Sitting of 1 November 2001

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

NEW WRIT
Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Ipswich in the room of Jamie Charles Cann, Esquire, deceased.—[Ms Armstrong.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Manufacturing (Eastern Region)
    Alistair Burt: What recent representations she has received about unemployment in manufacturing industry in the eastern region; and if she will make a statement. [9547]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I have received several representations. Manufacturing employment in the region is falling, as it is in most industrial countries, but unemployment in the region is down, and there are more people in work in the east of England than ever before.
    Alistair Burt: I thank the right hon. Lady for her answer. Is she aware that many people in my constituency and in the eastern region as a whole see manufacturing as the silent casualty of the past few years? With the sector officially in recession, unemployment rising and Government measures such as the climate change levy beginning to bite, what personal targets is she setting to obtain some relief for manufacturing in this year's budgetary round? How does she intend to judge her success or failure on behalf of manufacturing when the Budget measures are announced?
    Ms Hewitt: Manufacturing in every industrialised country is going through difficult times. Indeed, in the past three months, manufacturing output fell in Japan by 4 per cent., in the United States by almost 2 per cent., in the eurozone by well over 1 per cent., but in the United Kingdom by only 1 per cent. Although many of our manufacturing workers and businesses are having a difficult time in the global economic slowdown, we are better placed in Britain, as a result of the policies that the Government have been pursuing, to withstand the global
    986
    downturn—as the International Monetary Fund confirmed just a couple of days ago. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I will continue to work with manufacturing industry and workers to ensure that more of our manufacturing companies become and remain highly productive and competitive in the world economy.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does the Secretary of State agree that one way to encourage even more employment opportunities in manufacturing in the eastern region, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is to encourage the development of new technologies such as renewable energy? If so, what further action is she taking to encourage businesses such as Shell and BP that have significant manufacturing businesses in renewables overseas to set up manufacturing plant here?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy and I have been working closely with those companies and others to encourage them to expand their renewable energy production in the United Kingdom. We are investing more than £250 million in renewable energy. We have created an incentive in the exemption of renewable energy from the climate change levy to encourage businesses to obtain more of their electricity from renewable sources. In the eastern region generally, we have the enormous advantage of Cambridge and other world-class universities, which are working increasingly closely with business and the regional development agency to ensure that the region is a centre of successful, growing high-tech manufacturing.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: What does the Secretary of State intend to do about over-regulation, which is so damaging to manufacturing industry in the eastern region and elsewhere in Britain, and how should we measure her progress in that?
    Ms Hewitt: I know very well that when Opposition Members talk about over-regulation, most of the time they are talking about measures to give better protection to workers, including the minimum wage, which they opposed in the last Parliament, and measures on working time, including the right to four weeks' holiday. We are working closely with business and the Better Regulation Task Force to deal with red tape problems when they arise and to reduce the burden of administrative costs on business. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we have less product market regulation than the rest of the OECD, and that Arthur Andersen found in a worldwide study earlier this year that this is the best place in the world to start and grow a business.

    Small Business Service
    Brian White: What assessment she has made of the operation of the Small Business Service. [9548]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Small Business Service is helping to build an enterprise society in which small firms of all types can thrive. Among its achievements in the first 18 months is the raising of

    987
    £100 million for early-stage high-technology businesses. Other achievements are set out in the annual report, which is in the Library.
    Brian White: The Minister will know that the success of Milton Keynes is largely based on small firms coming to the area, supported by agencies in the public and private sectors. The business plan for the local small business service is based on that same ethos of partnership. Will he ensure that the local service holds to those commitments and give an assurance that the money will go to companies and not into bureaucracy?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am certainly concerned about the underspend on operational costs in Milton Keynes, and I am monitoring the performance of Business Links. However, I am delighted by the quality of the support given to local firms that are badly affected by foot and mouth in my hon. Friend's area, such as Hot Air Balloon Adventures. The company informed me this morning that help from Business Links solutions was vital in assisting its survival and recovery.
    Brian Cotter: I think that the Minister will agree that we all hope that the Small Business Service will be truly effective. Many residential homes in my constituency are concerned about the national minimum standards being imposed by the Government. The Small Business Service should act on their behalf, but in this case it has shown its ignorance of the Department of Health's consultation process. In fact, the official report of the Small Business Service to the Department shows that the service has been seeking business representation on a strategic group that does not even exist.
    Nigel Griffiths: I am sorry to hear of any constituency concerns about the Small Business Service; it has given us very good service during the past 18 months. I am sure that better is to come and I am happy to take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments and to consider the matter. During the past quarter alone, the Small Business Service has helped more than 130,000 businesses through the advice given by Business Links.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Some small businesses are providers of services to people with individual learning accounts. Did the Department of Trade and Industry or the Small Business Service have any input in the recent decision of the Department for Education and Skills to stop taking new recruits for the ILA programme on 7 December? If so, was it not undiplomatic for that Department to send letters to small businesses telling them not to rush people into new, inappropriate accounts? After all, not all small businesses are run by cowboys.
    Nigel Griffiths: I recently met the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), who has responsibility for that sector. We agreed that the help given to people should be constantly monitored, updated and improved. With the aim of improving the available services, I have certainly noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I know that my hon. Friend the
    988
    Under-Secretary is also aware of the matter and is looking to ensure that an effective programme is improved and continues to provide a good service for all our constituents.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the Minister tell the House what advice he has received from the Small Business Service about the likely impact on small and medium-sized enterprises of the removal by the European Parliament of the concessions for smaller businesses in the information and consultation directive? That concession was brokered by the UK Government. Would it be too much to ask that in future, when the British Labour Government negotiate concessions in Brussels for the benefit of British business. Labour MEPs vote for them, not against them?
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman gave us the position of the European Parliament, but there has been no change in the agreement on the common position on that matter. Indeed, I met Commissioner Liikanen last week in Brussels to discuss the strong representation that we and other member states are making to ensure that small businesses can thrive and grow in the EU.

