they are." It will take a strong Government to say that we can and should do better than that.
Mr. Wardle: Institutional conservatism is about the only kind of conservatism that I would rail against. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, a few years ago, several complaints against immigration officers about searches at ports of entry turned out to concern those conducted by customs officials? People confused the two agencies. Does that not highlight the need, at the very least, to be cautious and to ensure training across the board before any change?
Mr. Hughes: I have had experience of the first point, and agree with the hon. Gentleman. I also agree that, as a minimum, training is needed. However, I urge this Government, and whoever might form the next one, not to be conservative about the issue. I understand the resistance, but all the evidence points to the fact that shared, unified services work better, and I think that we should go down that road.
I will not duck the next issue, because it is a real one. All parties must face up to the problem of how we get people to go when they are told that they cannot stay. Many people are there one minute but not the next once they are told that they have to go. The system lets them slip through the net. That is unfair on those who go through the process, whose cases are adjudicated on and who are told that they can stay.
I have three suggestions. I do not have a perfect solution, but I want to show that we have at least addressed the issues. First, there is merit in ensuring that everything is clearly explained to people when they arrive. The process for telling them what will happen at the end of their time should be much more clearly explained. There should also be regional centres to which they are required to report.
Secondly, there might be an argument for a financial incentive—not for asylum seekers, but for others. That was suggested by the Select Committee, and it is worth
328WH
considering. Thirdly, technology could play a part. There is a vague European notion of European citizenship mark 2, which is for those who do not have a permanent right of abode in EU countries, but have the right to remain for a limited period. People with limited rights to be in this country might have to be clocked in so that we can check whether they have clocked out. I do not believe that we cannot pray in aid technology, at least to give us a better assessment of when people cross the line between being here lawfully and being here illegally.
We are not yet ready for the entitlement card system, and the Government put the case in that regard. There is a big debate about the issue. Having entitlement cards for one lot of people and not another would raise issues of discrimination. There is a proper debate to be had, but we are not ready for it.
I welcome this debate and the fact that we are conducting it in relatively measured terms, despite the hoo-hah and the bruhaha of recent weeks.
4.56 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I want, at the outset, to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on three counts. I congratulate him first on the drafting and publication of the report; secondly, on his chairmanship of the Home Affairs Committee; and, thirdly, on his 23 years' service in the House—he spent five years as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and 18 years representing the people of Birmingham, Erdington. Last year, I had the pleasure of going to Egypt with the hon. Gentleman, his wife, Val, and several other hon. Members, and I hope that he and his wife greatly enjoy the next phase of their lives.
It is important that we have a good debate. The subject of asylum and illegal immigration attracts twin evils. The first is the attempt by the advocates of political correctness to deny debate, which is wrong. The second, which is equally wrong, is the tendency for inflammatory exchanges to take place. As recommendation 19 of the Select Committee's report rightly emphasises, we have a proud and honourable tradition of not only accepting, but welcoming people who are fleeing genuine persecution. We should celebrate and continue that tradition, and countenance nothing that flies in the face of it. One can genuinely say that all the contributions to the debate have reflected the priority that we attach to that principle.
Many hon. Members have drawn attention to some of the pull factors on which the report focused, and which have played a significant role in the substantial increase in applications for asylum in the past 10 years and in the scale of illegal immigration. I do not want to focus on those factors at length, but the Committee was right to draw attention to family, cultural and historical links; the English language; and the availability—or the skewed perception of the availability—of social welfare benefits, to which the hon. Member for Erdington, rightly referred. Other factors that might be considered are the generous interpretation of asylum law in this country; the absence of a requirement for the production of identity cards or the demonstration of one's nationality; the lack of an efficient removal system for people who are refused asylum; access to public

329WH
services, such as free health, education and housing; slow decision making in asylum cases; the scope for living in the country without documentation; and the general economic prosperity that we are fortunate to enjoy in our islands.
A related debate involves the level of immigration and the purposes for which flexibility might be required in our immigration procedures. It is important to distinguish between the debate about flexibility in immigration law and policy, and the phenomenon that we are principally discussing, which is large-scale abuse of the asylum system and our immigration laws. That abuse is perpetrated not merely by individuals who come to our country, but by the connivance of organised gangs that operate on a massive scale, make vast profits and employ thoroughly disreputable and even evil methods in pursuit of their trade.
From time to time, we have all talked about the various methods by which people enter the country. It is a commonplace and a truism that when we tackle a method through the pursuit of a certain policy, it is safely to be expected that the criminals who tend to be at least up with us, if not a step ahead, will opt for alternative routes. We should not underestimate the enemy, as these people are sophisticated and have extremely good communications, extensive resources and an absolute determination to defeat the forces of order.
I draw attention to one regrettable anomaly. European Union and European Economic Area passengers have to be admitted with the shortest delays, yet it is the documents of those countries that have most often been forged. Sixty-one per cent. of the 4,225 forgeries found at ports from 1 October 1999 to 30 June 2000 were of such documents. The British passport was the most frequently forged. Methods of entry can change in response to enforcement action. For example, the effect of a £2,000 fine on airline and ferry operators for each passenger with inadequate documentation is that people now hide in lorries instead.
The absence of effective decision making and enforcement must necessarily explain, at least in part, the large number of people now coming to our islands who should not do so. I shall give a snapshot by referring to the 57 per cent. rise in Lithuanian asylum seekers in the first six months of 2000.
To the credit of the Committee, the report focused on no fewer than 22 findings and recommendations, to which the Government replied at the end of March. The Government claimed to be implementing some of the recommendations, appeared not to have decided in favour of others, and objected—predictably but unconvincingly—to some of the most damning criticisms. One such criticism is the inefficiency of the system. The Committee highlighted the major pull factors, and the Government's response to the report stated that they were undertaking three studies on why asylum seekers are attracted to the UK.
One major factor must surely be the inefficiency of our asylum system and the long delays in the consideration of applications. The current average time taken to initial decision is 14 months. In those circumstances, it is no wonder that figures from the United Nations High
330WH
Commissioner for Refugees show that the UK received more asylum seekers than any European country in 2000. It had 97,860 applications, including dependants, as opposed to Germany in second place with 78,760.
In February 2000, the Minister said that the Government were committed to getting rid of the backlog by April 2001. However, in a written answer on 5 February 2001—column 440W of Hansard—she defined removal of the backlog as a reduction to 25,000. At the end of March 2001, the figure was 33,390, so the Government have palpably missed their target.
The report mentions the Red Cross holding centre at Sangatte, and the Committee stated that it was clear that the hundreds waiting in and around it were simply waiting for the opportunity to enter the UK illegally. That point was acknowledged by the Minister on 22 March. Approximately 25,000 people have passed through the centre in the past 18 months. The fact that the Government do not even keep proper records has made matters difficult. Ministers admit that they have no idea how many failed asylum seekers remain in the country; some estimates suggest at least 200,000. In the past two years, there have been 150,000 arrivals, excluding dependants, but only 15,000 removals, all of which would necessarily have been from previous years. In 1999, enforcement action was taken against 22,880 people, but only 6,410 were removed.
The Committee— much to the credit of the hon. Member for Erdington and his colleagues—was right to conclude in paragraph 69 that
"the Home Office has been dilatory in enforcing the removal of people whose asylum claims have been refused and others who have gained illegal entry to the UK. This in itself has"—
manifestly and incontrovertibly—
"attracted more people to the UK…The target of 30,000 removals in 2001–02—a ten-fold increase"—
admittedly including dependants—
"over the 1999 figure—seems a very ambitious goal."
We shall have to see what the Government's response is to that, but the figures thus far show that the UK has become a soft touch for asylum seekers, and that the Government have failed effectively to deal with genuine refugees.
It is no good for the Minister to look quizzical or hurt by the criticism. The Home Office's figures show that only one fifth of failed asylum seekers who are eligible for removal are being removed. I emphasise again that Britain should be a safe haven for genuine refugees, but the Government's shambolic policies have made us a soft touch for racketeers who traffic in human beings and misery. It is horrifying that the Immigration Service Union, whose members work at the sharp end, says that perhaps only a dozen people who do not want to leave the country are being forcibly removed per month. In the circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that since 1997 asylum applications have risen from 32,500 to 76,035—a rise of 134 per cent.
Mrs. Roche: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that the Immigration Service Union, with which I have regular meetings, has assured me that that remark was taken completely out of context and that it recognises the Home Office figures?
Mr. Bercow: I will not accept that here and now. I do not dispute the Minister's veracity, but I am suspicious

331WH
of her interpretation of the remark. It is on the record for everyone to study, and I believe that it is persuasive because it reflects the reality of the situation.
The Government justifiably talk about the juxtaposition of immigration controls, but there is nothing new about that. The Home Secretary has repeatedly sought to spin the situation; that point was made effectively in relation to the Dublin convention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) during his incisive input. Significant problems have resulted from the policy of civil penalties against, for example, lorry drivers. The Government should not simply ignore them. Many people who have been penalised have had bogus asylum seekers in their trucks unbeknown to them, and it is wrong for them to he penalised in such a way.
The extension of civil penalties to rail freight in March has been a disaster. The Minister will have received representations about that. [Interruption.] It is no good her chuntering from a sedentary position in an expression of disapproval of anyone who happens to take a different view. Those points have been made by the commercial sector and people who feel that they are being unfairly held responsible for errors that are not their own.
There is an important debate about entitlement cards, which the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) dealt with sensitively. I am grotesquely embarrassed to express sympathy with the point of view articulated by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). That is deeply uncomfortable and unedifying for me, and I hope that I do not have to repeat it, but he has legitimate concerns. The Government have clearly not accepted the fact that such cards should be introduced. The Minister will have heard the opinions that have been expressed, and I hope that the Government will continue to reflect on the arguments, as they will on the case for a single frontier police force.
This has been a long debate, but I shall focus briefly on several vital steps that could help to overcome some of the worst excesses of the abuse of our asylum and immigration procedures. The Conservative party wants such steps to be taken but, regrettably, the Government have eschewed taking them since they came to office, so we all want to hear the Minister's response.
First, we need greater use of reception centres. In Germany and France it is normal practice for asylum seekers to be housed in designated reception centres. There is nothing inhumane or uncivilised about such an approach. When we gave refuge in this country to the Ugandan Asians and the Vietnamese boat people, we housed them in reception centres while longer-term arrangements were properly organised. Such an arrangement is not only civilised, but more straightforward than a complicated voucher and dispersal scheme.
By ensuring that the centres are secure, we can also guarantee that people seeking to evade immigration control are kept in one place and are unable to disappear into the wider community. Those whose claims are refused can be speedily removed from the country. That is why we propose that all new applicants for asylum—whether port or in-country applicants—should be retained in reception centres until their cases have been
332WH
determined. Conservatives believe that that would have a significant deterrent effect, and we appear to be joined in that view—
Mrs. Roche: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bercow: No, the hon. Lady will have an opportunity for a full response in a minute.
Mrs. Roche: Frit.
Mr. Bercow: I have never been frit about anything; I am not frit now; and I will not be frit in future. If the hon. Lady wants me to give way, I will, but it will take me longer to conclude my speech.
Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and agree that he can take longer to conclude.
I am genuinely interested in the issue of detaining asylum seekers in reception centres until their case is determined. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that they should be detained there until they are removed if they receive a negative decision on their application?
Mr. Bercow: That would certainly be the expectation in developing the policy. There is no uncertainty about our motives, but I shall not be diverted in any way—I am sure that that was not the hon. Lady's intention—from the invocation of support for Conservative party policy. Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, professor of international refugee law at Oxford university, shares our analysis. As he told the Select Committee:
"I have no doubt in my own mind that those who come without reason or refugee related reasons would indeed be deterred by a process that reached defensible decisions quickly."
John Tincey, spokesman for the Immigration Service Union, made similar remarks:
"If people discovered that after spending £5,000 or so with a gang all they got was a month in a reception camp for their money, then that news would quickly get back."
He is right and many members of the public think so, too. The Government should consider the possibility that he who works hard at the coalface and has acquired distinct expertise has a good point.
We shall take action to speed up asylum decisions and appeals. A report commissioned by the Home Office from the consultants Vantage Point identified huge and unnecessary delays in the system. An asylum seeker who arrives in Dover or at Heathrow is interviewed at length by an immigration officer, who then has to refer the case to the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office in Croydon for the papers to be reviewed and a decision made. It is an exceptionally long-winded process, and a much more streamlined operation is required.
We will amend the law to deter applications by people who have come from a country that is obviously safe. It is bizarre to receive applications from countries that have been accepted as candidates for membership of the European Union. How can we simultaneously accept that a country has the rule of law and good government that would qualify it to join the EU and believe that its citizens are suffering systematic persecution? A future Conservative Government will draw up a list of countries enjoying the rule of law from which we will not

333WH
ordinarily accept asylum applications. The presumption of the law will be that a claim is unfounded if an applicant has travelled directly from, or begun his journey in, a safe country.
We shall signal to our European partners that we expect them to take seriously their obligations under the Dublin convention. Those obligations are on the record. People have signed up to them. They should be implemented fully and rigorously. When people have been refused asylum they should be removed from this country without delay. What is the point of spending all this time and money on assessing whether asylum seekers have a genuine case, when nothing is done with those who do not and when in the meantime those with bogus claims learn how to disappear into the melting pot of society?
The Government's ill-advised and poorly implemented dispersal policy has exacerbated an already serious situation. The next Conservative Government will set up a removals agency with the sole mission of ensuring that people who are supposed to leave the country do so at once. That will take a burden off the police and simplify the process of removals. The removals agency will be largely composed of immigration service staff assigned permanently to removals duties.
Mr. Corbett: I have a word of caution to offer the hon. Gentleman. Most of the asylum applications at the moment come from people from countries that cannot remotely be described as safe: Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq to name just three. He might want to consider whether a future Conservative Government would contemplate forcibly returning people to those countries when it is almost certain that they would either go to prison or lose their lives.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point but I emphasised at the outset, and I welcome the opportunity to repeat now, that if people are at risk of death, torture, being maimed or having their human rights trodden upon, we do not propose that they should be deprived of a safe haven here. We are concerned about the people who are seeking a better standard of living. I do not blame them for doing so, but those whom we cannot reasonably be expected to accommodate should be returned. That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition and one with which the vast majority of people would concur.
Today's system is neither fair, nor firm nor efficient. It is weak and arbitrary. As a result, it is losing public support. A democracy that sets rules and does not enforce them loses the respect of its own citizens, and understandably so. Some people are untroubled by the present situation. My hon. Friends and I are not among them. There are those who would prefer not to talk about it. We think that they are wrong and we intend to do so. A tolerant, welcoming society is right, but a weak society that is prey to abuse is rightly and roundly rejected by our fellow citizens. The asylum crisis is serious. We cannot allow British democracy, the rule of
334WH
law and the protection of our citizens to be undermined. We need a firm, fair, robust and efficacious policy. Under this Government there is none such. The Conservative party intends to provide it.
5.17 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): This has been a good debate, and for the large part extremely thoughtful. Our deliberations have been full of good humour. It shows that we can quite properly debate these important but sensitive issues.
I should like to thank the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others for their warm tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). They commended his excellent chairmanship of the Home Affairs Committee and his long service to the House. The fact that tributes have come from both sides and in the warmest possible terms shows not only the high regard but the great affection in which he is held by us all.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I apologise for intervening at a late hour, but I have been in the Standing Committee on the International Criminal Court Bill. As a member of the Select Committee throughout this Parliament, I should like to add my words of tribute to those that the Minister has already paid to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). He has been a splendid, good natured and skilful Chairman.
Mrs. Roche: On my hon. Friend's behalf—if I may be so presumptuous—I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate, because I am a former member oft he Home Affairs Committee, having had the pleasure of serving on it when I first came to Parliament. I feel a little like a poacher turned gamekeeper, but I shall do my best. In the short time available, I shall try to respond to several of the points that have been made.
In response to my hon. Friends the Members for Erdington and for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I must emphasise that we should distinguish between asylum and migration. The refugee convention was never meant to be a migratory instrument, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees agrees. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in response to the European debate and to the global consultation initiated by UNHCR, set out in major speeches in—in Lisbon last year and London this year—how the convention should operate in the modern age, and how we can establish resettlement programmes to help the poorer countries that are supporting many refugees.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington, we have responded in detail to some of his points, but I want to reassure him on a couple of others. He asked whether there would be joint use of equipment. Yes, the new equipment will be joint use. It

335WH
is fair to say that the X-ray machines and the money that has been secured is a good example of how Select Committees can influence Government. We not only listened, but acted. Minds were influenced by the report, which is a tribute to the Committee. We have also listened to the Committee's views on research, and have acted on its recommendations, although we had realised that there was a lack of research.
My hon. Friend asked about fingerprinting, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean). That is important, which is why the new mobile system is up and running. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) cannot, alas, be with us now; he had to go to an urgent constituency engagement, but he sent me a note with his usual courtesy. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), he rightly referred to the evil trade in people smuggling and trafficking. We make a distinction between smuggling and trafficking—between the transport of people and the dreadful trade of trafficking children and women for prostitution. We are determined to do everything possible to crack down on both.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made an interesting speech, particularly about the figures. I have them here, and the number of asylum applications in the two months of May and June 1996 decreased, but then the figures started to rise.
Mr. Howard: The figures went down and then, as I explained, the courts intervened to sabotage the policy, so they increased again.
Mrs. Roche: No, that has nothing to do with the figures. They reflect, as do those for elsewhere in Europe, the rising number of applications over the years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said, the Tory record shows that there was a ten fold increase in the number of asylum seekers in the early years of the Conservative Government, very much reflecting what was happening in Europe and the rest of the world. I listened closely to the comments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the Dublin convention, and I understand the gloss that he puts on it. However, there is absolutely no doubt that the Dublin convention was fatally flawed, and that the previous Government, of whom he was a member, signed up to it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked an important question about SNCF and fencing. He knows that I take a close personal interest in that matter. I understand that SNCF has now secured the funds and drawn up plans for securing that particular site, and I undertake to let him know when that will occur.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and the hon. Member for Buckingham asked about processing. The record of the previous Government for asylum processing was deplorable. They brought in a computer system that was going to do everything but make the tea—if my memory serves me correctly, a computer system that the Public Accounts Committee said was
336WH
overly ambitious and seriously flawed. They laid off staff at the same time and then wondered why the backlog had increased—absolutely amazing.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle used the term "chutzpah", which is one of my favourite words. An example of chutzpah is the story of the man who murdered his parents and then, in his plea of mitigation to the court as to why he should not be sentenced to life imprisonment, said that he was an orphan. It is chutzpah on the part of members of the previous Government to deny their responsibility.
It is because we have put enormous resources into the immigration and nationality directorate—nearly£2 billion will be spent during the next four years—that the asylum backlog is at a 10-year record low. It is now down to working levels. On 1 May, I had the great pleasure of visiting the asylum caseworkers to thank them for their hard work. In the last financial year, 130,000 decisions were taken. That is a remarkable achievement, and I give credit to them.
I also want to give credit to the immigration service. I was pleased by the comments of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, because he knows about the immense efforts of immigration officers. I take issue with the hon. Member for Buckingham: the immigration service has achieved remarkable levels of removals—the highest ever. We still have ambitious targets and there is much to be done, but we have done much better than a Conservative Government would have done, and he should understand that.
Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Lady indulge me once more?
Mrs. Roche: I have two minutes left, but yes.
Mr. Howard: May I associate myself with everything that has been said by way of tribute to the immigration officers? Will the hon. Lady now give me the figures for those apprehended at the Eurotunnel terminals at Cheriton?
Mrs. Roche: I am unable to provide the exact figures at the moment, but I undertake to give them to the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as possible.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham about removal. Presumably, they were an early insight into the Conservative manifesto. What they show is a woeful misunderstanding of removal. The expensive, possibly illegal, proposal for detention centres that will keep people until removal, when we know that for some—
Mr. Bercow: Nonsense.
Mrs. Roche: I commend to the hon. Gentleman an excellent report on the subject produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington. I am sure that a copy will be sent to him. It shows that it is very difficult to remove some people. The hon. Gentleman might want to reflect again on his proposals.

337WH
The discussions about co-operation between agencies and the entitlement card were interesting. The Government have commented on those matters, and we will reflect very carefully on what has been said today.
338WH
The issues that we discussed are important, and we have had an interesting and good debate. It is important to do several things. We must respond to the UNHCR—
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Treasury Solicitor's Department
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress has been made in the review of the work of the Treasury Solicitor's Department. [160590]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer to the review of the Treasury Solicitor's Department that I announced to this House on 8 March 2001,Official Report, column 336W.

  I am pleased to announce the publication of the report on the first stage of the review. The report concludes that the Treasury Solicitor's Department has generally provided a high quality service to the Government and should continue to be an agency. Stage 2 of the review will examine how the agency's performance can be enhanced and improved to meet the increasing demands upon its services.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  External Development Assistance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for future collaboration with the European Community in the area of external development assistance. [160533]

  Clare Short
  I have approved a new Department for International Development institutional strategy paper for the European Community, which has been prepared in

  Country

  Date

  Purpose

  2000

  Malta

  19–21 September

  Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting

  Czech Republic

  23–28 September

  IMF/World bank Spring Meetings

  New York and Ottawa

  12–13 October

  Discussion with heads of UN Funds and Programmes

  Discussions with Canadian International Development Agency

  Germany

  9 November

  Discussion with the German Ministry for Development Corporation

  Nepal

  20–22 November

  Discussion with Ministers and DFID Office

  India

  23–25 November

  Discussion with Ministers and DFID Office

  2001

  Zimbabwe

  22–24 January

  Discussion with DFID Office

  Malawi

  24–26 January

  Discussions with Ministers and DFID Office

  Tanzania

  19–21 February

  Discussions with Ministers and DFID Office

  Kenya

  22 February

  Discussion With Ministers and DFID Office

  Australia, Fiji and Thailand

  20–25 March

  Discussion with Australian officials

  Discussion with DFID Office

  Discussion with DFID Office

  Washington

  27–30 April

  IMF/IBRD Spring Meetings

  704W
  consultation with the European Commission, other member states and civil society. The paper sets out a number of objectives for my Department's work with the EC over the next three to four years. These focus on four key impact areas: EC external assistance programmes which contribute effectively to the achievement of the international development targets; trade and other EC policies that help developing countries benefit from the global economy; integration of environmental issues for sustainable poverty reduction; and effective EC responses to crises, conflict and humanitarian disasters.

  A copy of the institutional strategy paper is available in the Library of the House.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what visits her Permanent Secretary attended with members and officials of the United States Government during his visits to New York on 20 to 22 March 2000 and to Washington on 15 to 22 April 2000. [159807]

  Clare Short
  From 20–22 March 2000, the Permanent Secretary of DFID held discussions with the UK Mission to the UN, New York; with the Deputy Secretary-General of the UN; with the heads of the UNDP and UNICEF; and with the Under Secretary-General for the UN for Economic and Social Affairs.

  From 15–22 April 2000, the Permanent Secretary of DFID held discussions, at the time of the IMF/World Bank spring meetings, with the President of the World Bank; with the head of USAID; and with a number of visiting Finance Ministers. He attended the meetings of the IMF and Development Committees.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the visits outside Britain made by her Department's Permanent Secretary on official business since 11 July 2000, indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. [159806]

  Clare Short
  The Permanent Secretary of the DFID made the following visits outside Britain on official business since 11 July 2000:

  Earthquake (Turkey)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the earthquake relief given by her Department to Turkey. [159923]

  Clare Short
  In response to both the earthquakes in Turkey, in August and November 1999, my Department contributed a total of nearly £2 million to support the emergency relief effort, co-ordinated by the Turkish Government.

  We provided immediate support to the search and rescue effort with specialist personnel from the UK fire service as well as other independent UK-based rescue organisations. In addition, we transported numerous relief items to the region (on behalf of the Red Cross and UNICEF), including medical supplies and tents.

  We also channelled funds through the UN and the Red Cross for the provision of essential relief items such as shelter materials, medical supplies, food, water and sanitation equipment.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will receive the annual report for 2000 of the immigration and nationality directorate's independent complaints audit committee; and if he will make a statement. [160481]

  Mr. Straw
  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library and on the immigration and nationality directorate website. It is a useful and informative document, and I am grateful to the committee for its comments and its recommendations, which will all be followed up.

  Electronic Data Tags
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on adopting the use of electronic data tags to reduce property crime. [160482]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In May last year, the Government announced the allocation of £4.5 million to combat the trade in stolen goods by planting small identity microchips in consumer products at risk from theft. In partnership with a range of commercial companies, we are developing a series of pilot demonstrator projects to show how property crime can be reduced throughout the supply chain. These pilot projects aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of radio frequency identification technology (RFID) in combating property crime by providing proof of ownership of goods and confirming that they are not stolen or counterfeit.

  The initiative aims to make it more difficult for offenders to steal and sell stolen property, easier for the police to recover it when they do, and to accelerate the adoption of this technology by business. The response from industry to the scheme has been excellent and details of the first pilot projects will be announced very shortly. In view of the high level of interest generated, I am
  706W
  pleased to announce that the Government have allocated an additional £1 million to this initiative to allow the number and scope of pilot projects to he increased.

  Asylum Support Adjudicators
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the increase in remuneration for the asylum support adjudicators for 2001–02. [160483]

  Mr. Straw
  The chief asylum support adjudicator's remuneration will be equivalent to grade 6.1 of the SSRB judicial scale, which for 2001–02 will be £99,420.

  The asylum support adjudicators remuneration (and daily fees) will be increased by 3.7 per cent. in line with the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body report No. 46, the twenty-third report on senior salaries (Cm 4995), which was presented to Parliament in February 2001.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review schedule 1 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [160594]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am arranging for possible changes to the schedule to be considered by the Animal Procedures Committee, the statutory body which advises the Secretary of State on the operation of the 1986 Act. Before deciding on the action to be taken we will carefully consider the committee's recommendations.

  Appointment of Assistant Surveillance Commissioners
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for the appointment of assistant surveillance commissioners under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [160595]

  Mr. Straw
  On 1 May 2001, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed three assistant surveillance commissioners—His Honour John Jeremy Fordham, His Honour Colin Francis Kolbert, and Viscount Colville of Culross QC—for a period of three years to assist the chief surveillance commissioner in his duties.

  HM Chief Inspectors
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been appointed as the next HM chief inspector of prisons; and if he will make a statement. [160596]

  Mr. Straw
  Recruitment for the post of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has been run under Commissioner for Public Appointments guidelines following advertisements in the national press. The choice of candidates has been guided by an advisory panel including two independent assessors. As we announced on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 357W, these were Baroness Stern, former director of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and now senior research fellow at the international centre for prison studies, and Lord Laming, former chief

  707W
  inspector of the social services inspectorate and author of the report "Modernising the Management of the Prison Service".

  From the candidates selected by the advisory panel, I have recommended that Her Majesty the Queen should appoint Ms Anne Owers CBE, the director of the non-governmental organisation JUSTICE, as the next Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. Her Majesty has consented to this appointment.

  I am delighted that Ms Owers has accepted the appointment, which takes effect from 1 August this year. I am confident she will uphold the high standards of integrity, rigour and independence we expect from the inspection of this key public service.

  Voluntary and Community Sector
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the funding of mentoring organisations, for making the small grants programmes more integrated and accessible to community groups and for strengthening the infrastructure that builds the capacity of the voluntary and community sector. [160258]

  Mr. Boateng
  In working towards our goal of encouraging and supporting new mentors, I am today pleased to be able to announce the launch of a mentoring fund grants programme.

  With up to £5.3 million available over three years, the mentoring fund will provide grants for mentoring organisations to:
  enhance or extend their current mentoring activity;
  develop schemes in new geographical areas;
  reach new audiences.

  This will enable more volunteer mentors to be available where they are needed, on the ground in local areas.

  This Government also recognise the need for a national infrastructure to promote, develop and celebrate mentoring and to establish a framework of national quality standards for local mentoring schemes. I am therefore pleased to announce that we will be awarding the national mentoring network a grant of £1.05 million over three years to develop the infrastructure of mentoring. I am also pleased to announce that to team up new mentors with mentoring opportunities, we are investing a further £1.4 million into mentor points.

  We also want to make it easier for people in community groups to apply for Government funds. So we are happy to announce the publication today of a consultation document on funding community groups. This sets out a number of proposals that aim to ensure that in future Government small grants programmes will be more integrated, and that application processes will be simpler and more accessible to local community groups. The document also explains how the Government plan to establish and operate the new neighbourhood renewal community chests, announced in the national strategy action plan in January 2001.

  I have today placed a copy of the consultation document in the Library.

  We recognise the independent role of the voluntary and community sector in building strong communities, and the need that organisations and groups, and the individuals
  708W
  involved, have for "capacity building" support to help them fulfil that role as effectively as possible. In addition to providing strategic funding to over 60 national infrastructure organisations, the Government have earmarked funds for:
  an integrated database to provide comprehensive and co-ordinated information;
  a major training programme to support charity trustees;
  a media awareness training programme for volunteer bureaux;
  an integrated database of social entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial organisations to facilitate better networking.

  The Government are also announcing today funding totalling £320,000 over three years to the Federation of Community Work Training Groups to develop the infrastructure for community development learning.

  Police IT
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place to ensure there is fair and open competition for the provision of information technology systems and software to police services; and if he will make a statement. [159694]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Government procurement procedures are followed to ensure that there is fair and open competition for the provision of information technology systems and software for the police. These procedures comply with the relevant European Directive on procurement.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many alleged contraventions of the Data Protection Act 1998 are outstanding before the Information Commissioner; what the date is of the oldest complaint; what is(a) the average and (b) the mean age of outstanding complaints; and if he will make a statement; [160161]

  (2) in what circumstances, when requested to do so on a complaint under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Information Commissioner will institute (a) criminal inquiries and (b) downgrade the complaint to an assessment under section 42; [160160]

  (3) in what circumstances the Information Commissioner will require from a complainant, before investigating a complaint under (a) section 55 and (b) section 42, (i) conclusive evidence of breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998, (ii) compelling evidence, (iii) prima facie case or (iv) other supporting evidence, and in each case, on what basis the request by the Commissioner is made; and if he will make a statement; [160158]

  (4) under a complaint made under section 42 of the Data Protection Act 1998, evidence obtained by the Information Commissioner is admissible evidence where breaches of section 55 are revealed by the Commissioner's investigation; and if he will make a statement; [160157]

  (5) when he expects to receive a report on the complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner, dated 27 July 2000, made by Hendon Conservative Association against the Conservative Party Secretariat; and if he will make a statement. [160159]
  709W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  These questions cover matters which fall within the operational responsibility of the Information Commissioner. The Commissioner administers and enforces the Data Protection Act 1998 independently of the Government.

  I have noted the length of time taken to resolve the issue and I have written to the Commissioner asking when she will be in a position to resolve this matter and drawing her attention to the issues raised by my hon. Friend's questions. I understand she will reply directly to him.

  The Commissioner publishes complaints statistics in her annual report to Parliament and a statement of her policy on the handling of assessments under section 42 of the 1998 Act is available on her website at www.dataprotection.gov.uk.

  Overstayers
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those applicants who applied for consideration under the regularisation scheme for overstayers had their cases(a) decided, (b) granted, (c) refused and (d) are still awaiting an initial assessment of eligibility; and if he will set a target date for the completion of consideration of these applications. [159997]

  Mrs. Roche
  In total 17,120 applications were received under the Overstayers Regularisation Scheme of the Immigration Appellate Authority 1999. Of the cases decided to date, 255 have resulted in grants of leave and three have been refused. There are 3,916 cases now under consideration and the remaining 12,946 cases are awaiting action. I am currently considering how best to invest our resources on tackling the Regularisation Scheme during this financial year.

  Correspondence
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reason was for the delay in transferring the letter from the hon. Member for Ilford, North of 24 July relating to the closure of Citizens Advice Bureaux in Redbridge from his Department to the DTI; and if he will make a statement. [160119]

  Mr. Straw
  I am sorry that there was such a serious delay in transferring my hon. Friend's letter of 24 July. Within two days of receipt of the letter my Private Office correspondence section identified that responsibility for the subject matter fell outside my Department. A number of attempts were made immediately and over the next few months to transfer the correspondence to the most appropriate Department. The Department of Trade and Industry accepted the letter on 8 February. I recognise fully that this is a quite unacceptable level of service and apologise to my hon. Friend and her constituents for this. My Department has now initiated measures to ensure that transfers of correspondence are effected within a reasonable period and in accordance with central guidance.

  Closed Circuit Television (Bolton)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect closed circuit television cameras have had on the crime levels in Bolton. [159838]
  710W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police operational experience and various research studies show that Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  No formal independent evaluation of CCTV in Bolton has yet been undertaken. However, the Bolton Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership consider that CCTV has contributed to the 7 per cent. fall in recorded crime in Bolton last year.

  The value of the Bolton town centre and car parks CCTV scheme in helping the police control and direct resources was demonstrated during a concerted effort to reduce crime in the town centre during Christmas 2000 shopping period. Reductions of 10 per cent. in street crime and 80 per cent. in vehicle crime were achieved in crime hot-spots compared with the previous Christmas.

  During the past year, incidents of anti-social behaviour reported in the residential areas of Bolton covered by CCTV reduced by 75 per cent.

  Under the current CCTV Initiative, coverage in Bolton is being enhanced. The Partnership is close to implementing two schemes providing coverage in residential areas and has been invited to prepare final proposals for two further residential schemes. Potential awards could reach nearly £420,000. The schemes will need to have been in place for at least 12 months before their impact can be fully evaluated. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships will also be evaluating schemes locally.

  Departmental Research
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the research undertaken by his Department by subject, indicating where the research was undertaken, by whom it was carried out, and the cost of each piece of research since 1996. [159793]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office research department undertakes a wide range of research activities that support the development of information-led policy, including scientific and engineering research, market and opinion research and social research.

  The Research Development and Statistics Directorate (RDS) conducts social research supporting all seven Home Office aims.

  The Science and Technology Unit sponsors scientific research in support of the police.

  The Fire Research and Development Group (FRDG) undertake research in support of Home Office aim 7. The Fire and Emergency Planning Directorate has also conducted a range of social research.

  The Emergency Planning Research Group (EPRG) carries out a wide mix of research, both intra-mural and extra-mural, in support of Home Office aim 7. The research findings are used to formulate evidence-based policy of promoting the co-ordination and development of effective national arrangements for integrated emergency management.
  711W
  For the available information on market and opinion research, including that conducted by the Communication Directorate, I refer to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 25 May 2000, Official Report, column 623W.

  The Assessment and Consultancy Unit (ACU) undertook research indirectly in support of Aims 1, 3, 4 and 7, via their research into selection and development issues affecting Police, Fire and Prison Services, also currently some research for the Cabinet Office.

  In addition the Home Office has undertaken the following research:

  (1) Home Office Briefings Research—awarded to Mori

  (2) Fieldwork with asylum seekers to investigate their experience of the voucher scheme

  (3) Research has been undertaken by various private companies on behalf of the Home Office Buildings and Estate Management Unit into components for use in police cells. The overall cost was in the region of £50,000 since 1996.

  I have arranged for the following more detailed information on the Home Office research programme to be placed in the Library:

  (1) A copy of the RDS annual work programmes for 1997–98 onwards, together with a list of research contracts let by the directorate. A list of RDS publications is available on the Home Office website and copies are also placed in the Library.

  (2) The FRDG annual business plans and Review of Research for 1996–97 (publication No. 7/97); 1997/99 (Publication 2/99) and 2000/01 (Publication 6/2000) are available in the Library.

  (3) Summary details of research conducted by the Fire and Emergency-planning department.

  (4) A table summarising details of the EPRG research programme since 1996.

  (5) An updated list of market opinion research conducted by the department since the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 25 May 2000, Official Report, column 623W.

  (6) Details of the ACU research programme.

  (7) A table summarising details of the police science and technology research programme since 1996.

  Some of the information requested such as more detailed breakdown costs by project and where research was undertaken are not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Airwave Communications System
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) of 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 589W, on the Airwave communications system, if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the reviews being conducted by the Health and Safety Executive, the Defence Evaluation Research Agency, the National Radiological Protection Board and the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme; and when he expects the results of each review to be published. [159976]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: The Health and Safety Executive have conducted an independent assessment, commissioned by the Lancashire Police Federation, of the potential health risks associated with the Airwave service. The report concludes that, on the basis of available information and on calculations
  712W
  carried out, the new portable and mobile transmitters should not affect the health of persons using the equipment.

  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) have begun preparatory work for their investigation. DERA will report on progress every quarter. The final report should be available in early May 2002 after the main study has been concluded. The work allows further research to be carried out in light of the results from the main study. The report from this additional study, if it is required, should be available by August 2002.

  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has commissioned a review from their Advisory Group on Non-ionising radiation (AGNIR). The AGNIR are well advanced in the process of preparing material for their report. The AGNIR report will require clearance by the NRPB board before it is released. It is anticipated that the report will be available for the NRPB's board meeting in July if not sooner.

  If, during the course of the DERA and NRPB studies, commissioned by the Home Office, any issue arises which suggests a risk to health, it will be made public without awaiting the publication of final reports. However, the Stewart Report said that:
  "no obvious health risk has been suggested".

  The Health Research Programme has been initiated by the Government in response to the Stewart Report on mobile phone health issues, and is focusing on emerging technologies. I anticipate that further research, in areas that are directly relevant to the technology used in Airwave, will be undertaken within the independent Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme. If future research is undertaken, the results will be published as soon as possible.

  Asylum Appeals
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current time taken for asylum appeals is from being received by the Appeals Support Section to final determination; and if he will make a statement. [159922]

  Mrs. Roche
  We record the date of receipt into the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), not the date received by the Appeals Support Section of IND, on our systems and therefore the data requested are not available. However, for the 12 months ending 31 March 2001, data from the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) for those cases where data are available indicate that the average time taken from receipt of an asylum appeal by IND, to the appeal being decided through both tiers of the authority, was approximately 28 weeks.

  Strip Searches (Prisons)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many strip searches of(a) women, (b) men and (c) children have been conducted in the past 12 months by authorised personnel attached to the (i) Prison Service, (ii) the police, (iii) Customs and Excise and (iv) other bodies. [159552]
  713W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of strip searches conducted by authorised personnel attached to the Prison Service, the police or any other body is not collected centrally by the Home Office.

  Information relating to Customs and Excise is a matter for Ministers in Her Majesty's Treasury.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual budget was of the National Asylum Support Service in the last financial year; and how much of this was(a) allocated to accommodation and support and (b) paid to (i) local authorities and (ii) private accommodation providers. [159735]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Estimated expenditure on asylum accommodation and support, including unaccompanied asylum seeking minors in 2000–01 was £751 million (estimated final outturn). This was made up of:Grant payment to local authorities for adult families and unaccompanied asylum seeking minors—£575 million
  Support payments by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS)—£115 million
  Payments to the Department of Social Security for supporting asylum seekers on benefit—£56 million
  Payments to the Scottish Executive for support to adults and families who applied before April 2000—£5 million.

  The support payments by NASS include a total of £54 million paid directly to accommodation providers under contract for the provision of accommodation and related services to dispersed asylum seekers. £46 million of this was paid to private sector providers and £8 million to local authority regional consortiums.

  The administration budget for NASS was £16 million. In addition £22 million was allocated for payments to the voluntary sector for work carried out to support the new dispersal arrangements and for other work relating to asylum seekers and refugees.

  Note:
  All figures rounded to nearest £ million.

  Helplines
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what telephone helplines to assist the public are administered by his Department and its agencies. [159571]

  Mr. Straw
  The main Home Office 24 hour switchboard is on 020 7273 4000. Unless the caller knows an extension or name, callers are then transferred to the Home Office Public Enquiry Service which operates weekdays on 020 7273 4599 between 9 am and 5 pm. The public can also call the Public Inquiry Service direct, but the number is not widely published.

  Other numbers are:
  Immigration and Nationality Department—0870 606 7766
  Prison Service—020 7217 3000
  United Kingdom Passport Agency—0870 521 0410.

  Judicial Proceedings
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average overall cost to 714W
  the Criminal Justice System in 2000–01 of each person (a) proceeded against, (b) found guilty or admitting guilt and (c) found not guilty. [158932]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 April 2001]: The figures for 2000–01 are expected to be available in the autumn. The most recently available figures are for 1999–2000. In that year, the expenditure on the Criminal Justice System was £12.1 million and 1.9 million offenders were proceeded against. The average cost per person proceeded against is £6,400.

  The specific costs of cases where there was a finding of guilt, and cases where there was no finding of guilt are not known, and it is thus not possible to provide answers for (b) and (c). Of the 1.9 million proceedings, 1.7 million ended in a finding of guilt and there was no finding of guilt in the remaining 0.2 million proceedings.

  Work is proceeding on the development of an alternative measure of value for money in the Criminal Justice System.

DEFENCE

  Defence Scientific Advisory Council
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the publications of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council over the past 10 years. [158051]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Scientific Advisory Council is an advisory body and has published no papers over the last 10 years. During that time, however, two reports of council subordinate bodies have been placed in the Library of the House: the independent medical assessment of a sub-committee of the council relating to baton rounds mentioned in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, and a panel review of existing literature and research entitled "The Long Term Neurotoxicity of Anti-cholinesterases": DSAC 10/99 dated 28 June 1999, to which I referred in the answer I gave on 20 October 1999, to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), Official Report, columns 585–86.

  Crowd Control Technology
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he received the Crowd Control Technologies report published by the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Panel of the European Parliament Directorate General for Research; and what measures he has taken to implement the recommendation that an independent and objective social impact study be(a) commissioned and (b) published prior to authorisation of purchase orders for new crowd control technology. [158049]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), gave him on 25 April 2001,Official Report, column 283W.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those units that are to be equipped with the L21A1 plastic baton round; what his estimate is
  715W
  of the cost of re-equipping each; how many L21A1 baton rounds have been ordered in each force and at what cost; how many L104 anti-riot guns have been ordered and at what cost; how many XL18E3 optical sight mechanisms have been ordered for each force and at what cost; what his estimate is of retraining each unit to be equipped with new equipment; and how many personnel training and trainer hours will be expended on this exercise. [158050]

  Mr. Spellar
  Army units charged with supporting the police in Northern Ireland are to be equipped with the L21A1 baton round, as are the relevant training establishments. Other units may need to be issued with the new baton rounds should circumstances require it, subject to prior training. Sufficient numbers have been ordered to fulfil anticipated requirements. I am withholding details of equipment numbers in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I am withholding information on costs on the grounds of commercial confidentiality in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The units that are to be equipped with the new baton round already undergo regular baton round training. Any extra cost and time associated specifically with the new round will be small, but cannot be separately identified without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact tests were conducted by(a) the Defence Evaluation Research Agency at Porton Down and (b) the Defence Scientific Advisory Council on the L21A1 plastic baton round; how many (i) animals and (ii) human beings were involved in testing; and how many fatalities and what injuries were sustained as a result. [158048]

  Mr. Spellar
  For the medical evaluation of the L21A1 baton round, no physical impact tests were conducted by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency or by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council on living animals or on human beings.

  Computer models of the head, thorax and abdomen were used to compare the biomechanical response of the body following the impact of L21A1 and L5A7 baton rounds. In addition, physical impact tests were conducted on excised bovine scapulae to compare the skull fracture patterns of the two projectiles. The bovine scapula is a physical model of skull fracture and the scapulae were obtained from the meat trade.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what models of plastic baton round have been tested that would meet the criteria for a penetrating kinetic energy round; and what his assessment is of the lethality potential of such weapons. [158047]

  Mr. Spellar
  L5A7 and L21A1 baton rounds are not designed to penetrate the body wall. We are not aware of any incidence of penetration of the torso body wall by polyurethane baton rounds that have been fired in Northern Ireland since the 1970s. No studies were undertaken on the probability of penetration of the torso body wall by these projectiles, prototypes of the L21A1, or commercially available kinetic energy based public order equipment.

  Heat Insulation
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what heat insulation standards for pipework are being required of new buildings at(a) GCHQ and (b) Ministry of Defence headquarters; and what plans he has to adopt a standard higher than BS5422. [158808]

  Dr. Moonie
  The agreed heat installation standards applicable to pipework as part of the redevelopment of the Ministry of Defence headquarters in Whitehall will be the relevant British standards prevailing at the time of installation, supported by Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers guidelines. BS5422 and BS5970 are the relevant current standards. These standards will be adopted unless and until they are superseded or amended. GCHQ is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, has to conduct research to establish whether single doses of the Oripavine derivative TL2636 can cause long-term effects on the health of humans. [159801]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down currently has no plans to undertake any further research concerning the effects of exposure to single doses of the Oripavine derivative TL2636 on the health of humans.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if staff at the Medical Assessment Programme are entitled to request and receive classified and unclassified information from the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down about experiments which have taken place at the establishment; and if he will make a statement. [160064]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if former service personnel who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down are entitled to a complete copy of the medical report assessing their health after they have attended the Medical Assessment Programme. [160063]

  Dr. Moonie
  For reasons of medical procedure, to ensure continuity with volunteers existing health care arrangements, all referrals to the Medical Assessment Programme must be made through a GP or other health professional (eg a consultant physician). As such the results of the Medical Assessment Programme consultation, with any recommendations for treatment, are reported back to the volunteer's general practitioner or referring consultant. However, a copy is provided to the individual, if requested.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations he has undertaken of reported losses of viruses from Porton Down in the past year. [159724]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been no losses of viruses from the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down in the past year.
  717W
  I believe that the hon. Member is referring to comments made in a report which appeared in the Sunday Express on 8 April alleging that a vial of foot and mouth virus had been stolen from Porton Down. No foot and mouth viruses have been stolen from CBD Porton Down, nor have samples of foot and mouth virus been held at CBD Porton Down in the past year.

  US Military Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 April 2001,Official Report, column 368, regarding the United States military Department's liaison officer in Washington, what assessment he has made of the need to gather information on United States' arrangements for paying compensation to veterans who participated in chemical warfare trials in the United States. [160062]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Atlantic Patrol
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which ships this year are allocated to the(a) Atlantic Patrol Task (North) and (b) Atlantic Patrol Task (South); and when the ships will be on station. [159713]

  Mr. Spellar
  The ships allocated to the Atlantic Patrol Task (North) and Atlantic Patrol Task (South) during this year, and when the ships are scheduled to be on station is as follows:

  Organisation

  Stand type

  Charges raised (£)

  King George V Fund for Sailors (KGFS)-the Festival's nominated charity

  —

  0

  Royal Naval Association

  Indoor

  1,247.85

  St. Dunstan's (for blind ex-servicemen and women)

  Indoor

  835.43

  Royal Sailors Rest

  Indoor

  623.93

  RN Enthusiasts Society

  Outdoor

  352.50

  Mission to Seafarers

  Indoor

  835.43

  Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA)

  Outdoor

  352.50

  British and International Sailors Association

  Georgian Market

  211.50

  Naval Personnel and Family Service (RN organisation so no charge)

  —

  0

  The event is designed to be self-financing. All non-Service organisations, including charities, are offered the same rates based on a standard charge per m2 of display space.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy ships will be present at the International Festival of the Sea. [159716]

  Mr. Hoon
  The third International Festival of the Sea will be held in Portsmouth Naval Base between 24 and 27 August 2001.

  It is planned that, operational requirements permitting, the following Royal Navy ships will be present:
  Illustrious, Endurance, Newcastle, York, Nottingham, Glasgow, Southampton, Exeter, Marlborough, Lancaster, Grafton, Richmond, Westminster, Blyth, Grimsby, Anglesey, Ledbury, Chiddingfold, Dasher, Puncher, Pursuer, Blazer and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Grey Rover.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for the replacement of the Leaf class tankers currently in service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary; [159718]
  718W

  Atlantic Patrol Task (North)

  Ship

  On station

  HMS Sheffield

  22 February 2001–24 July 2001

  HMS Coventry

  24 July 2001–16 November 2001

  HMS Coventry is scheduled to hand over Atlantic Patrol Task (North) duty to HMS Argyll on 3 December 2001. HMS Argyll will then be held at 14 days notice to deploy to the centre of the area of operations to where she is scheduled to deploy in mid-February 2002.

  Atlantic Patrol Task (South)

  Ship

  On station

  HMS Iron Duke

  25 September 2000–15 February 2001

  HMS Glasgow

  15 February 2001–30 July 2001

  HMS Edinburgh

  30 July 2001–31 October 2001

  HMS Montrose

  31 October 2001–11 March 2002

  International Festival of the Sea
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which veterans' organisations will be present at the International Festival of the Sea; and how much each organisation is being charged to display at the festival. [159715]

  Mr. Hoon
  The veterans associations and related maritime charities attending the International Festival of the Sea, and the charges raised, are given in the table.

  (2) what plans he has to order further auxiliary oilers for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. [159711]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are currently considering options on how best to provide, in the medium to long term, afloat support for the future Royal Navy, including the capabilities currently provided by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's Leaf class tankers, which are currently planned to leave service between 2008 and 2009.

  BAe Systems Marine are building two Auxiliary Oilers (AOs), Wave Knight and Wave Ruler, for the Ministry of Defence, which we expect to enter service in 2002. These ships will provide the fast fleet tanker capability formerly supplied by RFAs Olna and Olwen. The company has suggested that two further AOs could contribute to meeting the future afloat support needs of the Royal Navy. Alongside the wider studies into afloat support, we are currently evaluating whether further AOs would be a cost-effective solution to our future capability needs.

  HMS Beaver
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proceeds were derived from the disposal of HMS Beaver. [159720]
  719W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 4 April 2001,Official Report, column 199W. HMS Beaver has been sold to the commercial market as scrap. Receipts for the vessel were achieved by means of a sealed competitive tender and, given that other ships in this class may be offered to the commercial market, the actual price must remain "commercial-in-confidence" so as not to prejudice future activities.

  Gulf War (Meningitis Vaccine)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on investigations into illness suffered by British troops who received the meningitis vaccine in preparation for service during the Gulf war; if the meningitis vaccine contained the Pertussis vaccine; and which company manufactured this vaccine. [159872]

  Dr. Moonie
  Up to around 5,000 Service personnel who deployed to the Gulf in 1990–91 may have received immunisation against meningococcal meningitis A and C. Initially, in August 1990, immunisation was recommended for all personnel who were to serve in the Gulf. However, by 15 September 1990, the immunisation was no longer recommended except for medical personnel and some other categories of personnel who may have been at risk.

  Research sponsored by the Ministry of Defence has not specifically investigated a link between the meningitis vaccine and the subsequent ill health of Gulf veterans, and the Ministry of Defence is unaware of any reported association between the vaccine and subsequent ill health (with the exception of the known side effects). The meningitis vaccine did not contain the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine.

  The pertussis vaccine was used separately as part of the anti Biological Warfare immunisation programme as an adjuvant to accelerate the immunisation effect of the anthrax vaccine. There were two main suppliers of the meningitis vaccine. One supplier, Pasteur Merieux MSD, was the manufacturer of the product supplied. The other supplier was SmithKline Beecham; however we have yet to confirm the manufacturer. When we have done so, I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Beef Supplies
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the beef consumed by the armed forces since May 1997 has originated from UK sources; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the sourcing of all beef for the armed forces. [159828]

  Dr. Moonie
  Unfortunately, there are no data available prior to October 1997. However, from that date to April 2001, 60 per cent. of the beef consumed by UK based armed forces has been UK sourced.

  Since October 1997 the task of buying food for the armed forces has been contracted to 3663 (formerly known as Booker Foodservice) and it is the Ministry of Defence's policy to require them to seek the best price in the open market. Our contractor is required specifically to give full consideration to British products, which we look to them to buy wherever they are competitive. We have
  720W
  given particular attention to meat procurement and over the last two years have worked closely with our contractor; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Meat and Livestock Commission; and farmers' representatives to explore ways to increase the proportion of British meat we can buy competitively.

  This has been a successful co-operation. In the case of beef we had, since the autumn of 1998, been supplying 100 per cent. British beef to our UK based service personnel, following the agreement we secured from the EC to release British intervention beef at competitive prices. However as was announced to the House on 24 July 2000, Official Report, column 555W, these stocks have now run out and market prices have dictated that a mix of British and imported beef will be required for future supplies. We are, however, working closely with those concerned to ensure that we can maximise the amount of British product that can be supplied competitively. In the case of beef they have identified opportunities to sources some 150 tonnes of prime British cuts which, when added to the 800 tonnes of British beef already secured, would mean that over 50 per cent. of the Ministry of Defence's requirement in the UK would be British.

  Fissile Plutonium
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the UK has exchanged fissile plutonium with the United States of America for highly enriched uranium since 1980. [158098]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement authorises the transfer of fissile material between the UK and the US. Over the period in question there have been no formal exchanges of plutonium for highly enriched uranium between the UK and the United States of America.

  Transport of Hazardous Materials (Lancashire)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what hazardous materials were transported through Lancaster on 13 December 2000 via the Halton Army camp; [159492]

  (2) what hazardous material was transported through the village of Nether Kellet to Halton Army camp on 16 November 2000. [159493]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I am able to confirm that military vehicles containing radioactive material did travel through the district of Lancaster on 16 November 2000 and 13 December 2000 via Halton Army camp.

  Royal Navy Exercises
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which foreign navies have been approached to provide tanker support for Royal Navy exercises in the next 12 months. [159712]

  Mr. Spellar
  No foreign navies have been approached to provide tanker support for Royal Navy exercises in the next 12 months. However, some participating nations may provide tanker support for their own deploying groups in a given exercise.

  Naval Vessels
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Fearless will be returned to service. [159721]

  Mr. Spellar
  On current plans, maintenance and repair work on HMS Fearless is due to be completed this summer. She will then be available for operational tasking.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what items have been taken from HMS Intrepid and used to replace equipment on HMS Fearless. [159714]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since early 1998, numerous have been removed from HMS Intrepid and used to replace equipment on HMS Fearless. I will write to the hon. Member with a list of those items and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  HMS Intrepid is held at a low readiness state commensurate with force levels endorsed within the Strategic Defence Review. All the items that have been removed could be refurbished or replaced and she could, if necessary, be returned to operational service within the readiness profile agreed in the Strategic Defence Review process.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Invincible last put to sea; and when she is next scheduled to put to sea. [159717]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Invincible last put to sea on 26 February 2001, to take part in the winter deployment exercise off Norway. She returned to Portsmouth on 30 March 2001. She is due to sail for Rosyth at the end of July in preparation for her forthcoming refit.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Ocean will be fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [159719]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Ocean is currently undergoing routine maintenance and repair work. Subject to completion of this work, successful sea trials, and allowing for the summer leave period, the vessel will be available for full operational tasking in late summer.

  Factor V Leiden Mutation
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what standard assessment is made of service personnel prior to enlistment to determine if they suffer from Factor V Leiden mutation. [159412]

  Dr. Moonie
  No standard assessment is made to determine whether potential recruits to the armed forces have Factor V Leiden mutation. Potential recruits are required to provide information about their medical history and anyone with a chronic blood disorder, such as Factor V Leiden mutation, would be rejected for service.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of people serving in the armed forces who suffer from Factor V Leiden mutation. [159413]
  722W
  Dr. Moonie
  According to records held centrally by the Ministry of Defence, there have been five cases of Service personnel with blood coagulant disorders since 1997. This figure would include any cases of Service personnel with Factor V Leiden mutation, as this disorder is not identified separately in the Ministry of Defence's central records.

  Chinook ZD576
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the pilots flying the Chinook ZD576 were instructed to fly below the safety altitude for security reasons. [159871]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. There were no special instructions with regard to this task, which was planned as a routine flight.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Grants (London Boroughs)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) each category of grant and (b) the amount of each grant paid by his Department to each London borough in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–1999, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02. [155428]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter sent on 16 February from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, setting out total funding for Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster local education authorities for the years 1996–97 to 2001–02.

  A list of the Department's school education grants and funding allocations paid to each London borough for the last four years and projected grant figures for the current year have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  In the Budget on 7 March, national increases of £100 million for School Standards Grant and devolved New Deal for Schools Capital were announced. London boroughs will benefit from these increases, which are included in the figures placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Real terms national recurrent funding per pupil will rise year on year by £200 in 2001–02 and will have risen by around £540 since 1997–98. There will be an average real terms increase in per-pupil funding of around £750 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Education Funding Strategy Group
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the membership of the education strategy group, together with their qualifications, grade and geographical area of employment (separately indicating the technical group); if he will list(a) the terms of reference of the group and (b) the schedules of meetings of the strategy and technical groups; if he will publish a verbatim account of those meetings; and if he will indicate when the conclusions and the Government's response will be published. [158901]
  723W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Education Funding Strategy Group has been set up to take forward work on the proposals for education funding set out in "Modernising Local Government Finance: A Green Paper" and is supported in that work by a technical sub-group. The groups include key stakeholders with an interest in local education authority and school funding and details of the membership of both groups are outlined in the tables. Members of both groups are not appointed on the basis of their grade or qualifications but have been nominated by the organisations they represent. Representatives have been selected for their knowledge of the wide range of circumstances local education authorities and schools face and local government members represent a balance of different authority types, regions and expertise. The Education Funding Strategy Group's papers are available on the DfEE's website (www.dfee.gov.uk/efsg/). Separate papers are not prepared for the sub-group, as its role is to consider papers before they are submitted to the Education Funding Strategy Group. The Government expect to publish their proposals on the future arrangements for education funding later this year.

  Education Funding Strategy Group

  Name

  Organisation

  Central Government representatives

  Helen Williams (chair)

  DfEE

  Andrew Wye

  DfEE

  Jonathan Anstey

  DfEE

  Susanna Todd

  DfEE

  Audrey Brown

  DfEE

  Joe Crilly

  DfEE

  Peter Kane

  HM Treasury

  Nicholas Holgate

  HM Treasury

  Mark Lambirth

  DETR

  Bryony Houlden

  DETR

  Joe Beeley

  DETR

  Nick Ville

  Audit Commission

  David Singleton

  Ofsted

  Local Government representatives

  Neil Kinghan

  Local Government Association

  Neil Fletcher

  Local Government Association

  Mike Grealy

  Local Government Association

  Stephen Lord

  Local Government Association

  Mike Heiser

  Local Government Association

  Gale Waller

  Local Government Association

  Bob Kerslake

  Local Government Association

  Jon Pittam

  Local Government Association

  David Smith

  Local Government Association

  Alan Parker

  Local Government Association

  Liz Nicholson

  Local Government Association

  Chris Waterman

  SEO/ACEO

  Stephen Fitzgerald

  Association of London Government

  Hilary McCollum

  Association of London Government

  Trade union representatives

  David Hart

  NAHT

  Peter Downes

  SHA

  Ian Langtry

  ATL

  Joe Boone

  NASUWT

  John Bangs

  NUT

  Alan Manasseh

  PAT

  Christina McAnea

  UNISON

  John Fisher

  TGWU

  Mick Graham

  GMB

  George Phipson

  AHFAS

  724W

  Education Funding Strategy Group

  Name

  Organisation

  Representatives from schools' bodies

  Mrs. Joan Binder

  FAVASA

  David Lankshear

  CofE Board of Education

  Michael Power

  Catholic Education Service

  Peter Rickard

  National Bursars Association

  Terry Pearson

  National Governors Council

  Technical sub-group to the Education Funding Strategy Group

  Name

  Organisation

  Andrew Wye

  DfEE

  Jonathan Anstey

  DfEE

  Jenny Holmes

  DfEE

  Joe Crilly

  DfEE

  Joe Beeley

  DETR

  Anthony Hammil

  HM Treasury

  Stuart Taylor

  HM Treasury

  Keith Bartley

  Ofsted

  Nick Ville

  Audit Commission

  Jack Hatch

  NAHT

  Joe Boone

  NASUWT

  George Phipson

  AHFAS

  Peter Downes

  SHA

  Peter Rickard

  National Bursars Association

  John Bangs

  NUT

  Terry Pearson

  National Governors Council

  Steve Lord

  LGA

  Mike Heiser

  LGA

  Gale Waller

  LGA

  Tom Fairclough

  LGA

  Thomas Whiffen

  LGA

  David Gallie

  LGA

  Roy Smith

  LGA

  Stephen Fitzgerald

  ALG

  Jo Mennell

  ALG

  Local Education Authority Grants
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was received by local education authorities as(a) special and (b) specific grants in each financial year since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement on the distribution by LEAs. [159578]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Listed are the Department's funding allocations for special and specific grants to local education authorities for each year since 1997–98.

  Individual special and specific grants are distributed to local education authorities according to objective criteria, tailored to target geographical areas, or groups of schools, pupils, teachers or others, depending on the particular objectives of the grants and the relative need to spend to achieve those objectives.

  Between 1992–93 and 1997–98, average recurrent funding per pupil fell by £120 in real terms from £2,830 to £2,710. Since then, it has risen by an average of £540 in real terms, to £3,250 this year. By 2003–04, it will have increased by around £750 in real terms since 1997–98.
  725W

  Funding to English LEAs

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Specific Grants

  Standards Fund/GEST

  195.8

  241.2

  661.9

  1,142.2

  Nursery Education Grant

  518.8

  130.2

  120.7

  233.2

  Revenue funding for the reduction of class size

  —

  22.3

  79.6

  141.5

  Education Action Zones

  —

  9.6

  24.0

  61.5

  Capital

  76.1

  303.0

  417.4

  1,143.9

  Special Grants

  School Standards Grant

  —

  —

  —

  293.4

  Teachers Green Paper Grants

  —

  —

  —

  245.3

  School Budget Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  50.0

  Notes:

  1. Standards Fund/GEST figures are DfEE contribution only, and exclude Capital.

  2. In April 1999 the Ethnical Minority Achievement Grant became part of the Standards Fund, before this it was a Home Office funded section 11 grant.

  In 1997–98 approximately £500 million were taken from the Nursery sub-block of the SSA to fund the Nursery Voucher scheme. This has been treated as Grant rather than SSA funding. Funding for Nursery Vouchers was returned to local government from 1998–99.

  4. Education Action Zone funding is paid to the Zone not directly to the LEA.

  5. Figures for 2000–01 are not yet finalised and may be subject to change.

  Sure Start (Dartford)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce a Sure Start programme in Dartford to complement the recent allocation of money from the Children's Fund for new projects in Dartford to tackle social exclusion among children aged five to 13 years. [159915]

  Yvette Cooper
  Districts are invited to submit plans for Sure Start programmes because collectively they have high levels of need and disadvantage and give a good spread between different types of area around the country. The DETR index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) has been used to identify areas where there are high levels of need. By April 2004, there will be 500 Sure Start programmes in disadvantaged areas reaching a third of under-4s. Although so far Dartford has not been invited to submit plans for a Sure Start programme, it is possible that it will be included in a future wave of programmes.

  School Swimming
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps he has taken to promote and encourage the teaching of swimming in schools; [159932]

  (2) what proportion of pupils in England undertake swimming lessons as part of the national curriculum. [159933]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not hold specific figures on the proportion of pupils in England who take swimming lessons, as swimming is a compulsory part of the PE activities only at Key Stage 2 of the National Curriculum, unless pupils have met the full Key Stage 2 requirements during Key Stage 1. After Key Stage 2, it remains one of six physical activity areas. The Ofsted report on swimming at Key Stage 2, published in November 2000, showed that well over four out of five of the schools inspected provided adequate time for swimming. It also reported that four out of five children are able to swim 25 metres at the end of Key Stage 2. This was good news, but we acknowledge that we need to work with schools 726W
  to make even more opportunities available for more children to be able to swim 25 metres by the time they reach secondary school.

  Swimming and water safety are important life skills, and we are investing heavily in school sport, and swimming will benefit. The Government's commitment includes £580 million in England (out of a total of £750 million in the UK) from the New Opportunities Fund for sport in and around schools and up to £130 million to create multi-purpose sports and arts facilities in around 300 primary schools.

  We have also established a Swimming Advisory Group, involving representatives of the swimming associations, Ofsted, QCA and DCMS, to discuss what more can be done to create even more opportunities for children to swim. We hope to announce proposals that will increase the numbers of children who can swim by the end of Key Stage 2, before the end of the year.

  Head Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many teachers commenced the National Qualifications for Headteachers course in(a) April 2000 and (b) January 2001, broken down by (i) Government Office region, (ii) gender and (iii) ethnic background in each recruitment cycle, from (A) primary, (B) secondary, including middle schools where appropriate, and (C) special schools; and how many in each of (a) and (b) (1) have completed the course, (2) are continuing with the qualification and (3) have withdrawn; [159916]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the collection and collation of data on the ethnic background of those teachers who start the National Qualification for Headteachers course. [159917]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table sets out the number of candidates on the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) who were recruited during the last two application rounds and began their training in the spring term of 2000 (cohort 7, old model NPQH) and the spring term of 2001 (cohort 1, new model NPQH). The figures
  727W
  are broken down into the categories requested by NPQH region. The NPQH regions are similar to but do not precisely mirror Government Office boundaries.

  The Government collect data on the ethnic background of NPQH applicants through the NPQH application form. Applicants are not bound to provide these data and, as a result, current analysis is not statistically meaningful.

  National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) Candidate statistics

  School phase/type

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Other

  Total

  Cohort 7 Old Model NPQH (Spring 2000)

  NPQH Candidates by region1

  East Midlands

  59

  38

  3

  6

  106

  East

  37

  28

  2

  4

  71

  London

  62

  39

  5

  17

  123

  North

  38

  29

  1

  2

  70

  North West

  50

  45

  14

  7

  116

  South Central

  71

  34

  7

  0

  112

  South East

  56

  41

  2

  5

  104

  South West

  49

  22

  0

  1

  72

  West Midlands

  48

  35

  0

  1

  84

  Yorks and Humberside

  44

  32

  8

  3

  87

  Region unspecified

  28

  15

  2

  6

  51

  Total

  542

  358

  44

  52

  996

  Gender

  Male

  136

  201

  15

  21

  373

  Female

  406

  157

  29

  31

  623

  Total

  542

  358

  44

  52

  996

  Candidate status

  Completed NPQH

  70

  85

  7

  11

  173

  Currently studying

  407

  224

  33

  31

  715

  Withdrawn

  65

  29

  4

  10

  108

  Total

  542

  358

  44

  52

  996

  Cohort 1 New Model NPQH (Spring 2001)

  NPQH Candidates by region1

  East Midlands

  175

  88

  13

  —

  276

  East

  189

  106

  9

  —

  304

  London

  214

  124

  25

  —

  363

  North

  141

  59

  13

  —

  213

  North West

  200

  111

  20

  —

  331

  South Central

  206

  116

  14

  —

  337

  South East

  205

  82

  16

  —

  303

  South West

  150

  70

  8

  —

  228

  West Midlands

  150

  94

  15

  2

  261

  Yorks & Humberside

  161

  79

  12

  —

  252

  Total

  1,792

  929

  145

  2

  2,868

  Gender

  Male

  427

  503

  57

  1

  988

  Female

  1,365

  426

  88

  1

  1,880

  Total

  1,792

  929

  145

  2

  2,868

  Candidate status2

  Currently studying

  1,724

  906

  141

  3

  2,774

  Withdrawn

  67

  24

  3

  0

  94

  Total

  1,792

  929

  145

  2

  2,868

  1 The 10 NPQH Regions do not tally precisely with Government Office regions.

  2 No candidates have yet completed NPQH from cohort 1 as the minimum course length is six months.

  Children's Fund Local Network
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will announce the areas that have been selected to participate in the first wave of the Children's Fund Local Network. [160358]
  728W
  The Government are concerned to ensure that all groups have an equal opportunity to prepare for headship and have improved the way that data are collected. They have asked the National College for School Leadership to develop strategies to ensure that currently underrepresented groups increasingly apply for and progress through the NPQH.

  Mr. Boateng
  I am pleased to announce today the 17 areas that have been selected to receive funding from the first wave of the Children's Fund Local Network.

  The Children's Fund was announced following the spending review 2000. The Fund is an important element

  729W
  of the Government's wider strategy to tackle child poverty and social exclusion. The Local Network element of the Children's Fund is making £70 million available over three years to fund the work of local community and voluntary groups helping vulnerable children aged 0–19.

  The 17 areas across England, which have been included in the first wave of the Local Network, include those with the highest levels of need and were chosen to ensure a spread of support across all regions in England, including some rural and coastal areas. By April 2004 all areas across England will have access to the Fund. Each local fund will be administered by an experienced local voluntary sector grant maker.

  The Local Network will help children in poverty achieve their potential by investing directly in the work of local community and voluntary groups that provide local solutions. Grants will be made under four themes:
  Aspirations and experiences—projects that give children experiences, or help them achieve goals that more privileged children may take for granted.
  Economic disadvantage—projects that help families to improve their living standards and cope with difficulties that come from being on low incomes.
  Isolation and access—projects that help children that are isolated or alone, or have trouble accessing services.
  Children's voices—projects that give children and young people the chance to express their opinions and give advice on matters that concern them.

  Local Network funding will be available in the following areas:
  North-East
  Tees Valley (Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton-on-Tees, Darlington)
  Tyne and Wear (Newcastle upon Tyne, Gateshead, South Tyneside, North Tyneside, Sunderland)
  North-West
  Merseyside/Halton (Knowsley, Sefton, Liverpool, St. Helens, Wirral, Halton)
  Greater Manchester (Manchester, Salford, Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan, Bury, Stockport)
  Lancashire (Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn)
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  South Yorkshire (Doncaster, Barnsley, Rotherham, Sheffield)
  West Yorkshire (Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale, Wakefield, Leeds)
  Humberside (Kingston upon Hull, North-East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, East Riding)
  East Midlands
  Nottinghamshire (Nottingham and Nottinghamshire)
  Leicestershire (Leicester and Leicestershire)
  West Midlands
  Birmingham/Solihull (Birmingham and Solihull)
  The Black Country (Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Walsall and Dudley)
  East
  Norfolk
  South-West
  Cornwall (Cornwall with Isles of Scilly)
  South-East
  Kent (Medway, Kent)
  East Sussex (East Sussex and Brighton and Hove)
  730W
  London
  All London boroughs.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Military Complaints Procedures
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to lay before Parliament the eighth annual report of the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland. [160531]

  Dr. Reid
  I have today arranged for copies of Mr. Jim McDonald's annual report for 2000 to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  The report of the Independent Assessor continues to provide valuable reassurances to both the public and the Government that the army's complaints procedures stand scrutiny. I welcome Mr. McDonald's report and I will consider it further.

  European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Government's response to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment's report on their visit to Northern Ireland in December 1999. [160532]

  Dr. Reid
  I have today placed a copy of our response, together with the Committee's report, in the Library of the House. The documents will also be available on my Department's website (www.nio.gov.uk) and that of the ECPT (www.cpt.coe.int).

  I welcome the role of the Committee and its attention to Northern Ireland I am pleased that it has recognised the many improvements that have been made in recent years. I take seriously the concerns raised by the Committee about issues that remain to be tackled and will give these close consideration.

TREASURY

  Permanent Secretary (Official Visits)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings his Permanent Secretary held with members and officials of the Irish Government during his visit to Dublin in February 2000. [159809]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Permanent Secretary visited Dublin in February 2000 to participate in a conference. Irish Government officials attended the conference, but no meetings with members of the Irish Administration were held during the visit.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the visits outside Britain made by his Department's Permanent Secretary on official business since 1 July 2000, indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. [159808]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table.
  731W

  Visits outside Britain by the Permanent Secretary on official business since 1 July 2000

  Date

  Purpose of visit

  2000

  12 September 2000—Paris

  To attend a meeting of Working Party 3 of the Economic Policy Committee of the OECD

  18–19 September 2000—Madrid

  To attend a conference meet members of the Spanish Administration

  11 December 2000—Paris

  To attend a meeting of Working Party 3 of the Economic Policy Committee of the OECD

  2001

  24–25 January 2001—Brussels

  To meet UK and Commission officials

  13 March 2001—Paris

  To attend a meeting of Working Party 3 of the Economic Policy Committee of the OCED

  Asthma Deaths
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths have been attributed to asthma in each of the last five years. [160148]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Crausby, dated 3 May 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about how many deaths have been attributed to asthma in each of the last five years.(160148)
  The following table shows the number of deaths in England and Wales, 1995–1999, where asthma was the underlying cause of death, classified according to the International Classification of Disease, ninth edition (ICD9).

  Year

  Number of asthma deaths1

  1995

  1,459

  1996

  1,349

  1997

  1,439

  1998

  1,366

  1999

  1,364

  1 ICD9 code 493

  National Investment and Loans Office
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recommendations flow from the review of the management performance of the National Investment and Loans Office since it absorbed the Office of the Paymaster General in 1996, conducted by Treasury officials. [160585]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Treasury officials conducted a review of NILO's operations, working closely with NILO's senior management and consulting NILO's customers and other interested stakeholders. The report concludes that NILO has performed well over the last five years, and recommends a number of actions to ensure that performance levels are sustained and improved in the future.

  I have asked Treasury officials to work with NILO, and others where appropriate, to ensure that these recommendations are implemented in due course.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is for a post-audit of the climate change levy. [159065]
  732W
  Mr. Timms
  The climate change levy has been operational for only one month, and it is necessary that it has longer to bed in before review of its operation. As with any tax, the Chancellor will keep the climate change levy under review as part of the normal Budget process.

  Government Funding
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the per capita allocation of funds was to(a) England, (b) Northern Ireland, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales for economic development, and what percentage of his Department's total expenditure this allocation represented, in each of the five years prior to July 1997; [160136]

  (2) what the per capita allocation of funds was to (a) England, (b) Northern Ireland, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales for (i) pre-16 education, (ii) post-16 education and (iii) universities and further education; and what percentage of his Department's total expenditure each of these allocations represented in each of the five years prior to July 1999. [160138]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The allocation of funding in devolved areas is a matter for the devolved Administrations within their overall budgets set in the 2000 spending review. Information on expenditure per head by function and by county is set out in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses published in April 2001.

  Debt Management Office
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the Debt Management Office's profit and loss account for each year since its inception; [159999]

  (2) how much of each short term money asset has been held by the Debt Management Office, representing its short term money under management for each quarter since its creation; [160001]

  (3) how much short term money has been under management by the Debt Management Office for each month since the Debt Management Office's creation; [159998]

  (4) how much of each short term money market asset has been bought by the Debt Management Office from the net increase in short term assets in 2000–01 under management; and if he will publish the results in tabular form; [160000]

  (5) what returns have been made on short term assets managed by the Debt Management Office for each quarter since its creation; and what bench marks have been used. [160002]
  733W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Debt Management Office. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Mike Williams to Mr. Andrew Tyrie, dated 3 May 2001:
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to reply to Parliamentary Questions numbers 15,998, 15,999, 16,000, 16,001 and 16,002.
  The increase in the Government's net short term cash position, represented by the relevant net short-term assets held on the Debt Management Account (DMA) which is managed by the Debt Management Office (DMO), was £13.4 billion in the course of the 2000–01 financial year (including a £0.5 billion cash deposit at the

  Schedule: Financial instruments in which the DMO may transact

  Basis of dealing

  Outright purchases and sales

  Gilt purchases1

  Tenders and bilateral

  Gilt strip purchases1

  Tenders and bilateral

  HMT bills

  Tenders and bilateral

  Selected eligible bank bills1

  Bilateral

  Certificates of Deposit (CDs)

  Bilateral

  Selected commercial paper (CP) selected bank Bills and other short-term debt issued by high Quality issuers, including supranationals and Foreign Governments2

  Bilateral

  Purchases from the market for future resale ('reverse repo') and Sale to the market for future repurchase ('repo') Instruments

  Gilts (deliveries by value 'DBV' and General Collateral 'GC' including strips)

  Tenders and bilateral

  HMT bills

  Tenders and bilateral

  Non-Sterling HMT paper

  Bilateral

  Selected eligible bank bills

  Bilateral

  £ and other currency paper issued by high quality supranational and foreign government issuers

  Bilateral

  Other

  Unsecured cash borrowing and lending

  Bilateral

  1 Less than six months to maturity

  2 Less than 12 months

  Note:

  The DMO may also use short-term currency swaps, Forward Rate Agreements (FRAs) and interest rate futures to manage foreign currency and interest rate exposures. All foreign currency exposures will be hedged hack into sterling.

  Economic Cycle
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he defines(a) boom and (b) bust in terms of GDP change quarter by quarter over a year. [159791]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the right hon. Member to what the Prime Minister said to him in the Chamber on 25 April 2001,Official Report, column 301.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Peter Tatchell
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 53W, on
  734W
  Bank of England)1. The DMO did not acquire responsibility for managing the Exchequer cash position until 3 April 2000.
  The amounts of specific classes of short-term assets that are bought by the DMO, are matters of commercial confidentiality between the DMO and its counterparties. For related reasons the DMO does not publish monthly totals of its short-term net cash position. However, paragraph 20 of the DMO's Exchequer Cash Management Operational Notice (dated 20 January 2000), as supplemented by the DMO's announcement of 12 September and 9 November 2000, list the range of financial instruments in which the DMO may transact. These are set out in the schedule attached.
  All the DMO's market transactions flow through the DMA which came into operation in November 1999. The audited accounts for the DMA for the period to end March 2000 (including an income and expenditure account), will be published in due course.
  1 The details of the financing arithmetic outturn are available on the DMO web site www.dmo.gov.uk
  Mr. Tatchell, on what date the British Embassy in Brussels raised the matter with the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs. [160091]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our Consul General at our Embassy in Brussels raised the matter with the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 16 March 2001. My reply of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 53W, contained a typographical error—"Minister" should read "Ministry".

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 53W, on Mr. Tatchell, if he will publish the representation made by the British Embassy in Brussels following the assault on Mr. Tatchell. [160090]
  735W
  Mr. Wilson
  Our Consul-General in Belgium made clear our concerns at a senior level in the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a telephone call.

  Helplines
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what telephone helplines to assist the public are administered by his Department and its agencies. [159506]

  Mr. Battle
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office operates two permanent telephone helplines designed to assist the public. The purpose of one is to give advice to UK citizens planning to travel overseas (Tel. 020 7008 0232/3, Fax 020 7008 0155 or 0164), the other gives visa advice for people planning to travel to the UK (Tel. 020 7238 3838). The information obtainable from both of these telephone helplines is also available on internet websites.

  There is also an "Emergency Unit" telephone helpline which is brought into use whenever there is a large unplanned increase in telephone inquiries from member of the public—for example, an earthquake or widespread civil disorder at a popular overseas holiday destination.

  EU Documents
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of the negotiations on public access to EU documents. [160593]

  Mr. Vaz
  After a year of difficult negotiations, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament have all agreed in principle to a draft Regulation on public access to EU documents.

  The UK's objectives for these negotiations were to secure a Regulation which ensures:
  greater openness (ie more EU documents being made available to the public;
  proper protection for sensitive material;
  a quick, user-friendly mechanism;
  a consistent approach both by the institutions and in member states;
  compatibility with the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  All these objectives have been met and we now have an arrangement which we believe will be a firm step forward in EU openness. The Government welcome this: we have long been an advocate of greater openness in the EU institutions. More accessible documents make for more accountable institutions.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Nigeria concerning the impact of Sharia law in northern states on non-Muslims; and if he will make a statement. [159410]

  Mr. Wilson
  We continue to monitor closely the situation in northern Nigeria. Officials from the High Commission travel regularly to the region.
  736W
  Most Nigerian states' legislation introducing the Sharia penal code provides that it will not apply to non-Muslims unless they so choose. We understand this is generally respected. But we have seen some reports that churches have had difficulty in obtaining land to build on. We believe a very small number of non-Muslims may have been attacked by vigilante groups. We welcome the efforts of the Nigerian authorities to crack down on these groups.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian authorities over the increase in violence against Christians in(a) Gombe, (b) Yobe, (c) Sokoto, (d) Borno and (e) other states of Nigeria. [159411]

  Mr. Wilson
  The root causes of much of the conflict in northern Nigeria are long-standing differences between ethnic groups. These differences are over a range of issues, including control of territory and resources, and are not primarily religious.

  We welcome the efforts of the Nigerian authorities (both at federal and at state level), and of community groups, to reduce tension.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which European cities have been visited by Ministers to promote UK tourism during the past two months. [158900]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Government Ministers and those in the devolved administrations are using every opportunity to promote the British Tourism industry overseas. Ministers in my Department have used recent visits to Valencia (Spain) and Portoroz (Slovenia) to get the message across that it is still perfectly safe to come to the United Kingdom and that there is plenty to see and do.

  In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting visited the USA in March to reinforce this message and I, myself have just returned from a similar visit to Canada.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost was of employing special advisers in his Department from 1997 to date. [160044]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 1 May 2001, Official Report, columns 607–08W.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards eradicating foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [160584]
  737W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am placing in the Libraries of the House today the latest graphs produced for the Chief Scientific Adviser's Group on the course of the disease. These demonstrate that in the seven day period ending Wednesday 2 May there was an average of approximately eight new confirmed cases each day compared with 16 in the seven day period ending 22 April and with a weekly average of 43 at the peak in late March. We can therefore be optimistic about the future course of the disease, although the Chief Scientific Adviser has warned that cases will continue to occur for some time yet.

  It is clear that our policy to bear down on the outbreak swiftly and prevent spread of the disease through slaughtering of animals in infected premises within 24 hours of the case being reported, tracing dangerous contacts and tackling the disease on contiguous premises within 48 hours, has been effective. This has been crucial to the control of the epidemic.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the cause of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [160407]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Investigations into the cause of the outbreak continue. I will inform the House of the outcome as soon as I can.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will allow livestock markets to open as collection centres for slaughter stock. [156003]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]: We have consulted on the conditions under which collecting centres should be licensed and will issue guidance in the light of veterinary advice.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place with the Environment Agency at(a) national and (b) local level in respect of the merits of (i) burying and (ii) incineration of animal carcases arising from the slaughter of animals due to foot and mouth disease. [156374]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry, National Assembly for Wales and the Environment Agency have agreed joint working arrangements and principles for disposal activities associated with foot and mouth disease. Ministry officials have held, and continue to hold, discussions with representatives of the Environment Agency and other Government Departments. These have included discussions on the merits of different options for the disposal of animal carcases.

  At a local level the Ministry, (including the Divisional Veterinary Manager) Environment Agency, health authority, environmental health departments of local authorities and others are involved in assessing risk to human health and the environment and the options for disposal, taking account of the location, type and quantity of material for disposal.

  Following a Risk Assessment, carried out by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), the Government decided to provide the option of burial for cattle born after 1 August 1996, as these younger cattle were born after animal feed controls were fully enforced and therefore pose the lowest risk of BSE infectivity of any cattle in the national herd. Older cattle will continue to be burnt or rendered.
  738W
  The Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright has also been involved in advising MAFF on the disposal of carcases, and the assessment of the level of risk.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 843, on foot and mouth disease, what reasons underlay the decision not to consider the use of napalm as a fuel for burning carcases. [156464]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: There are two forms of napalm available, which both produce very toxic compounds when they burn. We therefore cannot use them because of the public and environmental health risks.

  We recognise that burning at higher temperatures is more efficient and cleaner, and so there is a need to increase the temperature of pyres, particularly at the beginning of the burn while the water in carcases is being driven off. We have therefore commissioned urgent studies, in collaboration with MOD, on the possible use of gelled fuel mixtures to increase the temperature.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision he has made for permitting persons to enter foot and mouth infected areas for the purpose of artificially inseminating dairy cows to avoid the drying-up of milking herds. [156912]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Inseminators are now permitted to visit a single premises on any one day for the purpose of artificial insemination, subject to strict hygiene conditions. A farm may not be visited for insemination more frequently than once a week and no semen may be taken off the farm.

  Premises under Form A or Form D restrictions or within the 3 km zone around an infected premises, and those within 8 km of a premises subject to Form C restrictions are considered to be high-risk premises and, for disease control purposes, such visits are not permitted for these farms.

  Helplines
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what telephone helplines to assist the public are administered by his Department and its agencies. [159510]

  Ms Quin
  The Department provides the following helplines:

  MAFF Helpline—A general helpline providing information and assistance across the range of MAFF's activities. The MAFF helpline number is 08459 33 55 77, and the service is available from 09.00 to 17.00 hours, Monday to Friday.

  British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) Helpline—This provides information and advice on the administration of the Cattle Tracing System. The BCMS helpline number is 0845 050 1234, and the service is available from Monday to Friday 08.00 to 17.30 hours, and on Saturday from 09.00 to 13.00 hours.

  Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) Helpline—This handles inquiries on the operation of PETS. The PETS helpline number is 0870 241 1710, and the service is available from Monday to Friday 08.30 to 17.00 hours.
  739W
  MAFF have set up a helpline for callers wanting general advice on the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The helpline number is 0845 050 4141, and the service is currently available 24 hours a day seven days a week.

  Animal Welfare
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek to persuade the EU Council of Ministers to introduce a trade-restrictive measure designed to promote animal welfare. [159058]

  Mr. Morley
  Trading practices must comply with conditions set out in World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements. The Government have succeeded in getting animal welfare on to the agenda of the current WTO agriculture negotiations and will continue to promote the issue both there and in the EU.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  East-West Rail Route
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he received from the Strategic Rail Authority its study of east-west rail connections through or under London; if he will make a statement about the Government's policy towards a new east-west route; and if he will place a copy of the study in the Library. [159688]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: The Strategic Rail Authority sent the report on their extensive study into the issues relating to rail travel on an east-west axis across London to the Secretary of State on 20 December 2000.

  Following additional appraisal work within the High-Level Group (the Minister for Transport, the Mayor and the Chairman, Strategic Rail Authority), which was set up to develop a co-ordinated approach to London rail projects, we have agreed next steps. Work will start immediately on project definition and design development of a central, cross-London rail link, the tunnel section of which could follow the alignment of the CrossRail scheme. The work will look at alternative service patterns and access to Heathrow. This will lead to a recommendation on the option to be taken forward. At the same time, work will start on a feasibility study of a south-west to north-east London rail link, the tunnel section of which could follow the alignment of the Chelsea-Hackney scheme.

  This work will be taken forward jointly by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London, under the guidance of the High-Level Group.

  I am arranging for copies of the Strategic Rail Authority's report to be placed in the Library and published on the SRA website.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many 740W
  London Underground stations have been closed for a part of the day in each of (a) the last 10 years because of staff shortage and (b) the past 12 months. [157479]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: This is an operational issue for London Underground (LUL) who have provided me with the following information on station closures owing to staff shortages of all time periods over 15 minutes in duration for the last six years and for year 2000–01 until 3 March 2001.

  Year

  Number of closures

  1995–96

  123

  1996–97

  102

  1997–98

  106

  1998–99

  1—

  1999–2000

  114

  2000–01

  246

  1 Unavailable

  2000–01

  Period

  Number of closures

  1

  5

  2

  10

  3

  11

  4

  7

  5

  20

  6

  38

  7

  20

  8

  17

  9

  18

  10

  56

  11

  20

  12

  24

  Note:

  UL operate a 13 period year. The end of period 12 represents 3 March 2001. Information for period 13 has not been processed yet.

  Information on years prior to 1995–96 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many accidents there have been on London Underground in each of(a) the last 10 years and (b) the past 12 months including in each instance the number of (i) fatalities, (ii) major injuries and (iii) minor injuries to passengers and staff; [157468]

  (2) how many accidents have been caused on London Underground in each of (a) the last 10 years and (b) the past 12 months by train movements, including in each instance the number of (i) fatalities, (ii) major injuries and (ii) minor injuries to passengers and staff. [157469]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: London Underground (LUL) have provided the following information relating to all accidents. They inform me that to highlight those accidents which are the result of train movements could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  London Underground publish information on passenger and employee fatalities and passenger major injuries in their Annual Reports each year. The following table summarises this information for the period requested, although LUL informs me that the figures may differ slightly from the Annual Reports as some revisions have been made to reflect information which was not available at the time of the Reports.
  741W

  Passenger fatality

  Employee fatality

  Passenger fatality major injury

  1990–91

  8

  5

  161

  1991–92

  7

  2

  44

  1992–93

  5

  0

  55

  1993–94

  5

  0

  50

  1994–95

  6

  1

  57

  1995–96

  4

  0

  86

  1996–97

  7

  0

  95

  1997–98

  4

  0

  108

  1998–99

  1

  1

  123

  1999–2000

  6

  0

  106

  The information contained in the following tables covers the additional categories relating to Employee and Passenger injuries. As London Underground's current databases do not extend back prior to 1994, they inform me that to provide information before this date would incur excessive costs.