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. Peter Pike: What recent discussions she has had with the United Kingdom aerospace industry on the changes predicted as a result of the events of 11 September. [9549]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My colleagues and I are in very close contact both with individual companies and with the trade associations in order to understand and evaluate the effect of the appalling events of 11 September on the aerospace sector. We are already of course putting in place measures to help the workers affected by the redundancies that have been announced, but it is too early to predict the full impact on the sector.
    Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that in Burnley, as in many places, we have lost jobs in the aerospace industry since 11 September. Will she confirm that the Government believe that it is a high-skill, high-value industry crucial to the future of our economy, and that they will do everything possible to secure its future? Will they also do everything possible to ensure that those people who lose their jobs can retain their skills for the advantage of the industry and the country in years ahead?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the aerospace sector: it is a world-class high-tech manufacturing sector. During the past three years, we have invested £1 billion in support, through Airbus UK and Rolls-Royce, to ensure that we maintain that world-leading position. I also draw his attention to the very welcome announcement a few days ago that Lockheed and its British partners have won the new contract for the joint strike fighter. That will be worth more than £22 billion in investment and orders over the

    989
    next 10 years and will help, with further Government backing, to ensure that workers and businesses in the aerospace sector have a strong future.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Traditionally, at difficult times for the civil aerospace industry, capacity is utilised by appropriate increases in orders for the military manufacturing sector of the industry. The Secretary of State's announcement of the Lockheed Martin order for the JSF—in which we are participating—is especially welcome news. Can she make it clear that the Ministry of Defence will now sign a contract for the A400M aircraft that will ensure the continuance of many British jobs? That contract is especially important in view of the Italian Government's decision not to sign.
    Ms Hewitt: We will continue to work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the British aerospace industry continues to flourish and to meet the needs of the defence as well as the civilian sector. I shall certainly raise the hon. Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Mark Todd: The announcement of 1,900 job losses at Rolls-Royce in the Derby area shocked many local people. Steps are being taken to deal with the short-term implications of what we all consider a temporary setback for a great company. However, what steps are being taken to ensure that when the upturn comes, the investment that Rolls-Royce and other aerospace businesses want to make is located in the UK? Furthermore, what steps have been taken to ensure that the supply chains of that company are shortened and brought as far as possible within a UK compass?
    Ms Hewitt: The announcement of the Rolls-Royce redundancies was an appalling shock, especially for workers in my hon. Friend's constituency and other parts of Derby. We are working closely with the company and with colleagues in the Employment Service to ensure that every support is given to the workers who face losing their jobs. The Minister for Industry and Energy will shortly meet the Rolls-Royce taskforce to ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken on board as we develop an effective strategy so that the aerospace sector remains competitive and employs large numbers of British workers in very good jobs.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Secretary of State aware of the possibility of serious misuse of the public funding of £530 million for the Airbus project? Has she realised that, whereas in the rest of Europe industrial assistance is being spread throughout the supply chain, in the UK, all the DTI funding is going to the prime contractor, which in turn is demanding that all the British suppliers provide the full up-front development costs, putting them at an enormous competitive disadvantage? Will she investigate that matter and intervene if necessary, because there is a real possibility that large amounts of taxpayers' money will end up providing employment for Italian subcontractors?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are of course in touch both with prime contractors and the first-tier suppliers as we look at the
    990
    impact—in particular of 11 September—on the aerospace sector. I shall certainly look further at the point that he raised.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): The announcement about the joint strike fighter and the benefits that will come to the north-west from the creation of many thousands of jobs is wonderful. However, the supply chain is the worry. When we follow the supply chain back through BAE Systems, we find that some of the work is going to the former Russian bloc. I fear that that is uncompetitive and will disadvantage local skills and companies. Can my right hon. Friend help?
    Ms Hewitt: We are working with the aerospace sector, as we are with other sectors, to ensure that throughout the supply chain our companies and workers are competitive, wherever the competition comes from. Having considered the implications of the award of that contract to Lockheed, I understand that we are looking not only at £22 billion of orders during the next 10 years, but at some 7,000 jobs throughout the British supply chain as a direct result. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that news for the British aerospace sector.

    Wave and Tidal Power
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What steps her Department is taking to develop electricity generation using wave and tidal power. [9550]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): The Department is taking a number of important steps to develop electricity generation from wave and tidal power. We have supported the development of the world's first commercial wave power station on Islay, and we recently announced that we will provide further support to Wavegen—the company involved—for its most recent project. Earlier this year, the wave programme was extended to cover tidal-stream technology.
    Mr. Carmichael: The Minister is no doubt aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology concluded last year that the United Kingdom should establish a marine energy test centre. He is no doubt also aware that since then, research commissioned by the Scottish Executive and Highlands and Islands Enterprise has concluded that the best site for that centre would be in Stromness, Orkney. What discussions has he had with the Scottish Executive and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to move that project forward to the next stage? Is he prepared to commit any funding from his Department towards establishing the centre?
    Mr. Wilson: The announcement to which I referred about further support for Wavegen is relevant to the testing station on Orkney, because I understand that Wavegen will develop the technology for an offshore wave-power machine, which will be tested there. There is close liaison between those responsible for our UK-wide policy and those responsible for what is happening in Scotland. We work very closely with the Scottish Executive on all energy issues, especially renewables, and