  Employee major injury

  Employee minor injury

  Passenger minor injury

  1994–95

  30

  2,063

  2,047

  1995–96

  32

  2,096

  2,000

  1996–97

  23

  1,985

  2,344

  1997–98

  29

  1,659

  2,409

  1998–99

  25

  1,653

  2,468

  1999–2000

  33

  1,602

  2,503

  2000–011

  13

  993

  2,170

  1 Figures for 2000–01 are only up to end of Quarter 3 (6 January 2001) and are provisional

  Finally the following table sets out the figures broken down monthly for year 2000.

  Year 2000

  Fatality

  Major injury

  Minor injury

  Passenger

  January

  0

  4

  183

  February

  1

  12

  185

  March

  0

  9

  220

  April

  1

  12

  215

  May

  2

  8

  268

  June

  0

  14

  258

  July

  0

  10

  257

  August

  1

  12

  246

  September

  0

  11

  260

  October

  1

  16

  234

  November

  1

  6

  221

  December

  1

  12

  211

  Employee

  January

  0

  3

  117

  February

  0

  4

  99

  March

  0

  3

  125

  April

  0

  0

  104

  May

  0

  3

  105

  June

  0

  6

  132

  July

  0

  2

  105

  August

  0

  0

  130

  September

  0

  0

  121

  October

  0

  2

  100

  November

  0

  0

  90

  December

  0

  0

  106

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many 742W
  serious train incidents there were in the London Underground in each of (a) the past 10 years and (b) the past 12 months; [157482]

  (2) how many train derailments there have been on the London Underground in each of (a) the last 10 years and (b) the past 12 months. [157472]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: This is an operational issue for London Underground (LUL) who inform me that although they record incidents on the Underground system under a range of headings themselves they do not use the term "serious train incidents". The appropriate measure would be LUL's record of train derailments and train collisions.

  Year

  Derailments on running line

  1996–97

  4

  1997–98

  1

  1998–99

  1

  1999–2000

  3

  2000–01

  4

  London Underground have provided me with the following information on train derailments on their running line, for recent years and in the last 12 months:

  2000–01

  Derailments on running line

  April

  0

  May

  1

  June

  0

  July

  0

  August

  1

  September

  1

  October

  0

  November

  0

  December

  1

  January

  0

  February

  0

  March

  0

  Information on years prior to 1996–97 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  LUL inform me that there have been no train collisions on the network over the past 10 years.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on his plans in respect of the(a) purpose and (b) timescale of issuing an order under section 16(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1999; [158517]

  (2) how many working days will elapse between the termination of the current public consultation exercise and the implementation of an order under section 16(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the use of waste disposal companies by waste disposal authorities. [158523]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 9 April my Department issued for consultation a draft of the Waste (Foot-and-Mouth) Disease (England) Regulations 2001. Following consideration of the responses, the Regulations were made and came into
  743W
  force on 13 April. The main purpose of the Regulations is to enable the Secretary of State to issue directions under section 57(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requiring the holders of waste management licences for specified landfill sites to accept and dispose of specified kinds of agricultural waste.

  It is necessary to ensure that waste arising from the foot and mouth disease outbreak is disposed of effectively and in ways which protect the environment and human health. The Regulations will ensure that suitable landfill sites can be used where necessary to dispose of specified kinds of animal waste. However, the powers of direction under section 57(1) of the 1990 Act will be used only where the Government consider that their use in relation to each individual site is essential; and to date no such directions have been issued. Unless and until a decision to issue a direction is taken, it is not possible to say how many working days will have elapsed between the termination of the consultation exercise and the implementation of that direction.

  Vehicle Registration Plates
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance has been given to the police force with regard to the prosecution of drivers who display a flag, other than the EU flag, on vehicle registration plates. [159234]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: Enforcement of the new number plate is an operational matter for the individual police forces.

  Housing expenditure in England: Allocations 1979–80 to 1989–901

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme (ADP)-Gross expenditure

  2—

  2—

  521

  755

  734

  697

  LA Basic Block allocations (prior to 1990–91)

  2,544

  2,186

  1,771

  1,847

  1,769

  1,821

  Estate Action

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Other allocations

  0

  17

  25

  345

  464

  32

  Total Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  1,274

  1,423

  908

  536

  280

  2,139

  Housing Corporation Revenue allocations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total (cash prices)

  3,819

  3,626

  3,224

  3,484

  3,247

  4,688

  Total (real terms at 1999–2000 prices)

  10,756

  8,641

  7,017

  7,090

  6,320

  8,674

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme (ADP)-Gross expenditure

  711

  715

  752

  791

  935

  LA Basic Block allocations (prior to 1990–91)

  1,572

  1,392

  1,262

  1,119

  874

  Estate Action

  3—

  42

  67

  129

  176

  Other allocations

  33

  25

  71

  83

  45

  Total Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  2,349

  2,566

  2,576

  2,628

  2,879

  Housing Corporation Revenue allocations

  0

  1

  1

  1

  53

  Total (cash prices)

  4,666

  4,740

  4,728

  4,751

  4,963

  Total (real terms at 1999–2000 prices)

  8,196

  8,075

  7,648

  7,198

  7,014

  Housing
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much central Government spent on(a) housing and (b) social housing in (i) actual terms and (ii) real terms (A) in each year since 1979 and (B) as projected to the end of the current funding review period. [159689]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 30 April 2001]: The available information on the Department's allocations, or outturns, for its main programmes of housing capital investment and revenue expenditure since 1979–80 in England is set out in the table, with forecasts for 2002–03 and 2003–04. A revised local authority finance regime was introduced from 1990–91, and so the detail of prior years' figures is not directly comparable. Some of the resources allocated through the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund and City Challenge are applied to housing, but this element is not distinguished in the allocations and is therefore not included.

  The tables do not reflect indirect support for housing by central Government through, for example, mortgage interest tax relief and housing related personal benefits such as rent allowances and rate/council tax rebates.

  All expenditure by the Housing Corporation, and through Housing Revenue Account subsidy, Estate Action and Estate Renewal Challenge Fund allocations is wholly attributable to social housing. The Department's ACG, CRI and other allocations are not prescribed and authorities are free to apply these resources in support of both social and private housing in accordance with their own strategies and priorities. Private Sector Renewal Support Grant is applied exclusively to private housing, as is the majority of Disabled Facilities Grant expenditure.
  745W

  Housing expenditure in England: Allocations 1990–91 to 2000–011

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme (ADP)-Gross expenditure

  1,063

  1,586

  2,351

  1,796

  1,484

  1,142

  1,044

  LA Housing Annual Capital Guidelines (ACGs)

  1,296

  1,343

  1,290

  1,378

  1,038

  994

  943

  Estate Action

  175

  264

  347

  357

  373

  239

  203

  Other allocations (Energy Conservation, Insulation, Homelessness, Private Sector Initiative etc.)

  221

  187

  110

  45

  70

  88

  88

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Private Sector Renewal Support Grant

  413

  413

  397

  392

  308

  283

  271

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Estate Renewal Challenge Fund

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  30

  Housing Action Trusts (capital and current spending)

  3—

  10

  27

  78

  92

  93

  90

  Total Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  3,661

  3,750

  3,961

  4,126

  4,142

  4,023

  3,926

  Housing Corporation Revenue allocations inc. SCSHF

  66

  104

  136

  146

  200

  199

  217

  Starter Homes Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arms Length Management Companies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total (cash prices)

  6,894

  7,657

  8,618

  8,318

  7,706

  7,061

  6,811

  Total (real terms at 1999–2000 prices)

  9,037

  9,456

  10,307

  9,691

  8,853

  7,885

  7,369

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme (ADP)-Gross expenditure

  684

  607

  638

  642

  767

  918

  1,214

  LA Housing Annual Capital Guidelines (ACGs)

  628

  544

  609

  2,019

  882

  793

  842

  Estate Action

  155

  99

  65

  69

  39

  11

  5

  Other allocations (Energy Conservation, Insulation, Homelessness, Private Sector Initiative etc.)

  51

  31

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  174

  569

  570

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Private Sector Renewal Support Grant

  192

  166

  165

  0

  21

  3—

  3—

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  56

  59

  65

  72

  85

  88

  89

  Estate Renewal Challenge Fund

  103

  146

  165

  81

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Housing Action Trusts (capital and current spending)

  88

  90

  83

  86

  98

  123

  72

  Total Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  3,682

  3,370

  3,104

  2,974

  4,344

  4,107

  3,878

  Housing Corporation Revenue allocations inc. SCSHF

  208

  149

  154

  143

  158

  189

  200

  Starter Homes Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  100

  100

  Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  40

  60

  Arms Length Management Companies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  200

  Total (cash prices)

  6,022

  5,830

  5,618

  6,086

  6,465

  6,469

  6,660

  Total (real terms at 1999–2000 prices)

  6,336

  5,964

  5,618

  5,981

  6,199

  6,052

  6,078

  1 All component figures are in cash prices

  2 Denotes figures not available

  3 Not applicable in this period

  Notes:

  ADP Gross Expenditure:
  Excludes ADP funding of City Challenge, Rough Sleepers Initiative and ERCF. Data prim to 1981–82 is unavailable as corporation expenditure was not cash limited in this period. 1992–93 figures includes £591 million under Housing Market Package. 2000–01 figure is forecast.

  LA Housing Annual Capital Guidelines (ACGs):
  From 2000–01 the ACG incorporates allocations for private sector renewal and the Capital Receipts Initiative which were previously made separately. The introduction of Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) from 2001–02 caused a switch of resources from LA Housing ACGs into Housing Revenue Account Subsidy. Figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 exclude the component of housing ACGs covering 'Receipts taken into Account' (RTAs); this amounted to £199 million in 2001–02.
  Estate Action—Figures up to 1994–95 represent supplementary credit approval (SCA) and continuation scheme allocations; thereafter, direct grant payment outturns within the Single Regeneration Budget. There is no revenue expenditure attributable to Estate Action.

  Capital Receipts Initiative:
  Initial allocations

  Private Sector Renewal Support Grant:
  Distributed via Specified Capital Grant Allowances 1990–91 to 1992–93; SCG-dependent SCAs 1993–94 to 1996–97.

  Disabled Facilities Grant:
  Initial allocations. DFG was included within SCG and SCG-dependent SCAs prior to 1997–98.

  Estate Renewal Challenge Fund:
  From 2001–02, ERCF baseline expenditure is included in ADP settlements.

  Housing Action Trusts:
  HATs figures include all revenue expenditure, except for 2002–03 and 2003–04. Figures for 2001–02 are allocations.
  746W 747W
  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy:
  Includes the rent rebate subsidy element. Prior to 1990–91 rent rebates were part of the Department of Social Services programmes; outturn figures provided by DSS for the period 1984–85 to 1989–90 include those for Welsh authorities, but comparable data for earlier years are not available. A substantially revised HRA subsidy system was introduced from 1990, which includes MRA from 2001–02 (see note above).

  Housing Corporation Revenue Allocations:
  Information as published in the Housing Corporation's Annual Accounts; figures for 2001–02 onwards include revenue spend on the Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the allocations of capital housing expenditure for 2001–02 for the Slough unitary authority, broken down into(a) repairs to local authority property, (b) repairs to regulated social landlord property, (c) new local authority build and (d) new regulated social landlord property. [160249]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  On 7 December 2000, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced the Housing Improvement Programme (HIP) figures. The unitary authority of Slough's allocation figure for the HIP programme 2001–02 totalled £1,872,000. This is made up with the Annual Capital Guideline £1,722,000 and the Disabled Facilities Grant (a specified capital grant) of £150,000. The Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) 2001–02 for the unitary authority of Slough of £4,731,300 was announced on 7 December 2000. The MRA covers repairs to local authority property. Funding towards repairs to regulated social landlord property is minimal. There is no funding for the local authority to build new properties. The Housing Corporation has published the allocation statement for the unitary authority of Slough on 17 April 2001 for new registered social landlord property totalling £2,946,292. This is made up of £2,714,576 for Mixed Funded Rent and £231,716 for Mixed Funded Sale.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were(a) on the housing waiting list, (b) registered priority homeless and (c) accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation under housing legislation in the unitary authority of Slough at the latest date for which figures are available. [160251]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  As at 1 April 2000 there were 1,931 people on the housing waiting list in the unitary authority of Slough, and there were 249 people registered as priority homeless. As at December 2000, there were 198 people in temporary accommodation of which four are in bed and breakfast accommodation in the unitary authority of Slough.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the local authority audits on the provision of and need for semi-independent housing with support for lone parents below the age of 18 years. [160204]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Information on the provision of and demand for accommodation in their area which could be used for semi-independent housing with support for 16 and 17-year-old lone parents was collected from local authorities in last year's Housing Investment Programme exercise.

  I am arranging for a copy of the information provided by authorities to be placed in the Library.
  748W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new places in semi-independent housing have been provided for lone parents under the age of 18 years since(a) May 1997, (b) June 2000 and (c) over the most recent period for which data are available. [160218]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Since April 1997, 388 new units of accommodation have been provided by Registered Social Landlords with funding from the Corporation's Annual Development Programme (ADP). In last year's ADP (April 2000—March 2001), funding for 128 new units of accommodation was approved. This year's ADP includes 205 new units of accommodation for lone parents under the age of 18 years. In addition under the Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund, funding has been approved for 134 new units of accommodation for teenage parents, as well as floating support for 275 existing units of accommodation. This does not include accommodation funded by charities, or other similar bodies.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many lone parents under the age of 18 years(a) have lone tenancy of a council property, (b) claim Housing Benefit on the basis that they live alone, (c) live in semi-independent housing, (d) live with other family members and (e) have other accommodation arrangements. [160219]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The information in answer to(a), (d) and (e) is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) Approximately 1,000 lone parents aged under 18 are in receipt of Housing Benefit.

  (c) 1,352 units of semi-independent accommodation are provided to lone parents under 18 years by Registered Social Landlords.

  Environmental Taskforce
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the percentage of those registered under the Environmental Taskforce who go on to secure permanent employment in the environment sector. [159728]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Of those people whose destinations following participation in the Environment Taskforce is known, 41 per cent. have gone on to secure permanent employment. Details of the specific employment sectors to which this figure relates are not currently available without disproportionate cost.

  Air Accidents
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Cornwall of 26 April 2001,Official Report, column 313W, whether

  749W
  the Air Accidents Investigation Branch is investigating another incident of hazardous vapours from an engine lubricant seal leak into the cabin air in a BAe 146 aircraft on 18 April, flying between Jersey and Gatwick, and other similar incidents affecting this type of aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [159842]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: The Air Accidents Investigation Branch has confirmed that it is conducting an investigation into the exact cause of the incident on 18 April 2001. The incident and the one on 5 November 2000 are the only incidents involving fumes on BAe 146 aircraft being investigated by the AAIB. The AAIB would not normally investigate incidents occurring outside the UK.

  Civil Aircraft (Life-saving Equipment)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on the carrying of life-saving equipment on civil aircraft carrying passengers, with particular reference to the availability of defibrillators on short-haul flights to treat coronary emergencies. [160133]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Minimum international requirements for the carriage of medical equipment on board aircraft are laid down in Joint Aviation Requirements. Decisions on the provision of equipment to deal with emergencies which go beyond these requirements are primarily a matter for airlines. I understand that many UK carriers already exceed existing requirements through the provision of items such as external automatic defibrillators, and are at the forefront of developing such initiatives as ground to air medical advice centres.

  The Government are keen to ensure the widest possible use of best practice in this area, and is pursuing the matter through the recently established Aviation Health Working Group. This will include consideration of the current use of defibrillators and the benefits that they provide.

  Motorcycle Training Industry
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the motorcycle training industry [159056]

  Mr. Hill
  The motorcycle training industry has played a positive role in the Government's Advisory Group on Motorcycling through the Motorcycle Rider Training Association, and in regular meetings with the Driving Standards Agency. Their participation helped us to frame the reforms to rider training, testing and licensing which were implemented in February. They have also assisted the independent inter-agency task group set up to prevent work-related road accidents for those who ride powered two-wheelers as part of their job. We welcome their involvement and look forward to carrying on the productive working relationship in the future. In particular, we shall look to the industry for assistance as we develop the statutory register of all those engaged in professional motorcycle training, which was announced in our Road Safety Strategy.

  Council Funding Distribution
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the per capita allocation of funds was to(a) England, (b) Northern
  750W
  Ireland, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales for (i) local government and (ii) housing, and what percentage of his Department's total expenditure this allocation represented, in each of the five years prior to July 1999. [160137]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The table shows Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions public expenditure on housing and local government for each year from 1994–95 to 1998–99 (i) as a percentage of the Department's total expenditure and (ii) on a per capita basis.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions allocates housing and local government funds only to England. The equivalent expenditure in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is a devolved matter for the relevant devolved administration and was previously a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales.

  Allocation of housing and local government funds by Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions 1994–95 to 1998–99: England1

  Housing

  Local government

  Outturn as percentage of Department's total expenditure:

  1994–95

  15.7

  79.7

  1995–96

  15.1

  83.0

  1996–97

  14.3

  82.7

  1997–98

  13.0

  83.0

  1998–99

  12.4

  84.9

  Outturn per capita: £/per person

  1994–95

  145.99

  741.34

  1995–96

  135.10

  743.13

  1996–97

  130.24

  754.26

  1997–98

  117.46

  750.10

  1998–99

  111.85

  768.12

  1 There is a degree of overlap between total housing expenditure and the housing element within local government expenditure

  Bellwin Rules
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding was allocated to England and Wales under the Bellwin rules for each year since 1971. [160453]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under arrangements currently in force in England sufficient funds are allocated to the Bellwin scheme to meet any eligible claims. In a separate answer I am giving details of payments made to local authorities in past years.

  The Bellwin scheme in Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money was paid out to councils in England and Wales under the Bellwin rules for each year since 1971. [160454]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Payments made to local authorities in England since 1987 are as follows (to the nearest £100,000):

  Year

  £

  1987–88

  20,000,000

  1988–89

  6,200,000

  1989–90

  600,000

  1990–91

  4,900,000

  751W

  Year

  £

  1992–92

  300,000

  1992–93

  0

  1993–94

  200,000

  1994–95

  600,000

  1995–96

  100,000

  1996–97

  200,000

  1997–98

  300,000

  1998–99

  400,000

  1999–2000

  300,000

  2000–01

  4,100,000

  Records of payments made earlier than 1987 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for Bellwin schemes in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how recent aid given to English counties for flooding and foot and mouth payments using the Bellwin rules was calculated; and if revenue and capital aspects were treated differently. [160456]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A "Bellwin" scheme of emergency financial assistance may be activated to help a local authority with uninsurable clear-up costs following a disaster or emergency that involve s destruction of, or danger to, life or property. Grant is in normally paid at a rate of 85 per cent. of an authority's qualifying expenditure above a threshold. The threshold is the provision that a prudent authority might reasonably be expected to make for contingencies and emergencies (approximately 0.2 per cent. of its revenue budget).

  For the flooding Bellwin scheme grant was paid at a rate of 100 per cent. above the threshold to take into account the exceptional nature of the emergency. The Bellwin scheme for Foot and Mouth Disease will pay grant at the normal rate of 85 per cent.

  Bellwin grant is paid only in respect of current expenditure; capital expenditure is not eligible for grant.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to Essex Police Authority under the Bellwin scheme in respect of costs incurred following the Korean air crash in the county on 22 December 1999. [160583]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of Essex Police Authority given the exceptional nature of the air crash and the clear up operation. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold, which the Authority has incurred in dealing with the air crash.

  Bus Partnership Schemes
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when guidance will be available on quality bus partnership schemes. [160478]

  Mr. Hill
  Good Practice Guidance on Quality Bus Partnerships is being issued today by the TAS Partnership, on behalf of the Department. The guidance, which has 752W
  been prepared in consultation with bus industry and local government representatives, discusses the broad principles of partnership working, the factors to be taken into account in developing a scheme and the processes of consultation and review. It draws on case studies from among over 100 existing voluntary quality partnerships around the country. There will be scope to extend the guidance in due course to cover statutory QP schemes under the Transport Act 2000.

  In fulfilment of undertakings given during the passage of the Transport Bill, the guidance includes a chapter devoted to competition issues, prepared in consultation with the Office of Fair Trading. This explains the application of competition law and seeks to offer reassurance on the scope for co-operation over such matters as joint branding and publicity, joint ticketing and voluntary agreements on minimum service frequencies.

  The guidance will be available in electronic form through the Department's website (www.detr.gov.uk) or in hard copy on application to TAS Publications and Events, Ross Holme, West End, Long Preston, Skipton BD23 4QL. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Shipping Safety
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in implementing measures to improve the safety of merchant shipping and safety at ports and harbours; and if he will make a statement. [160479]

  Mr. Hill
  The Queen's Speech on 6 December outlined the Government's intention to draft a Safety Bill. We shall use this opportunity to introduce three groups of measures to improve the safety of merchant shipping in the UK and safety at ports and harbours.

  The first group would improve the way we deal with maritime safety incidents. The number of parties who are liable in the event of a marine pollution incident would be increased to improve access to compensation for claimants. We are also considering raising the limit of liability for compensation arising from the death of or injury to passengers on board foreign registered ships in UK waters from £37,000 to £250,000. The existing power of the Secretary of State to issue direction would be widened to equate power to secure the safety of a ship with those to prevent pollution. Fire authorities would be allowed to recover the cost of fighting fires at sea.

  The second group would improve the enforcement of shipping safety law. The Secretary of State has a power to make orders to apply merchant shipping legislation to things used at sea which are not currently regarded as ships. This power will be extended to waters which are not sea. It will be made easier to prosecute non-UK vessels for breaches of safety legislation. The penalties for safety offences will be increased so that they are on a par with those for pollution offences and health and safety offences on land.

  The third group make some improvements to the powers harbour authorities have to regulate marine safety so as to help them to implement the Port Marine Safety Code, which was developed after the grounding of the Sea Empress in Milford Haven in 1996. We are also including new procedures enabling a harbour authority to be

  753W
  wound-up on safety grounds or to relinquish pilotage powers, both of which would save having to promote private legislation.

  Standards Board for England
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make further appointments to the Standards Board for England. [160480]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have today appointed Celia Cameron and Peter Chalke to the board.

  Both are elected members of local authorities. Along with the seven appointments which have already been announced, they will provide the board with the range of skills and experience that they need to ensure the highest standards of conduct in local government.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities in England have completed their reviews and assessments of air quality; and which authorities in England have so far failed to do so. [160598]

  Mr. Meacher
  In England, the statutory responsibility to carry out reviews and assessments of air quality applies to all London local authorities, all metropolitan and non-metropolitan district councils, and to all unitary county and unitary district councils. According to the records held by my Department, as of 2 May 2001 all of the London local authorities and some 89 per cent. of the remaining English local authorities had completed their reviews and assessments of air quality. A website providing further information on the progress made by individual authorities, and giving some indication of their findings, is available at www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/aqma.

  As of 2 May 2001, the following 32 English authorities had not completed all stages of the review and assessment process. Each of these authorities has now committed itself to completing the process by a firm deadline in the near future, and my Department will continue to oversee this process closely.

  List of local authorities which have not submitted a final review and assessment of air quality to the DETR

  Barrow-in-Furness DC

  Blyth Valley BC

  Calderdale

  Chorley

  Durham city council

  Forest Heath DC

  Fylde BC

  Hambleton DC

  Harlow council

  Havant BC

  Kettering BC

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk BC

  754W

  Lancaster city council

  Mendip DC

  Mid Suffolk DC

  Northampton BC

  North Lincolnshire

  Norwich city council

  Reigate and Banstead BC

  Scarborough BC

  Shepway DC

  South Oxfordshire DC

  South Somerset DC

  Southend-on-Sea

  Suffolk Coastal DC

  Surrey Heath BC

  Test Valley BC

  Wellingborough BC

  West Berkshire council

  West Devon BC

  Woking BC

  Wyre Forest DC.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the source of information for the public about rights of way which are open for public use. [160477]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Countryside Agency maintains a website: http://www.countryside.gov.uk/footandmouth/giving general information about the opening of rights of way in each local authority's area. The website includes links to local authorities' own websites, many of which include detailed information about open paths. The Local Government Association has published best practice guidance for local authorities which recommends that authorities should use their websites to keep not only the public, but also public and tourist information agencies, informed of developments. We announced details last week of a £3.8 million grant scheme to be administered by the Countryside Agency which will provide funding for measures to promote the reopening of rights of way, including publicity programmes and improvements to websites. We look to all local authorities to take the lead in opening up as many rights of way as possible, consistent with the Chief Veterinary Officer's guidance.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if expenditure incurred by local authorities to fund the hardship business rate relief programme as a direct consequence of foot and mouth disease will be eligible under the Bellwin scheme. [159820]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: On 24 April I announced the activation of the Bellwin scheme to provide emergency financial assistance to local authorities to help them meet some of the costs of responding to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, Official Report, column 278W. This scheme is based on Section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which permits only the reimbursement of expenditure incurred by local authorities on, or in

  755W
  connection with, the taking of immediate action to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience, in their area or among its inhabitants. Funding rate relief for small businesses does not, therefore, fall within the scope of this scheme.

  On 22 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced an increase in the central government contribution to local authorities to fund rate relief from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent. for small businesses who are suffering hardship as a result of foot and mouth disease in 151 rural authorities in England. This will apply for an initial period of three months. Details of the arrangements were given in Special Grant Report No. 80 which was laid before the House of Commons and approved by Parliament on 2 April 2000.

  In addition authorities covered by Special Grant Report No. 80 will benefit from a temporary reduction of 50 per cent. in contributions to the National Non Domestic Rate Pool between April and August.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money the regional development agencies had distributed to businesses under the foot and mouth relief scheme by 26 April. [159938]

  Mr. Meacher
  RDAs are supporting businesses affected by FMD in a variety of ways including marketing campaigns and other indirect support. Those who have decided to provide direct support are working through Business Links who are currently assessing individual business plans, with a view to making the first payments very shortly.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amount of rate relief has been given to businesses in rural areas under the foot and mouth relief scheme by 26 April; and if he will make a statement. [159937]

  Mr. Meacher
  Applications for hardship rate relief are dealt with by individual local authorities. The central Government contribution to the cost will be met through subsequent claims to my Department. No figures are yet available centrally for the amount of rate relief granted by local authorities to businesses by 26 April.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason part of funding for hardship relief payments is being met by local authorities; and if he will take steps to ensure that such funding is borne by the Government. [159369]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local authorities are required to meet part of the cost of their decisions to grant rate relief to businesses suffering from hardship to reflect the benefit to the local community. Central Government normally fund 75 per cent. of the cost of granting such relief. We have increased central Government's contribution rate relief from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent. where relief is granted to small businesses who are suffering hardship as a result of foot and mouth disease. This increase applies to relief provided in these circumstances by 151 rural authorities in England, for an initial period of three months.

  This remains a discretionary rate relief scheme and it is therefore right that local authorities have a stake in the decisions they make on the award of rate relief. I am
  756W
  keeping the scheme under review on the basis of evidence of how it is operating and waiting for across the board evidence on local authorities' position from the Local Government Association.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information the Environment Agency holds about safe burial sites for foot and mouth infected carcases; and if he will place this information in the Library. [157998]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: The Environment Agency is working in close co-operation with MAFF to ensure the fulfilment of the environmental requirements of Article 3(2) of the Animal Waste Directive (90/667/EEC) on the burial of animal carcases. Under the Groundwater Regulations 1998, the Agency carries out an assessment of each proposed burial site and, subject to the risk, authorises the burial with the imposition of any necessary conditions to protect groundwater. The Agency keeps copies of all such authorisations, and information relating to its assessment of each application, on a public register. As this information is available locally for each burial site, we have no plans to place copies of it in the Library.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money had been paid to businesses under the extensions of the small firms loan guarantee scheme announced by the Minister for the Environment on 26 March by 26 April. [159940]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  No loans had been notified to the Small Business Service (SBS) by 26 April, for businesses covered by the extension of the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (SFLGS). All loan applications are made direct to one of the approved lenders who will undertake their commercial appraisal and consideration of commercial finance before the SFLGS becomes an option.

  Since the details of the Scheme changes were announced on 6 April the SBS and the lenders have undertaken much work. The legal framework of the changes has had to be agreed with the lenders and the lenders have had to put in place, at branch level, the necessary administrative changes. Many inquiries have been received about the changes but it is likely to be a while before this interest translates into new loans.

HEALTH

  Walsall and Sandwell Health Authorities Merger
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had about a merger of the Walsall and Sandwell health authorities. [157334]

  Yvette Cooper
  The health authorities in Walsall and Sandwell have an established history of successful joint working, and will continue to build on this. On 25 April the Secretary of State for Health announced plans for far-reaching modernisation and reform of the National
  757W
  Health Service. The announcement included a statement that by 2004 two-thirds of existing health authorities will disappear as they merge. However the future configuration of health authorities has yet to be determined.

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157807]

  Ms Stuart
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2001–04 and main estimates 2001–02" is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  The Tiverton and Honiton constituency falls within the geographical area covered by North and East Devon health authority and Devon social services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2000–01 for North and East Devon health authority are set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  84.7

  £ million (real terms)

  50.6

  Percentage increase (cash)

  33.6

  Percentage increase (real terms)

  18.37

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  North and East Devon health authority has received funding for certain policies. This includes:

  £1.352 million for accident and emergency modernisation in 2000–01; £157,000, £211,000, £273,000 and £186,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £3.186 million and £3.994 million to reduce waiting lists and times in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £1.333 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £804,000 to deal with winter pressures in 2000–01, £368,000 of this went to Devon social services; £1.422 million and £359,000 for developing intermediate care services in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £470,000 and £954,000 for heart disease services 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively; £50,000 invested into dentistry in 2000–01.

  Devon local authority's personal social services standard spending assessment (SSA) for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.
  758W

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  138.497

  —

  —

  2001–02

  110.339

  -29.4

  -20.3

  Note:

  The SSA has decreased because of boundary changes resulting from local government re-organisation.

  In addition to the SSAs referred, Devon local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  4,890

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  3,407

  2,917

  4,140

  Prevention grant2

  —

  280

  420

  Carers grant3

  —

  289

  662

  923

  Children's grant3

  —

  624

  986

  2,471

  Mental Health Core grant

  667

  1,046

  1,207

  41,408

  Training Support Grant

  381

  450

  484

  4473

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information his Department has given to(a) health authorities and (b) NHS trusts about plans to roll out the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening pilot project; and what advice he has given about the time scale for preparing for the roll out; [158647]

  (2) what the timetable is for the national implementation of the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening project. [158648]

  Yvette Cooper
  In October 2000, the Department issued comprehensive information packs inviting health authorities to bid to join the Universal Neonatal Hearing Screening (UNHS) pilot. A national survey of the readiness of National Health Service trusts to deliver the service was also carried out. This is being used to inform decisions on the first phase of implementation.

  Close communication has been maintained with all health authorities and NHS trusts taking part in the pilot. In addition, the Institute of Hearing Research has been commissioned to maintain an open access website giving details of the pilot methodology, progress on site and plans for the next stage.

  The time scale for the national roll out will depend on the evaluative data from the pilot.

  Heathrow
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role is of the London borough of Hillingdon in relation to the Health Control Unit at Heathrow Airport; and what funding is provided to the London borough of Hillingdon for its pay and rations functions in relation the Health Control Unit. [158371]

  Yvette Cooper
  The health control unit at Heathrow Airport is responsible for (i) arranging medical examinations of entrants to the United Kingdom referred
  759W
  to it by the Immigration Service and (ii) applying the Public Health (Aircraft) Regulations 1979 at the airport. The medical and radiography staff working in the unit are provided and managed by Hillingdon health authority. The London borough of Hillingdon provides and manages the other staff, and pays the cost of the unit's accommodation. It is reimbursed for its expenditure by the Department.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what audit has been undertaken of the funding provided to the London borough of Hillingdon for the management of the Health Control Unit at Heathrow Airport. [158367]

  Yvette Cooper
  My Department has no powers to carry out formal audits of expenditure by the London borough of Hillingdon, although officials scrutinise both the authority's estimates and claims for reimbursement and ask for an explanation of any changes from previous patterns of expenditure. Audit of Hillingdon's expenditure is a matter for its own internal auditors and for the Audit Commission.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of funding was provided by his Department for the Health Control Unit at Heathrow Airport in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01. [158372]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows the sums reimbursed by the Department in connection with expenditure on the health control unit by the London borough of Hillingdon. In addition, the Department paid for three new X-ray machines which were installed in the unit in 1999–2000 at a cost of £1.25 million.

  £000

  1995–96

  1,428

  1996–97

  1,356

  1997–98

  1,325

  1998–99

  1,488

  1999–2000

  1,547

  2000–01

  1,577

  Oral Tobacco Products
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to introduce legislation to ban the import of oral tobacco products; when he intends to introduce such legislation; and if he will make a statement. [158218]

  Yvette Cooper
  None. So long as oral tobacco from overseas sources does not fall within a banned category, complies with United Kingdom customs duty regulations and carries health warnings, their import in the UK is not illegal.

  However, we wish to ensure that people have information about health risks. We are, therefore, seeking to develop greater awareness of the health risks associated with oral tobacco as part of our tobacco information strategy. We are working on a dedicated campaign, focused on high-risk ethnic minority populations, to address the health risks of smoking and the use of oral
  760W
  tobacco in order to decrease demand for these products. We have funded a training pack for Trading Standards Officers on oral tobacco.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget was for the National Blood Service for the year 2000–01; and by how much it was underspent. [158781]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Blood Authority's accounts for 2001–01 show a total income of £315,436 million against a total revenue expenditure of £311,456 million. Of the £4 million surplus of income over expenditure, £3.8 million is accounted for primarily by an increase in stocks of United States plasma purchased by the authority's bio products laboratory. Only £200,000 is unspent cash.

  Mental Health Services
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the £700 million for mental health services for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 was allocated for each district health authority in England for financial years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [159158]

  Mr. Hutton
  Not all additional funding for mental health services in the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02
  was allocated to health authorities. A substantial element was allocated to local authorities through the Mental Health Grant. The table shows the allocations to health authorities for 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Allocations have not yet been made to health authorities for 2001–02.

  £000

  Health authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon

  200,945

  696,030

  Barking and Havering

  100,055

  189,000

  Barnet

  67,440

  153,000

  Barnsley

  72,583

  97,260

  Bedfordshire

  109,165

  160,226

  Berkshire

  148,958

  213,608

  Bexley and Greenwich

  137,128

  184,108

  Birmingham

  116,399

  800,584

  Bradford

  164,318

  225,175

  Brent and Harrow

  75,770

  129,506

  Bromley

  56,089

  81,054

  Buckinghamshire

  113,520

  167,017

  Bury and Rochdale

  94,180

  176,700

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  122,567

  189,272

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  192,800

  691,038

  Camden and Islington

  63,009

  134,490

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  125,290

  165,400

  County Durham

  222,500

  291,186

  Coventry

  130,085

  169,117

  Croydon

  70,040

  106,000

  Doncaster

  41,478

  73,042

  Dorset

  80,463

  136,602

  Dudley

  31,060

  59,121

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  176,265

  264,626

  East and North Hertfordshire

  63,078

  102,118

  East Kent

  127,220

  181,200

  East Lancashire

  111,287

  274,323

  East London and The City

  79,220

  389,490

  East Norfolk

  118,181

  179,353

  East Riding

  121,030

  176,150

  East Surrey

  59,530

  189,667

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  153,123

  225,307

  761W

  £000

  Health authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Enfield and Haringey

  108,321

  168,681

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  65,040

  110,143

  Gloucestershire

  50,240

  95,547

  Herefordshire

  47,040

  60,101

  Hillingdon

  40,060

  63,085

  Isle of Wight

  23,505

  34,040

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  57,215

  276,535

  Kingston and Richmond

  40,144

  71,122

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  179,126

  459,763

  Leeds

  155,667

  241,740

  Leicestershire

  206,139

  510,454

  Lincolnshire

  157,248

  211,357

  Liverpool

  109,665

  229,214

  Manchester

  109,595

  248,170

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  151,393

  505,675

  Morecambe Bay

  97,123

  167,407

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  54,521

  460,578

  North and East Devon

  100,380

  138,525

  North and Mid Hampshire

  146,119

  434,284

  North Cheshire

  97,176

  154,182

  North Cumbria

  65,025

  93,127

  North Derbyshire

  52,203

  83,333

  North Essex

  110,465

  178,477

  North Nottinghamshire

  60,788

  284,210

  North Staffordshire

  78,070

  128,233

  North West Anglia

  160

  —

  North West Lancashire

  84,098

  211,612

  North Yorkshire

  80,664

  500,937

  Northamptonshire

  127,402

  177,452

  Northumberland

  32,200

  61,220

  Nottingham

  113,147

  113,272

  Oxfordshire

  92,895

  343,000

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  100,580

  150,265

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  130,045

  181,000

  Rotherham

  46,661

  72,312

  Salford and Trafford

  81,241

  178,235

  Sandwell

  98,545

  136,173

  Sefton

  62,080

  113,068

  Sheffield

  140,585

  418,468

  Shropshire

  42,512

  78,591

  Solihull

  20,490

  38,079

  Somerset

  150,273

  187,727

  South and West Devon

  50,639

  104,564

  South Cheshire

  111,168

  211,216

  South Derbyshire

  99,085

  154,050

  South Essex

  237,014

  298,425

  South Humber

  90,180

  119,200

  South Lancashire

  94,115

  162,547

  South Staffordshire

  139,115

  185,271

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  90,395

  152,140

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  103,090

  254,098

  Stockport

  50,497

  98,099

  Suffolk

  140,736

  192,640

  Sunderland

  45,045

  81,161

  Tees

  129,713

  196,785

  Wakefield

  73,065

  108,287

  Walsall

  85,982

  114,793

  Warwickshire

  48,050

  91,148

  West Hertfordshire

  65,035

  109,080

  West Kent

  147,220

  226,419

  West Pennine

  70,162

  171,193

  West Surrey

  112,068

  157,198

  West Sussex

  147,220

  358,436

  Wigan and Bolton

  84,325

  206,327

  Wiltshire

  65,175

  112,515

  Wirral

  58,667

  120,868

  Wolverhampton

  154,192

  185,211

  Worcestershire

  113,085

  154,154

  Total

  9,915,660

  19,965,986

  Doctors (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many golden hellos and golden handcuffs are being offered to doctors(a) practising and (b) encouraged to practice in (i) Pendle and (ii) the East Lancashire health authority area; and if he will make a statement. [159380]

  Mr. Denham
  East Lancashire health authority has received a number of expressions of interest in "golden hellos" and is awaiting further information about the scheme. The final details are subject to consultation with the British Medical Association and these will be circulated when confirmed.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in(a) Lancashire and (b) England stopped doing NHS work during the last 12 months for which figures are available. [159378]

  Mr. Hutton
  Dentists may leave the general dental service (GDS) for a number of reasons including retirement and career breaks. Some departures are only temporary. During the year 2000, the figures for England will be inflated by the transfer of some dentists from the GDS to some personal dental service pilots.

  The number of dentists leaving the GDS in the 12 months ending 31 December 2000 is shown in the table for Lancashire health authorities and England.

  Number of dentists who left the GDS during the year 2000

  Principals

  Assistants

  Vocational dental practitioners

  Total

  (a) Lancashire health authorities

  South Lancashire

  9

  1

  2

  12

  East Lancashire

  6

  0

  4

  10

  North West Lancashire

  10

  3

  1

  14

  Morecambe Bay

  9

  1

  1

  11

  Total

  34

  5

  8

  47

  (b) England

  859

  179

  149

  1,187

  Nurses
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses there are in total in the UK per head of population working in the National Health Service, in private facilities and through registered nursing agencies. [159558]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows the number (headcount) of nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff working in the National Health Service and the number of nursing staff working in private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics per 10,000 population in England.

  Matters relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are for the devolved Administrations.
  763W

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS): Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and practice nurses by qualification and per 10,000 population in England as at 30 September 2000

  Headcount

  Headcount per 10,000 population1

  All staff

  460,010

  92

  Qualified

  335,950

  68

  of which

  HCHS Nurses

  316,750

  64

  Practice Nurses

  19,200

  4

  Unqualified

  123,850

  25

  Unknown

  210

  2—

  1 England population = 49,752,900. Population figure is for 1999 which is the latest available information.

  2 Five or less and greater than zero.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health General Medical Service census

  Office for National Statistics

  Number (headcount) of nursing staff working in private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics per 10,000 population in England as at 31 March—England, 1999ߝ2000

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Permanent staff

  Temporary agency/bank staff

  Qualified staff

  15.58

  2.87

  Unqualified staff

  27.70

  2.47

  Source:

  General mental nursing homes and private hospital and clinics form 1999–2000

  Number (whole-time equivalent) of nursing staff working in private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics per 10,000 population in England as at 31 March—England, 1999ߝ2000

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Permanent staff

  Temporary agency/bank staff

  Qualified staff

  12.14

  1.17

  Unqualified staff

  22.16

  1.16

  Source:

  General mental nursing homes and private hospital and clinics form 1999–2000

  Doctors
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors there are per head of population working in the National Health Service and in private facilities. [159557]

  Mr. Denham
  The information about the number of National Health Service doctors is provided in the table. Information about doctors working in private facilities is not collected centrally.

  All NHS doctors—with general practitioners retainers per head of population in England—at 30 September 2000

  Number

  All NHS doctors1

  97,440

  Population2

  49,992,925

  NHS doctors per head of population

  0.001948996

  NHS doctors per 100,000 population

  194.9

  764W

  1 Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10

  2 Population data are the 2000 projection, calculated using 1998 base projections

  Sources:

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental work force census

  Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics

  TB
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that TB vaccine can be obtained from more than one manufacturer; and if he will make a statement. [159497]

  Yvette Cooper
  The BCG vaccines available today vary widely in many characteristics and therefore products from different manufacturers vary in their composition and side effect profile. The current United Kingdom supplier of BCG vaccine is the only manufacturer that has UK licensed product for our BCG programme at present. We are working hard to encourage other manufacturers able to meet our requirements to enter the UK market. Ultimately this will be a commercial decision taken by the manufacturers.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many isolation wards for the treatment of tuberculosis opened in each region of the NHS in England and Wales in the past four years. [158606]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer sent 30 April 2001]: Information on the number of isolation wards in hospitals is not collected centrally.

  Different levels of isolation are required depending on the infectious (or suspected infectious) nature of a tuberculosis case. Each patient is considered on a case by case basis and therefore, the need for isolation facilities is made at local level.

  The Department has published recommendations on isolation in two documents. One in June 1996—"Recommendations for the prevention and control of tuberculosis at local level"—and again in September 1998 in the document entitled "United Kingdom guidance on the prevention and control of transmission of HIV-related tuberculosis and Drug-resistant, including multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis".

  Care Homes
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) individual care homes and (b) care homes associations are taking legal action against (i) local authorities and (ii) the Government owing to the Government's fee structure for care homes. [159931]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are not aware of any such action being undertaken by individual care homes or care home associations.

  We do not set or recommend the rates at which local authorities contract with independent residential care and nursing homes. This is a matter for local decision. We think it is important that councils are able to tailor contracts to specific local circumstances. We do, however, expect contractual arrangements to take account of the costs incurred by independent sector nursing and residential homes.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent outbreaks of meningitis with particular reference to(a) source of the disease and (b) strategies being used to combat its spread. [159512]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) has received reports of 26 cases of group W135 meningococcal infection including nine deaths following this years pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj). Some of those affected attended the Hajj, but two thirds are contacts of pilgrims in the community.

  Following an outbreak of meningococcal W135 infection at last year's Hajj, on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the United Kingdom recommended that travellers to the Hajj this year be immunised with a quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine which covers this strain. This vaccine was launched by the manufacturers for general use in early January 2001. Information was sent to all immunisation co-ordinators on 26 January informing them of these immunisation requirements for pilgrims travelling to Saudi Arabia for Hajj. This information was also distributed to health professionals via a Chief Medical Officer letter.

  The Department has worked with the Muslim Council of Britain to make this information widely available to the Muslim community. An A4 poster with information for the public has been distributed to Mosques and can be downloaded in Arabic, Bengali and Urdu versions from www.doh.gov.uk/traveladvice/hajj.htm.

  The PHLS Meningococcal Forum considered the outbreak and decided that the best control measure for the outbreak was the prompt antibiotic treatment of suspected meningococcal disease by medical staff. On 12 April the Department wrote to all doctors reminding them of the signs and symptoms of meningococcal disease and alerting them to the possibility of cases in the Muslim community.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Medicines Control Agency to submit written comments to the European Commission following discussions on the proposed Traditional Medicines Directive at the European Pharmaceutical Committee meeting on 5 April; and if he will arrange for those comments to be published. [159913]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom comments on the second draft of the directive on traditional medicinal products were set out in a letter from the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) to the European Commission dated 30 April 2001. The response took account of points made by a range of herbal interest groups in their continuing dialogue with the MCA on this issue. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to letters from the hon. Member for Woking dated 8 January and 16 March, regarding Mr. J. Keddar, a constituent. [159843]
  766W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: A reply to the hon. Member's letter was sent on the 2 May 2001.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent his Department's headquarters buildings use hydrofluorocarbons for(a) refrigeration and (b) air conditioning; what amounts of hydrofluorocarbons have been purchased in each year since 1995; and what plans he has to phase out the (i) purchase and (ii) use of hydrofluorocarbons. [160010]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: One of the Department's London headquarters buildings uses hydrofluorocarbons as refrigerant in the air conditioning system. There has been no separate purchase of HFCs since 1995 (other than as an integral part of such plant). Our policy is to switch where possible to environmentally preferable substitutes where suitable alternatives exist.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is regarding the purchase of(a) hydrocarbons and (b) other environmentally benign refrigerants to meet the refrigeration and other relevant energy needs of premises owned and leased by his Department; what guidance on this subject he has issued to NHS Trusts; and if he will make a statement. [160005]

  Yvette Cooper
  Our policy is to switch, where possible, from hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorobutane and sulphur hexafluoride to environmentally preferable substitutes and to ensure that we do not buy any products which contain chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, 111trichloroethane or hydrochlorofluorocarbons where suitable alternatives exist.

  Guidance on the use of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons has been issued previously to National Health Service trusts. This guidance is currently under review.

  Heart Transplant Centres
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the recommendations of his review of heart transplant centres. [160155]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers have not received the findings of the study of the three transplant centres. An undertaking has been given that the proposals for the future of the National Cardiothoracic Transplant Service will be set out in a document for public discussion before a final decision on the site of the fourth centre is taken.

  Health Service Spending
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of growth in public spending in the present financial year on the provision of health services in England and Wales. [160268]

  Mr. Denham
  Net expenditure on the National Health Service in England is planned to reach £48.8 billion in 2001–02, representing a year on year increase of 9.3 per cent, (6.7 per cent. real terms).

  Health expenditure for Wales is a matter for the devolved Assembly.

  Learning Disabilities (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Social Services Inspectorate expects to inspect Shropshire County Council Social Services' provision for people with learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [160362]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) and audit commission joint review team reviewed Shropshire Social Services Directorate (SSD) earlier this year and their report is due for publication in June. The joint reviews are conducted by audit and the SSI and make a broad assessment about how SSDs deliver their services, and manage their resources. The joint review of Shropshire did consider the services with learning disabilities and the findings will become public on the publication of the report.

  When the SSI inspects local council social services it examines their quality in more depth on significant issues than the Joint Review. Currently there are no plans in the SSI work programme to undertake a further examination of learning disabilities services in Shropshire.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 583W, on surgical treatments, when he expects the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to produce guidance on the management of infertility to improve services and reduce the postcode lottery in this area of health care; and if he will make a statement. [160162]

  Yvette Cooper
  We expect that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will produce guidance on the management of infertility by December 2002. Through this work, NICE will assist us in our determination to ensure that, in the future, couples get fairer and faster access to clinically cost-effective and a appropriate infertility treatments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Brokering
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the proposals on arms brokering in the draft Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill will apply to the activities of UK citizens operating wholly abroad. [159072]

  Mr. Byers
  The draft Bill contains a new general power to control trafficking and brokering carried out by persons in the UK or by UK persons abroad. The Government will use this power to control trafficking and brokering activities carried out by persons in the UK and by UK persons abroad, which involve the supply of arms to embargoed destinations, the supply of torture equipment or the supply of long-range missiles

  The Government have also proposed to introduce a general licensing requirement on trafficking and brokering in weapons, ammunition and other key military and para-military equipment, to any destination. We are now consulting on the possibility of applying this licensing requirement to the activities of UK persons carried out
  768W
  wholly abroad. A decision on this issue will be made in the light of the results of the consultation which closes on 24 May.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government's proposals on arms brokering, set out in conjunction with the draft Export Control and Non-proliferation Bill, will apply to activities carried out by UK passport holders operating wholly abroad. [159707]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 2 May 2001]: The draft Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill published on 29 March contains a new general power to control trafficking and brokering carried out by persons in the UK or by UK persons abroad. As explained in the introduction to the draft Bill, the Government will use this power to control trafficking and brokering activities carried out by persons in the UK, or by UK persons abroad, which involve the supply of arms to embargoed destinations, the supply of equipment designed primarily for torture or the supply of long-range missiles.

  The Government have also proposed, following their review of the proposals contained in the 1998 White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, to introduce a general licensing requirement on trafficking and brokering in weapons, ammunition and other key military and paramilitary equipment, to any destination. The consultation document published with the draft Bill invites views on the possibility of applying this licensing requirement to the activities of UK persons carried out wholly abroad. A decision on this issue will be made in the light of the results of the consultation which closes on 24 May.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to promote energy from offshore wind. [159074]

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to encourage the development of electricity from offshore windfarms. [159080]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on 3 May 2001,Official Report, column 967.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak on rural businesses. [159075]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Ministerial colleagues and I have to date received 320 pieces of correspondence about the foot and mouth outbreak, nearly all of them relating to the impact on rural businesses. Apart from that correspondence, I have had no specific representations from business but the issue has been raised with me in the context of other meetings.

  I recently addressed members of the Federation of Small Businesses at their conference in Plymouth and met affected businesses there.
  769W
  In addition, David Irwin, the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service, recently met a number of small businesses in Cumbria affected by the outbreak.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the role played by the Small Business Service during the current foot and mouth outbreak. [159089]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Small Business Service is playing an active role—directly—and via the Business Link network, in supporting small businesses during the crisis. SBS has set up a Rural Helpline and recently produced an information leaflet to ensure that small businesses are fully aware of the package of help available. Over 1.5 million leaflets are being distributed via, for example banks and rural post offices.

  SBS has also made provision for Tourist and retail business suffering financial problems due to the effects of the disease. Such businesses are now eligible to apply for loans of up to £250,000 as a result of the SBS' extension to their Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on recent trends in gas prices. [159076]

  Mr. Hain
  The wholesale price of gas has followed the upward trend set in the spring of 2000 and is now trading at around 10p per therm more than a year ago.

  This has had a direct effect on prices to all classes of consumer. Centrica, the main domestic supplier, increased their retail price of gas by 4.7 per cent, on 1 April and other domestic suppliers have also raised prices. Industrial and commercial prices have risen on average by around 50 per cent. in the year to 1 March 2001. However they are still substantially lower than in other EU member states.

  National Working Council Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the proposed National Working Council directive. [159078]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Neither the Government nor the European Commission are proposing to bring forward a National Working Council directive.

  High-tech Businesses (Milton Keynes)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to create the environment for growing high-tech businesses in Milton Keynes. [159082]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are doing a great deal. The Department supports high-tech businesses through a range of initiatives and programmes.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress with the universal bank. [159083]
  770W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Discussions with the banks on Universal Banking Services are at an advanced stage. I hope that they will be resolved shortly.

  UK/Romania Aerospace Co-operation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the aerospace industry regarding developing industrial co-operation with Romania. [159084]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  During the recent visit to the UK of President lliescu of Romania, my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs attended a luncheon to encourage the development of closer co-operation between the UK and Romanian aerospace industries. At this event the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) and the Association of Romanian Aerospace Companies (OPIAR) signed a Memorandum Of Understanding to reinforce the commitment to promoting and developing the relationship between our respective industries.

  My Department is keen to further develop our existing industrial relationship with Romania and will continue to fully support progress in this area.

  Takeover Panel
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations the takeover panel is undertaking. [159085]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for the Takeover Panel.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Post Office regarding financing security improvements at sub-post offices. [159086]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Security and security improvements for the post office network are an operational matter for the Post Office. I understand from the Post Office that, in addition to the general programme of maintenance and improvement of existing security measures, they operate a risk based capital investment security programme under which £24 million has been invested over the last four years. I am also informed by the Post Office that they have earmarked over £30 million for investment in security measures over the next four years, based on a risk model which will deploy a wider range of security measures over the network.

  House-sitters (Minimum Wage)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy on the application of the minimum wage to house-sitters. [159087]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The minimum wage covers workers and if a house-sitter meets the definition of a worker then he or she is covered. There is flexibility in the regulations to cater for the unusual arrangements involved in house-sitting and my officials are meeting the agencies to discuss this. A case involving house-sitters is
  771W
  due to be heard by an employment tribunal later this month. It is not appropriate, therefore, for the Government to comment further.

  Mortgages
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Office of Fair Trading to take steps to abolish the Rule of 78 for redemption of all existing mortgages. [159088]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the Consumer Credit (Rebate on Early Settlement) Regulations 1983, lenders can use the Rule of 78 to calculate early redemption terms for some types of loan. The Government agree that these regulations do not always give a fair and equitable outcome for consumers, particularly in respect of high-value, long-term loans such as mortgages.

  We plan to bring forward proposals to replace the current settlement formula with one that will give a fairer outcome. We also want to improve the information consumers get about redemption terms, so they can take this into account when they decide which loan is the best deal.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies he has commissioned into the regulatory costs of(a) British business, (b) US business and (c) business in other EU member states. [159090]

  Ms Hewitt
  We carefully assess the impact of all new regulatory proposals on British business. Since August 1998, all legislation likely to have an impact on business has been subject to a Regulatory Impact Assessment. RIAs are published and are available from the Libraries of the House.

  We have not commissioned studies on the regulatory costs in other countries. However international organisations and companies do regularly carry out comparative surveys.

  Electricity
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the United Kingdom's ability to meet its electricity needs in each of the next five years. [159091]

  Mr. Hain
  At present, generating capacity available to the UK exceeds peak demand by around 25 per cent. This margin is widely considered to be more than adequate to meet its electricity needs.

  The generating margin in future will continue to be determined by supply and demand conditions in the wholesale electricity market, as generators make commercial decisions to open new plant or close existing plant.

  It is estimated that plant currently under construction, together with projects that have already received all the necessary consents, would be sufficient to meet both rising demand and some retirement of existing capacity and still maintain a margin of around 20 per cent. by 2005.

  Balance of Trade
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on trends in the balance of trade over the last 12 months. [159092]

  Mr. Caborn
  The balance of trade was in deficit in the three months to February 2001 by £4.9 billion, compared to £4.3 billion for the same period a year earlier. Over the same period, exports rose by 11.9 per cent.

  Bank Holidays
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to increase the number of bank holidays. [159093]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have no current plans to increase the number of bank holidays. Any requests for the creation of additional bank holidays need to be measured against the disadvantages, notably the cost and disruption to industry that is inevitably involved.

  Cammell Laird
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of Cammell Laird. [159094]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I recognise that the present uncertain situation must be very worrying for the employees of Cammell Laird and their families, as well as for the company's suppliers and others. I am hopeful that the Receiver will be able to find a buyer for the business or yards so as to preserve as much employment as possible. The Government are in close touch with the Receiver to assist him in finding a buyer.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are benefiting from the national minimum wage in(a) the Edinburgh area and (b) the UK. [159057]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  When the national minimum wage was introduced in April 1999, some 140,000 jobs in Scotland were paying below the minimum rate. The corresponding figure for the United Kingdom was 1.5 million. There are no equivalent data available for individual towns and cities. The LPC has found that the substantial majority of those entitled to the minimum wage are now getting it.

  Mobility Aids
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the protection offered to(a) disabled and (b) elderly people purchasing and leasing mobility aids. [159073]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Elderly and disabled people are protected by current consumer protection legislation in the same way as other consumers.

  The Government remain committed to a strategy offering consumers, and particularly vulnerable groups, the protection they need to ensure they receive fair treatment and the information necessary to help them make informed choices.

  British Timken
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to protect apprentices and trainees affected by British Timken's proposed factory closure in Northampton. [159815]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I will ask the Response Group to ensure that it covers this issue as part of its work.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to investigate the impact of the closure of British Timken's factory in Northampton. [159817]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: The Government will do all we can to help those affected by the closure of the British Timken factory in Northampton. A Response Group has been set up to co-ordinate support activity. This Group will be chaired by the East Midlands Development Agency, working in partnership with the Government Office for the East Midlands, the Employment Service, the company and others.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking in respect of the closure of the British Timken roller bearing plant in Duston, Northampton. [160452]

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking in response to the announcement by British Timken of the closure of its Northampton plant. [160359]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government will do all we can to help those affected by the closure of the British Timken factory in Northampton. A Response Group has been set up to co-ordinate support activity. This Group will be chaired by the East Midlands Development Agency, working in partnership with the Government Office East Midlands, the Employment Service, the company and other local partners.

  Mobile Phone Licences
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with high-tech companies involved in the mobile phone industry on the issue of auctions for licences. [159172]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no recent discussions with high-tech companies involved in the mobile phone industry on the issue of spectrum licences for mobile communications that have been awarded by auction. There have been a number of discussions over a matter of months between the Radiocommunications Agency and various telecommunications companies, about auctions for spectrum licences for broadband and public fixed wireless access.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post office closures there were in the north-west in the years from 1997 to date. [160094]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the information is not held in the form requested.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost was of employing special advisers in his Department from 1997 to date. [160043]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 1 May 2001, Official Report, columns 607–08W.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many special advisers worked in his Department from 1997 to date. [160023]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Since 3 May 1997, no more than two paid special advisers have been in post at any one time, except for a three month period between May and July 1998 when a third special adviser was appointed to assist the then President of the Board of Trade. In addition, Lord Hollick acted as unpaid special adviser from May 1997 to October 1998.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed in manufacturing industry in the north-west in each of the years from 1997 to date. [160082]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Estimates of employee jobs in manufacturing are based on the results of employer surveys. Figures for the years the hon. Gentleman has requested are:

  Year

  1997

  534,000

  1998

  532,000

  1999

  520,000

  2000

  505,000

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many radioactive particles have been(a) detected and (b) retrieved within (i) a 10 kilometre radius and (ii) a two kilometre radius of Dounreay, broken down in each case by those on (1) the seabed and (2) the foreshore. [160209]

  Mr. Hain
  Surveys have located 360 particles on the seabed up to a radius of 2 km from the Dounreay site, and 268 have been removed. A further three particles have been detected beyond that distance, up to a maximum of 2.3 km radius, and were all removed.

  On the foreshore 221 particles have been detected to date, of which 15 were found on the neighbouring Sandside beach. Only those recovered from Sandside beach were more than 2 km radius from Dounreay. All the particles found on the foreshore and Sandside beach have been retrieved. Full details of the discovery of radioactive particles found on Sandside beach are available from UKAEA's website www.ukaea.org.uk.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has received about the route of radioactive particles from Dounreay to the Caithness shore; and if he will make a statement. [160211]
  775W
  Mr. Hain
  I understand that UKAEA has undertaken a comprehensive programme of research, at a cost of £1 million per year since 1997, into the routes by which particles may have reached the wider environment. The results have been reported to my officials and to the independent Dounreay Particle Advisory Group. Progress reports are available publicly from UKAEA and I will arrange for them to be made available to the Library of the House. This research has concluded that there is very strong circumstantial evidence that particles were discharged through the now redundant old low level liquid effluent system and other site drains in the 1960s and perhaps into the 1970s. There is no evidence of particles leaving the site after this time.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has received of the number of radioactive particles thought still to be on the seabed within(a) a 10-kilometre radius and (b) a two-kilometre radius of Dounreay. [160210]

  Mr. Hain
  I have received no estimate of the number of particles thought to be on the seabed within the vicinity of Dounreay. The programme of offshore surveys and research UKAEA has under way is designed to help address this question. This programme has been under way since 1997, and is expected to conclude in 2002. It is not possible to estimate the number of particles on the seabed until the survey programme is complete. I have asked UKAEA to ensure that the results are made publicly available as soon as possible thereafter as part of the public consultation exercise.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce programmes to effect the speedier detection and complete removal of radioactive particles on the foreshore and seabed within a 10-kilometre radius of Dounreay; and if he will make a statement. [160212]

  Mr. Hain
  The independent regulator, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), specifies a schedule of local beaches to be monitored, the frequency of surveying and the criteria for the detection of particles. In the case of Sandside Bay the schedule reflects a request in 1998 from the then Secretary of State for Scotland that there is sufficient monitoring to ensure that any particles finding their way to the beach are promptly detected and removed. In March 2001 SEPA published the interim report of the independent Dounreay Particles Advisory Group (DPAG). It concluded that for all practical purposes the criteria set by SEPA in terms of detection limits are being met by the current monitoring programme. Surveys of the seabed continue and the results will be brought to DPAG in due course. Further details of DPAG's work are available on the SEPA website www.sepa.org.uk.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has received of the time-scale for rendering the Caithness shore free from irradiated particles from Dounreay; and if he will make a statement. [160213]

  Mr. Hain
  UKAEA's published programme of future work includes a public consultation on the options for dealing with particles. This is expected to take place during 2003 and will set timescales for a future action plan. In the meantime a monitoring programme agreed 776W
  with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is being carried out, and any particles detected are promptly removed. The public are made aware of particle finds. Full information on particles found on Sandside Beach is available on UKAEA's website www.ukaea.org.uk.

  Packaging and Production Waste
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the labelling industry as to what constitutes packaging waste and production waste. [159081]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department regularly receives representations from industry on the issue of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) for which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has the responsibility. However, I am not aware of any representations from this particular sector on the definition of packaging waste contained within the Regulations.

  Regulatory and Welfare Costs
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of increased regulatory and welfare costs on the profitability of United Kingdom businesses since May 1997. [159238]

  Ms Hewitt
  Assessment of the impact of all regulations affecting business introduced since May 1997 is available from the Libraries of the House. For the period from May 1997 to August 1998, compliance cost assessments contain this information. From August 1998, Regulatory Impact Assessments have been completed in respect of each regulation or legislation likely to have an impact on business.

  House Insurance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take action to prevent the linkage of house insurance with mortgage grants. [160143]

  Dr. Howells
  Compulsory tying-in of mortgages with insurance was one of the practices criticised at DTI's mortgage summit in 1999. Since then, the number of lenders who require their customers to buy tied insurance has decreased and we estimate that less than 5 per cent, of current mortgage products feature such tie-ins. Consumers should now find it much easier to find a mortgage deal that does not prevent them from shopping around for insurance.

  Corus
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make an announcement on the measures the Government will take to support those individuals and communities affected by the restructuring and redundancies planned by Corus. [160592]

  Mr. Byers
  Corus has today confirmed its intention to proceed with the job cuts it announced earlier this year. The Government's priority must now be to help the individuals and communities affected. I am therefore announcing a package of measures to assist those who face losing their jobs and plans to promote economic regeneration and job creation in the areas affected. A
  777W
  similar announcement is being made in the National Assembly of Wales. In total the two packages amount to around £135 million.

  To help individuals to deal with the immediate financial difficulties created by redundancy, the Government intend to introduce a scheme to provide aid for workers affected by restructuring in the steel industry. The Government intend to apply to the Commission for funding available under Article 56 of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Treaty. Article 56 provides for social aid to assist workers who have lost their jobs as a result of restructuring in companies which produce products covered by the ECSC Treaty. We intend to provide a lump sum payment of around £2,500 to eligible individuals, of which the UK Government will contribute half. Those eligible will be workers involved in the production of products covered by the ECSC Treaty. We will also make similar provisions for steelworkers covered by the special framework of the Treaty of Rome for whom Article 56 makes no provision. The scheme will apply from 1 January 2000 and it is anticipated that 12,000 workers in England, Scotland and Wales will benefit from this at a total cost of about £32 million. The ECSC Treaty expires in July 2002 and the scheme will apply to eligible workers up to that date.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is announcing the extension of the new Job Transition Service to all sites affected by the Corus redundancies. The Government will spend over £5 million in England and Wales to ensure that everyone who is affected by these redundancies has access to an equal level of support in getting a new job.

  The Employment Service has already opened jobshops at Redcar, Scunthorpe and in South Yorkshire. In Wales there are jobshops in Llanwern, Ebbw Vale, Bryngwyn and Shotton. ES are liaising with Corus to assess whether additional jobshops or other facilities are needed as a result of this announcement.

  The new Job Transition Service (JTS), which is already being piloted in South Yorkshire as a result of last summer's announcements by Corus, will now be extended to all the affected sites across the UK. The service offers a new approach to assisting those affected by redundancy to find new jobs.

  Through the JTS, audits of the local economies will be carried out where major redundancies are taking place, and the Employment Service will work with local employers who are looking for new staff to identify their recruitment needs and analyse their skill requirements. Companies such as Nissan in the north-east have already been identified as potentially offering opportunities for Corus workers.

  At the same time, the JTS will provide anybody affected either directly or indirectly by these redundancies with personal advice on careers, financial matters and general skills development. More specifically, it will direct people to suitable vacancies, identify the skills they need to develop, and discuss their training needs. Training will be funded, and—where appropriate—customised programmes will be developed.

  In order to help develop this new service and ensure it is tailored fully to the needs of individuals, the DfEE and the Employment Service are working in partnership with
  778W
  the unions and with Corus itself on a similar package of support and training developed by the unions to be provided before workers leave the company. A joint bid to the European Social Fund for £2.5 million for England will be made in the next few weeks, with a similar bid being made in Wales.

  An Employment Credit for the over-50s going back to work will also be available to individuals affected.

  The Government are committed to helping the communities affected, and so we are backing projects crucial for economic regeneration, to ensure the long-term prosperity of all these areas.

  In the north-east, Dr. John Bridge, the chairman of ONE North East, the Regional Development Agency in the area, has been asked to establish a small group drawn from the key regional partners, including the existing Tees Valley Partnership, to build on the work undertaken by the task group established in response to the previous round of Corus job cuts. The group will pave the way for the establishment of an Urban Regeneration Company involving the five local authorities in the Tees Valley, to take this work forward over the longer term.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is also announcing a package of measures to help regenerate the Tees Valley. This includes: a £20 million public sector project in Stockton to develop a Durham University campus and business park and to make environmental improvements; and support for the next stage of Middlehaven, a regeneration project in the Middlesbrough Docks. The Government will also fund feasibility studies into a new Tees crossing and a light rapid transport (LRT) scheme in the Tees Valley and is encouraging local authorities on Teesside to work up plans to improve transport infrastructure in the East Middlesbrough transport corridor. This is in addition to the £5 million scheme to improve access to Teesside airport which was announced on 28 March. Finally, as announced on Monday 30 April, we will be given the West Central Hartlepool New Deal for Communities scheme £53.79 million over the next 10 years.

  The Government are working with the Tees Valley Partnership, local industries and further education bodies to consider new research and development facilities. In addition, British Trade International has been asked to work with John Bridge to identify potential sites for inward investors. The Department of Trade and Industry will also be providing £500,000 for the establishment of broadband and digital communications networks in the area.

  The redundancies will also affect Scunthorpe and its surrounding area. Following discussions with the local council and the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber, Scunthorpe will become a Tier 3 area for the purposes of the Enterprise Grant Scheme. To do this, we are redrawing the Assisted Areas map to make this support available. It will enable grants to be provided to small- and medium-sized companies moving into the area or increasing their investment there. We are also increasing the budget available for Enterprise Grants in the area by £0.5 million. This will act as a major incentive to the establishment and growth of small- and medium-sized companies in and around Scunthorpe.
  779W
  I am also asking the North Lincolnshire Steel Task Force, which was set up following the previous round of Corus closures, to advise on additional measures which could be taken in the area. These will take forward the actions set out in the Metal Related Industries Impact study, funded by DTI, and is looking both at Scunthorpe and South Yorkshire. The first report of the study is already with the Task Force, and we are asking them to identify immediate action points from the report and to assess what more needs to be done as a result of this round of cuts.

  As in Tees Valley, we are announcing up to £500,000 funding to be allocated to the RDA to help with the establishment of broadband infrastructure and related education and training in the area. This will encourage the establishment and growth of nw companies and the evolution of existing ones.

  The South Yorkshire Jobs Steel Task Force will also extend the programme of regeneration in Sheffield and Rotherham to ensure that the projects recently announced for new inward investment provide employment opportunities for those affected by the steel redundancies. The Task Force is also developing a longer term action plan based on a recent impact study on metals related industries in South Yorkshire. This identified the scope for developing growth in these industries over the next five years.

  This morning in the National Assembly of Wales, a package of measures was also announced. The First Minister made the following statement to the Welsh Assembly:
  "Mr. Presiding Officer, following the final meeting with the steel trade unions earlier this morning, there is now little doubt that Corus is going to press ahead with the job losses announced on 1 February. Since then, the Trade Unions and Corus have been in discussion to see if less drastic restructuring options where possible. The unions put forward a constructive alternative proposals for each plant but these have been turned down by the Company.
  We have worked almost on a daily basis with the unions to press the Company to come to its senses and to think long term. I want to take this opportunity to commend the unions on their unstinting efforts to find a solution to this human tragedy. They come out of this with enormous credit.
  Sadly, this whole episode highlights the short-term thinking of Corus management and their disregard of the communities that will be devastated by their job cuts and closures.
  Attention must now focus on offering practical support to the individuals and communities involved. Today I am announcing a £66 million programme of action designed to help the individuals and communities most affected.
  In a few moments time details of a regeneration package on a comparable scale for steel workers and their communities in England—will be given in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Secretary of State has worked closely with us on this whole issue and will then be briefing Welsh MP's from steel areas as my Ministers and I will be doing. The Parliamentary Under Secretary of Wales will be covering the UK Government employment and other packages.
  The top priority must be to help people deal with the immediate financial problems caused by redundancy. The UK Government will therefore introduce a scheme under Article 56 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty to provide aid for those worker affected under this round of job cuts and those in previous rounds back to 1 January 2000.
  This is a modern version of ISERBS scheme with which steel AMs and unions will be familiar from twenty years ago and involves a number of elements including lump sums for each
  780W
  worker of £2,500. This has been a complex negotiation involving the unions and ourselves as well as the Secretary of State for Wale, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor. The estimated figure for that part of the scheme which applies to Wales is £16 million. It is subject to technical approval from Europe and that approval would include refunding of almost half the gross cost.
  Allied to this, we understand that the unions and Corus will be jointly applying for ESF funds to support a training package for workers facing redundancy. The overall cost of this package is likely to be around £5.7 million in Wales and Corus have agreed to make a significant financial contribution to this.
  £7 million of the £66 million programme for Wales, is for employment and training measures funded by the Assembly. This will pay for extra employment and training provision for workers made redundant by Corus and its contractors plus their families and those in the supply chain.
  Many of those who will lose their jobs have considerable skills and talents which will allow them to find good, new jobs without too much difficulty. Others will need top quality advice and guidance and first class training if they are to move on successfully to new employers.
  We have agreed with the UK Government that the UK-wide Employment Service will increase its job information work in Wales and offer a wide range of services tailored to the requirements of Corus workers. This service will include vigorous marketing to employers and to sectors such as aerospace, electronics and automotive—which are particularly strong in Wales. In areas such as Deeside, special efforts will be made to work closely with major employers such as Airbus to match Corus workers to new job opportunities arising. We have also had approaches form other employers, including those in the gas and construction industries.
  The Employment Service has set up on-site Job Shops at each of the Corus plants affected. Here people can make use of the whole range of employment services. Benefits Agency staff will also be on hand to offer advice.
  We are also giving an extra £250,000 to Careers Companies so that they can offer specialist support for those who need it.
  £5.75 million additional money is being allocated to ELWa to provide training tailored to the precise requirements of the individuals concerned. This strand of the programme of action will include:
  Immediate access to training in place of the normal qualifying period of 6 months unemployment.
  Help for those who are in a position to train while under notice of redundancy.
  Short up-skilling courses linked to the current demand.
  Customised training to help people move from the steel industry to jobs in other sectors.
  Incentives for some employers to recruit Corus workers.
  Training to help with business start-ups; and
  Special help to remove barriers to work such as travelling, the cost of child care and such like.
  We are also looking at how existing programmes such as Modern Apprenticeships and the Modern Skills Diploma for Adults could play their part. We are talking to the Wales TUC and the Steel Trade Unions to see how help could be provided through the Wales Union Learning Fund and other measures. Up to £1 million will be made available for these measures.
  In carrying out its work, the Employment Service will do all it can to balance the needs of those who are already out of work with those of people who are likely to become unemployed in the near future.
  I also welcome the positive response by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to our representations to extend the Heads of the Valleys and Caerphilly Employment Zone to cover Torfaen. This will make additional help available for long term unemployed adults in an area close to the Corus plants affected.

  781W
  The regeneration measures in our programme for action have been developed following detailed discussions with the local councils most closely involved and the WDA. We will invest £43 million in these measures over a period of years.
  These measures, including the training and development package, will be funded from the Assembly's own resources. The same situation applies across the UK. This is not ideal but today our priority must be the future of the steel workers affected. There will be other opportunities to debate the broader issues that this highlights.
  The programme announced does constitute real, additional resourcing and must not be confused with spending committed to other programmes. The Finance Minister will be looking again at the total package in the budget round later this year, in particular the allocation for 2003–04.
  European Structural Funds will also have a role to play in helping those cast aside by Corus and in the regeneration of their communities. For example, we are helping to create a Credit Union for Blaenau Gwent with support from ERDF money. In doing so, we will not be re-directing funding at the expense of any other part of the Objective 1 area. Similar considerations apply to other Assembly programmes such as Communities First—though some priorities may be re-ordered.
  The first element of the regeneration programme will be a £2 million business support package to help suppliers who will be badly hit by the Corus closures to find alternative customers. This will also be used to help workers who are considering setting up their own businesses.
  The WDA will also be making a special effort to highlight the inward investment opportunities presented by the early availability of a high quality workforce in the areas most affected by the Corus job losses.
  If we take in turn the 3 areas of Wales affected; Deeside in North Wales; the communities taking the brunt of the losses in South West Wales at Gorseinon and Port Talbot; and finally that part of South East Wales most affected by the rundown of the plants at Ebbw Vale and Llanwern—Gwent more or less:
  First the position at Deeside where the job losses at Shotton will be a bitter blow to the area. Fortunately, owing to the buoyancy of the local economy, Corus workers will find a wide range of alternative job opportunities open to them compared to their colleagues in the other parts of Wales, with Ebbw Vale at the other end of the scale.
  The focus on Deeside will be on training and employment and business support. It makes sense to concentrate on enabling the maximum number of people to take advantage of the 1,700 new jobs created by Airbus at Broughton with the financial backing of £19.5 million from the Assembly. Those 1,700 jobs are already understood to be supplemented by a further 200 jobs from the recent UPS order for A300 Airbus planes. Furthermore another 150 civilian aerospace jobs have been announced at DARA Sealand. If more needs to be done, then the case for doing so will be given priority when we review the spending plans for 2002–03 onwards.
  At Gorseinon, the local economy has suffered a double blow with the recent announcement of the closure of the Valeo plant. Also, Port Talbot has had its share of the pain with planned redundancies. We are therefore providing some £4 million extra funding for the WDA's South West Division to tackle the regeneration needs of the area. This is in addition to the higher level of investment already planned by the Agency in projects such as the Baglan Energy Park. There are immediate priorities that we shall discuss with the WDA and the local authority.
  Turning to the major job losses in prospect at Ebbw Vale and Llanwern amounting to 2,300 direct Corus job losses plus 1,000 or so contractors. This area of South East Wales—Blaenau Gwent in particular—will need significant help. We will therefore invest nearly £32 million of the £50 million available for the programme
  782W
  of action in this area. The lion's share of this is earmarked for tackling the huge problems created by the complete closure of the Ebbw Vale works.
  We will work with our partners to ensure that we get the very best return from it in terms of new, quality jobs and stronger, more diversified local economies. Improvements to North South transport links between Ebbw Vale and the M4 corridor are bound to figure large in any planning for the future. In addition, we need to see what can be done to improve the quality of life in the towns and communities most affected by the job losses.
  It would be a huge mistake to invest simply in a series of unconnected projects. We must get the strategic framework right. I have therefore decided that we should agree the accelerated development of a comprehensive economic, transport and special framework for that part of South East Wales most affected by the closures and job losses.
  I want the Assembly to work with its partners to complete this exercise by the late autumn. The framework will need to make clear what improvements are required in the area's economic and transport infrastructure. It will therefore help us to prioritise the projects so as to achieve maximum impact. Later today, the Deputy First Minister will be discussing the details of this exercise with the Executive Group of the All Wales Steel Task Force.
  We will also be consulting on the most appropriate structure to assist with this regeneration. Newport county borough council, for example, has suggested the creation of an Urban Regeneration Company. This would not be another quango. It would be a partnership in which the local authority would play a leading role. A URC would be well placed to take advantage of the wide-ranging package of incentives for regeneration announced in the Chancellor's of recent budget. However, we will look to see whether other structures could allow us to capitalise on incentives of this kind, in Newport and elsewhere.
  We have asked the Council, together with other agencies, to come back to us as soon as possible on their preferred structure for the redevelopment of the areas most affected by the job losses at Llanwern. Some £200,000 will be made available immediately in start-up costs should there be support for URC. I do not exclude the possibility of a similar solution in other areas, but the URC does appear particularly appropriate to the circumstances of Newport.
  £5 million will remain unallocated within the package to allow us to move ahead with priority proposals which emerge from the consultation process.
  As regards the future use of redundant land and buildings, the company has committed itself not only to co-operate on drawing up redevelopment plans but also to meeting its obligations on site remediation and its environmental obligations so as to maximise the potential for land regeneration and therefore the benefit to local communities.
  The Assembly administration is working on the clear principle that the public sector should not pick up the tab for the cost of on site reclamation.
  Potentially, the various Corus sites offer enormous economic opportunities for the areas involved. Unlocking these opportunities will take a huge amount of work, time and resources. Short-term job creation will need to take place off-site—on new or existing sits in the steel closure areas.
  Corus has created the problems we are dealing with today. It must also be part of the solution. I am therefore pleased that the Company will use UK Steel Enterprise, its wholly owned job creation and regeneration subsidiary—the successor to British Steel Enterprise, to assist with the creation of new opportunities for its displaced employees.
  A Team Wales approach is needed in which the private sector is also bound to play a major role. We will therefore project manage the programme in the following way:
  The existing All Wales Steel Task Force—which I and the Deputy First Minister chair—will provide the policy leadership,

  783W
  drawing on the advice of the partner organisations involved, including local government, the unions, the agencies and—indeed—Corus itself.
  The Deputy First Minister will Chair the Executive Group of the Task Force. This will meet regularly with senior officers from the various organisations involved to manage and co-ordinate the programme across Wales. This Group will meet later today.
  Existing local arrangements will be built on to manage the process locally. We have enough groups and task forces already without adding to them. But the WDA has agreed to appoint Graham Moore—a senior director—to work with the administration and its partners to help manage this process across Wales and ensure we get the best return from the resources announced today.
  Mr. Presiding Officer, we have worked tirelessly with the unions and our partners in Wales and in Whitehall to convince the Company that it should scrap the job cuts, or if not scrap them, then at the very least defer, suspend or reduce them. These arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Our earlier commitment to do everything in our power to deal effectively with the consequences of the job losses for the individuals and communities involved now comes into play. This programme demonstrates that we have the will to honour it.
  By working with our partners across Wales I am totally confident that the communities involved will ultimately come out of this is a better position than they are now on the basis of new skills, new jobs and a better quality of life. We will report progress on the programme at regular intervals to the Assembly and the relevant committees".
  In all the areas affected, the Government will work with the Regional Development Agencies, British Trade International, the Small Business Service and local partners to support business start-ups and small firm growth and to attract inward investment.

CABINET OFFICE

  Devolution
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what further guidance has been offered to Government Departments on issues relating to devolution. [160485]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I am today placing in the Library a copy of Devolution Guidance Note 8 offering advice to Government departments on Post-Devolution Legislation affecting Northern Ireland. This guidance note will also be made available on the Cabinet Office Internet site at: http://www.cabinet—office gov.uk/constitution/devolution/guidance/ dgn. index. htm.

  Government Car and Despatch Agency
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what performance targets she has set for the Government Car and Despatch Agency for 2001–02. [160484]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have set the Government Car and Despatch Agency the following key performance targets for the year.

  Financial:
  To break even on an accruals basis.

  Efficiency:
  To increase income per pound of direct labour cost by 2 per cent.
  784W
  Quality of Service:
  To improve customer satisfaction by 2 per cent;
  To reduce customer dissatisfaction.

  Environmental:
  To convert to environmentally friendly fuels 75 per cent. of the cars purchased in the year and capable of such conversion.

  Official Information
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what work is being undertaken to enable citizens and businesses to quickly find official information on the internet and elsewhere. [160487]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  This Government are fully aware of the need of citizens and businesses quickly to find official information on the internet, and elsewhere. It should be possible to find information without knowing any technical terms, and without knowing which Department or agency is responsible for it.

  The new e-Government Metadata Framework outlines our policy on metadata. It explains how we will use an internationally recognised standard, the Dublin Core, as the basis for our own system of tagging all information resources. This will make them easier to find and easier to manage, and make life easier for our citizens.

  The Metadata Framework is a natural addition to the e-Government Interoperability Framework, which I launched on 11 October last year. As with the Interoperability Framework, adherence to the Metadata Framework is mandated across the public sector.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what performance targets she has set the Central Office of Information for 2001‒02. [160486]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have set the Central Office of Information the following targets for the year.

  Financial
  1. To achieve break even on an accruals basis.

  Efficiency
  To achieve a unit cost reduction of 2 per cent.

  Quality of Service
  3. To obtain the following results form customer satisfaction feedback:

  (a) an overall customer satisfaction score of at least 8.25 (out of 10);

  (b) at least 96 per cent, of returns to score six or more;

  (c) a 3 per cent. increase in the response rate on the result for 2000–01.

  Departmental Publications
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will take steps to ensure that all unnumbered papers and command papers are made available in an information paper series in a common format and to proper archival standards and sizes. [158211]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Fresh guidance has recently been issued to departments about the arrangements for publication of Command Papers and Agency and other Public Bodies Annual Reports, which it is hoped will lead to a reduction in the number of papers presented to the House not in the numbered Command series. The majority
  785W
  of papers which are not published in either the existing House of Commons Papers or Command series are copies of departmental minutes and other documents which are presented in response to the requirement on the Government to advise the House of financial commitments they have made or which they may have to make. There are currently no plans to include these documents in a separate information series.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if self-employed persons on low incomes are eligible for stakeholder pensions; and if he will make a statement. [158897]

  Mr. Rooker
  Yes. Stakeholder pensions are aimed primarily at employed and self-employed people on moderate and higher earnings who do not have access to an occupational pension scheme. But there is nothing to prevent people from lower income groups contributing to a stakeholder pension, depending on their particular circumstances.

  New Deal 50 Plus
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if employment credit is assessed as income for the purpose of calculating Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for a person setting up their own business under the New Deal 50 plus programme; and if he will make a statement; [158457]

  (2) what circumstances employment credit is not treated as income for the purpose of calculating Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for people on the New Deal 50 plus. [158456]

  Angela Eagle
  The New Deal 50 plus provides advice and assistance to help older people become self-supporting either through securing a job or becoming self-employed. In its first year of national operation, New Deal 50 plus helped over 33,000 people move from benefits into work, nearly 4,000 of whom became self-employed.

  The New Deal 50 plus Employment Credit is an in-work income supplement designed to help people make the transition from benefits into work. So far as self-employed people are concerned, this credit cannot be offset against losses or liabilities.

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are income related benefits and as such, all forms of income, including earnings and the New Deal 50 plus Employment Credit are considered when calculating entitlement. When the Employment Credit ceases, entitlement to these benefits may be reviewed.

  People generally will be better off by moving into work or becoming self-employed and receiving the Employment Credit. In some cases, the Employment Credit will increase an individual's income to a level which means they no longer need Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit.
  786W
  The Employment Credit is treated as income in calculating entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit under all circumstances.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in relation to applications for Incapacity Benefit from residents of Milton Keynes, how many(a) new applications and (b) renewals were made for Incapacity Benefit; how many applicants were required to take a medical examination; and how many of those medical examinations were undertaken at (i) Luton, (ii) Aylesbury, (iii) Euston and (iv) the person's home in each year since 1997. [158208]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the tables.

  Incapacity Benefit claims received in the Milton Keynes Benefits Agency office area

  Thousand

  January to December 1997

  2,943

  January to December 1998

  2,627

  January to December 1999

  2,521

  January to December 2000

  2,489

  Notes:

  1. New claims data are from a 100 per cent, count. A new claim may not result in an award of benefit, for example where a claim is withdrawn.

  2. There are no renewal claims as Incapacity Benefit awards are indefinite. Some claims may link back to earlier periods of entitlement but it is not possible to identify these separately.

  Initial entitlement to Incapacity Benefit requires the claimant to provide medical evidence of their incapacity (normally a general practitioner's certificate). Subsequently, incapacity is assessed under the Personal Capability Assessment but not all claimants are required to attend a medical examination.

  Number of Incapacity Benefit claimants from Milton Keynes who were assessed at Medical Examination Centres (MECS)

  Aylesbury MEC

  Euston MEC

  Luton MEC

  October 1998 to December 1998

  304

  0

  7

  January 1999 to December 1999

  817

  88

  222

  January 2000 to December 2000

  817

  2

  37

  Notes:

  1. Figures are from data supplied by Medical Services and include first and subsequent referrals. Information for individual MECs is not available prior to October 1998.

  2. Figures relate to Incapacity Benefit claimants living in the area covered by Milton Keynes Benefits Agency office.

  3. Information on the number of examinations carried out at claimants' homes is not available.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 25 April 2001,Official Report, column 269W, how many Incapacity Benefit claims were terminated because the claimant (a) died, (b) reached pensionable age, (c) started employment and (d) left the caseload for another reason. [160231]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  787W

  Incapacity Benefit terminations

  April 1998 to March 1999

  Number of terminations

  Death of claimant

  36,000

  Award of retirement pension

  172,000

  Other reason

  591,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are taken from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  2. We do not routinely ask people why they have stopped claiming Incapacity Benefit.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average claim period of an Incapacity Benefit claimant is. [160203]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer I gave on 25 April 2001,Official Report, column 269W.

  Funeral Costs
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Secretary what plans he has to revise the rules to help with funeral costs. [158837]

  Angela Eagle
  Help with funeral costs is available to those on the lowest incomes through the Social Fund. We recently announced that with effect from October 2001 we are amending the Social Fund Funeral Payment regulations to ensure that claimants' relatives who are in receipt of help under the National Asylum Support Service are treated in the same way as those receiving qualifying benefits.

  In addition, the capital of those people who qualify for a Social Fund Funeral Payment for a death occurring on or after 7 October 2001 will no longer be taken into account. This changes the current provision whereby those who qualify have their award reduced by the amount of capital they have over £500 (£1,000 if the claimant or partner is aged 60 or over).