    991
    the funding will come from the DTI where appropriate, and from the Scottish Executive or Highlands and Islands Enterprise where that is appropriate.
    Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe): The Minister will share the concern of Members who read the report in the recent Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology bulletin that changes to reduce the price of electricity have resulted in a decline in the amount of energy produced from renewable sources in recent months. Will he be particularly vigilant to ensure that in attempting to reduce energy costs, we do not score an own goal?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend's point is extremely well taken and succinctly expressed. There is a problem, but the new electricity trading arrangements are working well in their own terms. NETA has led to a significant 20 per cent. reduction in the wholesale price of electricity, but there is no doubt that NETA, among other factors, has had an impact on renewables, especially wave power and combined heat and power. That is why I have announced a consultation exercise on NETA's implications for renewables and CHP in its first few months of operation, but the rhetoric must match the reality, and I will be very interested to know about NETA's effect. NETA has many benefits, but we must also pursue and give substance to our targets on renewables and CHP.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: May I make it clear to the Minister that the Opposition strongly support efforts to encourage the development of renewable energy sources, such as wave and tidal power? We welcome the measures that he mentioned, and those to which the Secretary of State referred earlier, but may I press the Minister on the issue that has just been raised? The support that he described is almost worthless when set against NETA's effect on the industry. As he said, NETA has been very successful in driving down electricity prices, but it is also driving renewable energy producers out of business. Does he accept that if the Government are to meet their renewable energy targets—rather than waiting for the outcome of a review or the consultation exercise to which he referred—action is needed straight away?
    Mr. Wilson: I am delighted to hear that the Tories now support our policies on renewable energy, because the reality is that they never did anything about it. If they had done so, Britain might have kept its lead in wind power in particular and we, instead of Denmark, might have a £4 billion manufacturing industry today. I am determined that we will not lose our technological lead in wave and tidal power, CHP and other industries that can contribute enormously not only to our energy policies but to our manufacturing policies. That is our objective, and it is why I am so determined that we shall not be diverted from those targets. We will study NETA's effect. Ofgem is an independent regulator. Its priority is to reduce the price of electricity, which is also a popular and successful policy, but we have our targets for renewables and CHP, and we must consider the reality of what is happening in the first few months of NETA's working.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Is it not the case that the European Union has now set a target of 20 per cent. for renewables, by contrast with the 10 per cent. by
    992
    2010 that we have set? Is it not now time for us to look beyond 2010, and to set higher targets for renewables in the years ahead? In the current context of international terrorist threat, will my hon. Friend tell the House whether he personally would feel safer living next to a wind farm or a nuclear power station?
    Mr. Wilson: I would feel extremely safe living beside either, and no one should suggest otherwise at this or any other time. On the wider point, I should like even more ambitious targets for renewables to be set, and those involved in the energy review are studying that issue among others, but I am not interested in setting targets that cannot be achieved, so if we set a higher target for renewables, which I would strongly welcome and support, we must do so on the basis of hard evidence showing that we can deliver. That is precisely what the energy review will set out.

    End of Vehicle Life Directive
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: If she will make a statement on the start date and implementation of the end of vehicle life directive in the United Kingdom. [9551]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): The end of vehicle life directive requires transposition into national legislation by 21 April 2002. We are working to achieve that. The directive is complex, with far-reaching consequences for car and component manufactures, importers, vehicle dismantlers and shredders, material recyclers and car owners. It is therefore important that we get the legislative framework right.
    Miss Kirkbride: Does the Minister accept that the lack of detail in her reply will be viewed as complacent by my many constituents who work at MG Rover, whose livelihoods could depend on the decisions that she is about to take? Does she accept that France and Germany have decided to implement the directive with a five-year delay on old cars? Will she promise the House today that that will be the minimum delay in implementing the Government's decisions on the directive? Does she accept that if she does not do that, she could cause bankruptcy at MG Rover, destroying the livelihoods of many of my constituents?
    Miss Johnson: I assure the hon. Lady that there is no question of our putting United Kingdom business at a competitive disadvantage in transposing or implementing the directive. We will ensure that there is a level playing field with other member states. I also assure her that we have been consulting the industry on the possible implementation options. We welcome the views that we have received from the industry, and we are considering them carefully. It is crucial that we work together with the manufacturing and retailing industries to identify the best approach to implementation. That is what the Government are doing.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: In wishing my hon. Friend well, may I say that it is important to take the right decision, rather than a quick decision, on this issue? Using expressions such as "level playing field" is unhelpful

    993
    when we are talking about several playing fields. In particular, the Federal Republic of Germany's car manufacturing industry produces very different types of car from our own and has a different set of priorities in relation to end-of-life vehicles. Will she be very careful about what she says in relation to one country or another because the simplistic Eurospeak of level-playing-field comparisons is misleading and dangerous in such situations?
    Miss Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and his caution about the term "level playing field". I understand his point entirely, but I re-emphasise that we have no intention of putting UK business at a competitive disadvantage. I hope that he recognises the force of our views on that.
    As my hon. Friend will be aware, many car manufacturers, such as Toyota, have stated publicly—for example, to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recently—that they recognise the environmental benefits of the directive. The House must remember that the directive's objective is to achieve those benefits.
    Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): The Minister will know that the heart of the British car industry today is much more focused on the newer arrivals, such as Nissan, Honda and Toyota, which has its UK headquarters in my constituency. Will she reassure those companies that the Government will not allow the directive to require the newer entrants to the market to pick up recycling costs that rightly belong to a period 20 or 30 years ago, before they had a significant presence in our markets?
    Miss Johnson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing carefully with the industry how the directive is to be transposed and implemented. We will continue to do that, but car sales have been at record levels during September and October, and the car industry is a flourishing part of our economy.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the end of vehicle life, waste electronics and electrical directives and many more are being introduced for the good of the environment? Hon. Members will surely be in favour of that. There will be a lot of pressure from motor manufacturers to slow down the process. We want a level playing field, but I hope that she will stand firm on progress and say to the industry in this country that environmental enterprise offers us as a manufacturing nation a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of the new environmental climate in which we will operate. Those are real opportunities. It is not a lose-lose situation, but win-win, because we win for the environment and for innovation.
    Miss Johnson: Indeed. I applaud the objectives that my hon. Friend set out. Those are the Government's objectives on both the environmental side and the business side. I remind the House that greater recycling of end-of-life vehicles will contribute to the Government's target to reduce waste going to landfill. We already recycle 75 per cent. of end-of-life vehicles. The directive will bring that up to 85 per cent. by 2006.