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many former Japanese internees have been refused compensation payments on the grounds of nationality; and in how many cases inquiries are on-going; [158839]

  (2) how many former Japanese internees who were regarded as British before 1981 who held British UK-based passports until their deaths have been refused compensation on the grounds of non-British nationality. [158840]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of the ex-gratia scheme for former captives of the Japanese is a matter for the acting Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, Alan Burnham. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alan Burnham to Mrs. Lait, dated 3 May 2001:
  I am writing in response to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning ex-gratia payments to former civilian internees of the Japanese during the Second World War.
  Up to 17.4.01 a total of 25,414 applications have been received for the ex-gratia payment and payments have been made to a total of 19,373 applicants. 484 applicants have been advised that their application has been rejected as they do not meet the entitlement conditions.
  788W
  Our records indicate that to date no applications have been rejected on grounds of non-British nationality. There are approximately 3600 cases where we are having to undertake further enquiries to confirm eligibility. The issues to be resolved in these cases vary and may include confirming details of internment, determining nationality or establishing bank details to facilitate payment.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many prisoners held captive by the Japanese during world war two are eligible for the Government's compensation payment; how many have been awarded payment; and at what cost. [159364]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of the ex-gratia compensation scheme for former captives of the Japanese is a matter for the acting Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, Alan Burnham. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alan Burnham to Mr. Alan Hurst, dated 3 May 2001:
  I am writing in response to your Parliamentary Question concerning ex-gratia payments payable to former prisoners of war of the Japanese.
  We know the total number of UK service personnel who were captured in the Far East during the Second World War but there is no precise way to determine how many survive today. Accordingly it is difficult to provide a precise estimate of the numbers of people eligible for a payment.
  As at 30 April 2001 a total of 19,717 ex-gratia payments had been made at a total cost of £197,170,000. Of these, 7635 were made to former prisoners of war, 10671 to the surviving spouses of former prisoners of war, 989 to former civilian internees and 422 to the surviving spouses of former civilian internees.
  Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you require any further information.

  Home Visits
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of home visits in each year since 1996. [159422]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 27 April 2001]: The information that is available is in the table.

  Cost (£)

  1998–99

  5,796,222

  1999–2000

  53,364,807

  2000–01

  50,819,559

  1 Costs are for full years except 2000–01, which is up to February 2001

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evidence he has collated on the impact of the Targeting Fraud advertising campaign on the number of people reported for benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement. [159698]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: After years of neglect, we have put in place an effective strategy for tackling benefit fraud. As part of this, the Targeting Fraud advertising campaign is intended to change public attitudes in the longer-term by positively reinforcing honest behaviour, creating a climate of intolerance to

  789W
  benefit fraud and undermining its social acceptability. It is not intended specifically to increase the number of people reported for benefit fraud.

  An evaluation of the national Targeting Fraud campaign is being conducted and will be published in due course. A report on the pilot stage of the campaign showed that it was successful in changing public attitudes towards benefit fraud.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to use the information collected through the current census to help reduce the incidence of benefit fraud. [159702]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: None. Confidentiality of the census is key to its success. The census produces only statistics and people can be assured that no information is released which allows identification of individuals or households.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints have been made about the administration of Attendance Allowance in each month since January 1997. [159703]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Attendance Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Willetts, dated 1 May 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many complaints have been made about the administration of Attendance Allowance in each month since January 1997.
  Information is not available prior to April 1998. From April 1998, the number of complaints made about Attendance Allowance by letter, telephone or in person is in the table.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  April

  47

  96

  327

  May

  54

  146

  362

  June

  70

  159

  398

  July

  71

  175

  420

  August

  104

  209

  342

  September

  105

  185

  280

  October

  90

  199

  278

  November

  59

  188

  251

  December

  51

  117

  178

  January

  90

  301

  220

  February

  109

  294

  188

  March

  99

  437

  260

  Whilst the above figures may include complaints about the administration of the Attendance Allowance, it should be noted that they also include general expressions of disagreement with the amount of benefit awarded. Disputes of this nature must be pursued through the decision making and appeals process.
  You will be aware from my reply of 10 April 2001 to your previous Parliamentary Question about Disability Living Allowance complaints that they were subject to a steady increase arising from a temporary backlog of work following the introduction of new decision making and appeals procedures. Attendance Allowance claims and subsequent complaints were similarly adversely affected but, as with Disability Living Allowance, the backlog of work has now been cleared and the overall level of complaints has reduced since August 2000.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what his Department's policy is regarding the purchase of(a) hydrocarbons and (b) other environmentally benign refrigerants to meet the refrigeration and other relevant energy needs of buildings and premises owned and leased by his Department; what guidance he has issued on this subject to regional and local departmental offices; and if he will make a statement; [160015]

  (2) to what extent his Department's headquarters buildings use hydrofluorocarbons for (a) refrigeration and (b) air conditioning; what amounts of hydrofluorocarbons have been purchased in each year since 1995; and what plans he has to phase out the (i) purchase and (ii) use of hydrofluorocarbons; [160013]

  (3) which London headquarters building or premises owned and leased by his Department use (a) chlorofluorocarbons and (b) hydrochlorofluorocarbons for refrigeration and other relevant energy needs; if he will publish details of such use and the reasons for it; and what guidance he has issued on this subject to regional and local DSS offices. [160021]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: The Department's Improvement Programme for Greening Operations requires the Department and its Estates Partners to specify against products with a high global warming potential.

  We and our Estates Partners are committed to replacing any such system at the end of its useful life, or before, in accordance with the necessary protocols relevant at the time, and the general phasing out of all ozone depleting substances. Replacement systems will use the new, more environmentally friendly products.

  It is not possible to provide details for the amounts of hydrofluorocarbons purchased by, or on behalf of the Department since 1995.

  special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many special advisers worked in his Department from 1997 to date; [160025]

  (2) what the total cost was of employing special advisers in his Department from 1997 to date. [160041]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 May 2001]: Since May 1997 no more than two special advisers have been in post at any one time.

  For the total cost of employing special advisers I refer the hon. Member to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, 1 May 2001, Official Report, column 607W.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much will be spent on the Minimum Income Guarantee in each of the financial years between 2000–01 and 2003–04. [160156]
  791W
  Mr. Rooker
  Expenditure on the Minimum Income Guarantee, in Great Britain, is estimated at £4 billion in 2000–01 rising to £4.5 billion in 2001–02, £4.6 billion in 2002–03 and £4.8 billion in 2003–04.

  Notes:

  1. These figures are based on the estimated outturn expenditure for 2000–01 and forecast expenditure plans for 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion.

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2001,Official Report, column 152W, on occupational pensions, how many individuals' pensions are required to be paid to at least the value of the guaranteed minimum pension in respect of service between 1978 and 1997 disaggregated by those who are (a) of working age and (b) above working age. [160164]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information is not available in the format requested. The latest survey of occupational pension schemes produced by the Government Actuary's Department does, however, indicate that in 1995 there were around 8.3 million active members of those schemes that are required to pay pensions at least to the value of the Guaranteed Minimum Pension.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Government will publish the reports from the Pension Provision Group on pension provision for the self-employed and the impact on pensions of changes in the labour market. [160223]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Pension Provision Group are currently reviewing both reports in the light of the Government's Pension Credit proposals. It is anticipated that both reports will be ready for publication later in the year.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many lone parents on Income Support have a youngest child aged(a) between five and eight, (b) between nine and 12 and (c) between 13 and 15 years; [160236]

  (2) when personal adviser meetings for lone parents whose youngest child is below the age of five years will be introduced; [160233]

  (3) how many personal advisers for the New Deal for Lone Parents there have been in each month since the scheme began; and how many additional advisers have been employed to deal with the start of compulsory interviews; [160235]

  (4) what sanctions will be imposed upon lone parents who fail to attend the compulsory personal adviser meetings. [160234]

  Mr. Bayley
  The full national New Deal for Lone Parents programme has been in operation since October 1998, after being piloted from July 1997. By the end of February 2001, 86,161 lone parents have obtained jobs through the programme and a further 24,104 have entered 792W
  education and training. From April 2001 further support is being provided for lone parents taking up training or part-time jobs, including help with child care costs.

  To ensure that as many lone parents as possible are aware of the help and support available to help them move into work, compulsory personal adviser meetings have been introduced from 30 April for lone parents claiming Income Support whose youngest child is of school age. Personal adviser meetings will be extended to lone parents with a youngest child of below five years old in some areas from October 2001 and then nationally from April 2002.

  Personal adviser meetings are a condition of claiming Income Support. If a lone parent fails, without good cause, to participate in a personal adviser meeting when making a claim to Income Support, then the claim will not be processed. If a lone parent making a claim has received payment of Income Support because the meeting was deferred, but then fails to participate without good cause, Income Support will be withdrawn. If a lone parent is already receiving Income Support and fails without good cause to participate in the meeting, their Income Support will be reduced by 20 per cent. of the amount applicable for a single person aged not less than 25 years old. We do not expect to have to apply these sanctions very often. Personal Advisers will make several attempts to ensure that lone parents fully understand how important these meetings are before taking any action that will affect benefits.

  Personal advisers are an essential element of the New Deal for Lone Parents service. Figures are not kept in the format requested but, since the national launch of the New Deal for Lone Parents, resources have been allocated for around 800 full-time staff. To support the delivery of personal adviser meetings, resources will be allocated for a further 450 staff by the end of 2001–02.

  Personal Adviser meetings will be gradually rolled out to lone parents currently claiming Income Support over the next few years. The latest Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry (November 2000) estimates that there are 77,800 lone parents with a youngest child of 13 to 15 years old claiming Income Support. There are a further 150,500 lone parents claiming Income Support with a youngest child of nine to 12 years old and 214,100 with a youngest child of five to eight years old1.

  Since May 1997 the number of lone parents dependent on Income Support has fallen by over 100,000. The choices we are offering lone parents are building on this success and helping more of them move from benefit dependence into work.
  1 The estimates are based on a sample of cases, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Lone Parents are defined as single claimants who have dependants but do not receive the disability or pensioner premium.

  Football Championships (Benefit Loss)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the cases of people travelling to the Euro 2000 Football Championships investigated by the Benefits Agency have led to loss of benefits. [160238]
  793W
  Mr. Rooker
  Fifty-two cases were investigated by the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service following referrals from the Belgian Authorities. As a result of these investigations, four claims have been withdrawn and two overpayments identified.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much of the allocated civil aid budget for personal injury cases has been spent on expanding the legal advice and representation budget for other areas of civil legal aid since the coming into force of the Access to Justice Act 1999. [R] [157436]

  Mr. Lock
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the Access to Justice Act 1999, expenditure is essentially demand led. With the exception of the new, controlled budget for general civil legal help, funds are not specifically allocated to particular areas of law. However, it has been possible to increase the amount available for advice and assistance since implementation of the Access to Justice Act; in 2000–01 the amount spent on civil advice and assistance (now legal help) totalled £233 million, an increase of £28 million on the previous year. This increase would not have been possible if most personal injury cases remained within the scope of public funding.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much civil legal aid was allocated for personal injury cases in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [R] [157435]

  Mr. Lock
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: No funds from the civil legal aid budget were specifically allocated for personal injury cases. However, in terms of expenditure, the latest year for which information is available is 1997–98 (changes to the Legal Services Commission's computer systems mean that information is not yet available for 1998–99 onwards). In that year, the cost of these cases was £307.7 million (gross) of which £242.1 million was recovered by way of contributions received or costs and damages received on behalf of the assisted persons. In addition it is estimated that the cost to the Legal Services Commission of administering these cases was £2.9 million.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent on(a) criminal and (b) civil legal aid in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02. [R] [157429]

  Mr. Lock
  [holding answer 10 April 2001]: Gross expenditure, together with the total amounts recovered by way of contributions from assisted persons and from costs
  794W
  and damages received, were, or are expected to be, as set out in the table:

  £ million

  Gross

  Recovered

  Criminal

  Civil

  Criminal

  Civil

  1998–99

  784

  1,275

  5

  430

  1999–2000

  783

  1,190

  9

  414

  2000–011

  878

  1,218

  7

  424

  2001–022

  874

  1,034

  7

  371

  1 Estimated

  2 Forecast

  These figures differ from the amounts voted by Parliament which are net of amounts recovered.

  Magistrates (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to encourage people from ethnic minority communities to become magistrates. [160591]

  Jane Kennedy
  Schemes to allow people from the ethnic communities to shadow magistrates in order to encourage a wider understanding of their role will be established in June with Operation Black Vote. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has asked officials to begin work to establish the schemes and to look at ways his local Advisory Committees can make better contacts with particular community groups to encourage applications. Operation Black Vote will begin the task of recruiting people to take part in the shadowing schemes during May. There will initially be seven pilot areas, two in London and one each in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Cardiff and Oldham.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  People's Peerages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many applicants for a people's peerage are being recommended for appointment; and if she will make a statement. [159381]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Fifteen.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 764W, on people's peerages, what estimate she has made of the cost of providing the answer sought. [159421]

  Mrs. Beckett
  That it was likely to be in excess of the guidelines figure beyond which an answer stands to be refused. My hon. Friend will also recall from the second part of the answer that to release the information requested would have been in breach of the Appointments Commission's undertakings to treat all personal information in individual applications in strict confidence.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

London Transport: Public/Private Partnership
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what, date they expect the public/private partnership for London Transport to be implemented.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, I understand that London Transport is aiming to have completed all three public/private partnership competitions by the autumn. The board of London Transport yesterday selected preferred bidders for the two deep tube contracts. The preferred bidder for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly Lines infrastructure company is Tube Lines. The preferred bidder for the Bakerloo, Central and Victoria Lines infrastructure company is Metronet. London Transport expects to select a preferred bidder for the sub-surface lines contract in the summer.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, which takes us forward. He will forgive me if I say that it is not as interesting as the answer that he might have given to a much more important question that we might have been considering on this day.
It is a matter of regret that London has ceased to hold its breath waiting for a conclusion to this development in its transport system. What contingency plan do the Government have in the event that the judicial review that was initiated by Transport for London and the mayor is successful?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Government are confident that the PPP will be the best deal for Londoners and that it will bring us a modern, safe and reliable tube. The Government are not party to the legal action that is currently taking place and I shall refrain from commenting on it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, could the Minister indicate the extent to which, under the PPP arrangements, there will be a unified management structure, particularly in relation to the important issue of safety?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we believe that the PPP will maintain and improve safety. It must satisfy the rigorous safety checks of the independent Health and Safety Executive. The two preferred bidders for the infrastructure companies are in place and it will be evident to noble Lords that they share our concern for safety on the Underground.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, could the Minister help the House by illustrating the way in which the divided management structures will work and could he explain how many separate track and train operating companies will work simultaneously in the Waterloo Station complex when the plans are fully under way?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure from all the evidence that is available, some of which has been circulated to noble Lords and others, that the infrastructure companies, when they are in place, will still have a positive relationship with the publicly owned operating company and London Underground. It will simply be part of the good running of the tube for the infrastructure companies and London Underground management to ensure that the most practical and sensible operations are in hand.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the commitment reported in today's Daily Telegraph by Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Tube Lines, to,
"spend £2 billion on capital improvements over the first seven years",
is very good news for Londoners and that, so long as that promise is held to, it will provide a complete answer to the criticisms of the Government's approach made by the mayor of London and Mr Kiley?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I a m delighted by the positive statements that have been made by the two preferred bidders. They include some of our best companies in the construction and transport industries in the United Kingdom. I should stress that London Underground has a very good safety record. The PPP would go ahead only when the safety arrangements were accepted by the independent HSE. In terms of accidental passenger fatalities, which were measured by an independent international study, London Underground is twice as safe as the system in Paris and four times as safe as that in New York.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister ask his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister not to denigrate again the sincerity of those who question the safety of the proposed arrangements under the PPP? I am aware that the Minister believes that view to be mistaken, but that does not give him or his right honourable friend the entitlement to question the sincerity of those who hold it. Will he please take on board the impression that that approach gives to voters and, within this House, to non-voters as well?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, neither my right honourable friend nor I wish to impugn anyone's motives. We can, however, in all propriety dispute some of the alarming statements that have been made about the intentions of the Government, London Underground management and, now, the preferred bidders. I assure noble Lords, as I have done frequently, that safety is the highest priority for all concerned.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the Government publish the financial details of those transactions, which would indicate to the public, who have an interest in this matter, why the Government are pursuing the PPP, which pays rather more and is more economic generally to the taxpayer than other possible solutions that may commend themselves?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Government have invested an average of £530 million a year in the core underground network. We should compare that with the £395 million over the lifetime of the previous Government. I also make it clear that the National Audit Office praised London Underground for the extremely thorough job that it did estimating the costs of the public sector comparator and the bids.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred obliquely to the welcome decision by the RMT to call off today's tube strike. Will the Minister pay tribute to the role played by John Monks and the TUC in persuading the RMT executive to change its mind at the 11th hour? Does he agree that that was in marked contrast to the attitude shown by the mayor of London?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is excellent news that the strike by the RMT has been called off. I welcome the role played by John Monks and the TUC in achieving that. I do not think that that strike action is justified. Along with my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I urge the RMT to call off the threat of future strikes.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister explain why they were not successful with South West Trains? Moreover, surely the strike was not called off; it was simply postponed.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I will not engage in the semantics of the situation. Yesterday's strike was called off, but we are told that another strike is planned for 15th May. I am sure that the TUC, under John Monks and his colleagues, will do everything in its power to ensure that that strike, too. is called off. I am sure that it is a matter of regret to all of us that a similar decision was not made in relation to the dispute on our railways. I am also sure that the enduring good sense of the TUC will play a part in that regard in future.

Millennium Dome: Market Testing
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the result of the market testing carried out in relation to the sale of the Millennium Dome will be known.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, as was announced to Parliament on 26th April, English Partnerships has received more than 100 informal expressions of interest for the Dome and the development of other parts of the Greenwich peninsula during and since the Legacy negotiations. The Government are looking at these, and, in parallel, testing the market for other interest in using the Dome. Discussions with a number of key organisations are focused at this stage on a small number of potential uses and will take several weeks to complete.
It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to disclose more details. Once the market testing has been completed and properly considered, we will announce details of the future process.
The process being followed is consistent with professional advice and with the aim of securing an appropriate use for the Dome, which contributes towards the long-term regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. We expect a buyer to emerge during the course of this year.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for reading out his Written Answer of last week. Will he share with noble Lords the advice the Government received on the difference in value between the sale of the Millennium Dome site with and without the Dome structure? If he finds precision difficult to the nearest £10 million, will he explain on what basis,
"the Government are keen to preserve the benefits of this magnificent structure"?—[Official Report, 26/4/01; col. WA232.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the decision to keep the Dome was based upon studies made which indicated that in terms of value for money that was the sensible course. It is not possible at this stage to give a detailed comparison because we do not know what the precise level of the bids will be. I do not believe there is any doubt but that there have been substantial regenerative benefits from having the Dome—sweeping environmental and other improvements, including a new ecologically based river terrace and flood defence for Greenwich; the Greenwich Millennium Village; a 162-bed hotel; a state-of-the-art cinema complex; a new primary school; a brand new health centre expected to open soon; major retail outlets; new roads; new drains and other servicing on a grand scale; and an estimate by the London Borough of Greenwich of 30,000 jobs within the next few years. I regard those as benefits well worth fighting for.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell us what markets the Government are testing? Will he also confirm that he has not ruled out the possibility of keeping the Dome in public hands and renting it out thereafter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, our intention is to find a buyer for the Dome. We are testing the markets where people may be interested in buying the Dome.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the current cost of maintaining the Dome as it stands and does he feel that that represents good value for money?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is £600,000 a month.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, many in the House will know my background in local government. Therefore, while I appreciate the national interest in the site, can the Minister tell us whether the local authority and the people of Greenwich made their views known as to what they would like to see happen to the site?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the local authority and the people of Greenwich are clear in their view that the Dome should stay. They regard it as something that has had a transforming effect on the area. As everybody in the House knows, before the Dome came the peninsula was derelict and unusable as a result of contamination caused by the British Gas plant. The coming of the Dome, decided upon by the previous administration, led to 300 acres of what was unusable land being made usable. That has had a transforming effect on the area and the local community is very pleased with the result.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the last time I asked this question the Minister said that the suggestion was one of the options being considered. Why cannot the Dome be used as an indoor, all-sports arena which could incorporate boxing, swimming and track? That would make it invaluable for a future Commonwealth Games and of great use if there was a bid for the Olympics.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I indicated, the market is being tested. It is for the market to come forward and for us to discuss with the market the things that can be done with the Dome.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the Minister's remarks. I have the greatest difficulty in deciding whether or not the Dome is really for sale. What does the "market testing" consist of? The most interesting thing I heard the Minister say was, "We are waiting for buyers to emerge". Can we have more clarity as to whether the Dome is for sale and, if so, on what basis?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hoped I had explained both in the Written Answer and again today.
812
On the advice of people who sell property, experts in the sale of property are approaching people who may be interested in buying the Dome. They are having discussions as to what they see as the best way to market the Dome and what its specific uses may be. That is consistent with the professional advice we received.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, has my noble and learned friend had the pleasure. as I had today, of travelling from the Dome to your Lordships' House by the wonderful Jubilee Line which was provided for us in that part of London? As the housing to which my noble and learned friend referred earlier has been described as "fit for kings and queens", does he agree that if any noble Lords are looking for a home in London, Greenwich would be a wonderful place for them to settle? Within 20 minutes they can travel from the Dome straight to your Lordships' House.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have not had the pleasure of that journey today, but I have had the pleasure on many previous occasions. I know that many other Members of your Lordships' House have had the same pleasure, indeed they have had that pleasure with me on a number of occasions. All have told me what a good trip it is from the Dome to the Lords and from the Lords to the Dome.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, can the Minister answer the Question of my noble friend Lady Noakes? He kindly read out a Written Answer. He may not have noticed that my noble friend had changed her Question today. When is the market testing to be concluded? Or have the Government let the companies have an open contract?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I answered the Question. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated, she had read the Written Answer I gave on Thursday of last week which said that the Government were looking at options and in parallel testing the market for others interested in using the Dome. Discussions with a number of key organisations are focused at this stage on a small number of potential users and will take several weeks to complete.

Home Detention Curfew Scheme
3.16 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prisoners have been released on the home detention curfew scheme since its introduction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, as of 31st March 2001, 33,737 prisoners have been released from prison on the home detention curfew scheme which came into force in January 1999.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We have long had a certain amount of remission for good conduct, but we have now reached the position where somebody sentenced to six months in prison actually serves six weeks. How will that help with either punishment or rehabilitation?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, home detention curfews provide selected, short-term prisoners with a monitored return to the community. That was designed as part of the original trial periods set out by the last government back in 1995–96 when pilots were undertaken. I presume the noble Lord was then happy with the scheme since it was his party in government which trialled it. At that stage it had a success rate of 82 per cent. Since we have been in government, the success rate of HDC has reached 94 per cent.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, given the success of the home detention curfew, should not Her Majesty's Government promote a greater use of the curfew with electronic tagging and monitoring as a court sentence? In that way, many more non-violent offenders need not be sent to prison and therefore the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would be better answered.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at present only around 30 per cent of those who may be eligible for HDC are placed on HDC. The Government took a cautious approach. We are dealing with the important matter of public safety. In those circumstances it is right to proceed cautiously. The scheme has been very successful and certainly the Home Affairs Select Committee endorsed that view in its report Alternatives to Custody, which members of Her Majesty's Opposition signed up to back in 1998.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that many civilised countries manage to maintain public safety without keeping such a high proportion of their citizenry in prison? Instead of imagining that building more prisons and sending more people to prison is necessarily the answer to crime and punishment, should not we be experimenting still further with alternatives to prison?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we share that common objective. However, public protection is paramount. We have introduced a number of measures in legislation which provide alternatives to prison. That was precisely the purpose of the last piece of legislation which we put through Parliament in the last Session, and which was welcomed in those terms. We want to see a variety of penalties used, not just custody. With the new Probation Service up and running, I believe that we can have great confidence in the future of that approach.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, of the 33,000 prisoners released under the scheme, can the Minister say how many have subsequently been confined to prison?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as of 31st March this year, recalls made on the grounds of breach of curfew, including tampering with the equipment, numbered 1,050. Recalls made on the grounds of inability to monitor, through no fault of the curfewee, numbered 465. As I said at the outset, the success rate is 94 per cent, which is an impressive statistic.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it the case that between January 1999 and March of this year, 67 people convicted of manslaughter, eight of attempted murder, and 4,443 of wounding, aggravated bodily harm and grievous bodily harm were all released on tagging under this system, of whom 119 re-offended with the same offence? How does that square with the Statement given by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons in November 1999, in which he said:
"We have no plans or intention whatever to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop—none whatever"?
What is a serious offence under his definition?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a matter of terrible public regret if anybody released under the home detention curfew scheme commits an offence, perhaps one similar to that for which they are in prison. I cannot accept the noble Lord's analysis or interpretation. It is the case that when in government his own party effectively introduced through the Criminal Justice Act 1991 an early release scheme by remitting 50 per cent of the length of the sentence. Approximately 90,000 prisoners, mostly short term, are released from prison every year under arrangements laid down by the previous government. The bonus and benefit of home detention curfew, a scheme which we have attempted to perfect, is that those who are released up to two months before the end of their sentence are fully and properly monitored. I believe that that gives us far greater control over those former prisoners.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House anything about the reconviction rates of persons released on HDC compared to others who have committed similar offences and served their full terms?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Home Office research suggests that only 2.1 per cent of curfewees were reconvicted for offences committed during the curfew period which can last up to two months. Only 10.2 per cent had reoffended, including offences committed during the HDC period, up to six months after their normal release date, compared to—this is the key statistic—40.5 per cent of those who were eligible but not granted home detention curfew. That shows that the risk assessment procedures, which have been adopted to determine who should get HDC, are working extremely well.

Virgin Trains: Fares
3.27 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with Virgin Trains in relation to its intention to increase rail fares.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we made clear that we found the intention by Virgin Trains to increase rail fares regrettable. We asked the Strategic Rail Authority to meet Virgin Trains to express Ministers' concerns, which they did on 12th April.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in view of the increase in rail fares by Virgin Trains of almost 10 per cent, can my noble friend tell the House whether an assurance was received by him from Sir Richard Branson and Virgin that they would not continue to exercise a monopoly position on the West Coast Main Line or continue to increase fares well beyond inflation, thereby inflicting further suffering on customers on that line?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Strategic Rail Authority expressed its disappointment at the magnitude of the proposed increases and its concern that that would not assist the drive to encourage passengers to use the railway. The Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin Trains agreed that more effort had to be put into communicating to passengers details of cheap fares so that they clearly understood the alternative offers available. Virgin will proceed with the proposed increases, which are permissible under the franchise agreement.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as the Government are putting over £6 billion into the West Coast Main Line, on which Virgin Trains operate, that it would be reasonable for them to have some control over the fares paid by the taxpayer for using that line?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there are legally-binding contracts between the Strategic Rail Authority and the train operating companies which limit increases on regulated fares. The cap on such fares is RPI inflation minus 1 per cent. The 60 per cent of unregulated fares have not increased above inflation over the past three years. We have here an unfortunate example of a standard open return ticket which Virgin has increased by 70 per cent. To put that in perspective, on other regulated fares there has been a fall in real terms of 18 per cent over the period. The difference is contained in a market strategy.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House the factors which the Government would take into account, apart from the question of affordability, in deciding whether to extend the scope of fares regulation?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am in the ironic position of being asked a question by a member
816
of the Strategic Rail Authority on whose advice would depend for the answer. I imagine that the Strategic Rail Authority will associate the need for a clearer outline of fare options with whatever new franchising proposals it is judging. No doubt future franchising agreements will reflect what success that has.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, much of the income of Virgin Trains is derived from train fares paid by warrants through government departments. Many of those are for first-class tickets. I declare an interest in that the Lord Chancellor pays my train fare on a regular basis. Why have not the Government negotiated with Virgin for senior citizens such as me to charge to the Government the equivalent of a senior citizen's fare rather than the full fare? In my case the difference in fare is between £139 and £93. Overall, that is a substantial amount.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords. I shall certainly look further into that matter! There are concessionary rail cards for young persons, as well as senior citizens and the disabled, which are protected. There are others, such as the Network Card, of which the noble Baroness may be aware, which are offered on a voluntary basis. I shall certainly consider whether we can allow everyone the advantages which clearly the Lord Chancellor affords.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that Virgin Train fares are probably the highest in the world charged by any railway company; that the service must be one of the worst; that even if there are cheap fares on special offer it is virtually a lottery to try to discover whether they exist, when they exist and how to acquire them, and that the whole situation is a shambles?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that it is virtually impossible to draw international comparisons of the cost of rail journeys. United Kingdom train operators offer a wide range of standard and discounted rail tickets. Discount tickets are not so widely available in other countries, where fares are typically based on a simple price-per-kilometre basis.
After Questions today, I have a meeting during which I look forward to hearing from the rail industry that 98 per cent of services are scheduled as normal and that 82 per cent of those are running punctually as against 86 per cent before Hatfield.

Standing Orders (Private Business)
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. With your Lordships' permission. I shall move all the amendments together. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not in his place and therefore I shall not need to write to him on this

817
occasion. The 12 amendments broadly speaking fall into three categories. First, Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 relate to human rights. As they are of particular importance, I hope that the House will allow me a little time to explain—although I hope that it does not take as long as it did on Monday.
Section 19(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires Ministers of the Crown to make statements to Parliament as to whether in their opinion public Bills are compatible with convention rights, but there is no equivalent provision for Private Bills. The absence of such a provision has been a matter of concern to some Members of Parliament and as a result most Private Bills in the House of Commons were blocked in the last Session.
From the start of the present Session, the parliamentary agents who act for the promoters of Private Bills have agreed to provide a statement of opinion on behalf of the promoters. That has already been done for this Session's two new Private Bills. The third amendment I am moving today embodies that in an amendment to Private Business Standing Orders.
However, those who have been concerned about the matter have been anxious that the Government should express their own opinion as to the compatibility of Bills with the convention rights. That has been discussed by Ministers and officials at some length over the past 18 months and the Government have agreed to report on the statement of opinion by the promoters. The sixth amendment is intended to enshrine that in Standing Orders. The other amendments relating to human rights are subsidiary to the sixth amendment.
It may be helpful if I were to inform the House that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has agreed to this approach and the amendments have been agreed by the Private Bill Offices of both Houses and discussed extensively with the Government and with parliamentary agents. The proposed procedure would not require the Joint Committee on Human Rights to consider Private Bills but would facilitate such consideration if it chose to do so.
Amendment No. 7 relates to reports by Ministers of the Crown. It brings us helpfully into line with the House of Commons Private Business Standing Orders on this issue and Amendment No. 1 provides a definition of "Minister of the Crown", which will apply to all Standing Orders.
Thirdly, Amendment No. 2 to Standing Order 27 is needed to correct a printing error in the current text.
Finally, when I moved a substantial number of amendments to Private Business Standing Orders in March, I informed your Lordships that it is intended shortly to publish a new edition of the House of Lords Private Business Standing Orders which would not only include the amendments but would also incorporate some stylistic changes to make them easier to read and use. Having now seen these changes, most of which are matters of paragraphing and none of which alter the substance of the Standing Orders in any
818
way, I considered that the amendments to Standing Order 167, numbered 9 to 12, should be moved formally on the Floor of the House.
As I understand it, these do not change the substance of Standing Order 167 in any way, but simply reflect modern legislative drafting practice, which is to refer to individuals under the age of 18 as "minors" rather than "infants". I have a teenage granddaughter and I know that to refer to her as an infant would be to cause a riot!
I hope that the House will therefore agree to these drafting amendments and will support my request that they should also agree that the Standing Orders should be reprinted as amended with the incorporation of a number of stylistic changes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to private business be amended, with effect from 27th November 2001, as follows:
Amendment No.
Standing Order 1
1. Line 46, at end insert—
""minister of the Crown" means the holder of an office in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and includes the Treasury;"
Standing Order 27
2. Line 52, leave out from "borough, or" to "and if" in line 53 and insert "(in Wales) of the county or county borough or (in Scotland) of the local government area"
Standing Order 38
3. Line 13, at end insert—
"(2A) The printed memorandum shall include a statement of opinion, by or on behalf of the promoters, as to the compatibility of the provisions of the bill with the Convention rights (as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998)."
Standing Order 39
4. Line 7, after "Treasury," insert "the Privy Council Office,"
Standing Order 91
5. Line 5, at end insert—
"(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1) of this standing order, where in the case of a private bill which has been read a first time no report from a minister of the Crown has been presented to the House under Standing Order 98A, the Chairman of Committees may, if he thinks fit, direct the attention of the House to that fact."
After Standing Order 98
6. Insert the following new Standing Order—
"Reports concerning human rights.
98A. In the case of a private bill originating in this House or brought from the House of Commons, a report from a minister of the Crown on the statement of opinion required by Standing Order 38(2A) shall be presented to the House (by being deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments) not later than the second sitting day after that on which the bill was read a first time."
Standing Order 127
7. Leave out Standing Order 127 and insert—
"Reports by ministers of the Crown.
127.—(1) All reports on a private bill, or its objects, which are—

(a) made by a minister of the Crown; and

(b) presented to the House by being deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments,

shall stand referred to the committee on the bill.
(2) Where a recommendation is made in any such report, the committee—

(a) may, if they think fit, hear an officer of the minister in explanation of the recommendation; and

(b) shall note the recommendation in their report and, if they do not agree to it, shall state their reasons for dissenting."

Standing Order 142
(8) Line 15, at end insert "(by being deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments)."
Standing Order 167
(9) Line 2, leave out "(hereinafter referred to as an infant)" and insert "(in this order referred to as a minor)."
(10) Line 5. leave out "such infant" and insert "the minor."
11. Line 8, leave out "such infant" and insert "the minor."
12. Line 13. leave out "infants" and insert "minors."—(The Chairman of Committees)
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question of clarification about Amendment No. 6. It relates to a Minister of the Crown giving an opinion about the Human Rights aspect of a Private Bill. Using one's common sense, I assume as a matter of practice that if a Minister of the Crown thought that a Bill infringed human rights it would not come forward. However, I understood the Chairman of Committees to have said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights would have no status in this matter.
Let us suppose that the Minister has said, "No, there is no human rights infringement", and, the Joint Committee not being involved, a Member of your Lordships' House on examining such a Private Bill said, "I believe that there is an infringement of human rights here". Would he or she automatically be ruled out of order on the question of human rights or is it a matter that a noble Lord could raise in relation to a Private Bill?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, further to that matter, in this day and age I readily understand why the promoters are expected to sign a certificate stating that the Private Bill in question is compatible with the human rights legislation. However, I do not understand why on earth the Government should insist—and I understand from the Chairman of Committees that the Government have insisted—that we have Amendment No. 6 before us. What will happen will be that the Minister of the Crown will second guess the promoters, possibly without any real knowledge of the matter in question.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, the Joint Committee can examine the statement. Indeed, I made that clear in my previous remarks. I said that the proposed procedure would not require the Joint Committee to consider Private Bills but would facilitate such consideration if it chose to do so. Therefore it is able to do so and presumably an objection from a noble Lord might well refer that matter back to the Joint Committee in certain circumstances. If I am wrong about that, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
820
As regards the Government's position, the fact is that, like all legislation, an Act coming from the passage of such a Bill can be challenged and judged in the courts both in the United Kingdom and Strasbourg. At that point, the Government might have some standing in it and it is therefore felt wise that they should make a statement before the matter gets to that stage. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Culture and Recreation Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Culture and Recreation Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 25,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 26 to 33,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 34 and 35,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 36 to 38,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 39 to 44,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 45 to 50,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 51 and 52.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foot and Mouth Disease
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the foot and mouth outbreak. This is the 10th time I have updated the House on the outbreak. Once again, I would like to provide details of the latest position on the disease, set out the measures the Government are taking and give right honourable and honourable Members the opportunity to raise points with me.
"As of midday today, there had been 1,537 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease In Great Britain. Since I spoke to the House last week, the average number of cases per day has fallen further, from 16 in the week ending 22nd April, to 11 in the

821
week ending 29th April. This continues the decline of the disease from the highest point of 43 cases per day in the week ending 1st April.
"Over 1.4 million animals have now been slaughtered for disease control purposes. A further 630,000 animals have been slaughtered under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. Perhaps I may remind the House that in the 1967 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which lasted for over seven months, only 434,000 animals were slaughtered in total. The current outbreak is, as I have said before, unprecedented in scale and in the speed at which it spread.
"There is no longer any backlog of animals awaiting disposal anywhere in Great Britain. The disposal backlog in Devon to which I referred last week will have been cleared by the end of today. There are small numbers of animals awaiting slaughter but the position has improved greatly over the past few weeks. This achievement is the result of a concerted effort over the past few days and weeks, using all disposal methods—rendering, burning, incinerating, landfill and burial—according to need and as appropriate in the local circumstances.
"We have been able to lift restrictions in 10 different areas where there have been no new cases for 30 days and thorough veterinary and serological testing has taken place. Some 16,000 farms have now benefited from the lifting of the tighter movement restrictions associated with infected areas. This represents about 13 per cent of the number of farms which were ever restricted.
"We can therefore be optimistic about the future course of the disease, although the epidemiologists warn us that cases will continue to occur for some time yet. What is clear is that our policy was the right one: to bear down on the outbreak swiftly and prevent greater spread of the disease by rapid slaughtering within 24 hours of the report of a new case, and tracing dangerous contacts and tackling the disease on contiguous premises within 48 hours. This has been crucial to the control of the epidemic.
"Last week I was able to announce to the House a broadening of the existing areas of discretion for local veterinary judgment in relation to culling on a neighbouring farm. This has provided some relief from automatic slaughter of cattle and has been generally welcomed by farmers, as has the move towards making special arrangements for rare breeds of sheep and hefted flocks.
"It remains the position that the necessary support among farmers, consumers and the food industry for a vaccination programme in Cumbria and possibly Devon has not been forthcoming, and I cannot see that situation changing now, given the decline in the number of daily confirmed cases. Contingency plans remain in place for the rapid introduction of a vaccination programme should the situation change.
822
"I announced last week a number of ways in which we have re-established routes for healthy livestock to be sold into the food chain. I am pleased to say that we are now issuing instructions to veterinary staff so that they can issue licences which will allow healthy stock from premises within three kilometres of an infected place, after a period of time, to move to slaughter and use in the human food chain. Farmers who wish to take advantage of this should contact their local animal health offices. The livestock welfare disposal scheme remains open to anyone who can demonstrate a real welfare problem that cannot be addressed another way. My right honourable friend Lady Hayman will be meeting farming organisations tomorrow to review the operation of the scheme and its future.
"The Government also want to do something to help with welfare problems on farms in infected areas which cannot move animals because of the local intensity of FMD cases. I therefore propose to ask our veterinary staff to examine these problems on a case-by-case basis and to permit movements on farms provided that the fight against FMD is not compromised. The most common problem which this change will address will be where animals are not able to cross public roads to fresh grazing. The change will be introduced by the middle of next week at the latest.
"We continue to pay large sums in compensation and other payments to farmers resulting from the foot and mouth outbreak. We have already paid over £100 million in compensation, and the latest estimate is that this figure will eventually be over £600 million. The livestock welfare disposal scheme is expected to provide more than £200 million. This is all in addition to the £156 million being paid in agrimonetary compensation to livestock farmers and all the other funding that the Government are providing to support the rural economy and the tourist industry more generally. We are in discussion with the devolved administrations and the farming unions about a longer-term recovery plan.
"The Government have also taken steps to safeguard farmers' entitlements to CAP payments. Following consultation with the farming unions, the deadline for submitting IACS forms will remain 15th May. However, we have agreed with the European Commission that it will amend its rules on changes that may be made to IACS forms after 15th May. This flexibility will make it easier for farmers to adjust their claims to take account of individual circumstances. My department has written to all IACS applicants to give them full details of the flexibilities that we have secured and the procedures to follow. Farmers whose cattle or sheep have been culled and who are currently unsure as to their future prospects should take steps to safeguard their entitlement to future subsidy, if and when they decide to restock their farms. This means that they should submit an IACS form in the normal way by

823
15th May. Where appropriate, they should also tick the boxes on the form for hill farming allowances and extensification premium.
"When I reported to the House on 27th March, I drew attention to the need to enforce the rules of commercial and personal imports of meat and meat products into the United Kingdom. I should now like to inform the House of the steps that the Government have taken, and are taking, in this context. The control of meat and meat product imports into this country involves the inspection of commercial imports at border inspection posts, effective controls on personal imports and action in shops and other food premises against sales of illegally imported food. The Government are taking action in all of these contexts to build on existing controls.
"First, we have set up improved arrangements for the pooling of information within government about known or suspected illegal imports. This will help the authorities concerned—MAFF, port health authorities, local authorities, Customs and Excise—to target their activities on the areas of greatest risk.
"Secondly, the Food Standards Agency has undertaken a programme of visits of ports and airports to examine the effectiveness of public health controls on imported food.
"Thirdly, we shall be taking early steps to ensure that the restrictions on what may be brought into the United Kingdom from outside the European Union and the European Economic Area are made known to travellers by a publicity campaign involving the travel industry, airports and ports and FCO posts abroad.
"Fourthly, the Food Standards Agency has asked port health authorities and local authorities to ensure that as part of their routine inspections of food premises and imported food they should check for illegal imports. My right honourable friend the Minister of State has laid before the House an amendment to the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996 which will clarify local authorities' powers to seize suspected illegal imports. I understand that equivalent action is being taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
"Imports of meat and meat products into the United Kingdom, as into other member states of the European Union, take place within the framework of European law. As I promised the House on 27th March, I have asked the European Commission to give urgent attention to ensuring that the law on personal imports into the Union is clear and robust. Commissioner Byrne indicated at last week's meeting of the Agriculture Council that the Commission attached great importance to ensuring that there is a high level of protection from disease at the Community's borders. I understand that the Commission's current thinking is that the main scope for tightening the EU's policy on imports lies in ensuring that the current rules are properly policed and in identifying and closing any loopholes.
824
"I referred last week to the banning of pigswill and undertook to make a further announcement. I can inform the House that we are today making an order that will ban the feeding of catering waste which contains, or has been in contact with meat as swill to livestock. The ban is extended to include poultry and fish waste. The order will come into force on 24th May after a three-week phase-in period designed to ensure that animals can be safely weaned off waste food and on to an alternative diet.
"The order has been made after consultation with the industry and other interested parties. The possible banning of all catering waste was considered in the consultation but subsequently deemed unnecessary, although the feeding of all types of catering waste coming from premises where meat or meat products are handled or prepared will be banned.
"As I have said, we can be cautiously optimistic that the worst is over. But we know that there will be sporadic outbreaks for some time to come and. that we cannot afford to let our guard drop for a moment. All the resources required to overcome the disease will remain in place where they are needed for as long as they are needed. We are determined to see this operation through to a successful conclusion. It is in all our interests to ensure that the job is done properly so that farming and the whole of the countryside can get back to normal as soon as possible".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, which we welcome, made in another place earlier today. Perhaps I may take this opportunity again to thank all those who have helped to combat the disease: UK vets and those from abroad, our Armed Forces, scientists and civil servants, both locally and nationally. Our thanks also go to the many volunteers who have supported those families directly affected by the disease. I also thank the many members of the public who have made generous donations to those charities concerned with stress relief. Our sympathies continue to go to the farming families who have had their lives shattered and their lifetime's work destroyed.
While we are obviously encouraged to hear that the number of reported case is falling, 1,537 farms have been struck down by this terrible disease, over 2.4 million animals have been compulsorily destroyed and a further 630,000 have been destroyed under the livestock welfare disposal scheme. That is eight times the number killed in the 1967 outbreak.
We are still concerned, although the numbers are fewer, about the continuing geographical spread of the disease in some areas; namely, the recent outbreaks in Satterthwaite in Cumbria because that is to the south of the Lake District and Wiveliscombe in Somerset which is a long way from nowhere, but also the spread of FMD across the Welsh valleys and across the country in the Borders of Scotland from west to east.