    Manufacturing
    John Robertson: What plans she has to improve the quality of advice provided by her Department on manufacturing on a regional basis. [9553]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am strengthening my assistance to manufacturing industry in the regions through increased support for the regional development agencies to raise innovation, enterprise and skills and by improving universities and industry links. We are taking forward our announced initiative to provide a manufacturing advisory service in England and Wales, based on provision on a regional basis. In Scotland, advice to manufacturing industry is provided through the enterprise network.
    John Robertson: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware of the high unemployment in my constituency of Glasgow, Anniesland: it is running at about 6.9 per cent., well above the national average. We are seeking to encourage investment, particularly in shipbuilding in the constituency, and unemployment has fallen significantly since the Labour Government came to office in 1997. That success has been brought about in the main recently by the excellent partnership between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. What plans does he have to broaden that partnership to the rest of the UK?
    Mr. Wilson: The unemployment figure that my hon. Friend quotes is of course one of the higher figures in the country. I think it is worth bearing in mind that perhaps four or five years ago it would have been one of the lowest figures in the country for a constituency. That is how things have changed in the past four years.
    I agree with what my hon. Friend says about co-operation. We have a very good model in Scotland—there has been a very good model in Wales for a long time—of how an economic development agency can function, work alongside industry, and be part of a team that not only is proactive in promoting investment, but in times of difficulty gets in there with everyone else and helps to save jobs and to promote investment for the future. I believe strongly that the role that Scottish Enterprise, and the Welsh and Northern Ireland development agencies have played for many years since being established by a Labour Government can now be repeated throughout England by the regional development agencies, also established by a Labour Government.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Will the Minister tell the House how many jobs have been lost in manufacturing across the regions so far this year? Will he confirm that the recession affecting manufacturing industry started long before 11 September, although the events of that day will undoubtedly make the prospects for British business harder still? Will he explain why, when the Government claim to attach such importance to improving the competitiveness of British industry, the latest World Economic Forum league of international competitiveness shows that Britain has fallen still further: we are now in 12th place having been in fourth place just five years ago?
    Mr. Wilson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the remarks of the IMF on that subject. He would find a

    995
    very different picture. It seems to want to talk Britain up rather than to talk it down. Of course, manufacturing has difficulties and they pre-dated 11 September, but as the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, the decline of our manufacturing output is less than in comparable countries throughout the world. The point is not simply to say that manufacturing has difficulties. The real test of a Government is what they do about it. Instead of standing idly by saying that it is all to do with the market, in every situation we are working alongside companies and sectors that are in difficulty in order to defend as many jobs as possible and at the same time to ensure that investment takes place. That is what we are doing in the cases of Rolls-Royce and shipbuilding on the Clyde, it is what we did earlier this week with the mining industry, where there were some difficulties, and it is what we will continue to do. That is what people expect from a Labour Government and what they get from a Labour Government.
    Mr. Whittingdale: The Minister is right to say that the test is what the Government do to affect competitiveness. Does he really believe that the competitiveness of British industry is helped by the fact that, according to the CBI's pre-Budget submission, business is having to pay an extra £6 billion in tax as a result of his Government's actions? Will he even now try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do away with the climate change levy, which, as the Engineering Employers Federation has said, is imposing an ever greater and disproportionate burden on manufacturing at a time when the industry is already in recession?
    Mr. Wilson: We can all play the game of quoting from the bumper book of selective quotations, but by any standard if we ask manufacturing industry whether it has a better relationship with Government than it did in the past, the answer would positively be yes. Of course, fiscal issues are always raised by any sector of industry. They will be considered by a Treasury that is well aware of the implications of any measure, but we have responsibilities to the environment, to employment and to ensure the economic success of this country. Any Government working from a Labour perspective will put those together and take measures that are fiscally appropriate and will not damage manufacturing industry. Those are our priorities. We are doing pretty well. That is why the electorate gave us the vote of confidence that they did.
    Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley): What action has my hon. Friend's Department taken to encourage and assist regions to implement the national strategy for the textiles and clothing industry and particularly to allow it to move into new areas such as technical textiles? In order to show his support for the industry and the fact that it can have a positive future, will he consider visiting the wonderful millennium textiles banners exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, which reflects the identity of the villages and towns in my community in Amber Valley and the honourable heritage of the textiles industry, which we hope to preserve into the future?
    Mr. Wilson: I do not like to organise my diary on the hoof, but I could perhaps combine that invitation with my meeting with the Rolls-Royce taskforce and visit what I
    996
    am told is an excellent exhibition in Amber Valley. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is upstairs."] Well, I like to go back to roots and see where it all comes from.
    The textiles point is very relevant to a discussion on regional development agencies because, largely owing to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in her previous role, there is a strategy. I believe strongly that sections of the textiles industry, and niche companies within it, have a very bright future. Working through the RDAs, we will reinforce these sectors, which have real long-term prospects. That is a commitment that I am happy to put into effect in practice.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: The Minister may recall the advice given by his Department following the large number of redundancies in Marconi this June. Recently, that has culminated in a successful rapid response bid, for which I am most grateful. Unfortunately, there have been more manufacturing redundancies—just last week, a large number in an engineering company—and I hope that there will be further assistance. The matter goes beyond the redeployment package that might be offered. We have vacated sites in an area that has, in fact, a very low level of unemployment. I seek an assurance that the regional development agency, in its guidance and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been no question so far. It is not the practice of the House that a question should be read out in this manner, but perhaps the Minister can pick up on what the hon. Lady has said so far.
    Mr. Wilson: I welcome the hon. Lady's comments about the rapid response to the Marconi situation. Of course there will be more job losses in manufacturing. There is no doubt about that. The question is what we do in response. When companies have a future but there are short-term difficulties, government in all its forms, at local and national level, by working constructively with companies, can get good results, saving many jobs and laying the foundations for a better future. That is the approach that we are increasingly developing. There is to be a manufacturing summit later this year at which we will work up that approach further. It is not enough to stand by and express regret. We must be in there working and using all the tools of government to get the best result possible, often in difficult circumstances.
    I am sure that the hon. Lady and others will welcome the fact that Government funding for RDAs will rise from £1.2 billion in 2001 to £1.7 billion in 2003—04: a substantial increase that will allow the RDAs to play the role that I described and that I am sure she wants.

    Consumer Protection
    Siobhain McDonagh: What steps she is taking to improve protection of consumers. [9554]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Enterprise Bill will benefit consumers by strengthening the competition regime, introducing measures to take swift action against traders who do not comply with their obligations to consumers. The consumer credit review

    997
    will ensure that consumers are adequately protected against unfair and exploitative lending practices, and consumer support networks across the country are making it easier for consumers to get quality advice and information.
    Siobhain McDonagh: Will my hon. Friend specifically address the issue of car maintenance and repair? Many of my constituents who come to see me feel most vulnerable in that area and often pay large sums for poor work. What guarantees can she and the Government give that they will be better protected in future?
    Miss Johnson: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concerns: £9 billion a year is spent on servicing and repairing our cars and consumers are far from confident that they are getting a fair deal. Our proposals include the promotion of minimum standards of customer service, improving the effectiveness of codes of practice, and advice to help consumers feel more confident and better informed in their dealings with garages, including a good garage scheme.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: But can the Minister confirm that over a quarter of a century has passed since the Conservative fair trading legislation:, that the previous Secretary of State's rip-off Britain campaign descended into farce, fiasco and failure and caused much needless offence to British industry; and that, despite a White Paper in the middle of 1999, we are unlikely to have legislation before next year at the earliest? When are this Government going to take the needs of British consumers seriously instead of relying on cheap soundbites?
    Miss Johnson: The House will judge where the cheap soundbites are coming from.
    This is the first full-scale review of the consumer credit legislation in more than 25 years. For much of that period, there were Governments of the hon. Gentleman's persuasion in office, yet they did nothing. We are aware that the laws are more than 30 years old and we are taking steps to introduce changes that will protect consumers and radically modify and modernise the regime. There are many measures in the Enterprise Bill, and many of the measures in the consumer White Paper have already been implemented.

    Miners' Compensation
    Andy Burnham (Leigh): If she will make a statement on the progress of the compensation scheme for former miners. [9555]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): More than £600 million has now been paid out in coal compensation. Nearly 52,000 individual payments, in either interim or full settlement, have been made to respiratory claimants, and 64,000 to vibration white finger claimants. The schemes are expected to cost more than £5 billion.
    Andy Burnham: I thank the Minister for the work that he and the Secretary of State are doing to make progress on this important issue. More than 2,500 claims by former pitmen in my constituency are still unsettled.
    998
    One claimant recently passed away, and his family are still waiting for the release of his organs, so that they can give him a proper burial. Does the Minister agree that the system is still too bureaucratic and causes great distress to families? Will he consider cutting out more of the paperwork and making more approximate offers? Most people would rather have the money now, even if it is less than they are entitled to. Surely it is the least we can do, to give them some dignity in retirement when they are suffering from these terrible conditions.
    Mr. Wilson: I express my regret and sympathy to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. One of the tragic aspects of this whole business is that, almost by definition, because of the medical conditions involved, and because most of the claimants are elderly, deaths will occur before payment can be made. I can never say that that will not happen. All that I can do is to give an absolute commitment—which I give—to minimising the number of cases in which that happens.
    There are two constraints on us in delivering what my hon. Friend seeks. First, we work by agreement with the claimants' solicitors. Secondly, we are governed by the judges' ruling, which is complex and means that there can be no question of uniform payments to all claimants. Having said that, I endorse utterly what he says about minimising the bureaucracy and delays. I am pleased to announce that we have made an important breakthrough with the solicitors that will allow us to make full and final offers in cases for which the work histories have not been finally agreed. That will lead to thousands of full and final offers being made in the coming few weeks. My target for next year is that 50,000 such offers will be made, 15,000 of which will be in Wales, as I said on my visit there earlier this week.
    We have to keep up the pressure. There is no complacency. There is an absolute moral responsibility to pay out the money and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Price.
    Adam Price: I know that the Minister brings a deeply felt personal commitment to this issue. What can he tell us about the surface workers who were promised by his Department on 10 July 2000 that they would be eligible to make a claim under the scheme but whose solicitors have now been informed that that is no longer the case? Will he make good his original promise? Can he confirm also that claims over £50,000 have been called in by his Department? Does not that add a further level of bureaucracy and delay to claims from what are inevitably the oldest and the sickest miners?
    Mr. Wilson: I discussed that last point when I was in Wales earlier this week, and I am assured that it is not true that delay is being caused. We are dealing with the biggest compensation scheme ever anywhere in the world, and very substantial payments are being made under it, so we have a responsibility to check a sample of the larger payments, but that is done on the same day—it is turned around within 24 hours—so no additional delay is involved.