825
The Statement refers to vigilance, but at the same time the Government state a desire to enable farmers to return to "business as usual", which is understandable. First, perhaps I may refer the Minister to the 1967 report where the dangers of easing back too soon was one of its recommendations. I know she will agree with that. Secondly, I refer to the impact of the slightly warmer weather. That lessons outbreaks of the disease. Thirdly, will the Government systematically test every contiguous herd on a regular basis to make sure that it is disease-free?
The Statement stresses the need for continuing vigilance to be taken by farmers. Equally, as we come up to a Bank Holiday weekend, perhaps I may put in a plea that it is in the visitors' interests to be aware and observe those restrictions where they come into force. That is hugely important, particularly at a time when the situation is getting easier.
I now turn directly to some questions for the Minister: first, will the Minister tell us within what timescale farmers can expect compensation to be made? I know that it has been announced that payments will be starting. Secondly, the Minister's right honourable friend earlier today said that there were no cuts to the welfare scheme. Will the noble Baroness therefore confirm that farmers whose animals were accepted into the livestock welfare scheme prior to Monday 13th April will be paid at the originally agreed rate and not at the reduced rate announced last week? If the noble Baroness cannot do so, will she agree that some farmers will be disadvantaged? Thirdly, has the task force considered recommending the interest-free loan to businesses affected during the outbreak? It has talked about tax concessions but we have called for loans to businesses. We have waited some weeks for an answer on this matter. Has the noble Baroness any more information on that matter?
We welcome the extra help with the IACS payments announced in the Statement. We also welcome the greater freedom of movement of animals, although it is very much on a case for case basis, which we understand.
The Statements last Thursday and today have referred to the protection of rare breeds. Last week's Statement particularly referred to that issue; today's one refers to the "special arrangements", and gives greater flexibility locally to the vets. Does the Minister accept that these rare breeds and moorland sheep should not be culled until blood tests have been taken which prove that the disease is in the herd? I am still not clear exactly what the position on that matter is. Some farmers have rung me and said that their flocks are being taken and culled without testing, whereas others have managed to protect their flocks as a result of appealing. Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify that matter because the Statement today did not deal with the matter. Some breeders are beginning to feel that they are being unreasonably pressurised to agree to the slaughter of some of these very important flocks.
826
While we on these Benches welcome many of the moves in the Statement, we particularly welcome the moves to control meat and meat product imports. That is something to which we have referred on many occasions. Can the Minister assure us that sufficient resources will be made available to the various departments which have to deal with these controls? The Statement speaks of ports and airports. But we know very well that Heathrow, in particular, has been aware of the problem but simply not had the resources to tackle it.
Can she further tell us of the links between the various departments—the trading standards officers who have to deal with the matter at a local level and those at, for. example, Dover and the airports? Furthermore, can she say what precautions can be put in place on the countries from which these illegal exports start if they come through Europe and into this country?
We welcome the improved situation today and the further actions which are put forward in the Statement. We further welcome the extra help given to the beleaguered tourist and farming industries. But we regret that at the beginning of the outbreak the Government took so long to take real control of the situation and to use the necessary resources, in spite of the pressure from this party and from all the evidence in the Northumberland report.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome yet another Statement from the Minister on the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Indeed, we thank her for all her hard work in answering our questions.
However, over time it has become quite frustrating to us on these Benches that we have Statements on the rural economy and the FMD outbreak issues separately, particularly as the economy issues are beginning very much to concern farmers. Everyone has tremendous sympathy for them because they suffer the difficulties of either having infected stock or being in an infected area with restricted movement while at the same time having their diversified businesses suffer. In future, we look forward to Statements which combine the two subjects, perhaps under less time pressure.
It is with huge regret that I heard of another outbreak of FMD in Wiveliscombe in Somerset, just as that had become an uninfected area. While we give a cautious welcome to the Statement, in line with other parts of the country, our optimism is still tempered with real fear. There are rumours that the Wiveliscombe outbreak came from a relief milk worker doing his rounds. I ask the Minister what guidance was given by MAFF to such workers who go from farm to farm? We have now had milk tankers as suspected carriers as well as staff going from place to place. The public should know what guidance has been given.
The Wiveliscombe outbreak highlights the issue of deer. The Statement last week mentioned that two deer were still being tested. Can the Minister confirm that

827
deer are still free of the disease? That is particularly relevant to Wiveliscombe because of its proximity to Exmoor. Can the Minister further confirm that she is satisfied with the precautions being taken on routes on to the moor to protect its deer herd?
I turn to the issue of rate relief. I believe your Lordships are likely to have the rating Bill that will enable diversified agricultural premises to receive extra relief. Is the Minister aware that that relief will go to farms in designated rural areas only? Is the noble Baroness aware of how many farms that will fall outside the designated areas that the Bill will not help unless the Government choose to widen that designation to all farm diversification?
Another critical issue for the Government's objective of increasing the output of organic agriculture is compensation: the welfare scheme. Why does the welfare scheme give the same price for organic and conventional stock? The fact is that the organic sector has had higher costs, particularly in feed, in producing its animals. It is really suffering because the prices paid to it not only were lowered last week but were already lower than the premium price they expected, having been encouraged—I admit by us on these Benches too—by the Government to go into organic fanning. That scheme should recognise the much higher costs involved and therefore qualify those farmers for higher compensation.
In the longer term, I hope that the Minister will implement in a generous way the early retirement scheme for farmers and tie it to a young entrants into farming scheme. Those of us in infected areas do not want to see the foot and mouth outbreak become the reason for a mass exodus from farming. The lack of a young entrants scheme means that farms that presently have 30 cattle or 200 sheep are likely to be amalgamated or, at worst, sold off to become establishments for those with one or two horses. It is a real worry that we will not see young people going into farming.
I turn to the issue of imported meat. The Statement refers to illegal meat imports, but the checking of legal meat imports is of critical importance. The Minister will have noted the replies to Written Questions that I have tabled about the source of Ministry of Defence supplies of meat. I accept that the meat comes from many countries which are not infected with foot and mouth, but it also comes from Uruguay and Brazil which are infected. What checks are carried out at our ports to ensure that the statements by producers in foreign countries that the meat comes from uninfected regions are true and that the meat is clean? Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient staff to carry out those checks? My colleagues in another place have tried hard to go to ports and airports to check on what is happening. They have been stonewalled, which is disappointing. We would have liked them to have the opportunity to check what is happening.
In conclusion, I have enormous sympathy for farmers who have had infected animals. I also have sympathy for those who have uninfected animals. They and others in the rural economy have been
828
through difficult times too. I doubt whether we shall have another Statement before we all disappear to our various regions. One of the obvious ways for noble Lords and the public to show sympathy is to support a "Buy British Meat" campaign, which the Government should be undertaking. When the crisis is over, I think that the public and farmers deserve a full public inquiry.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments. I am particularly grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the enormous effort that has been put in on the ground by people who have not always been given a fair hearing by every element of the media and who have worked tirelessly over the past 11 weeks.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the specific issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the time-scale for compensation payments. Our aim is to pay compensation within three weeks of receipt of the claim. The noble Baroness will understand that at the peak of the disease there was an enormous peak of claims as well. There have therefore been some delays. Although payments have already been made in a number of cases, we have recruited extra staff who are now working on a seven-days-a-week basis in order urgently to get that money through. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that there are a number of sources of emergency financial aid, many of them generously supported by the public. I notice from my own correspondence that there was even a whip-round in the House of Lords. We have done everything we can to publicise those sources of emergency financial help. However, I quite take on board the point that it is our responsibility to ensure that compensation is paid speedily.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the case in Somerset. We are still looking at the exact circumstances of the case. I can quite understand the local despondency, people having felt that, the "all clear" had been given. The noble Baroness asked about the advice given to those involved in deliveries, whether of feed and so on, to farms, or the taking away of milk from farms. A number of guidance notes have been put out. I shall ensure that she receives copies. The noble Baroness may be interested to know that we are putting a new director of operations into Taunton immediately to co-ordinate operations there.
Both noble Baronesses asked about the import of meat. I have already set out the arrangements we have put in place across government to co-ordinate activities. It is necessary to back that up with resource. However, as the Statement says, it is important also that some of the resource is information, so that we know what we target most effectively and ensure that all the agencies involved are working together. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has tabled a number of Questions about legally imported meat for the MoD from Uruguay and Brazil. It is important to make it clear that the MoD's purchases in those areas are legal. They are certificated, which is the main

829
means of inspection. The pan-Asiatic strain of foot and mouth that we are currently seeing in this country is not the same strain as is present in Brazil and Uruguay. It is important to make that point.
The noble Baroness asked about deer. I shall certainly look further into the issue, but my current understanding is that there have been no confirmed cases in deer during this outbreak.
Both noble Baronesses asked about the welfare disposal scheme. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, may have misunderstood the position. As was announced, the payments that will be made under the scheme will apply from Monday onwards and they will apply to animals taken from Monday past. That is because the arrangements between the intervention board and farmer are finalised only at the transfer of stock. On many occasions, the stock is withdrawn, after having been registered on the scheme; on many occasions, different numbers of stock are taken. For many people, different opportunities have arisen. I quite accept that in the course of a changing situation, where people have come into infected areas or gone out of infected areas, where they have been under form Ds or not under form Ds, or where they have had an abattoir that was functioning in their infected area or in their non-infected area, individual circumstances have become more or less beneficial to them. However, the scheme was not set up as an alternative market. It was set up as an option of last resort to solve welfare problems that could not be solved in any other way. I have to say to the noble Baroness that there was ample evidence on the ground that it was operating as an alternative market. The greatest long-term danger for the UK livestock industry is to suck in imports and to substitute for UK produce. That is why for stock that could go on to the market—not for first breeding stock—we have made those changes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was right about the rural economy. The intimate inter-relationship between agriculture and other parts of the rural economy has been demonstrated by this event. I am sorry about the frustrations. I shall write to the noble Baroness about her specific point on rate relief. I am sure that what she said, in terms both of early retirement and young entrants, will be considered in the detailed discussions on the long-term recovery plan.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for the qualified optimism of her report and hope that it will not be touched with hubris. Indeed, I do not think that it will be. After such a terrible few weeks, it is heartening to see some signs that the measures, albeit highly contentious, are now bringing the outbreak under control.
Is the Minister able to say at this stage that the authorities have concluded their investigations to determine what caused this outbreak? If so, can she say what is the present judgment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I certainly would not want to give an impression that allowed anyone to accuse me of hubris. Furthermore, I would not want to be accused of complacency. The word that I should like to stress today is "vigilance". Any optimism must be qualified. We can expect to continue to see cases reported and if we do not sustain our vigilance, then we shall not see the current progress maintained. That is the only message that I should like to give today.
So far as concerns the origins of the disease outbreak, I have to say that, although it is as frustrating for me as it is for the noble Lord, investigations on the initial farm have not yet been concluded and therefore I cannot report on them to the House. However, I think that the analysis of the origins of this outbreak, along with the analysis of its epidemiology, will go beyond the single spark incident into the structure of the industry. We have seen how that structure led to the disease being geographically dispersed so widely. That of course underpins the current consultations on, for example, sheep movements.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while the watchword must be "vigilance" rather than "complacency", many noble Lords have noted that MAFF was remarkably accurate about the falling numbers of new cases which would follow the 48-hour cull policy in its forecast published a month ago? We recognise, too, that the logistics of this exercise have been, to quote an Army spokesman, "far more challenging than Kosovo".
Will the Minister ensure that all those involved, both from MAFF and from the Army, are informed that all sides of this House, as evinced today, greatly appreciate the extraordinary efforts that have been made?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind comments, in particular on behalf of those people whom I have met out in the field. They have been working every single day without a break and were rather distressed to find that they were being categorised as "bumbling bureaucrats", when they have been working their hearts out to try to help in this desperate situation.
None of us has attempted to make forecasts. The epidemiologists have offered a range of projections. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that those who have followed both the comparison with 1967 and the disease curves produced by this disease outbreak hope that they will continue to offer reliable information.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, now that we have reached May, and possibly we shall see some hot weather in June, can the Minister tell the House what will be the clipping regulations, given that many small farmers use contract clippers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there is a problem about this, in particular in infected areas. I shall correct this in writing if I am wrong, but I believe that,

831
so far as concerns non-infected control areas, guidance has been issued, but difficulties still remain as regards infected areas. I shall look into it and see what can be done. We have here the tension between wanting to return to normal husbandry and livestock practice and the difficulties posed by potential disease spread. As ever, we need to take veterinary advice.
The noble Baroness is right. I have been looking for sunshine since 20th February.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, while today's Statement is greatly to be welcomed, can the Minister say whether the greater discretion given to vets in the matter of culling will extend to sheep and pigs, in particular to those which might be regarded as pets rather than as parts of large-scale commercial undertakings, and also to rare breeds? May I also press the noble Baroness on the matter of a public inquiry? Would it not be greatly advantageous if the public inquiry were to be set up immediately, along the lines consistently advocated by my noble friend Lord Jopling?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have consistently noted the advocacy of such a public inquiry. What is important is not the form that the inquiry should take but that we learn the lessons that must be learnt—inevitably there will be lessons here—as a result of what has taken place.
As regards the adjusted policy on contiguous premises, sheep and pigs have not been included in the greater flexibility arrangements. That was because of the difficulties presented by sheep in the detection of disease due to their role as silent shedders of virus. The difficulty with pigs is presented by the level of virus which they exhale as soon as they are infected, sometimes before the symptoms become apparent.
The only exception to these non-exceptions is the policy on rare breeds and hefted sheep. Guidance has been produced. I pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. We do recognise the importance of safeguarding rare breeds. Some work has been done in relation to resources being made available to the gene bank at York University but, equally, special veterinary assessments can be made. They will not be able to give the all-clear in all cases but will allow some protection in some cases. The assessment procedure can be invoked in relation to rare breeds and hefted sheep.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hope that I am second to none in congratulating my noble friend on her role in this matter. I also welcome the Statement made today. It will come as a great relief to those of us whose homes are in infected areas because we are worried about this whole matter.
I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First., in infected areas, is it the case that, where there has been an alleged outbreak and contiguous farms are under threat from Form D notices—I am under such a threat—the notice can be cleared only after all the
832
sheep on contiguous farms have been blood-tested? I should say that this is a big animal welfare problem in Radnor.
Secondly, rather than put a question, I should like to suggest to my noble friend that some people are a little confused as regards the respective roles of MAFF and the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly has certain powers; MAFF has other powers. I very much hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to respond to this, but I am sure that people living in Radnor would like to have a definition of who does what, where and with whom.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am certainly not going to respond to that request from the Dispatch Box, but I undertake to write to my noble friend. He is quite right to point out that, although the fount of veterinary advice is common to both Wales and England, responsibilities in some areas are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. However, I shall feel much more confident if I write to the noble Lord with the detail.
I understand the frustrations experienced by those who live in Form D premises within the three-kilometre protection zone as regards the need to collect all the serology results before the notice can be lifted. I am afraid that clearly laid out EU regulations govern this matter, as well as veterinary advice on the dangers of being precipitate here. We must recognise that sometimes the serology may produce results that we would not have wished to see, or that sometimes the results may be uncertain and thus will take longer to process. As I said in the Statement, we have made some progress and, in some ways, that makes it even more frustrating for those like my noble friend who are waiting for advice. However, I know that work is being carried out in his area.
Finally, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the noble Baroness has repeated the Minister's Statement, which includes the sentence:
"There is no longer any backlog of animals awaiting disposal anywhere in Great Britain".
At 11 o'clock this morning, MAFF issued its foot and mouth disease daily situation report. According to that report, at 1900 hours on Wednesday, 2nd May, some 59,000 animals remained to be disposed of.
The Minister also said that there are a small number of animals awaiting slaughter. That same document, issued this morning, stated that 107,000 animals are awaiting slaughter. Does the noble Baroness regard these figures as consistent with the Minister's Statement? If she does not, does she recognise that it gives one a little less confidence in MAFF?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord less confidence in MAFF because he never seemed to have any in the first place. The effort involved in ensuring that the statistics reflect the reality on the ground—because people have

833
been more interested in dealing with the reality on the ground than they have been in recording what has been done in terms of disposal—has been quite considerable. A lot of effort has gone into ensuring that the situation on the ground is accurately reported in the Statement. If I may, I shall take away the figures that the noble Lord has quoted from this morning's website and write to him with a detailed explanation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the way in which she has dealt with very anxious people over a long period of time. I mentioned at the beginning how sympathetic the noble Baroness sounded on the radio. That sympathy has been evident through the whole of this dreadful situation.
The Minister knows that our farm was declared to be in an infected area very early on in the outbreak. Fortunately, we are still only in an infected area; we are not an infected premises. How will a large area, which covers Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, Dyfed and other areas be divided up in terms of the relaxation of restrictions? Will restrictions be relaxed over the area as a whole, or will it be done piece by piece? For example, there has not been a case since 12th April in Worcestershire. I touch wood very firmly.
The Minister has mentioned the possibility of sheep being carriers. There seems to be an awful lot of misunderstanding about vaccination and about consumer attitudes to vaccination. Sheep are vaccinated against all kinds of diseases throughout the year and everyone eats lamb with no problem at all. Will the Minister look again at this situation? Will she perhaps carry out consumer surveys to find out exactly what consumers do and do not know about vaccination and what happens to the animals, and to see whether consumer attitudes can be changed? I have a great fear that there will be a residue of foot and mouth disease which will resurge in the autumn when the cold, damp weather arrives. This fear has been recently iterated by a number of scientists.
Can the Minister say whether there will be a review of the State Veterinary Service? The Minister knows from our discussions about the Meat Hygiene Service that the State Veterinary Service has been under a great deal of criticism for a very long time. The foot and mouth disaster has highlighted the acute shortage of State Veterinary Service vets and, perhaps, their qualities. I make no criticism of the qualities of the vets who have been out in the field and who are doing their best under very difficult circumstances, but there would seem to be some problems at the top.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as to the noble Countess's last point, I gave the numbers employed in the State Veterinary Service over the past 20 years in a parliamentary Answer not long ago. There has been a decline. The support that Ministers in MAFF have received from the chief veterinary officer and his four deputies has been outstanding. I should like to place on record my personal thanks to them. We were
834
already involved in drawing up a surveillance strategy. One of the issues we shall have to look at in the aftermath of this outbreak is the structure, role and resources of the State Veterinary Service.
As to the issue of the very large area to which the noble Countess referred, we shall have to look very carefully at that issue. I hope that we shall be able to shrink the area in accordance with chronology rather than geography. That was the way in which we approached the classical swine fever regionalisation. I hope that we shall be able to do that in regard to this outbreak. As the noble Countess rightly said, some premises were infected much earlier than others, and it has been possible to do that in some areas.
So far as concerns vaccination, the noble Countess is right to pinpoint the issue of consumer confidence and the fact that many livestock animals are vaccinated against many diseases without incurring any lack of confidence. The evidence of the potential reaction of both manufacturers and consumers to vaccination in the midst of a disease outbreak has not been good. The noble Countess is wise to suggest that we should have discussions at a time when we are not at the height of the disease. I know that my right honourable friend believes that such discussions should be held throughout Europe. We have had discussions with the Dutch agriculture Minister, who shares the views expressed in some of the recent challenges in regard to the attitude towards vaccination. Public dialogue—I shall not say "education" because that sounds condescending—in regard to the issues involved should be undertaken as soon as possible.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will return to the question of my noble friend Lady Miller concerning the issue of organic livestock and the welfare disposal scheme. Do the Government intend to look again at this issue? Does the Minister agree that it seems very unfair that where production costs are so much higher the compensation rates should be the same as for ordinary production?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the same point has been made in regard to pedigree animals. As I said before when talking about the scheme, the prime objective of the welfare scheme is to deal with an outstanding welfare problem. It goes beyond simply taking the animal away at the cost rate and meeting the cost of disposal and slaughter; it goes towards making a payment to the farmer. It differentiates between breeding stock, for example, and different categories of animal; it does not differentiate, as the market place would do, between organic and ordinary animals. I can understand why those involved in organic fanning would wish that to be the case, as would those with pedigree animals, but the scheme was not set up to provide an alternative market place or to reflect the market place.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. According to a Written Answer given by the Minister on 1st May, in

835
response to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which appeared at col. WA 263 of the Official Report, the Government have a hierarchy of disposal options governing the disposal of livestock in a cull such as we have at present. Outstanding in her Answer was the fact that all the legislation governing disposal has been introduced since the previous outbreak. We seem to be operating under completely new rules. Has the hierarchy of disposal options changed since the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions took over responsibility from MAFF? Given the fact that two ministries are involved in the cull, which. Minister has been required to serve the notice under the Animal By-Products Order 1999 requiring the disposal of carcasses by burning?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my understanding is that MAFF Ministers are responsible for the Animal By-Products Order. I do not believe that such orders require ministerial signing; they can be signed by officials on behalf of the Minister.
I am not quite clear what the noble Duke was referring to in terms of "since responsibility has transferred from MAFF to the DETR". These are technical issues and, as I do not have the answers that I gave on 1st May in front of me, I shall, if I may, study his questions in detail and respond to him in writing.

Health and Social Care Bill
4.30 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 17 [National patients' body for England]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 15, line 44, leave out "(Patients' Forums)" and insert "12"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 18 and 21. The amendments can be dealt with briefly. They are purely consequential upon the amendments carried in this House last week on the reform of community health councils. They are necessary in order to ensure that the Bill as amended is internally consistent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 16, line 5, leave out "(Patients' Forums)" and insert "12"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
"CONSULTATION OF RELEVANT ORGANISATIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE
In section 6 of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (c. 46), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Before making directions under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult such organisations as he may recognise as representing persons providing personal medical or dental services under section 28C arrangements.""
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning once again to an issue that has caused considerable concern and dismay to doctors and specifically to the BMA as their representative body. The BMA believes it to be an issue of fundamental importance that consultation and negotiation with the BMA's General Practitioners Committee on national personal medical services directions and regulations should take place on the same basis as it does currently for general medical services issues.
The position is simple. Matters concerning medical services in primary care affect GPs; and since the General Practitioners Committee represents all GPs, it should be consulted about changes to either the GMS or the PMS national contract elements.
Although individual personal medical services contracts are agreed locally, they are defined by a core national contract and national PMS regulations and directions which apply to all PMS GPs. I return to Section 6(1) of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, which provides for the implementation directions to be made. Such directions include terms of service issues, such as defining who patients are, how doctors deal with temporary residence and so on. The amendment would require the Secretary of State, before making these directions, to consult with the organisations recognised as representing health professionals providing personal medical or dental services. In the case of GPs, this would be the BMA's General Practitioners Committee. However, the BMA recognises that, with PMS, other organisations and professions may be involved, and the amendment provides for such consultation.
A key point is that this provision should be on the face of the Bill. It is essential for GPs in personal medical services schemes to have confidence in the system. They should have the same protection of national representation as colleagues providing general medical services. hope that the Minister can provide me with an encouraging reply. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this amendment. The resistance on the part of the Government to this proposal, both in Committee and on Report, seems baffling. Even in terms of the Minister's admission that these matters will need to be negotiated locally, the Bill seems to contain no such provision.
This amendment is a new one. It gives considerable flexibility to the Government in determining which bodies they would regard as properly representing general practitioners in these circumstances. We on these Benches believe that it has considerable merit. We urge the Minister to think again and to concede this point.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we went through the territory of this amendment both in. Committee and on Report. It is an important issue if the Government wish to see an increasing number of PMS schemes succeed. I am a great enthusiast for personal medical services pilots.

837
I believe that they can be used in many areas on an extremely useful basis and I want to see the scheme succeed.
The NHS Plan for the modernisation of the health service states, at paragraph 8.9:
"By 2004 both local Personal Medical Services and national arrangements are set to operate within a single contractual framework that will meet the key principles and requirements of a modern NHS".
The doctors who will supply personal medical services will be GPs who have worked in the NHS providing general medical services. They will not be so happy to move out of that safe haven into new schemes if the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA is not looking out for their interests. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendment; or, if not, that he will at least give us an assurance that PMS practitioners will not be treated any differently from GMS practitioners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to noble Lords on a matter that we have discussed a number of times previously. I begin by reaffirming that, of course, we want to see the closest possible working relationship with GPs and their representative organisations in modernising primary care, and in particular in developing PMS.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, not only would the amendment require the Secretary of State to consult with the GPC; it would also require the Government to consult other organisations which represent persons or organisations providing PMS. My understanding is that, as well as the GPC, it would therefore include the RCN, the NAPC, the NHS Alliance and the NHS Confederation which represents community trusts and primary care trusts. Indeed, as nurses can be involved, I guess that UNISON might also be an organisation that would have a right to be heard if the amendment were accepted.
The noble Earl said that the GPC represented all GPs. It would be fairer to say that the GPC represents all GMS GPs, plus those PMS GPs who choose to be represented by their local medical committee. Not all choose to be so represented.
Personal medical services pilots are an excellent opportunity for health authorities and, increasingly, primary care trusts and service providers—particularly GPs, nurses, community trusts or primary care trusts—to test different options for delivering front-line services which provide flexibility and, indeed, freedom for professionals to shape local services within a clear national framework of standards and accountability. Essentially, PMS pilots allow a GP practice or a group of practices to agree a new contract with their local health authority or primary care trust. This essentially replaces the existing contract and their payments for delivering GMS under the "Red Book". Similarly, community trusts or primary care trusts can enter these types of contracts with their health authority, and then employ
838
the doctors and nurses who treat the pilot's patients. All PMS providers also, of course, need contracts for the practice staff they employ.
I should emphasise to my noble friend Lord Rea the point that providers enter such contracts voluntarily. GPs can not only choose whether or not to enter PMS and become a PMS pilot, they also have a right to return to GMS and the national contract. I believe that the PMS pilot schemes have proved to be an enormous boon to developing primary care services locally. The Government recognise that GPs considering PMS should be properly represented by their professional body. The question, surely, is at what level. The PMS is a locally contracted system. The Government believe that representation is crucial at the local level. For GPs, this should be through the local medical committee—the LMC.
The LMC is responsible for representing NHS GPs locally in matters relating to their terms of service. We believe that it is in a better position to focus on the range of local issues that more directly affect the detail and negotiation of each particular local contract. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I should point out that the role of the LMC was recognised by the Government two years ago in the Health Act 1999. This changed the law to allow PMS GPs to join and be represented by their LMC. As I said yesterday in the debate on morale in the NHS, although I feel it is my duty to point out the failings of the previous government, we accept that their development of PMS was a very good move and one upon which we have built. However, while I commend them for the introduction of PMS, I should stress that that government did not provide for PMS GPs to be represented by their trade union or professional body at any level. We believe that we have corrected that omission by recognising the role of local medical committees.
We believe that the amendment could seek, at national level, to restrict the range of PMS pilots into which the members of the various bodies involved could enter freely. That would be quite wrong. Given the number of organisations involved, it would surely be unworkable. Such matters should be determined locally. That is why the implementation directions, in conjunction with the model core contractual framework (the "core contract"), set the minimum requirements to ensure equity and quality for patients.
The core contract does not define PMS. It provides a platform on which the health authority or primary care trust, along with prospective PMS providers, locally negotiate the actual individually-tailored PMS contract. There is, of course, nothing to stop the national organisations giving advice to their local representatives who can, in turn, advise their members. I understand that that is what happens; indeed, I presume so.
I wish to assure noble Lords that we do seek the views of the national organisations that I mentioned on the development of PMS. For example, the core contractual framework was developed inclusively with input from the GPC, among others. We involved the

839
GPC fully in a PMS reference group. Indeed this week the GPC, the RCN and UNISON took part in the first meeting of the PMS implementation group.
I have listened most closely to the points made this afternoon, and those made both in Committee and on Report. As I said earlier, we want to see the closest possible working relationship with GPs over the development of PMS. In response to the comments that have been made, I am happy to consider, with the GPC and others, how the PMS implementation group could be strengthened and improved. Indeed, in addition, my right honourable friend Mr John Denham has also offered to meet the BMA to discuss all the issues associated with PMS. We are currently trying to find a mutually convenient date for such a meeting. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Earl., Lord Howe, will not consider it necessary to press his amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. not least for the remarks that he made at the end of his answer which give me cause for some encouragement. I believe that the Minister recognises in principle the need for the PMS implementation group to be strengthened. I hope that that idea can be taken forward constructively.
However, I am a little disappointed that the Minister does not consider that a provision of the kind suggested in the amendment should be included on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord stated that a requirement to consult at national level might well inhibit the freedom of individual doctors and reduce the number of PMS contracts that were entered into. I do not see that as being a risk of consultation; indeed, consultation is merely what it says. It is a process to which the noble Lord is well accustomed. I very much doubt that it would have that negative impact.
I have no disagreement with the Minister at all that LMCs should be involved in local negotiations; that is clearly right., and a step forward. However, it seems to me to be equally appropriate that there should be a mechanism for national negotiation when national changes are being proposed. For example, in my view, the Government ought to be required to consult the GPC on changes to the national core contract which impact upon PMS GPs. That also applies to any changes to national PMS directions.
Despite the differences between us, I suspect that there is little in practice that separates us. I know that the Minister is committed to ensuring that the whole concept works properly. However, I hope that he will take on board the concerns that have been registered by noble Lords from all sides of the House. I trust that he is clear that those concerns have not been raised lightly. We look forward to seeing progress on this front. I thank the Minister again for his response, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Care Trusts where directed partnership arrangements]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 58, line 36, at end insert ", in line with published criteria and following a clear and transparent process"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I shall anticipate Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 to some degree. I say that because Amendment No. 4 has been drafted on the basis that the Minister will be putting forward Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. However, procedurally I believe that I need to move my amendment first—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I risk getting into a procedural tangle at this point, but if the noble Lord would care to move Amendment No. 4 formally I could then speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that seems to me to be an excellent suggestion. Therefore, I formally move Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in responding to Amendment No. 4 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, perhaps I may stress, first, that I have listened with great care to the debate that we have had over the issue of care trusts. To sum up that debate, I believe that I can say that most, if not all, noble Lords see the merits of voluntary care trusts. They are seen to be a significant step forward in ensuring the integration of health and social care services, which will be to the benefit of patients and the public. I acknowledge that there has been somewhat less agreement on our proposals for compulsory care trusts. At times, the concerns about compulsory care trusts have almost threatened to overshadow the debates on the positive opportunities offered by voluntary care trusts.
As I said, I have listened carefully to the debate and to the concerns that have been expressed. As I indicated on Report, we have thought again about compulsory care trusts. We have concluded that the best way to respond to those concerns is to withdraw the proposals for compulsory care trusts. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. If those amendments are accepted, care trusts will be entered into only on a voluntary basis. I hope that that addresses many of the wider concerns noble Lords have raised in relation to care trusts.
My amendments seek to ensure that we do not lose the enthusiasm for developing voluntary care trusts because of a perception that compulsory care trusts will be the default mechanism where they are not being set up voluntarily. That was never our intention. but I know that there have been real anxieties about that possibility. We certainly do not want the model to be tainted; for people to hold back on the basis that they might as well, because they could be directed to form a care trust in the fullness of time.
We are anxious for the work to go forward to develop care trusts where they can make a difference to the quality of services for local people, enhance the

841
community leadership role of the local authority and ensure that their efforts to develop the well-being of the community can be pursued through this mechanism as well as through the Health Act partnership arrangements. We do not want the organisational boundaries of local government and the National Health Service to be the reason why services cannot be successfully put together. Neither do we want the fears of future direction to hang over a valuable model which we believe will foster the closest working relationships.
However, we are still concerned about our ability to tackle failure. We believe that there has to be a mechanism to be used when measures to improve services within an existing organisation have been exhausted. This is often when the whole of the corporate structure is unable to respond to the changes that need to be made to improve services for users. It can be for a whole host of reasons, and on occasion, despite the fact that all of the factors have been addressed, the improvement in services may still not be sufficient to ensure that vulnerable or ill people are not put at risk. In many cases in those circumstances partnership will be the answer.
Although the original failure may have been identified in one particular agency, not only may the problems be reflected in the other local agency, but their own work for a particular client group may be hampered by difficulties that cannot be overcome. It may well be in their best interests to be able, from one management structure, either to commission or to provide the range of services. Difficulties with hospital discharge can be caused by a number of factors—these can emerge from within the acute sector, the community health services, the local authority responsibilities. The evidence of the problem may be seen as blocked beds in the acute sector, not enough residential and nursing home places apparently available, or in sufficient resources available for them, not enough alternative, intermediate care being developed, poor equipment services and so on.
There needs to be a mechanism through which action can be taken. Although we agree that compulsory care trusts may not be the right approach, the amendments that I propose leave intact the powers to require the use of the Health Act partnership arrangements in response to service failure. Under these powers the Secretary of State could intervene in a failing service to require the local partners to enter into pooled fund arrangements or to delegate functions between the bodies.
By tying this power to the Health Act flexibilities we ensure an explicitly even-handed provision, applicable to both the NHS and local authorities. Unlike the provisions for a compulsory care trust, there would be no new body. The partners would therefore retain their original identity and responsibilities. The accountability arrangements would be similar to those established for voluntary partnership arrangements; for example, partnership boards to oversee any joint or delegated commissioning. Models for delivering such services
842
are already well established. Even so, I assure the House that I do not consider—even with the amendments that I propose—that this is a power to be taken lightly. We recognise that this is a power of last resort, and one which will be considered only when other measures have been exhausted. I believe that this is an effective compromise. It makes clear that care trusts are a purely voluntary model, but it enables the Government to use directed partnerships as a last resort.
I understand the concerns behind Amendment No. 4 moved by the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones. However, I hope to be able to reassure him on the approach we intend to take. We are not starting from a blank sheet of paper. The power will be used in conjunction with the existing powers of the Secretary of State and built into the existing processes. The existing processes include the Social Services Inspectorate and the detailed protocol agreed with the LGA about intervention that leads from monitoring and inspection activities. We have published performance assessment frameworks for both the NHS and social services and performance management mechanisms. We have the developing work of the Commission for Health Improvement. In this Bill we propose to take powers to manage failure within the NHS.
As I have said, the clause is designed to enable us to have a very valuable option as a last resort to direct the use of the partnership arrangements. Just as those build on existing arrangements and powers. the power of direction does the same. We shall make use of the existing powers when it is clear that action needs to be taken. The Secretary of State is required to act properly in using his powers as a fundamental principle of public law. He will exercise the power when it is clearly legitimate to do so, when he has the appropriate amount of evidence on which to make a decision and when other avenues have been tried without success. The process will be transparent, as it has to be.
The LGA has already agreed a protocol with the Social Services Inspectorate about the consequences of inspections. This will be added to to take account of these new powers. I assure the House that officials will work with the LGA and the NHS Confederation to ensure that protocols cover this as an integral part. That is the key to clarity and transparency, rather than Amendment No. 4. I hope that my comments have gone a long way to meet the concerns raised by noble Lords in previous debates.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. His comments on government Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 and my Amendment No. 4 were extremely helpful. We believe that eliminating the concept of compulsory care trusts goes a long way towards re-establishing confidence in voluntary care trusts and in the view that voluntary relationships which are tailored to meet the needs of local communities are the best way to deliver integrated healthcare. The compulsory use of Health Act flexibilities would be absolutely a last resort.

843
In responding to Amendment No. 4, the Minister gave assurances about processes. I welcomed his statement that the Secretary of State is required to act properly and that he will exercise the power when he has the appropriate amount of evidence on which to make a decision. The Minister also referred to a protocol agreed with the SSI on the consequences of inspections, and to performance assessment frameworks. He also said that the department will work with the Local Government Association and the NHS Confederation on that matter. Those are important safeguards. Even with the amendments the Secretary of State still has considerable powers which could potentially have a major impact. It is important that these powers will be used as a last resort.
From a procedural point of view, it would be difficult for the Minister to give further assurances on one or two matters. I hope that the Minister will discuss with the NHS Confederation and the LGA an appeals process in cases where the evidence is not completely clear and where there is room for doubt. I hope that there will be an appeals process for parties who are subjected to the compulsory power. We believe that that should be agreed. We know that the LGA would welcome such a process.
The Minister has gone a long way towards addressing our concerns. I welcome his amendments. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 59, line 1, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 59, leave out lines 40 and 41.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—
"EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES FOR HEALTHCARE PURPOSES
(1) Where a person has been assessed by a National Health Service body, or any other body or suitably qualified person acting under delegation or under contract to a National Health Service body, or as part of a multi-disciplinary assessment as reasonably requiring medical, surgical or nursing equipment or supplies for health care purposes, including that provided by or in a residential or nursing home, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to provide such equipment or supplies.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, a local authority shall not be prohibited from providing or making the arrangements for equipment or supplies under subsection (1), provided they are delivered under the delegated authority of the NHS within the provisions under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) (delegated NHS functions); and in such cases section 1(2) (services free of charge) of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) applies.
(3) Nothing in this section affects the provisions of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who supported the amendment on Report. I especially thank noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment which is changed to take into consideration the Minister's comments on the previous amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, who spoke on Report now has his name to the amendment. I am very grateful.
On Report, there was widespread disappointment when the Government stated that there was no intention that the NHS should pay for basics such as incontinence pads and sheets. It appears bizarre that this stance should be taken when the NHS provides such basics in all other settings and when it is contrary to the Government's line on nursing where the policy is to ensure that the anomaly of people having to pay for nursing care when it is free elsewhere is removed. There seems no reason not to remove this similar but much less costly anomaly.
It is worrying from a legal point of view. Section 1 of the NHS Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to continue to promote a "comprehensive health service" designed to secure improvement in physical and mental health and the prevention and treatment of illness and yet guidance specifically states that incontinence pads which are considered to be part of the comprehensive health service in all other settings are not covered by the NHS when the person is in a nursing home. I refer to paragraph G of Annex A HSG (95) 8. It then states that incontinence pads should be included in the price charged by the home to the local authority or the person.
In effect, people in nursing homes are having to pay for services which in all other settings fall under Sections 1 and 3 of the NHS Act and so, according to Section 1(2), should be free at the point of delivery.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, will deal with the issue of age discrimination.
The Public Health Laboratory Service published the first audit of infection control practice in nursing homes in the UK last year. It is thought that the medical and nursing resources to prevent and manage infection did not follow the patient into the community when in 1993 the community care legislation resulted in a major shift of patients from the NHS long-stay hospital beds to private, community-based nursing homes. Community infection control nurses are not obliged to visit these nursing homes. Yet it is known that the nursing homes are responsible for 78 per cent of outbreaks of infective diarrhoea in the UK and may be reservoirs of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), with up to 27 per cent of residents being colonised.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the same standards for infection control should be applicable to nursing homes. Without affording proper continence aids, corners could be cut, standards may not be

845
assured and infection can spread. This amendment has the full backing of Age Concern England. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, as in the debate on a similar amendment at this Bill's Report stage, I rise briefly to support the renewed call of my good and noble friend Lady Masham to end the cruel anomaly of charging people in nursing homes for essential medical equipment that would be paid for or loaned by the NHS if they were looked after in their own homes. The issue at stake here is that of preserving the "N" in NHS.
Gastro-nasal feeding tubes, beds especially designed to prevent pressure sores and incontinence pads were spoken of in debates at earlier stages of the Bill's consideration as if they were the optional extras of medical care, even at times as if they were luxury goods. In fact they are medical necessities for the people this amendment seeks to help; and I hope very much that the outcome today will be one that they and those who care for them can welcome unreservedly.
As of now, the legal position in relation to incontinence pads is especially worrying. Section 1 of the National Health Service Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to continue to promote a "comprehensive health service" designed to secure improvement in physical and mental health and the prevention and treatment of illness; and yet current guidance specifically states that incontinence pads, which are considered to be part of the "comprehensive health service" in all other settings, are not covered by the NHS when a person is in a nursing home.
That must be indefensible legally, just as the moral case for equal treatment is also overwhelmingly strong. For how can it possibly be right—or consistent with the founding principles of the National Health Service—for medical help to be provided not on the basis of need but on where the patient is cared for?
I am wholly satisfied that it gives my noble friend Lord Hunt no pleasure if he has to resist amendments of this merit and moral importance. Indeed I am sure that nothing would please him more than to be able to offer today to meet our case in full. I hope profoundly that he can help and I know that he will do so if he can. For certainly a Bill which offers so much that is good for the providers of medical care and patients alike would not merely be flawed but badly demeaned and disfigured without the improving effect of this amendment.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, perhaps one matter would please the Minister more: to start implementing the national service framework. The first and welcome standard in that framework is about outwitting age discrimination within the health service and ensuring that all people are treated on the basis of need, not age. It is an interesting document. It refers to the way in which age discrimination within the health service can be incidental and unintended. But it refers to the fact
846
that certain practices have disproportionate effects on older people who comprise the largest group of users of the NHS.
The community care statistics for the year 2000 show that of the beds in private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics, 83 per cent were occupied by people aged over 65; and that two-fifths of those individuals were people aged 85 and over. Because of the disproportionate number of older people in that situation, the denial to them of a service which would be free in any other setting in the NHS is tantamount to age discrimination.
I hope that the Minister will have listened with great care to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. This will not be a costly exercise for the NHS but it will have a practical outcome. It will enable many older people to retain their dignity. If that one factor is achieved by this Bill, some of us will be extremely happy.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to draw attention to how the Government can best ensure that people's reasonable healthcare needs are met. I would prefer such needs to be met by the NHS in long-term care settings rather than according to the Government's definition of nursing provided by a registered nurse, which might prove rather artificial. That would cover certain equipment and services, such as continence pads and gastro-nasal tubes, and would allow flexibility for the changing role of nurses, which has been discussed during the passage of the Bill. Ever more of their work is now done by other staff under a nurse's supervision, or is not a nursing function at all. For example, we do not think of chiropody services as a nursing function.
I was also concerned that the Bill might be inflexible on the issue, although I have gathered that changes could be made through a direction to the NHS from the Secretary of State. However, I still believe that greater clarity is needed on what residents of nursing homes can expect to be charged for and how that process will work once free nursing care is implemented next October. The amendment would go some way to achieving that and would make it clear that a multi-disciplinary assessment has to take place. At this rather late stage—this is our last chance—I hope that the Minister can go some way to alleviate our concerns on how free nursing care will operate in practice and will assure us that some specific healthcare needs, such as continence equipment, will be included.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I shall speak briefly but with huge enthusiasm in support of the amendment. My noble friend Lady Masham made a powerful case, particularly in relation to continence pads and paper sheets. As any paraplegic knows, they are vital and not to be skimped on. I hope that the Minister has engaged in helpful and productive reflection since Report.