    999
    My understanding is that discussions with the surface workers' solicitors are on-going, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress so far in speeding up the claims, but plenty of former miners still come to my surgeries complaining of delays, and when my staff investigate—the IRISC people are very good, by the way—it often turns out that the problem lies with the solicitors, who leave offers sitting on their desks for weeks and sometimes months. They are being paid very generously by the Government for handling these cases. Is not it about time we had an audit, to make sure that we are getting value for money from these solicitors?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. At the meeting in Cardiff earlier this week, one of the unions handed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales a list of six cases in which there had been delays. When he checked those cases, he found that three of them were lying in solicitors' offices. That is where the delays were, and they are a practical example of the problem. However, solicitors are working closely with us and I do not want to blame anyone. All I want to do is get the payments made as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
    Solicitors will note my hon. Friend's remarks and take them to heart. Let us work together and get the payments made. As I said earlier, it is an uncapped scheme so there is absolutely no financial benefit to Government in delay. If a miner dies, the claim passes from the deceased to the widow and to the estate. In fact, delay costs the Government more than it does to pay out quickly. Therefore, every effort is being made to maximise the output of the scheme. The latest agreement with solicitors will lead to a big increase in the number of full and final offers.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: I entirely endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). I welcome the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister that a breakthrough has been made on the issue of work histories. I urge him to redouble his efforts so that the worst cases are dealt with first. Will he also consider the position of widows who, in some cases, have been waiting for pay-outs on claims that have lasted for three or four years?
    Mr. Wilson: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have recently reached agreement with the solicitors to prioritise the claims of widows along with those of the oldest and sickest. Inevitably, that will mean that estate claims and claims from younger miners and ex-miners will take a little longer, but I think that everyone understands that priority must be given to the oldest, the sickest and widows. If everyone accepts that and we get the system working, the figures that have been made available will clear a large part of the backlog that has built up over the past year.
    We have built up reasonable momentum, but it must be maintained. Many payments have been made. I stress that £600 million has been paid out, and that means that a huge sum of money is going into mining communities on a daily basis. The scheme is uncapped and it is estimated that it will cost between £5 billion and £6 billion, but
    1000
    claims are still coming in at the rate of 1,000 a week. Therefore, we do not know when the scheme will end or what the final figures will be. All that I can say is that every claim will be met.

    Regional Responsibilities
    Mr. Michael Fallon: If she will make a statement on her responsibilities for the regions. [9557]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We want every region to enjoy strong and sustainable economic growth. In pursuit of that goal, my Department sponsors the regional development agencies; we provide regional selective assistance and enterprise grants; we ensure that European structural funds support our policy goals; and we provide services to small firms through the Small Business Service and our network of business links.
    Mr. Fallon: All good stuff. However, can the Secretary of State explain why she and a junior Minister are responsible for the regional development agencies while, over at the Cabinet Office, the Deputy Prime Minister and another junior Minister are responsible for the Government offices of the regions and the regional co-ordination unit? A third Department of State—the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—has three more Ministers responsible directly for the regions. Does she not accept that having three Departments of State and seven Ministers with direct responsibility for the regions looks much more like jammed-up government than joined-up government?
    Ms Hewitt: Regional policy goes considerably wider than the economic responsibilities that I have at the Department of Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is leading the work that we are doing on the White Paper on regional governance and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is responsible for regional policy overall. The position is quite clear.
    Joyce Quin: Given that economic development is such an important part of the Government's regional decentralisation programme, can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will work closely with the other relevant Departments to promote regional government in those areas that want it through a referendum, and that she will back up that process by continuing with a very active regional policy at national level in her Department?
    Ms Hewitt: Yes, I can. I share my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for devolving decisions as far as possible to the people whose lives they affect. I am pleased that, since the election, regional development agencies are now among the responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry. We are working closely with those agencies and with colleagues to ensure that we have the strong effective regional policy that we need throughout the country.

    Competitiveness
    John Barrett: What steps the Government are taking to improve the competitiveness of British business. [9558]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): Improving the competitiveness of British business must be a partnership between all those involved in business and the Government. For the Government's part, we have created a stable economic environment in which business can prosper. We have low inflation and the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years.
    John Barrett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that there have been a number of redundancies in our constituencies as a direct result of the economic impact of the terrorist attack on 11 September? For example, Grampian Foods in my constituency has laid off employees in the airline food industry. The Governments of other countries, such as the United States, have taken positive steps to support their airlines, so what action will this Government take to ensure that our industry can continue to compete on a level playing field?
    Nigel Griffiths: No one should underestimate the events of 11 September, but no one should be in any doubt that, because of our economic policies, Britain is in a better position than other countries to weather any downturn. Steps have been taken to give us a business environment that has the lowest-ever corporation tax for small companies and the lowest starting rate in any major industrialised country. We have also reduced capital gains tax and introduced a host of other measures. Those steps have helped us to ensure that British businesses are in a better position than those in other countries to weather any downturn, to grow again and to compete in the world.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my view that price fixing and cartels are bad for competition in British business. However, does he share my suspicion that there is still a degree of price fixing in the British airline industry? That fact was confirmed to me only this week when I inquired about the standard fare between Heathrow and Glasgow and was told by British Airways that it was £162. When I phoned British Midland, its answer was somewhere between £161 and £163. Both airlines charge the exact same fare, so I encourage my hon. Friend in future legislation to strengthen competitiveness and to ensure that there is a proper investigation into what I believe to be price fixing in our domestic airline industry.
    Nigel Griffiths: Of course, any price fixing is to be deplored. I hope that my hon. Friend will refer any evidence that he has to the Director General of Fair Trading.
    Michael Fabricant: When my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) reminded the House that we had fallen from fourth place to 12th place in the competitiveness league, the Minister for Industry and Energy said that my hon. Friend was talking Britain down. The Minister added
    1002
    that he thought that we were doing pretty well. Can I tempt the Under-Secretary to agree with me that many in industry would say that that is a pretty complacent view?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend gave a robust and effective response. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has come back for more, but let me give it to him. Competitive rankings are by their nature very volatile. [Interruption.] I note that Opposition Members laugh at the fact that the United Kingdom is ahead of Germany, France, Italy and Denmark on the growth competitiveness index. If the hon. Gentleman examines The Economist intelligence unit report, he will see that we have made the UK the most attractive business location in the world. Those are the facts, and I am surprised that he should be so brave as to raise such an embarrassing subject for the Conservative party.