847
Will the Minister clarify the position regarding pressure relief beds and gastro-nasal tubes, which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and my noble friend Lady Greengross mentioned? I am not sure whether anything can be done about that. Someone in the community would be able to hire a pressure relief bed or mattress. No one in their right mind is going to request a gastro-nasal tube for fun. I support the amendment 'wholeheartedly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, not for the first time, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has brought an important matter to the attention of the House. As always, I have listened carefully to her arguments, particularly about continence pads. While I hope that she will not press her amendment, I recognise the need to respond positively.
The amendment differs in approach but not in intent from the one that she tabled on Report last week. It would not change or strengthen the responsibility of the NHS to provide equipment. The NHS Act 1977 already imposes a duty to provide a service to meet all reasonable requirements that are appropriate as part of the health service.
This ground has been well trodden over the past few weeks. We are determined that care in nursing homes should be provided in a way that is consistent with the care provided in residential care homes and people's own homes.
I recognise the concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, expressed about the bureaucracy surrounding our definition of nursing care and the practical difficulties of ensuring that the care is provided by a nurse at all times. The essential point is that an NHS nurse will be involved in a multi-disciplinary assessment of a person's needs before they enter a nursing home. That assessment will provide the information to allow a decision to be made about the setting in which care can be provided and to develop a care plan.
If a person needs to be in a nursing home with some care provided by a registered nurse, the assessment and care plan will allow the NHS to determine the amount of care that they need to receive from a registered nurse. The NHS will then arrange and fund that level of care from a registered nurse within the nursing home. The NHS will ensure that the nursing home where the person will be living can supply the registered nurse input needed. If the person has some specialist nursing needs, the NHS may arrange for them to be provided by visits from specialist NHS nurses.
The NHS will contract with the nursing home for a certain level of service as part of the care package provided by the home. Residents who are responsible for paying their own fees will pay a sum that takes account of the NHS' financial contribution to their care. There is no intention to charge residents based on time sheets or other bureaucratic processes. The NHS will monitor the nursing care that the person receives through the contract with the nursing home. The
848
National Care Standards Commission will ensure that the home has adequately qualified staff and the correct staffing levels to deliver individuals' care plans.
Reassessment will take place three months after placement in the home and then not less than annually, although reassessment will be needed when there has been serious illness or some other change in circumstances. Those triggers for reassessment will be outlined in the guidance to the NHS. Reassessment will be needed to change the funding provided by the health service.
I recognise that, as the noble Baroness said last week, the current guidance to the NHS on the provision of incontinence supplies in nursing homes is not consistent with provision in other settings. As I said at the outset, we are determined to bring consistency to the NHS services available in nursing homes by the implementation of practical policies where responsibility is clear and not muddled.
I am pleased to be able to respond positively to the amendment by saying that the Government have decided that continence pads and other continence equipment should be made available free to those currently paying the cost of their care in nursing homes. Continence services will therefore he available on the same basis as nursing care, subject to a full assessment of the individual's needs. There will be consistency across the NHS provision for continence pads in all settings.
I stress that the provision of continence pads and other equipment in nursing homes by the NHS does not require primary legislation, but merely a direction to the NHS to take on that responsibility. I assure your Lordships that we shall issue the necessary directions. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will not press her amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to thank the Minister for that positive reply. Many people will be relieved by it. This may seem a small aspect of health to many, but it can become a very big one and can help with the prevention of infection, which the Minister knows that I am interested in.
I am pleased by the Minister's response. I have been campaigning on the issue for many years. The Chief Whip campaigned with me many years ago, before most of your Lordships were in the House. The Minister's answer is very satisfactory. It appears in Hansard, so we can quote it in future if nursing homes do not know about it. I hope that the Government will make their policy clear so that it goes to every health authority in the country.
Will the Minister answer the question that my noble friend Lady Darcy asked about nasal feeding tubes?
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: And pressure relief beds.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, obviously we will be happy to discuss the direction that we give to the NHS. My understanding is that the definition of

849
continence equipment includes catheters, sheaths, leg bags, other drainage bags, re-usable seat pads and bed pads.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause—
"LIABILITY OF RELATIVES
(1) The National Assistance Act 1948 (c. 29) shall be amended as follows.
(2) Sections 42 (Liability to maintain wife, husband or children) and 43 (Recovery of cost of assistance from persons liable for maintenance) shall cease to have effect.
(3)In section 48(3) (Duty of councils to provide temporary protection for property of persons admitted to hospital etc) omit the words "or from any person who for the purposes of this Act is liable to maintain him".
(4) In section 51(1) (Failure to maintain) omit the words "or any person whom he is liable to maintain for the purposes of this Act".
(5) In section 56(1) (Legal proceedings) omit the words "other than a sum due under an order made under section 43 of this Act".
(6) In Schedule 6 (Transitional provisions) omit paragraph 19.
(7) The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (c. 22) shall be amended as follows.
(8) In section 46(5) (Burial and cremation) omit the words "or from any person who for the purposes of the National Assistance Act 1948 was liable to maintain the deceased person immediately before his death".
(9) The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42) shall be amended as follows.
(10) In Schedule I (Enactments Conferring Functions Assigned to Social Services committees) for the words "Sections 43 to 45 in column 1" substitute "Section 45"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lodships are well aware of my desire to protect spouses at one of the most distressing times in their lives—when their partner enters care—from being landed with what can be large bills for the partner's care, even when they are not wealthy themselves.
I do not need to repeat the arguments that I presented at earlier stages, save to say that I do not believe that the cost would be high. It would be well under the £10 million quoted by the Minister on Report; nor do I believe that there is read-across to child support legislation. Nevertheless, I understand the Minister's concerns about the potential cost and, indeed, about the principle itself.
As your Lordships know, most local authorities do not pursue liable relatives. Of course, I do not want to encourage those that do not to start doing so. However, by the same token, I should like to do more to encourage local authorities that charge liable relatives to think twice about the impact of that on the spouse. After a lifetime of caring, it can be most distressing to find oneself suddenly presented with a bill for something that one was already doing free of charge and would continue to do if it were possible
As I indicated on Report, I estimate that currently only some 300 spouses are affected by this rule, but it is pernicious. At this late hour, I still hope that the Minister can meet my concern, at least, part of the way.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, again, I support my noble friend enthusiastically. As the Minister listened to and reflected so well upon the views of one noble friend, I hope that he may have reflected yet again and come up trumps in respect of my other noble friend.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, in the course of the debates on this Bill, many issues have involved fundamental divides. This amendment concerns the question of costs—both the immediate cost of£10 million, quoted by the Minister, and the question of whether there is a read-across.
Leaving read-across to one side, it is sad that at Third Reading we are still unclear as to the facts on this matter. The Minister gave a figure of £10 million; the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, argued strongly that the figure was very much lower. Whatever the fate of this amendment, I hope that the factual basis for policy on this issue will be resolved through direct meetings between those who produce the Minister's costings and those who advise the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
I believe that the matter could be dealt with through guidance. If it should transpire there will be no cost, no change to the legislation will be required; if the cost is high, no doubt Ministers will have to take that into account in deciding future public expenditure priorities. I do not believe that the way to deal with the matter is by forcing through a vote tonight. However, I hope that a sympathetic examination of the costings will be made and that the Minister will respond accordingly if it should transpire that his fear about cost does not correspond with an objective analysis of the matter.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall try to respond positively. Under Sections 42 and 43 of the National Assistance Act 1948, councils can ask married partners to contribute to the residential care cost of their spouse where the spouse's contribution from his or her own income or assets, as determined by the means test for residential care, is not sufficient to cover care home fees. The amendment would prevent councils seeking such contributions.
In our debates in Committee and on Report, I acknowledged that we are aware of the difficulties caused by the operation of the liable relatives rule in respect of residential care and of the distress that can be caused to a small number of residents and their husbands or wives at what is already a difficult time. I certainly accept that couples may feel confused that, once their income and assets, including those held jointly, have been assessed fairly and fully by social services, they can be asked to contribute further to the costs of care.

851
I believe that the recent excellent report from Age Concern England highlighted those problems. It commented that some social service departments can bring considerable pressure to bear on spouses to make a contribution and that, in doing so, may cause considerable distress. It is also apparent that some council officials may not understand the rules of liability and may seek to apply them incorrectly or inappropriately.
However, the report also made it clear that only a small number of spouses are being pursued for payments by councils and that the majority are not being asked. That is further evidenced by the knowledge that the liable relatives rule is applied patchily over the country.
In another place the Minister for Health said that he would consider carefully the operation of the liable relatives rule. I commented on that in previous debates. The Government are not willing to accept the amendment. We believe that, where appropriate in cases where the resident has relatively meagre resources, it is right and proper for councils to seek a contribution to care costs when the partner at home is comparatively well off. We believe that residents should look not only to the state for support in those instances but also to their partners.
At present., many councils apply current guidance and common sense and, as I have already indicated, seek liable relatives contributions from spouses only in relatively few cases. However, I understand the problems that arise when councils apply the rules incorrectly or unsympathetically. I believe that, rather than get rid of the legislation, the best course of action would be to remind councils of current guidance.
However, in the light of debates in this House and in the light of helpful discussions with Age Concern over the past week, I have decided that we must go further. Therefore, the Government have now decided that new, robust and clear guidance will be developed. It will set out the ground rules covering how and when contributions will be sought. It will remind councils that, when deciding how large a contribution to seek from a liable relative, they should take account of the financial circumstances and normal standard of living involved and should discuss and negotiate a mutually acceptable amount.
In particular, when cared-for people enter respite care, we shall remind councils to consider fully all the issues before considering what contributions to care cost should be sought from spouses who are substantial and regular carers. Those carers make a terrific contribution to the lives of their loved ones and to the country. We must do everything in our power to recognise that.
Finally, the guidance will suggest that liaison with the Benefits Agency should be strengthened to ensure that in individual cases only one organisation seeks a liable relatives contribution and not both, as can happen from time to time.
In bringing assurances to the House, I want to make it clear that the purpose of the guidance will not be to encourage councils to seek more contributions from
852
more relatives; rather, it will be to set out how the rules should be operated in practice. In drafting the guidance, I shall ask my officials to work closely with Age Concern England, the Carers National Association, the Benefits Agency and other Leading organisations. I shall ensure that draft versions of the guidance are subject to wide consultation, including with organisations that represent the interests of older people and those in residential care. If all goes to plan, we shall issue the new guidance in September this year. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister's response. Although I should have preferred spouses not to be charged for their partner's care in these limited situations, I am most grateful for the great care and consideration that the Minister has given to the matter. Although, in the scale of the Bill, it is a minor issue, I know that he has taken it seriously. The point is that it is not a minor issue for affected spouses. I welcome what the Minister said about stronger guidance. I also welcome his reassurance that it will not lead to more local authorities charging liable relatives. I believe that the patchy and inconsistent situation that currently exists will be improved. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Funding by resident etc. of more expensive accommodation]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Clause 65 [Control of patient information]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 70, line 13, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in our earlier debates on this matter, the Government's proposals to control the use of anonymised patient data by pharmaceutical companies elicited deep and abiding concerns in noble Lords on all sides of the House. I have carefully read the Minister's replies in Hansard. He was also good enough to write to me with a clear explanation of the Government's position, for which. I thank him. The Third Reading of a Bill is not the occasion on which to again go over all of the arguments in fine detail, and I shall not do so. Nevertheless, I want to pick up some points that the Minister made and set out the reasons why, regrettably, I believe that there is still a considerable distance between us.
The Minister has set out his stall clearly. The Government are seeking a power to restrict or prohibit the use of anonymised patient data for one principal reason—they fear that anonymised data collected from doctors and pharmacies may be used by pharmaceutical companies to target their products in a precise manner on individual doctors. They fear that such targeted marketing will lead to unnecessary prescribing by doctors and waste NHS resources. They

853
believe that detailed information about individual doctors' prescribing patterns should simply not be accessible to pharmaceutical companies, which, according to the Minister, could deploy their resources to promote medicines in a manner that is less than independent and impartial.
My first response to that view is to say to the Minister that despite all that he said in recent debates and in his letter, he has failed to produce a single piece of evidence to show that such targeted marketing is likely to waste NHS resources. The Government's view runs directly contrary to that of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The MMC concluded in its report two years ago that targeted marketing would prove to be beneficial to the NHS because it would lead to reduced costs and improved choice in medicines. It would reduce costs because targeted marketing is much cheaper than blanket sales campaigns, the costs of which would simply be passed on to the NHS through higher prices. It would improve choice because doctors who are targeted find themselves better informed about alternative treatments.
Nowhere have the Government come up with reasoned arguments to counter those of the MMC: they simply assert that the MMC is wrong. Their position seems to be that providing doctors with information and choice is bound to lead to an unnecessary ratcheting up of costs. In fact, a great deal of pharmaceutical promotion emphasises the benefits of using cheaper alternatives to the products that a doctor currently prescribes. That is one way in which pharmaceutical companies compete. The right kind of targeted marketing is aimed at GPs who prescribe poorly, inefficiently or wastefully and it can identify postcode rationing and over-costly prescribing. Those approaches are valuable to the NHS, so why stop them?
Not all medicines that are promoted by pharmaceutical companies are cheap. As the Minister rightly said in his letter to me, innovative medicines are almost invariably more expensive than the average. However, what should we conclude from that? Does it suggest that doctors should not be informed by manufacturers of any new products at all? Surely not. Should we be surprised that some new treatments are more expensive than average? Again, surely not. Indeed, the Minister commented in his letter on the fact that new medicines tend to be more expensive. He said:
"I do not wish to imply that there is anything wrong or unexpected in this, though there is always scope for argument about just how much more it is reasonable to pay for innovation".
I agree that there is a legitimate debate to be had on cost-effectiveness but that is surely why the Government set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The Government appear to be saying that NICE on its own is not sufficient. They appear to think that pharmaceutical companies are hell-bent on selling over-priced and expensive medicines and that doctors cannot be relied on to be discerning about the
854
marketing material that drug companies direct at them. Most doctors would be aghast at the suggestion and incredulous about it.
I repeat that there is no evidence for the Government's position—the evidence all points the other way. There are already powerful incentives for doctors to adhere to central prescribing advice and there are penalties for not doing so. The ability to enforce that advice has also been strengthened. The recommendations of the national service frameworks are incorporated into the core PMS contract and are to be included in the new national contract. The new £100 million incentive fund will be divided up in part according to performance against such standards. In other words, the Government are not without weapons in their armoury to deal with what they see as inappropriate prescribing. It is not necessary to force the NHS to operate inefficiently by starving it of information. If one does that, one is bound to slow down the adoption of new and cheaper competitor products, which could save the NHS money.
The irony of the situation is that Ministers still do not know exactly how they wish to use the power that the clause would confer on them. They do not know because officials have already admitted to the Select Committee and in correspondence that their knowledge of what pharmaceutical companies do when collecting information is limited. It is only when regulations are made that Ministers will find out whether they are inadvertently doing things that they do not want to do. To say, "We don't know what is going on but we do not like the smell of it, and we are therefore going to ban it", is no basis whatever on which to frame legislation.
That returns me to the points that I made on Report. Before being asked to consider such important provisions we should have the relevant draft regulations before us and the industry should be formally consulted, but neither of those steps has been taken. During the entire proceedings of the pharmaceutical industry competitiveness taskforce the clause was not once mentioned by Ministers or officials. In light of all the Government's pronouncements about undying partnership with the industry, that was an extraordinary omission. The ABPI told me that in its view it should be possible to reach an agreement with the Government. It does not like having a gun held to its head, which is what would effectively happen if the subsections were enacted.
I say to the Minister, as I said on Report, "Why the hurry?". We should withdraw the two subsections and use the group that has already been established to look at cost-effectiveness to sort out the issue. That body could also examine existing legislation and the codes of conduct that govern the promotion of medicines and, once agreement has been reached, come back to Parliament as necessary. That would be the proper way to proceed. I hope that the Minister will realise how seriously the industry takes the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it might be helpful if I inform noble Lords that I shall not seek to resist the noble Earl's amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as one of those who put my name to the amendment I say three cheers to that. Wisdom has at last prevailed, although it has taken, to put it bluntly, a hell of a lot of pushing and shoving. The Minister has seen sense at last.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I should make a few remarks explaining my position. I do not agree with much of the analysis made in criticism of the clause as it is currently drafted. I certainly do not agree that it would threaten any of the essential interests of the pharmaceutical industry, to which I remain as committed and supportive as ever.
I made it clear on Report that we have no intention of stopping the use of long-standing databases which are used for both marketing and research purposes. I do not believe that research interests would be threatened by these provisions. I still remain concerned about the potential effect on the NHS of the use by the pharmaceutical industry of information about prescriptions issued by a number of GPs in small, local areas or by individual GPs. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I do not accept the MMC analysis, but I am sure that noble Lords will be grateful if I do not respond to that in ever-loving detail.
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has said that it is prepared to have serious discussions about our concerns provided these provisions are withdrawn from the Bill. I made it clear on Report that we are committed to working with the industry to see if we can reach agreement on what use may be made of NHS information for marketing purposes. It is in that context that I do not ask the House to resist the noble Earl's amendments. I do not underestimate the challenge faced in ensuring that that agreement is reached. I recall previous pharmaceutical price regulation schemes which were not backed up by powers we now have in the Health Act, where companies were prepared to disregard an agreement reached with the industry.
We face a challenge to reach an agreement which is acceptable to both sides and one which will stick. But I take notice of the assurances given by the pharmaceutical companies over the past few weeks about their future action in regard to the use of information on doctors' prescribing habits. In light of the assurances given by the companies, we are willing, in good faith, to enter into discussions. They can show in those discussions how they will act responsibly in this regard. We enter into those discussions on the understanding that we will not hesitate to take action, including legislation, should that prove necessary in the future to protect the NHS and its clinicians from unacceptable commercial pressure.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should say that it is not only the pharmaceutical angle which is involved in this wide clause. Can the Minister give a commitment that in the
856
consultations he mentioned he will include the medical charities? They use this information just as much as the pharmaceutical companies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government stand as ready as ever to consult as widely as possible, though we disagree with the assertion that medical research would have been inhibited by the introduction of subsections (1) and (2). But if the medical research organisations feel that there are issues we should consider in relation to this matter, I shall be happy to meet with them.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend may well be wise to agree to these amendments, but I understood the reason for putting the provisions forward.
I was surprised by the enormous amount of briefing material I received from pharmaceutical companies on these two subsections. When I receive a large volume of briefing material I begin to think, perhaps "the lady doth protest too much"; that they have a certain axe to grind. As a former general practitioner I know only too well the pressure the pharmaceutical industry puts on doctors through their representatives—often very charming and intelligent people. That is often the only information doctors have readily available in relation to the latest drugs because they are not all avid readers of the medical journals.
I understand that this may not have been the best way of dealing with this matter. But it is reasonable to think that information gathered from pharmacists for the express purpose of marketing is something about which the Government should be legitimately concerned. I am glad that discussions with the industry will continue after the Bill is passed.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that helpful and welcome response. It comes as an enormous surprise. However, I am truly delighted that he is willing to remove these subsections from the Bill. That is a reflection not only of the Minister's ability to listen to representations made to him, but also of his close understanding of the industry and of the climate within it, not least the climate of good will that I believe exists to strive to reach agreement.
I shall spend no more time on this issue, other than to ask the Minister, with the leave of the House, one question by way of clarification. It relates to subsection (3) of Clause 65. Am I right in supposing, as I hope I am, that the regulation of the access to anonymous data by pharmaceutical companies could not be achieved by exercising the power in subsection (3) "for medical purposes", given that "medical purposes" include the management of health 'and social care services? Can the Minister put my mind at rest and confirm that that part of the clause will not be used as a substitute for the powers contained in subsections (1) and (2)?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that relates to the second part of the clause which we shall come on

857
to discuss later and certainly will not be used as a means of implementing the first two parts by the back door.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That question was prompted by an outside body. It will be grateful for his answer. I thank him once again for everything he had to say. We must all now look forward to a satisfactory resolution of these issues during the weeks ahead. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 70, line 38, after "purposes" insert "when it is not reasonably practicable to obtain valid consent and"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in anticipation of the amendments to this clause which the Minister will shortly be moving, let me acknowledge immediately that those changes, as far as they go, represent welcome progress. I am in no doubt that this clause will be strengthened by adding an explicit provision for a statutory advisory committee on the face of the Bill.
That said, I am equally clear that, in the context of the powers proposed under this clause, the degree of progress that we are going to make today is extremely limited. I should like to take us back, if I may, to square one. One of the fundamental principles of professional medical practice is that of patient confidentiality. That principle is enshrined in GMC guidance. It is also a legal right for patients. Common law, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 all safeguard patient privacy.
The law means that, wherever possible, patients should have control of medical information about themselves and that doctors must respect that right. In 1998 doubts were raised on the legality of supplying named patient data to cancer registries in the light of current law. Over the next two years, following consultations and further legal advice, the Government accepted that there was a real issue to be addressed. The GMC could not advise doctors to break the law. The logical outcome was that only Parliament could decide in what circumstances patients rights to confidentiality should be breached. That is the background to the part of Clause 68 that we are now considering.
Let me say straightaway that I am entirely sympathetic to the objective of safeguarding both cancer registries and other research-based activities which are clearly essential for the protection of patients, and the public. I understand the Government's position on this as I understand that of the GMC. There is a legal difficulty which has to be sorted out. Where I part company with the Government is in the way that they have chosen to set about doing this.
In this clause we have an almost ludicrously broad permissive power which effectively transfers responsibility for healthcare privacy from doctors to the Secretary of State for Health. Ministers have
858
repeatedly assured us that they understand the need to protect patient rights and to stand by the fundamental principle of informed patient consent for any disclosures of personal medical data. However, their actions, as evidenced by this clause, are diametrically opposite.
Nowhere in the clause is there mention of informed consent or proportionality. The model of patients as shareholders and customers of the NHS, much espoused by this Government, is absent. Instead we have literally the language of expediency and the well-worn phrase "in the public interest". The whole starting point of the clause is therefore wrong.
Earlier I referred to alarm and dismay in medical circles on what this clause contains. Much of that concern could have been avoided if first there had been proper public consultation and, secondly, if the intended uses of the powers and the basis on which they would be used had been included on the face of the Bill.
Amendments have been made to the clause by the Government, which are undoubtedly welcome. But we are still left with a sweeping power to breach patient confidentiality; a power that depends for the circumstances of its use on the wishes of the Secretary of State. The most disturbing long-term consequence of using the powers proposed in the clause, especially subsection (4)(c), is that it will destabilise public trust in medical confidentiality. When confidentiality is compromised it has a knock-on effect on trust. A shift in the relationship of trust between patients and their doctors, nurses and therapists will lead to one thing: patients who go to their doctor will no longer be open with them. It is that openness which underpins the quality of patient care, clinical governance and, ultimately, medical research.
If the clause is passed into law in its present form, with or without a statutory advisory committee, it will cause irreparable damage to the relationship of trust between clinicians and their patients. Never mind that there are "ifs" and "buts" and affirmative resolution procedures. The mere existence of this power, not to mention the exercise of it, will start the rot. Once doctors and nurses have ceased to be the guardians of the most private information that any of us possess, and once that guardianship has been transferred to a politician in Whitehall, you no longer have a system that will command public trust. That is a process that we should not even countenance.
Why is it that the Government, with over a year of their mandate still to run, are rushing through this measure? Why is it that they are trying to pressurise us into swallowing whole this hugely significant change in the law when they have not even conducted a basic consultation exercise? I was amazed to hear the other day that the Data Protection Commissioner had not formally been consulted on these proposals. Once again we hear the cry from Ministers, "Trust us; we will not abuse these powers". I say again that that is not an argument. However much we may trust Ministers and their undertakings—I trust the Minister implicitly—these are powers which Ministers in a

859
future government could in theory exploit for their own purposes. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us so powerfully last week, sweeping, general powers such as these make bad law.
Those are the reasons why I am deeply disturbed by the clause as currently drafted. We should not allow it to go through as it stands. We should say to the Government, "Withdraw it; reconsider; consult and in due course come back to Parliament with a clause that is specific and clear. But when you do that, please let us see exactly what we are signing-up to."
The Government have resisted all calls to do that. That is why I propose in this amendment that we should hold t hem to their word. We should ensure that this clause, and the power conferred under it, takes as its starting point the central principal of informed patient consent. We should insist that the power to transfer responsibility for patient privacy to the Secretary of State should be exercised only where it is not practicable or reasonable to obtain the consent of patients. Indeed, no regulation on the exercise of the power should be made unless the possibility of informed consent has been excluded. I believe that that is the minimum for which we should be looking as we see these worrying provisions pass into law. Not long ago, the Secretary of State for Health said that the patient is king. My reply to him now is, "Prove that you mean it". I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I moved the same amendment in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke extremely eloquently to it. I do not wish to say anything which would spoil the effect of his very sincere statement. I believe in his strong emphasis on valid consent being obtained wherever possible.
The amendment allows the Secretary of State to overrule that sacred trust in only very special circumstances. The amendment needs to be taken in conjunction with what comes after; that is the statutory patient information committee, which will form the main part of this debate. However, it may well be that this amendment should also be included as an extra safeguard.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am anxious not to sour the good spirits which have existed throughout Third Reading. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has listened and amended parts of the Bill. However, I am totally opposed to this clause.
In the course of the Bill we have amended a great many of the proposals put forward by the Government regarding systems and delivery of care. This is the one clause that goes far beyond that. It is not about delivery; it is an ethical issue of huge importance.
It is interesting to look at the way in which the clause was introduced. Prior to Second Reading, in his usual thoughtful way, the Minister sent a letter to all Peers who he thought would be interested, which set out the different clauses of the Bill. Omitted were the last two; that is, the one we have just discussed and the one we are presently discussing. That was a signal to us that the clauses were not part of the NHS Plan but were
860
tacked on by opportunists; civil servants or Ministers who felt that here was a vehicle they could use for this purpose. As a result, as my noble friend said, we have had no consultation with the medical profession, other professions or the public. I was interested to hear him say that even the Data Protection Commissioner has not been consulted. I find that surprising. This Government have so often told us that they listen, involve patients and desire to be open and transparent. I have no doubt that it will not be long before we have a class action on this clause because it does not comply with the Data Protection Act or the Human Rights Act.
Perhaps I may refer to a survey which has been conducted since Report stage. It is an online survey commissioned by the Patients Association. I believe that it is relevant to raise this matter here as no consultation has taken place. The survey was of 646 doctors, health professionals and patients. According to the media press release, it found that:
"The Government's plan posed a grave danger both to medical privacy and to health research. Eighty-six per cent of those surveyed were strongly opposed to the proposals, compared with only 1 per cent who supported or strongly supported the measure".
The attitudes expressed in that survey are very interesting:
"This is a totalitarian measure and needs opposing at all cost … This Government has done more to undermine privacy than any other non-fascist Government this century. It has to stop … This must be stopped. It represents a fundamental shift towards state control and intervention rivalling Nazi proportions … The UK is becoming a police state. Civil liberties are being eroded a t a phenomenal rate".
And so it goes on.
Noble Lords will be aware of the quotation from Pastor Martin Neimoellen, who said:
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists"—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she reflect on whether remarks of that kind do not diminish the horror and evil of Nazism and the Holocaust, debasing the dignity of the individual and creates an unfair stain on a government acting in good faith?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in no way do I want to diminish that. In fact, I was going on to say that I was sure the Minister would say that I protest too much. I can understand that but I wanted to share with your Lordships the tremendous concern that is coming through surveys such as this.
I want to endorse what my noble friend said about the trust between doctors and patients. There have been letters in The Times only this week on that particular issue. Doctors say that they will no longer give information if they feel that a patient's consent is not sacrosanct.

861
But what is even more interesting is what was said by Sir Donald Irvine, President of the General Medical Council, in his Lloyd Roberts lecture. In his conclusion, he said:
"As doctors, our foremost ethical duty is to serve our patients and the community to the best of our ability. The same duty falls on politicians and managers, even if their ethical codes are a little less well defined. We have to start respecting and understanding each other's values and motivators. We may then begin to trust each other. It is trust on which so much depends".
So I believe that the trust between the doctor and the patient is paramount, but so is the trust between doctors and politicians. I believe that the Minister and this Government, in taking these powers, are demeaning and reducing that trust between doctors and politicians, which is so crucial if we are to deliver a health service that is effective and valued by everyone.
6 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may say what a convincing and powerful case the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made for the amendment. Judging by the enormous number of representations that have been made to me and the meeting held in the Moses Room some weeks ago, I know that he echoes public opinion.
It is a modest compromise amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it, bearing in mind in particular that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, with his great experience, supports it from his side of the House.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, the second half of Clause 65 is about confidential patient information. It is about the balance between the individual's right to confidentiality against the public interest and the need to collect information for public health reasons and the disease registries. We realise that this is a fast-developing area and one to which we shall need to return. We all agree that the premise from which we start must be that patient information should be confidential, as this amendment implies.
However, we are equally clear that human rights legislation does not regard this as an absolute right and the Data Protection Registrar recognises that. Precisely how the balance is to be struck will be properly explored by the statutory advisory committee which we shall discuss later. The Human Rights Act and the courts are there to defend the balance between the patient's rights and the public interest. I am frankly astonished that the debate which has developed here has been attached to an amendment the substance of which is already in the clause. Somehow we have to keep in balance the difficult issues we are addressing here but somehow that has been lost in what has been said today.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should declare a professional interest in that I appeared as amicus curiae instructed by the General Medical Council, in the Source Informatics case. It was a case about the balance between personal privacy and freedom of expression. Although I have appeared for
862
the GMC this very afternoon in the Privy Council, perhaps I may make it clear that what I am about to say I say for myself and not on anyone else's behalf.
I agree with what my noble friend has said. I want to spell it out in clear terms and explain exactly how this clause is to be interpreted under the Human Rights Act. First, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act would require the Secretary of State, doctors and courts where possible to read and give effect to Clause 65(3) in a way that is compatible with the basic right to personal privacy, including the doctrine of informed patient consent, of course balanced in accordance with the principle of proportionality against other facets of the public interest.
Secondly, Section 6 of the Human Rights Act imposes an obligation on all public authorities, including the Secretary of State, first, to satisfy the positive obligation on this country to protect personal privacy against abuse, including any unnecessary interference. If the regulations that are made under the clause were incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because they did not strike a fair balance between personal privacy, including the principle of informed patient consent, and other facets of the public interest, the courts could declare the regulations to be beyond the powers conferred by the clause. The Government are to be congratulated on having promoted a Human Rights Act which gives fully effective safeguards against abuse.
I am all in favour of writing specific safeguards on to the face of primary legislation if it is necessary to do so in order to avoid the necessity for litigation and for lawyers such as myself to have to bring cases in court. That is a highly desirable thing to do. But by writing in the kind of language proposed in the amendment, one is not providing a balanced safeguard. The balanced safeguard will in the end be provided by the Secretary of State, or if he or she gets it wrong it will ultimately be decided by the courts themselves.
For those reasons, as well as those given by my noble friend, I would be opposed to the amendment.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, much of the debate has focused on the needs of patients and the protection of their rights and confidence against the needs of researchers. We talk of striking the right balance, as though they are at opposite poles, one versus the other.
Yet we know that that is not the case. There is a clear mutuality of interest here. If we examine who seems to speak for the patients we find that it is the media, patient representative groups, Department of Health officials, politicians and Members of your Lordships' House. But do we really know what patients want? All these groups, quite rightly, act as lightning conductors for those with concerns of one kind or another, which is a considerable virtue, but it is easy for them and us to get a very distorted view.
It may sound like anecdote if I say that over 30 or more years in clinical practice I have seen thousands of patients and I believe that I have a feel for what they want. They appear to want research done which will

863
help them, and they would be dismayed if that was inhibited. That is not just my view. If one takes virtually any category of disease, whether it be cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental disorders or Alzheimer's, one finds patient self-help groups or fund-raising charities, most of which raise money for research. They are not small subsets of the population. If one considers all the patients who suffer from those diseases, with their families and carers, and adds them together one has almost the entire population. They are the real patient representatives—the patients themselves. It is clear that when they voice a view they favour research. It is in their, and our, interest that the type of research of which we have been speaking should be pursued. I shall not reiterate the examples that I have given in previous debates in your Lordships' House.
My reason for saying that is that there has been a flurry of publicity by way of e-mails—we have all received letters and the like—to suggest that patients will be damaged and the doctor-patient relationship destroyed by the betrayal of patient confidence which the Secretary of State will perpetuate with these new-found powers. Even if we had a Secretary of State with that evil intent and he or she wished to engage so foolishly in an obvious vote-losing exercise of that kind—I hasten to add that I do not believe we have such a person at the moment—the constraints in this Bill, the conditions which have to be fulfilled. the safeguards in place, the patient advisory committee, which is now likely to be on the face of the Bill, and the strict regulations seem to me to be not only sufficient but somewhat excessive. As I mentioned in previous debates, I am concerned that they are so robust as effectively to inhibit any research being put forward.
I am convinced that we need this clause because potentially it will allow the pursuit of the types of research which use data collected in the past which cannot possibly now harm or embarrass patients. In the absence of the clause, this type of research would not be possible. I am already aware of several examples of such research which has now been stopped, and that cannot do anyone any good. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that when I spoke to the data protection registrar she was strongly in favour of the clause.
Finally, I look forward to reassurance from the Minister that the processing of applications will not be so difficult or inhibitory as effectively to prevent the research that this clause is intended to allow.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lady Northover has hit nails on the head with a precision which I hope I may be forgiven in this company for describing as surgical. The Minister is aware that I have expressed considerable concerns about the clause. In the light of his extremely generous concession about Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 13 tabled in his name, the question of whether the Minister has produced for us half a loaf is one for mathematicians. I am no mathematician, but,
864
in the spirit of good will that the Minister has done so much to engender by what he has done today, I am content to take that as amounting to half a loaf.
I still have considerable concerns about the method of drafting this clause which, as the Minister knows, are very much oblique to some of the concerns expressed already but in no way incompatible with them. That question is one which stretches much wider than this Bill. Before we leave the subject, will the Minister agree to communicate to those responsible for parliamentary counsel the concern which has been expressed about this general method of drafting of clauses to give undefined and extremely open-minded vires? I believe that that is a general question. If what we have done in this Bill means that in future fewer such clauses are tabled in this House that will be a very real gain.
As to the immediate matter of the amendment, the key point is the one made by my noble friend Lady Northover; namely, that the right of confidentiality is not absolute but contingent. We have here a conflict between right and right. The need for confidentiality is real and important; the need for progress in understanding and fighting disease is also real and important. Certain cases have been mentioned in which research can be done without the use of confidential data. Take, for example, the two reports which appeared last week on alleged clusters of cancer near Oldbury and Berkeley power stations. I understand that those pieces of work are controversial. Being no expert in the subject, I express no opinion on whether they are justified, but clearly they must be checked. I do not understand how they can be checked without the ability to collect a list of all the cancer cases in those areas. I am not convinced that we have found the right way between the conflict of right and right.
I was most pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Northover say that we must, revisit this subject. I hope that the Minister can find his way to agree with that. We have here a real problem, and I am not sure that we have a solution to it. I am not sure that the amendment offers a better solution. Therefore, I should like to hear an agreement on all hands that we have to find better ways to deal with this matter and we shall continue to think about it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, really put his finger on it when he said that the debate was an argument between right and right. I very much admire the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but I believe that she got it wrong. All of those who have taken part in the debate have a genuine view to express, and the differences as to how we should proceed are evident. It has been very difficult to reach a conclusion which enables us to safeguard, as far as possible, patient interest but also allows important clinical projects and programmes to continue. I believe that everyone who has taken part in the debate has a valid point to put across, and it is in that spirit that I respond to the amendment.
I fully accept that there is genuine concern about the powers in subsection (3) of the clause. The clause will allow us to achieve two objectives: first, patients will

865
receive more information about their clinical care; and. secondly, the continued operation of essential services that currently rely upon patient-identifiable information will be safeguarded.
On the question of consent, I am sure that all noble Lords are agreed that the fundamental principle governing the use of patient information by any part of the NHS or the research community is informed consent. But we must also accept that patient information is absolutely crucial and is a precious and irreplaceable resource, for example, in the fight against cancer. Historically, for decades the NHS has enjoyed the privilege of using that resource. We have made tremendous progress because of it, particularly in support of public health and medical research. That has been done in the absence of the informed consent of patients, and it is clear that that cannot continue. It is also clear that over the years the medical professions have assumed that privilege.
With the best of intentions, the NHS has had a tradition for paternalism where much of what is done in the name of science or research relies on the implied consent of patients, but that implied consent has been pushed too far. We saw that example at Alder Hey. There the issue was human organ retention. We see it in many places where confidential patient information is currently used. The most important lesson to be learnt from Alder Hey is that patients' trust will be lost if we fail to forge new relationships based on informed consent. However, the key issue we face is that the NHS is ill equipped to deliver informed consent overnight. We need a transitional facility to enable essential work to continue as we move to informed consent. We are not supporting the status quo; nor is it intended that the power can be used whenever there are problems with obtaining consents.
The General Medical Council has recognised the magnitude of the changes needed, both in the technical systems used by the NHS and in the scale of cultural change. Again, as on Report, I pay tribute to the work of the GMC on this matter. We face an enormous task, and traditional practice must change. A detailed assessment of current use of patient information needs to be completed to confirm whether it is appropriate to rely on implied consent where we need to do far more to obtain patients' consent and where alternatives, such as the use of anonymised information, can be developed.
The fundamental principle of informed consent is right. We are taking action to deliver it. But in the meantime we have to ensure the continued flow of patient information to some critical areas to protect the interests of the public and individual patients.
During the passage of the Bill I received much correspondence about the need for this clause. Sir Richard Doll and Sir Richard Peto of the Clinical Trials Service wrote:
"It is, we believe, important for the future health of the people in this country that a legislative framework should exist that ensures that public health surveillance and medical research can continue".
866
The breadth of the power sought has been the root of concerns expressed in this House. I fully accept that if such a power did not operate with effective safeguards the potential for misuse might well undermine the trust between patients and the NHS.
The safeguards we have put in place are robust. They have satisfied the Information Commissioner who had been a vocal critic of how the NHS handles confidential information in other contexts. Perhaps I may recall the safeguards: first, the power to set aside the need for patient consent can be used only for medical purposes that are in the interests of improving patient care or in the public interest; secondly, and crucially, the clause cannot be used to require the processing of confidential patient information if the medical purpose can be satisfied in any other reasonable practical way.
As promised to the House earlier, I have assembled a working group drawn from patient and professional representation, including the GMC, the BMA, the Academy of Royal Colleges and the Medical Research Council. I have invited them to work up proposals for an expert advisory committee whose role would be to apply the test I have described to all applications for the use of patient information where consent is to be overridden. We shall come to the statutory advisory committee in a secondary debate.
Without Clause 65 we would inhibit the ability of the NHS to continue vital work. However, an equally distressing loss, on which I have not dwelt, is the right of those patients who want it to receive important information, particularly correspondence about their treatment and care.
I recognise that in part the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in moving Amendment No. 11, has found an ingenious way to have a clause stand part debate at Third Reading. But, in responding briefly to Amendment No. 11, I say to the noble Earl that I consider that Clause 65(5) makes it clear that,
"Regulations under subsection (3) may not make provision requiring the process of confidential patient information for any purpose if it would be reasonably practicable to achieve that purpose otherwise than pursuant to such regulations, having regard to the cost of and the technology available for achieving that purpose".
I believe that that meets the concerns of the noble Earl.
Perhaps I may finally respond to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He often invites Ministers to take up matters with parliamentary counsel. I am happy to discuss that matter with him. I also accept his offer. In the difficult way that we have had to tackle this matter and bring this clause to the House I recognise that there is an ongoing debate. I reassure the noble Earl that we see these as transitional arrangements, but we are anxious to continue the dialogue to make sure that they are as effective as possible and overridingly serve the public interest.
Earl Howe:: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. This is certainly one of the most difficult and worrying issues that the House has debated in a long time. The Minister emphasised many expected points. But he has not persuaded me that the clause is anything other than a coach and horses driving through the established order of medical ethics.
In Committee, I described these proposals as the "sovietisation of British medicine". I still believe that that is an appropriate description. The Government have already made moves to implement the provisions of the clause. Information groups in general practice and hospital trusts have been directed to work on protocols on the sharing of patients' records with social services, private sector nursing homes and even the police, without the patients' consent. The rationale is that these developments are needed in order to provide so-called seamless care.
The campaign to sell this issue to the public is to be conducted under the slogan, "You can tell your doctor anything". Yes, one can tell one's doctor anything, providing one does not mind to whom he is forced to pass it on. The fact that the medical profession, as represented by the BMA and other bodies, is deeply opposed to the clause, should highlight for us the appalling dilemma in which it will be placed when in due course it finds itself obliged to obey the law and in so doing infringes the ethical principles it holds sacred.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to the recent survey by the Patients Association and other patients' groups. It shows overwhelming opposition to the Government's proposals. Over 90 per cent of those surveyed believed that the legal powers in the Bill should not be created; and an overwhelming percentage of doctors said that they would either refuse to use any system provided by government that endangers confidentiality or intentionally reduces the amount of data they placed on such a system.
If doctors started a trend of protecting patient privacy by keeping data off government computers, in no time at all the lifeblood of the research community would be cut off. I hope the Minister is in no doubt of the anxiety felt by doctors and patient groups about the clause. My amendment was designed to highlight those concerns. Obviously, I take note of what the Minister said about the provisions in subsection (5), which appear to make the amendment unnecessary. But I make no apology for using the amendment to highlight deep concerns of principle. If I had been able to do so under the rules of Third Reading, I would have sought to persuade your Lordships that the clause should be deleted and that the Government should go back to the drawing board. Regrettably, however, that is not possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, spoke of what patients want. I respect the wishes and needs of the research community, but I am not sure whether the inevitably subjective viewpoint of special interest groups should be allowed to obscure or override a major issue of principle. I am surprised that the noble
868
Lord should brush that point aside quite as lightly as he appeared to do. The fact is that patients still can and want to be asked—
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Earl has just described research as a special interest. Does he not agree that the better curing of disease might he better regarded as a general interest?
6.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as ever, the noble Earl finds the right phrase. I have no quarrel with that. My point was a rather broader one. I did not wish in any way to disparage the needs of the research community. I wished only to point out that perhaps it is not fully representative of patients.
In my experience, patients want to be asked for their data to be put on registers, including cancer registers. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, did not fully make the case against asking for consent. If consent is not the principle on which we proceed, the data flow would continue and researchers would not be inhibited. As I said, I have no quarrel with the need to resolve the important difficulties that the noble Lord mentioned. Cancer registries need to operate. However, as I argued, that is not the point. The point of concern is that there is a very wide-ranging permissive power, the future use of which is unclear. I am deeply uncomfortable with that. It is neither a good model for the purpose, nor a good precedent for the future. I believe that the clause will do damage to patient trust and that the Government will have cause to regret the course that they have chosen. Nevertheless, at Third Reading, and in the light of what the Minister has said, I do not propose to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 71, line 46, at end insert ", to such extent as he considers appropriate in the light of the requirements of section (Patient Information Advisory Group),".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group have the effect of creating a further safeguard, a statutory advisory committee, the main function of which will be to consider whether it is appropriate to lay regulations under subsection (3) of Clause 65.
Following on from our previous debate, I believe that an appropriate balance is set between the duties that rightfully should apply to the Secretary of State and the flexibility that a statutory advisory body for this complex area requires in order to adapt to evolving requirements. The statutory body covered by the amendments will have an important role both in advising on which purposes satisfy those requirements and on overseeing the annual review. It will be able to advise on any obligations or restrictions that should be imposed on those who are permitted access to patient information and on the confidentiality and security standards that should apply.
The body will have a broad-based membership and will reflect the interests of patients, NHS professionals and the research community. We will be seeking the advice of the General Medical Council and other key bodies on membership. The body will have a difficult job, particularly in the early stages. There is clearly a balance to be struck between the need to give detailed consideration to applications and the need, for example, to avoid a tortuous and bureaucratic process that might stifle research or other work. The body will need to advise, for example, on the groupings of similar applications or types of activity so that they can be dealt with quickly while preserving the safeguard of independent scrutiny that is desired. The Secretary of State will be required to seek and have regard to the views of the body and to publish the advice it provides where that relates to the laying or amendment of regulations. That is in addition to the wider consultation required by the clause involving those likely to be affected by any regulations.
Finally, draft regulations will be subject to the affirmative process. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured in the knowledge that by the time that happened the regulations would have had the benefit of scrutiny by the committee the amendment sets up. We shall of course ensure that the advice of the committee, when published, is made available in good time to inform debate on proposed regulations.
I hope that the House will consider that the amendment and the statutory body that will be established will help to ensure that an appropriate balance between the interests of the individual and the requirements of research and public health communities is struck and that the process of using the power operates properly and effectively. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17. When I was given responsibility for this part of the Bill I could see how difficult are the issues involved—the balance between the rights of the patient and the public interest. There was no consensus on the matter and many different organisations and individuals, from medical researchers to patients and doctors, were worried about how to strike that balance. There was widespread agreement that the Secretary of State's powers were too wide in the original clause.
We put forward the proposal that there should be a statutory advisory committee based on the Social Security Advisory Committee and I am delighted that the Government have accepted the need for such a committee. I very much welcome that. However, I have some concerns about the Minister's proposal which I hope he will be able to address. What we sought to do in our original proposal was to establish an independent committee involving those who are concerned with this area and spanning the various interests in this area which would give advice to the Secretary of State before regulations were laid. All that advice, and not simply a selection of it, should be published and the Secretary of State should be obliged
870
to say where he or she did not intend to take that advice and why that was. Our amendments seek to address those areas.
Amendment No. 14 states that the Secretary of State should establish the committee,
"after consultation with relevant organisations".
It would serve no purpose if this was simply a Department of Health committee and did not seek to reflect and embody the views of those outside government. Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 state that the Secretary of State should give his or her views on the recommendations of the advisory committee so that it can be clearly seen where its advice is not being taken. Amendment No. 16 seeks to remove a phrase about the way the advice of the advisory committee is to be published. At the moment the Bill could simply allow the Secretary of State to publish the advice in a parish newsletter—no wider than that. What remains, if we remove the phrase, makes it clearer that the Secretary of State must publish all views, and not a selection of views, from the advisory committee.
We commend the amendments to the House. In responding to those many people who felt that the Secretary of State was taking powers that were far too wide and unrestrained, we put forward our earlier amendment. We are delighted that that has in essence been accepted. Our amendments simply seek to close some of the potential loopholes in the Government's proposals. I trust that the Minister may be able to address our concerns.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of Amendments Nos. 14 to 17. I welcome the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 13, subject to the amendments which my noble friend has proposed. My noble friend said that she has based her proposal on the model of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is a good model. It works. The purpose of the amendments, taken individually or collectively, is to make the working of the proposal come as close as possible to that which is already used in the Social Security Advisory Committee.
The point about consultation is one on which the record of the Social Security Advisory Committee is exemplary, not only in relation to its setting up, which goes back before the beginning of my political memory, but also in relation to its consultation on every individual set of regulations that come before it. At the end of each one of its reports, there is a list of the bodies it has consulted. It has chosen those bodies itself. It has done so with very great care and a very wide range of information and has done so with very great skill. That means that its reports carry a weight greater than they otherwise would.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 deal with the publication of the Secretary of State's opinion. That again brings us to the Social Security Advisory Committee model where the report is published with the Secretary of State's comments on it bound within the same covers. The conjunction of those two aspects serves to focus a debate with great clarity and therefore, among other advantages which might

871
commend it to a busy government, does a great deal to save the time of the House. It narrows down the area of debate and lets us get on.
That brings me to Amendment No. 16. The new clause states that:
"The Secretary of State shall publish, in such manner as he considers appropriate".
There is a faint whiff of Cambyses in those words. A certain amount of suspicion is held within the research community that devotion to freedom of information is not quite Whitehall's favourite cause. A great deal of debate has been held, in which I remember taking part in 1988, about the Secretary of State's right to refuse consent to publication of research material. I am delighted that that is not an issue here and I welcome that warmly in Amendment No. 13. The clause states that the Secretary of State "shall publish".
However, the middle of this argument needs to be distributed a little further before we leave it. There are cases where occasionally pressure is put on researchers to leave out individual phrases or to leave out concluding sentences or paragraphs; namely, not to give the nail the final tap on the head. On occasions, a report might not be distributed with quite the publicity which one might at other times have wished.
I recall one particular report from the 1980s on poverty and health. I was out of the country when it was published. The circumstances of its publication were hotly disputed. One of those engaged in that dispute was in the Chamber only a few minutes ago, so I shall take the matter no further, except simply to say that a great deal of dispute arose over whether adequate numbers of copies of that report were published and whether they were made available at the right time. I mention this only to say that that is a theoretical possibility. I express no opinion on what happened on that occasion.
The phrase,
"in such manner as he considers appropriate",
makes the faintly uncomfortable suggestion of leaving that particular door open. I would be a great deal happier if it were shut. For that reason, it gives me pleasure to support all of the amendments tabled by my noble friend.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. In her opening remarks she referred to "balance". In saying that, she got the sense of this debate absolutely right. I can respond very positively to the key points that she made and I acknowledge the work that she undertook in bringing forward the original amendment which, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, implied, was based on the Social Security Advisory Committee model.
Noble Lords will recall that, while I thought that the working methods of that committee no doubt would inform the practices of the proposed advisory group under consideration today, I felt that the original amendment went into too much detail because it relied on the specific wording relevant to the Social Security
872
Advisory Committee. However, I also accept that her amendments to this new clause seek to probe and clarify what I have put before the House in my own amendment. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy noble Lords that the way in which this will operate will meet the points of concern that have been raised.
Amendment No. 14 requires relevant organisations to be consulted prior to the committee being established. I have already made it clear that we shall consult with the General Medical Council and other interested bodies such as the BMA, the Medical Research Council, patient organisations and the Association of Medical Research Charities—in deference to my noble friend Lord Turnberg. I have to say that it is difficult for me to envisage how we could possibly seek to establish an effective committee without such consultation. If the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was in his place, no doubt he would echo my thoughts when I say to noble Lords that I think that the Department of Health has a great deal of experience in setting up committees.
Amendment No. 15 requires the publication of the committee's advice, but that is already required under the terms of subsection (5) of my amendment. It also requires the publication of the Secretary of State's opinion on the advice received. Amendment No. 17 also seeks to achieve this, so I shall deal with that amendment as well. The advice of the committee will be published and Ministers will stand before noble Lords and before Members of another place to explain why regulations are needed. Furthermore, this will have followed a period of consultation with those likely to be affected by the regulations. The views received will be reflected in the advice of the committee and will be published. We have said already that we shall publish the results of such consultation. Indeed, even if we did not, those consulted would undoubtedly do so.
Amendment No. 16 seeks to remove the discretion of the Secretary of State as regards how the advice of the committee should be published. I must say that the thought that the Department of Health would use only parish magazines to publish its future guidance, advice and general information to the public is intriguing, but I do not think that we shall be going down that path. The only effect of this amendment potentially would be to limit publication to accepted traditional methods by failing to encompass the possibility of electronic and other new mechanisms for conveying information.
I hope that I shall be able to close any remaining chinks to the satisfaction of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The fact is that the whole debate, conducted over the past three months, has demonstrated that every detail of the operation of these new arrangements will take place in a wholly transparent fashion. That is absolutely right and the Government wish to encourage that. Furthermore, I shall say that, in terms of lessons to be learnt from the Social Security Advisory Committee model, I would be happy to ensure that, in our discussions on the establishment of the new statutory advisory committee, I shall look at the experience of the Social Security Advisory

873
Committee to see whether methods and procedures used by that committee could be usefully incorporated by the new statutory advisory committee.
On that basis, I support Amendment No. 13 and hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"PATIENT INFORMATION ADVISORY GROUP
(1) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the Secretary of State shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the passing of this Act, by regulations establish a committee to be known as the Patient Information Advisory Group ("the Advisory Group").
(2) Before laying before Parliament a draft of any statutory instrument containing regulations under section 65(3). or making any regulations pursuant to section 65(6)(b), the Secretary of State shall seek and have regard to the views of the Advisory Group on the proposed regulations.
(3) The Secretary of State may seek the views of the Advisory Group on such other matters connected with the processing of patient information or of any information (other than patient information) obtained or generated in the course of the provision of the health service as he considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision as to—

(a) the persons or bodies who are to be represented by members of the Advisory Group,

(b) the terms of appointment of members,

(c) the proceedings of the Advisory Group, and

(d) the payment by the Secretary of State of—

(i) such expenses incurred by the Advisory Group, and

(ii) such allowances in respect of expenses incurred by members of the Advisory Group, as he may determine.

(5) The Secretary of State shall publish, in such manner as he considers appropriate, any views which he receives from the Advisory Group pursuant to subsection (2).
(6) In this section "the health service", "patient information" and "processing" have the same meaning as they have for the purposes of section 65."
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 13, Amendment No. 14:
Line 5, after "committee" insert "after consultation with relevant organisations"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I welcome the reassurances given by the Minister. I should like also to thank him for his courtesy and willingness to listen during the passage of the Bill.
I hope that he will accept that the Bill has been significantly improved as regards the national patients' body, care trusts and, in particular, in respect of Clause 65. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 14, as an amendment to Amendment No. 13, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, as amendments to Amendment No. 13, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 13 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Regulations and orders]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 75, line 10, leave out from first "or to "regulations" in line 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 77, line 25, after "(13)," insert "(Patient Information Advisory Group),"
Page 77, line 25, after "section, insert—
"() Part 3 of Schedule 5,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 95, leave out lines 3 and 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 95, line 38, at end insert—
"PART 3
PATIENT INFORMATION
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)
17 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (which lists bodies of which all members are disqualified for membership of the House of Commons), at the appropriate place insert—
"The Patient Information Advisory Group".
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)
18 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public authorities for the purposes of the Act), at the appropriate place insert—
"The Patient Information Advisory Group"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Family Law
6.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford The Lord Bishop of Oxford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will bring the provisions of the Family Law Act 1996 into force.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who will be speaking today, some of whom, I know, will share my concern about the delay in implementing the Family Law Act 1996.
In 1996 the report of a Church of England working party, Putting Asunder, was published. It recommended that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage should be the sole grounds for a divorce. The report was highly influential, but not influential enough; for the 1969 Act still retained fault as an essential sign of such irretrievable breakdown. The Family Law Act 1996, however, sought to retrieve that

875
fundamental principle. I believe that it was right to do so. It was approved by both Houses, and it would be very sad to lose it once again at this stage.
Before the Act came into force it was necessary for research to be carried out in connection with the information meetings and associated provisions. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor's office on initiating that extensive research and the researchers on the thoroughness of their work.
The research tested out six models of information meeting, but a flaw that was fundamental to all of them was identified. Quite simply, it was that the proposed purposes of the information meetings and associated provisions were too varied, confused and in part contradictory. The researchers therefore proposed two alternative models, one based on a mandatory information meeting and one on a voluntary one, which, they believed, could meet the weaknesses that they had previously identified. They proposed that these models be tested.
What is remarkable about the research results, however, is that although there was that fundamental weakness in all the models tested, nevertheless a remarkably high level of satisfaction was recorded. During the pilot programme, 9,900 married people applied to attend an information meeting and 7,863 actually attended. The report notes on page 22:
"Attendees' first impressions of the information meeting were overwhelmingly positive. Exit questionnaires revealed that only 1% of attendees said that they had not found the meeting useful in some way".
The same point is emphasised on pages 29 and 30.
It was generally acknowledged in the debates on the Family Law Act that information meetings and appropriate follow-ups with marriage counsellors would save only a few marriages. Nevertheless, it was also recognised that seeing an appropriately trained person could help people considering divorce to be much clearer about what they should do. The research shows that both aims were met. The report states at page 32:
"Although relatively few attendees of information meetings subsequently saved their marriage through counselling, there is evidence that counselling helped people to cope with the ending of their marriage".
Between 17 and 12 per cent of people who attended an information meeting took up the offer of a meeting with a marriage counsellor, depending on the model that was used. Half of those went with the intention of saving their marriage. The report states at page 34:
"The majority of people were positive about the meeting with a marriage counsellor, believing that it would help them move on and clarify the next steps…just under half of those who went to a meeting with a marriage counsellor made an appointment for counselling afterwards. Of those who did go to counselling, 72% indicated that it had helped them to gain a better understanding of their relationship, but only 19% said that it had helped them to save their relationship".
The report continues at page 35:
"It is clear that counselling helped some people to save their marriage and others to end their marriage and/or come to terms with the fact that their marriage was over".
Research also tested out the value of a more conciliatory approach to divorce through mediation. The results here were less positive, mainly, it seems, because people did not really understand what mediation could do or its relationship to solicitors. Nevertheless, the report certainly does not rule out the value of mediation in particular circumstances and it sets out the three conditions which must be met for it to be useful.
When it comes to information given at the meetings about children, the report states at page 49:
"Over 80% said that the information about how children feel had been useful, 65% had found the information about making arrangements for children useful".
The researchers concluded that none of the models tested was quite right but that a new model could be developed, learning from the pilot evaluation. The fundamental point was that the initial information meeting needed to be focused much more precisely upon the person's or couple's stated needs, whether they were trying to save their marriage, be more certain about what they should do, end their marriage more amicably, or get information about dealing with the children and so on. People come at very different stages, with different expectations, and a catch-all information session cannot provide for this. Nevertheless, the researchers put forward two possible models which they believe could do so.
One fundamental difficulty is whether the information meeting should be mandatory, as the Act states. People who attended information meetings as part of the pilot project were equally divided on the issue. But, as the report states:
"There was overwhelming support for the continuation of meetings at which attendance would be voluntary".
The report does not, however, rule out the possibility of a mandatory meeting altogether. It states:
"Although some people resent having to attend a mandatory programme, the majority appreciate the experience and get something positive from it when it has a clear focus (such as on parenting or on dispute resolution)".
Drawing lessons from the pilot, the report concludes—I am referring to the summary of the final evaluation report—at pages 77 and 78:
"Looking at the evidence and the information meeting pilot it is reasonable to conclude that information provision and the meeting with a marriage counsellor did and can support the principles of the Family Law Act. Some attendees have reflected carefully on the decision to divorce and some took steps to save the marriage; messages about reducing conflict and being conciliatory were understood and respected; and parents were helped to consider the needs of their children…the vast majority of those attending an information meeting described it as useful".
The report offers two alternative models. One is based upon a mandatory information meeting, in which the people concerned, in dialogue with a trained presenter, would be helped to state whether this was an exploratory dialogue to ascertain the state of marital breakdown; whether they were certain the marriage

877
was over but not certain how to proceed; or whether the marriage was in trouble and they were not certain what to do. Depending upon what emerged, the meeting would then have a sharp focus appropriate to the person's situation, with relevant core information, both verbal and written, with additional information being provided by a video or CD ROM relevant to where they were. The other model, based upon a voluntary meeting, would involve people receiving information and then choosing whether they wanted to have a meeting with a marriage counsellor and then go for counselling, or whether they wanted simply an information meeting following which they might go to counselling or might simply decide to proceed with a divorce.
There is an important section in the Family Law Act on marriage support. I have deliberately not dealt with that this evening because of time factors and because my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, is in touch with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this issue.
I believe that the fundamental principle in the Family Law Act 1996—namely, that divorce should be based upon irretrievable breakdown—is important. Furthermore, I believe that the extremely thorough research bears out, as I have shown, the value of information meetings and the associated provisions within the Family Law Act, provided that they are much more sharply focused in either one of the ways which the researchers suggest at the end of their report.
The present system of divorce does nothing to encourage people to face up to their responsibilities. Divorce is not only about ending a marriage but about making people free to marry again if they so choose. If they have not sorted out arrangements in relation to children, property rights and so on, trouble is simply being stored up for the future. The Family Law Act, with its information meetings and associated provisions, provides the best framework for people to deal with these issues with the minimum of aggression.
What is remarkable is that, despite the basic confusion which the researchers rightly identified, the information sessions produced a high level of satisfaction. I believe that the next stage of research needs to be initiated—the report states that piloting need not be a lengthy or complex process—and the Family Law Act implemented in the light of that research as soon as possible afterwards.
7 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for allowing us the opportunity to examine the question of how family life is faring in 21st century Britain, with special reference to the Family Law Act 1996.
Although I appreciate the concerns set out by the right reverend Prelate, it is surely right that unless Part II of the legislation can fulfil the principles of Part I, it should not go ahead. We know that the principles of Part I are about rescuing those marriages that can be rescued and about ensuring that children are least
878
exposed to conflict, distress and trauma; and that civilised relationships between the two people in question beyond marriage are supported.
As I understand it, the findings of government research into Part II were very disappointing. Very few people responded to invitations to a meeting with a marriage counsellor, and even fewer committed themselves to the process of conciliation as a vehicle for saving their marriage. In the light of such findings, it is important for the Government not to become "hung up" on the rigid question of whether the system ensures fault or no-fault divorce. Instead, they should look coolly and calmly for solutions that work, especially those that work in favour of the children of divorcing parents.
Children and families have been at the forefront of government policy. As chair of the Women's National Commission, I certainly make my views clear to government if I believe that they are dragging their feet over any aspect of policy that could improve family life in this country. Our recent response to the DTI's maternity review is a case in point.
But I have to say that on many aspects of family policy we are pushing at an open door with this Government. We have seen a number of significant improvements in the support given to families over the past four years. Expectant mothers have improved rights at work through a whole package of improved maternity measures. Childcare places will be created for 1.6 million children by 2004, as well as guaranteed nursery places for every four year-old who needs one. From 2003, fathers will receive paid paternity leave for two weeks for the first time ever. Mothers and fathers will have the right to take three months' parental leave in order to spend more time with young children under five—although I should like to see that leave paid for, because that would work far more effectively for low-income parents. Children and families in vulnerable areas will have access to £540 million of Sure Start programme funding; there is help for lone parents through the New Deal; and the working families' tax credit helps 1.5 million families, guaranteeing them an income of £214 a week. In addition, there is the increase in the rate of children's tax credit, from £8.50 per week to £10 per week for standard rate taxpayers from April this year. So this is not the record of a government whose cupboard is bare in terms of initiatives to promote and support family life in Britain.
There are those who would have us believe—and I assure the right reverend Prelate that I do not include him in this category—that family life in this country is disintegrating. I refer such people to the latest figures in this area issued by the Future Foundation. The majority of households in Britain see themselves as family units. Half of the population live within half-an-hour's journey of the place where they grew up. At least 50 per cent of those with a living mother or father see them at least once a week. Seventy per cent of those asked believe that family members should stay in touch, even if they do not have much in common.

879
So while it is important for us to ensure that divorcing families get the best deal possible through our legislation, we need to keep a cool head over the context in which our discussions take place.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for initiating the debate. Like all his contributions, this one was sensible and sensitive.
My view is that we have to be realistic about what is achievable in this complex area. Not only statistics but our own experience and observations indicate that divorce is a sad and increasing factor in society today. Time does not stand still; nor should our role in government fail to respond accurately to current needs. We must be mindful not only of the need for planned legislation to be apt, but of the need for it to remain effective against a background of change and new circumstances.
When looking at research into Part II of the Family Law Act one is driven to the conclusion that, although the measures were well intentioned, the facts as presently assessed speak for themselves. The intention was to focus on saving saveable marriages and to attempt to lessen the trauma and stress, not only to the principal parties but most crucially to the children in the family. However, research indicates that only 12 per cent of those who received an invitation to a meeting with a marriage counsellor actually turned up; and of those who did, fewer than half were determined to save their marriage. Most damning of all is the finding that only 7 per cent of those who attended information meetings subsequently took part in mediation.
The process clearly failed, and the Government must be credited with acknowledging that and acting accordingly. It is therefore with confidence that I voice approval of the Government's strategy, which puts the needs of children at the core of the dealings with this acrimonious situation. We must never underestimate the trauma for young children in a domestic situation that is intolerably threatening. Children can be scarred and damaged for ever.
I make no claims to be remarkable in this distinguished. House—far from it. But in just one area I hazard a guess that I may be unique. I was brought up in care. I was an only child. My father was killed in the war and my mother contracted TB in the late 1940s, which in those days was almost a death sentence. My uniqueness lies in the simple fact that for four years, from five to nine years of age, I was brought up in care—fortunately in a jolly and down-to-earth family. But memories of my terror at the prospect of being alone in the world will never leave me. My story ended happily. A scientist somewhere discovered a drug called streptomycin. My mother was cured, she returned home and enjoyed a further 30 years of life.
But for some children, traumatised in a brutal, violent divorce process, the outcome is not so happy. So I know that the Government are sound in their approach, whether in focusing on the child's
880
opportunities in early years and on better economic conditions, or whether in providing stability and security for the child's future. The Government are right to focus their family strategy on ensuring that the next generation has the best possible start in life.
My noble friend Lady Crawley outlined a number of initiatives: Sure Start; Parent Network; family service units; the uprating of child benefits; the introduction of the working families' tax credit; the New Deal for Lone Parents; and reform of the Child Support Agency. All these and many other measures brought into play in the past four years are helping to lay the foundations of a decent chance for children caught up in a situation over which they have no control. I am confident that this strong, compassionate approach to family life will remain the cornerstone of the Government's actions.
In conclusion, I reiterate the fact that children must come first. That is the Government's view. This clear-sighted approach is right for today's families and today's children. It will form the basis of a better future for all of them.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has raised some very important issues in this Question. I am in entire agreement with the general principles laid down in Section 1 of the Family Law Act 1996, which are: first, that the institution of marriage is to be supported; secondly, that the parties to a marriage that may have broken down are to be encouraged to take all practicable steps, whether by marriage counselling or otherwise, to save the marriage; and, thirdly, that a marriage that has irretrievably broken down and is being brought to an end should be brought to an end with minimum distress to the parties and to the children affected. I also strongly support the right reverend Prelate in calling for the removal of "fault" as the basis for divorce and its replacement by "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage".
I have read a number of the speeches that were made in the debate on Second Reading of the Bill. which became the Family Law Act, on 30th November 1995. It was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in a speech that demonstrated his profound religious beliefs and his commitment to the objectives of the Act. It was strongly supported by the right reverend Prelate, along with other Bishops, by the noble Lord, Lord Flabgood, and the late Lord Jakobovits. From these Benches, the Bill was supported—admittedly, I think, with somewhat varying degrees of enthusiasm—by my noble friends Lord Russell and Lady Hamwee and by Lord Meston. Had I been a Member of your Lordships' House at that time, I strongly suspect that I, too, should have supported it. However, we have to accept that the pilots have been discouraging. The comments that shall now make are mine, not those of my party: plainly, the issues involved are issues of conscience on which there is no question of there being a whipped vote.

881
With a degree of hindsight, I have to say that some of the provisions of Part II of the Act seem unrealistic. Section 8 requires the party making a statement of marital breakdown to have attended an "information meeting" at least three months before making that statement. That meeting must give the party attending the meeting an opportunity to have a meeting with a marriage counsellor. Many couples go through difficulties in marriage and receive great help from counselling. I should strongly support counselling; indeed, my wife was president of the London branch of the Marriage Guidance Council for several years. But by the time a party to a marriage gets to the point of wanting to serve a statement of marital breakdown it will almost certainly be too late in all but a small proportion of marriages to save it. Therefore, many people who are required to attend an information meeting as a condition precedent to making a statement will regard the meeting as a tiresome and pointless formality.
The right reverend Prelate proposes that there should be further pilot tests. Indeed, I realise that there is perhaps point in giving that process a further try. But it also has to be said that the pilots were carried out on a voluntary basis, and it is likely that those who are compelled to attend will be more hostile than those who have agreed to attend voluntarily.
I am also concerned about further defects in Part II of the Act. After the three-month period between the information meeting and filing the statement, there has to be a further nine-month period for reflection and consideration under Section 7 of the Act before a divorce order can be made. This means that the divorce takes a minimum of a year from the time that one of the parties first decides to proceed with the application. I do not believe that that reflects modern habits. In past years, there was a strong social pressure against cohabitation without marriage. If one of the parties to a marriage had formed a relationship with a new partner, he or she wanted a quick remarriage to legitimise that relationship and, indeed, to legitimise any possible children of it.
However, now that there is little or no stigma in cohabitation, divorce may not be sought for some years after the marriage has broken down—and, perhaps, not until after both parties have formed long-term, new relationships. In such a case, the requirement for the divorce process to take a minimum of a year seems to me to be pointless and likely to increase distress.
Finally, there is the question of mediation. I regard this as a welcome provision of the Act because there is no doubt that it can greatly reduce the cost and stress of resolving disputes over property and children. But it will work only if both parties are willing to participate. Section 13 of the Act enables the court to order a party to attend a meeting, even if he or she is unwilling to do so at that point. That is not necessarily unreasonable because a good many people misunderstand the purpose of mediation and may be persuaded by a meeting with a mediator to accept it. Many people
882
confuse mediation and counselling. Mediation is no doubt particularly desirable in cases that involve children.
It is important that mediation should not be carried out on the cheap. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the debate to which I referred earlier,
"fair arrangements … depend on skilled legal advice and representation.".—[Official Report, 30/11/95; col. 708.]
As the noble and learned Lord has since become the hammer of legal aid, I wonder whether he would be willing to guarantee the provision of funds from the Community Legal Service to enable mediation to be effective.
The research report to which the right reverend Prelate referred suggested that only 10 per cent of the couples in the pilot scheme actually went to full-scale mediation, and that 37 per cent of those settled the issues through that mediation. This indicates that, in fact, the overall success rate was a little under 4 per cent, which is disappointing. Nevertheless, it would be regrettable if the option for mediation in some form or another—and, indeed, the availability of financial support for it—was not made available in any future legislation on the subject.
There is no doubt that the existing law, which dates from 1969, needs revision. As I have already said, it is long past the time to remove "fault" as the basis for divorce and replace it by "irretrievable breakdown". In a little more detail, the need for a five-year separation as a ground for divorce where one party objects to the divorce certainly seems to me to be unjustifiable and to give an opportunity to the non-consenting spouse to blackmail the other spouse.
I should just like to raise a short point that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill would have made had he spoken in tonight's debate. There is a particular problem with Jewish marriages, which was raised by Lord Jakobovits in the Second Reading debate of the Act and, indeed, raised again by my noble friend in a Private Member's Bill during the previous Session. I believe that the noble and learned Lord is sympathetic to the problem. When there is a review of divorce law, I hope that that can be dealt with at that stage.
I have to say—I regret not to be able to concur entirely with what the right reverend Prelate said, although I agree with him in many respects—that I am not convinced that Part II of the Act as it now stands is the way forward. But we unquestionably need to move on from the position in 1969. We need a further family law Act to bring divorce up to date. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can offer us any prospect of doing so.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for raising this important issue. I join him in looking to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to tell us the

883
Government's intention with regard to any new legislation that may be brought forward to repeal this Act.
I start by asking when that will happen. I suggest that, given recent announcements by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which I shall return, and to which I think we can all assume that the noble and learned Lord will allude in his response, my question may be otiose.
There is considerable evidence to suggest a fundamental decline in the traditional British family way of life. The number of marriages is declining every year, with 62 per cent in 1999 being conducted as civil ceremonies. Cohabitation comprises 70 per cent of first partnerships, with an increase in the number of women having children within such unofficial unions. Some 22 per cent of children were born to cohabiting couples in 1997, compared with 2 per cent in 1977. The number of lone parent families has increased dramatically from 570,000 in 1971 to 1,900,000 in 1999. In 1999, 144,600 divorces were recorded, representing a rate of 12.9 per cent of people divorcing per 1,000 of married population. Britain has the highest divorce rate in the European Union and the marriages of those previously married are more likely to end in divorce than are first-time marriages.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may refer to a report recently published by his department which confirms that,
"Fewer people are getting married than at any time in the past 40 years. These trends have caused considerable social concern motivating the previous government to put forward its proposals for divorce reform, in the firm belief that the current system does little to support marriage in trouble or to minimise the risks, particularly to children, when couples split up.
There exists a great deal of uncertainty about what role law should play in family relations. It is generally agreed that the law cannot create happy, stable marriages or sustain unhappy ones, but it is expected that it should create a framework and appropriate processes which buttress and support family relationships in a variety of ways".
As has already been said, the aim of the 1996 Act was to meet the twin objectives of saving saveable marriages and promoting a conciliatory approach to divorce, if divorce is the only option. It represented a watershed in divorce legislation, acknowledging divorce as a process rather than a finite event. Part I of the 1996 Act covers general principles. Part III covers mediation and legal aid and Part IV covers domestic violence.
Those parts have all been implemented and with some considerable success. For example, reforms introduced by Part IV, including the mandatory attachment of a power of arrest in the face of a threat of violence, as opposed to having to demonstrate that the applicant has suffered actual bodily harm, are much welcomed.
In addition, those measures set out in Schedule 6 relating to amendments to the Children Act 1989, which introduce the power to include an exclusion requirement in an interim care order and the power to include an exclusion in an emergency protection order,
884
have wide support. Also, the recent legislation concerning the division of pension rights has been warmly welcomed by those who practise in the field.
Part II, as your Lordships know, has not been implemented. Part II contains arrangements for information meetings, on the principle that parties to a divorce should be given quality, objective and factual information at an early stage. It provided for a preliminary cooling off period of three months after an information meeting, during which there could be no divorce proceedings. It also provided for an extension to that period of six months and required that the parties' financial arrangements should be finalised in advance. Pursuant to Part II of the Act, divorce could be granted only when all the financial arrangements had been finalised and were in place.
As has already been said, implementation of Part II was delayed pending the results of pilot schemes carried out between June 1997 and May 1999. The provisions which the pilot schemes were designed to test were the following. A party making a statement of marital breakdown must (except in prescribed circumstances) have attended an information meeting not less than three months beforehand; and those attending an information meeting should be encouraged to have a meeting with a marriage counsellor which, it was proposed, should be free for those eligible for non-contributory legal aid.
The pilot schemes examined different models of information meetings and meetings with the marriage counsellors. The aim was to direct a person's attention to the issues which should be considered when contemplating steps to end the marriage and to provide information on the various options for the resolution of difficulties, including the availability of marriage support services, mediation and legal services. It had also been hoped that the schemes might help to save perhaps not many but a number of marriages.
In summary, the results of the pilots showed that almost half of those who went to counselling attended alone, primarily, it seems, because their partner was unwilling to participate. The evidence suggested that counselling which follows an information meeting was of limited success in saving marriages and that the predictions of 5 per cent suggested in Parliament during the passage of the Family Law Act seem to have been a realistic target.
Sadly, by the time most people went to an information meeting it was too late for them to save their marriage. If the objective of providing information is to facilitate marriage saving, the evidence suggested that it would be more effective if it was provided while spouses were still together and before they made a decision to live apart. However—I believe that this point is crucial—although relatively few attendees at information meetings subsequently saved their marriage through counselling, there was evidence that counselling helped people to cope—I believe that the word "cope" is important—with the ending of their marriage.

885
In February 1998 the Lord Chancellor's Department decided that it would test the provision of the meeting with a marriage counsellor and that that should be evaluated as part of the research programme. In summary, the meetings with marriage counsellors seemed to be particularly helpful to those who were uncertain about their marriage and had attended an information meeting not knowing where to turn. We should remember that many people in this situation suffer tremendous isolation and the meetings offer a possibility for communication. Some attendees felt that the one-off intervention of the meeting was enough to help them to work on their marriage without the need for further counselling. Others saw the meeting as a gateway to the counselling process as it dispelled preconceived ideas about counselling and enabled them to view it as a positive intervention in helping to restore their marriage.
It was hoped that the Family Law Act 1996 would help to encourage more conciliatory divorce, placing increased emphasis on providing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, which promote private ordering and consensual decision-making.
The pilot schemes were not set up specifically to divert people into family mediation, but there were expectations that the delivery of information would encourage greater numbers of people to use it. Those who went to mediation did not always find that it was successful, particularly if both parties were not working towards similar goals. The research concluded that in essence many factors need to be in place before mediation works successfully.
Following consideration by the Government of the results of the research, the final report on the pilot schemes was published by the Lord Chancellor's Department earlier this year. It concluded that none of the models tested should be implemented, but recommended—as has already been said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—that several positive findings from the pilots could be incorporated into a new model.
For example, there was overwhelming support for the continuation of meetings at which attendance would be voluntary. The report also stated that information meetings had a lot to offer and that attendance at an information meeting led to increased knowledge about marriage support and the options available.
However, the report also stated,
"What emerged strongly in the pilots across all the models was the stark reality that a standardised 'one size fits all' approach to the provision of information will be much less effective than a model of information provision which is designed with an element of flexibility, and which allows for some personal tailoring in the content of the information to be delivered by a presenter".
Such a conclusion seems somewhat predictable given that no one person's experience and needs will be the same as another.
Turning to the present, it is unclear whether the Government intend to reintroduce the principles behind Part II, albeit with a different approach, to
886
reflect the positive findings of the pilot schemes, or whether they are minded to abandon its aims altogether. The government press release issued on 16th January 2001, wherein the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirmed that he would be asking Parliament to repeal Part II of the Family Law Act 1996, did not, with respect, make clear the intention of the noble and learned Lord.
Do the Government intend to reintroduce the principles behind Part II, albeit with a different approach, to reflect the positive findings in the research; or do they propose to abandon its aims altogether? I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will make clear the Government's intentions. There is considerable disappointment among many who believe that Part II should be implemented, certainly in principle, while others, including the Solicitors Family Law Association, although supporting moves towards no-fault divorce, said that,
"all those who have struggled to understand how it was supposed to work will be pleased to see the back of it".
In contrast, the Family Law Consortium stated that,
"this U-turn arrives from out of the blue and will be an enormous disappointment to those who support the development of an environment in which there are constructive resolutions to the problems of separation and the Government has not yet given mediation a chance to work".
Sara Robinson, a member of a London-based firm, said:
"The Act has much public support and the support of the vast majority of professionals working with families involved in family breakdown. It provides a formal structure for a way of helping clients and families that our practice shows can and does work".
David Hodson, a solicitor and mediator with the Family Law Consortium, said that,
"the new system would have put the process of divorce firmly where it belongs"—
and I think that this is well put—
"in the hands of the married couple rather than in the hands of the lawyers".
He went on to say that this is a wasted opportunity.
Only yesterday I had the benefit of a long conversation with a senior member of the Family Bar with the benefit of 20 years' experience in the field who is also a board member of the Family Mediators Association. He said:
"Looking at the balance of the Act, I, for one, see great advantage in the statement of marital breakdown. It eliminates the business of fault finding, which rarely achieves much and, in certain cases, can be the cause of tremendous resentment".
He went on to say that those sections of the Act which deal with information meetings and arrangements for the future seem to be sensible and eminently achievable. Parties should settle their financial affairs and the arrangements for the children before they are entitled to a divorce order. I think that it is fair to say that that happens generally in good practice at the moment.
It is also right to say that there is a view among practitioners that some of the confusion and misgivings about Part II arise because of unclear and

887
thereby unsatisfactory drafting of the Act. For example, there seems to be a misconception that the legislation, if implemented, would force parties down the mediation route and into an unsatisfactory negotiated settlement, particularly in relation to financial aspects. Section 13, which relates to the resolution of disputes, is in fact couched throughout in the permissive not the mandatory. However, Section 29, relating to mediation and legal aid, is couched in the mandatory. That is a problem.
It is also felt by some that Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Act relating to a period for reflection and consideration are quite meaningless provisions. What is it thought that the parties are otherwise doing? Are they positively looking forward to the date when they can obtain the divorce order, ignoring their financial arrangements and responsibilities towards the children? I think not.
It quickly becomes clear that whatever our own personal view with regard to the way forward, we must legislate with extreme care. On balance, there is much to be said in favour of supporting the implementation of Part II subject to the various caveats which I have just raised. That said, translating good practice and common sense into legislative provisions does not always work. I therefore join other noble Lords who have spoken this evening in looking forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether it is the Government's intention to bring forward Part II in a new, much improved and thereby workable format which implements the principles of Part I, or to scrap it altogether.
I close by making a brief reference to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham. She rightly referred to the priority of the children. I entirely agree with her that the interests of the children should be paramount. Section 11(3) of the 1996 Act states:
"In deciding whether the circumstances are as mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the court shall treat the welfare of the child as paramount".
That is already stated clearly in Part II of the Act.
7.36 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, some of your Lordships may have been a little puzzled by the terms of this Question for two reasons: first, because I announced on 16th January by a parliamentary Answer that the Government were not satisfied that it would be right to proceed with the implementation of Part II and that we would invite Parliament to repeal the relevant sections once a suitable opportunity arose; and, secondly, because we have already brought many of the provisions of the Act into force. We have implemented Part I which establishes the principles underlying the Act; Section 22 in Part II which gives me the power to make grants to marriage support services; Part III which enables public funding to be made available for mediation—perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that this has now been incorporated into the Legal Services Commission funding code so that funding is available for mediation; and Part IV (with the exception of Section 60) which improves and
888
strengthens the law relating to domestic violence, which I was pleased to hear was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. All of these provisions will remain in force and are unaffected by my decision not to implement Part II. None the less, I am grateful for the opportunity the Question has provided to debate these issues.
The family is the bedrock of a strong society in which children can grow up to fulfil their potential. We are firmly committed to supporting marriage and stable relationships and to save marriages wherever possible. Unavoidably, some marriages break down. When they do, we must enable families to receive the advice, support and information they need to help them make arrangements for the future with the minimum of acrimony and in a way which safeguards the welfare of their children.
These objectives are in Part I of the Act, and we are committed to them. However, as I explained to the House in January, the Government do not believe that Part II would have met these objectives. This view is shared by among others the President of the Family Division, the Senior District Judge, the Law Society the Solicitors Family Law Association and the Family Law Bar Association; and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, many of his criticisms well articulated.
Unfortunately, Part II is drafted in such a way that it must be implemented as a whole. It is not an à la carte menu but table d'hôte: you take it all or not at all. I have to confess that the decision I had to make was not an easy one. However, the research on the information meeting pilots showed that the meetings were not effective in helping most people save their marriages. They came too late; they did not provide people with information tailored to their personal circumstances, as has already been mentioned; they tried to achieve the incompatible objectives of saving marriages and informing people about divorce; and they failed to secure the involvement of both parties.
Also, the delay and complexity of the procedures in Part II, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred, would have meant families undergoing a protracted period of uncertainty before the arrangements for the future could be resolved and the marriage ended. Anyone wanting a divorce would first have had to attend an information meeting, whether they wanted it or not, and then would have had to wait three months following the meeting before the statement of marital breakdown could be filed with the court, then 14 days for the other party to he informed, then nine months for reflection and consideration before the divorce order could be made, and six months on top of that if there were children or if the other party asked for further time to reflect.
Those are just the statutory minimum periods. In reality, a divorce would have been likely to have taken at least 15 months if the couple did not have children and 21 months if they did, and it could have taken much longer. Those delays could have added to the stress experienced by parting couples and might well

889
have increased acrimony. Prolonged uncertainty and lack of settled arrangements would not have been in the best interests of the children.
There are strong views that divorce must continue to be fault-related to mark responsibility for marriage failure and equally strong views on the other side that divorce should not be fault-related because irretrievable marriage breakdown is a fact and the truth is more complex than that one party was to blame and the other not.
Fewer than 10 per cent of divorce cases are fought out through the courts. The majority are uncontested and dealt with on paper. My Ministers and I receive voluminous correspondence on the broadest range of legal subjects, but we receive no letters at all from the public asking for changes in the grounds of divorce. The focus should be not on dogma, either way, but on the principles set out in Part I of the Family Law Act.
Preventing petitioners for divorce from alleging fault against their spouse would not influence the way in which the parties conducted themselves during the divorce process, nor are the fault grounds for the proceedings any cause in practice for acrimony in divorce. There will have been acrimony in plenty before the proceedings started. The current system is sometimes described as though it involved courtroom battles in which the parties were obliged to make ever more outrageous allegations against each other in order to obtain a divorce. That is not true. In the very small number of cases that are fought, this is probably because of the bitterness and unhappiness that had built up before proceedings were begun.
It is much more important to have family policy focused on practical measures that help families and improve the lives of children. I have increased funding to marriage and relationship support organisations to £4.5 million in 2001–02 and £5 million in 2002–03 and have established an advisory group on marriage and relationship support to develop a new strategy and to advise on how the funding should be spent. Improved ancillary relief procedures were implemented in June 2000 and pension sharing in December. There will be consultation and piloting of procedural changes to improve the consideration given by the courts under the current law to the arrangements made by parents for their children following divorce.
We have recently announced plans to pilot family advice and information networks from October 2001. The networks will act as the first port of call for people
890
seeking advice and information on family problems and disputes. They will provide families with or refer them to a range of co-ordinated services, including legal advice, information, marriage counselling, contact centres and family therapy—whatever meets their individual needs.
One of the services available through the networks will be family mediation. Some in the media presented my decision not to implement Part II as signalling a withdrawal of support for mediation. That is not so. The research on family mediation published by the Legal Services Commission in December 2000 indicated that, while it is likely to remain a minority choice, mediation has a valuable role to play in resolving some family disputes.
Relationship breakdown and the fate of the children involved can be part of a cycle of social exclusion, debt, unemployment, poor housing and child poverty. The Government are committed to ending child poverty in 20 years and halving it in 10. We are working across Whitehall on initiatives such as Sure Start and the Children Fund to ensure that we help families in greatest need and mobilise the resources available in local authorities and community-based groups, as well as central government.
We have created the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS—which will provide a child-focused service that will serve children better and will ensure that their views and interests are made known to the courts when decisions are made on issues relating to their welfare and upbringing. Financial support has also been given to the National Association of Child Contact Centres. Contact centres are an increasingly important part of the process of enabling children and their parents to make the practical arrangements necessary on divorce.
I welcome the initiative of the right reverend Prelate in raising the issue today. As he said, I have also benefited recently from a most useful discussion with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I acknowledge that the Church has a vital role to play in this area.
Part II of the 1996 Act would not have given families the help that they need. It was not the answer. It would have made matters worse. Our new focus and these initiatives will be more effective in helping to support families and improve the lives of children.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.

  International Development: EC Collaboration
  International Development: EC Collaboration
  European Community: French and Italian Contributions
  European Community: French and Italian Contributions
  ONS Surveys: Cost
  ONS Surveys: Cost
  General Household Survey
  General Household Survey
  North-east England: Barnett Formula
  North-east England: Barnett Formula
  Census
  Census
  Commonwealth Immigrants Bill 1968: Legal Advice
  Commonwealth Immigrants Bill 1968: Legal Advice
  HM Prison Standford Hill: Board of Visitors
  HM Prison Standford Hill: Board of Visitors
  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Licensing Laws: Wales
  Licensing Laws: Wales
  HM Chief Inspector of Prisons: Appointment
  HM Chief Inspector of Prisons: Appointment
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  Assistant Surveillance Commissioners
  Assistant Surveillance Commissioners
  Community Punishment
  Community Punishment
  Prime Minister's Adviser on Crime
  Prime Minister's Adviser on Crime
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  Communications Data: Police Access
  Communications Data: Police Access
  Data Protection Act 1998: Web-based Retailers
  Data Protection Act 1998: Web-based Retailers
  Employee Monitoring: Information Commissioner Code of Practice
  Employee Monitoring: Information Commissioner Code of Practice
  Mentoring Organisations: Funding
  Mentoring Organisations: Funding
  Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Answer to Parliamentary Question
  Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Answer to Parliamentary Question
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Employment Tribunals: Legal Aid
  Employment Tribunals: Legal Aid
  Royal Courts of Justice and New Scotland Yard: Security Equipment
  Royal Courts of Justice and New Scotland Yard: Security Equipment
  Judicial and Queen's Counsel Appointments
  Judicial and Queen's Counsel Appointments
  Magistrates from Ethnic Minorities
  Magistrates from Ethnic Minorities
  Devolution: Northern Ireland Guidance
  Devolution: Northern Ireland Guidance
  Bishop Shi Enxiang
  Bishop Shi Enxiang
  Northern Iraq and the Kurdish People
  Northern Iraq and the Kurdish People
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Togo
  Togo
  Liberia
  Liberia
  Turkmenistan: Church Closures
  Turkmenistan: Church Closures
  Turkmenistan: Mr Shageldy Atakov
  Turkmenistan: Mr Shageldy Atakov
  Central Asian Republics: Religious Freedom
  Central Asian Republics: Religious Freedom
  UN Commission on Human Rights
  UN Commission on Human Rights
  EU Documents: Public Access
  EU Documents: Public Access
  Corus Redundancies: Government Support
  Corus Redundancies: Government Support
  House-Sitters: Minimum Wage Provisions
  House-Sitters: Minimum Wage Provisions
  Probation Officers: Benefit Penalty
  Probation Officers: Benefit Penalty
  Pensioners Living in EU: Pensions Uprating
  Pensioners Living in EU: Pensions Uprating
  Pensioners Living Abroad: Pensions Uprating
  Pensioners Living Abroad: Pensions Uprating
  Treasury Solicitor's Department Review
  Treasury Solicitor's Department Review
  Diabetic Drivers
  Diabetic Drivers
  Rural Consultations: TGWU Participation
  Rural Consultations: TGWU Participation
  London East-West Rail Links
  London East-West Rail Links
  CrossRail Project
  CrossRail Project
  East London Line
  East London Line
  London Underground: PPP Contracts
  London Underground: PPP Contracts
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Military Exercise Restrictions
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Military Exercise Restrictions
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Special Educational Needs Code of Practice
  Special Educational Needs Code of Practice
  Universities: EU Funding
  Universities: EU Funding
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Course
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Course
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Field Operations
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Field Operations
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Species Susceptibility, Incubation and Infectivity
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Species Susceptibility, Incubation and Infectivity
  Foot and Mouth Disease: MAFF's Letters to Farmers
  Foot and Mouth Disease: MAFF's Letters to Farmers
  Future of the Countryside and Farming
  Future of the Countryside and Farming
  MoD Meat Purchasing Safeguards
  MoD Meat Purchasing Safeguards
  National Health Service Number
  National Health Service Number
  National Health Service Performance Fund
  National Health Service Performance Fund
  Indoor Air Pollution: Effects on Health
  Indoor Air Pollution: Effects on Health
  National Cardiothoracic Transplant Centre
  National Cardiothoracic Transplant Centre
  Quality Protects Management Action Plans
  Quality Protects Management Action Plans
  Hepatitis C: Steering Group
  Hepatitis C: Steering Group
  Electrically Powered Wheelchairs
  Electrically Powered Wheelchairs