    Employment Rights
    Mr. Iain Luke: What action is being taken by her Department to improve employment rights in the workplace. [9559]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government have shown their commitment to minimum standards and fairness in the workplace with the introduction of the national minimum wage, paid holidays and many other measures. New rights to paid paternity and adoption leave, and enhancements to maternity rights, come in from 2003.
    Mr. Luke: I know that my hon. Friend is very much aware of the great concern and uncertainty that is felt by many public sector workers about the arbitrary changes in working conditions before initial guarantee is given and the possible loss of pension rights in the transfer of an undertaking. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that following the consultation period the Department will welcome the proposals made at the TUC conference to strengthen the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981? Will she implement the recommendations as soon as possible once the consultation period ends in December?
    Miss Johnson rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should say to the House before the Minister replies that Members should not read from notes.
    Miss Johnson: I know that my hon. Friend has a considerable and relevant background on these issues. I am grateful to him for bringing his expertise to the House, even though Opposition Members are mocking it. As he knows, the Government are consulting on reforms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. These reforms are designed to help the smooth management of any change by ensuring that employees know where they stand when a business changes hands.
    We are proposing options for extending TUPE to occupational pensions, which my hon. Friend has mentioned. That would help to ensure that more employees have a basic minimum pension provision.

    1003
    We want to ensure, too, that the liabilities in respect of employees are honoured by requiring transferrers to notify transferees of such liabilities. We want to clarify the position on when dismissals or changes to terms and
    1004
    conditions of employees who are involved in a transfer can be made. As my hon. Friend is aware, consultation ends on 15 December, so we are still awaiting the full consultation response.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill (Lords).
Motion to approve the special education needs code of practice.
Motion to establish the Liaison Committee.
TUESDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Crisis in the Government's Education and Life Long Learning Policies".
WEDNESDAY 7 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the International Development Bill (Lords).
THURSDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Export Control Bill.
FRIDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Debate on drugs strategy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional Business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Animal Health Bill.
TUESDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve a money resolution on the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Football Disorder [Amendment] Bill.
THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Motion to update the House sub judice rule.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 4 o'clock.
FRIDAY 16 NOVEMBER—A debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Subject to be announced.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. May I ask him again—I hope that this is the last time that I have to do so—to tell us when we will have the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement? It would be helpful to the House and to those outside if we could have notification of that.
Before we come to the Second Reading of the Animal Health Bill on 12 November, will the Government clarify the position on the report on the assessment of hunting in foot and mouth areas? It strikes me as rather odd—or maybe it is not that odd—that a Minister is sitting on the report, presumably because its contents are not what the Government would wish to share with the House or anyone else. Given its relevance, may I have an undertaking from the Leader of the House that we shall know the contents of the document before Second Reading? Obviously, they will be highly relevant to it.
May we have an urgent statement, well in advance of Remembrance day on 11 November, on what is going on following the headline in today's Daily Express, of all
1006
newspapers, "The Cruel Betrayal of our Old War Heroes"? In the editorial, the Daily Express, of all newspapers, says:
"But in a shameful example of red tape and bureaucratic pettiness, members of the Royal British Legion who were planning a traditional Remembrance Day in Berkshire have been banned from making their traditional march to church. A two-minute procession has been stopped because, under the Human Rights Act and the Road Traffic Act, the Legion would have had to apply for the road to be closed and provide signs a week in advance of their parade."
This would be laughable if the matter were not so serious. I demand that the Leader of the House arrange for the matter to be clarified and cleared up so that Remembrance day can be properly carried out throughout the country without being obstructed in a ridiculous way by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the attendant bureaucracy.
Mr. Cook: It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman's period in office is not in any way mellowing him. I am heartily relieved.
First, there is the question of the pre-Budget statement. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it last week as the autumn statement, and I thought that I gave him the technically correct answer that we would have it in the autumn. Usually, the pre-Budget statement takes place at some time during this month. I do not expect that to vary.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is important that the report on hunting is assessed carefully. For more than 30 days there has been no instance of foot and mouth disease, and we want to ensure that any step that we take does not endanger our success in eradicating the disease. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of the report's contents being known before the debate in a week's time.
As for the Royal British Legion, I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the incident at Boroughfield, which I was briefed on this morning. The House will be relieved to hear that there is no ban on the march. It has absolutely nothing to do with human rights. The police would be happy to co-operate if they were approached about road closures.
Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the important report that was produced by the joint aviation authorities in July, and published last month, on minimum aircraft seating standards? It is the first independent scientific report that states that seats in aircraft are too small for at least a quarter of the population, and that they are dangerous. The report recommends that seat spacing be increased immediately by at least 2.2 in.
I recognise the problems facing the aviation industry—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are laughing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to restore confidence in the industry among customers and passengers, we should guarantee their security and safety, and the health of passengers as well?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has raised the issue in a number of different ways over a period of time. I congratulate him on the vigilance with which he pursues it. As a frequent traveller I would welcome more space to accommodate both myself and my red box. I doubt whether 2.2 in would be enough to get the red box in beside me. I cannot promise a debate on the subject, but

1007
I am sure that the relevant authorities have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that he will find other opportunities to repeat the point until they act.
Mr. Paul Tyler: What progress is being made on proposals for the reform of the House of Lords? Does the Leader of the House recall putting his name to the Cook-Maclennan report before the 1997 election, which stated:
"The removal of the hereditary peers' right to vote is the first stage in a process of reform. Following their removal a joint committee of both houses should be established to bring forward detailed proposals on structure and functions for the later stages of reform within a time limited period. This body should produce recommendations for a democratic and representative second chamber."?
Is it now the Government's view that that has to be watered down so that it is even wetter than Wakeham? Will the Government produce a White Paper? It is reported that one will appear next week. If so, will it be put to a Joint Committee of all parties to consider before final proposals come forward?
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he did not get round to answering my question last week, about the timetable for the communications legislation relating to media regulation? Will there be a draft Bill? Will there be pre-legislative scrutiny? Will he confirm the statement made by Lord McIntosh in the House of Lords on Monday that a Joint Committee is being considered to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill?
Mr. Cook: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we hope to produce the Bill in draft so that it can be considered for pre-legislative scrutiny. We are currently consulting on the best way in which that can be done, but a Joint Committee is obviously one of the options, and I understand that there is willingness in both Houses to proceed with such a Committee. We will take that on board. On the other matter, I can say to the House that a document will be produced in the near future. He will be pleased to hear that it is a consultation document, so it will be open to Members of both Houses and to members of the public, who are members of neither House, to express their views. I can say now, however, that it will be our intention to complete the work that we started in the previous Parliament and to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords, ensuring that, for the first time, nobody is casting a vote in the legislature of Great Britain on the basis of heredity.
Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I thank my right hon. Friend for scheduling the money resolution for the Marine Conservation Bill. Can I apologise to him and to the Whips for my whinge last week that the Bill might be killed off last Friday? I urge him now to make all efforts to get the Bill through to its full completion, instead of allowing the matter to be one of presentation, in which the Bill merely goes into Committee and is killed there.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The way in which he raised the matter last Thursday and what then happened on Friday shows the efficacy of business questions and what can happen as a
1008
result of them. On the question of how the Bill proceeds after the Committee stage, as he knows, the Government made it clear last Friday that we wanted the Bill to proceed and to be examined by the House in Committee. However, we cannot commit ourselves to the Bill unless some of our concerns are met. Those concerns are felt not only by the Government, but by a wide range of bodies. I hope that we can find a way forward and reach agreement.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the Leader of the House consider allowing a debate on prison reform? There are some Christian-based prison units called Kainos wings that have had very good results in rehabilitating prisoners, much along the lines of Government policy, which we probably agree with. Yet, inexplicably, these wings have been told to shut by the Prison Service. I suspect that that was an irrational reaction to Muslim opinion following the events of 11 September. I also suspect that it happened without the Home Secretary's knowledge and was done behind his back. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore allow a debate, so that this irrational decision stands a chance of being reversed?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of prison reform, in which I have taken a close interest. Indeed, as a Back Bencher I once initiated a debate on the topic. I say to him that he makes a point that I am sure is of importance. I am sure also that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish to hear his comments. We can get an answer to him more quickly than through a debate by inviting the Home Secretary to write to him.
John Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the shock and outrage that was felt on some of these Benches when we saw what is effectively a carry-over motion for the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill? It was printed on the Vote yesterday and today. Will there be time on the Floor of the House to debate the motion, and will plenty of time be given so that some of us can set about sabotaging it? It is, after all, a wretched Bill and an attack on democracy. Can he also assure us that the votes will be unwhipped? We know that they are unwhipped in theory, but, in practice, they are whipped in the Lobby. After all, Mr. Speaker, we do not want a row, do we?
Mr. Cook: It is one of the first duties of the Leader of the House to try to avert as many rows as possible. My hon. Friend is commendably candid about his views on the Bill, which I know excites strong feelings. The question of timetabling the Bill is the prerogative of the Chairman of Ways and Means, not me, although it will not have escaped him that time is reserved for the Chairman of Ways and Means for the week after next. As to a vote, it must be a free one, and I can assure him that that will be our intention.
Sir George Young: Can the Leader of the House confirm that we have not debated the economy in the House since a one-day debate on the Queen's Speech some time ago and that we are not scheduled to do so in the next two weeks? As the health

1009
of the economy is central to so much of what the House wishes to achieve, can we have an earlier debate on it, certainly before the Christmas recess?
Mr. Cook: It certainly would be the wish of the Government that the whole House congratulate them on the fact that unemployment is below 1 million, on having the lowest inflation anywhere in Europe and on achieving a commendable high rate of growth, as well as on the fact that we are securing the lowest interest rates that we can remember on record. All those are very good achievements by the Government. If the Opposition wish us to debate them, I shall certainly commend that to my Cabinet and make sure that my colleagues there are aware that the Opposition are clamouring for more opportunities for us to demonstrate the sound economy that we have created.
Jim Sheridan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 127, which deals with the Disability Discrimination Act 1996 and the exemption of airlines from it?
[That this House regrets that airlines and airports are exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act 1996; calls upon the Government to remove their exempt status so that blind or partially-sighted people are able to fly with their guide dogs, as the 'Passport for Pets' scheme introduced in the last administration enables airlines and airports to register to take assistance animals only; and believes this will ensure that blind and partially-sighted travellers are not discriminated against.]
Will my right hon. Friend consider making time available for a debate on this very serious issue, which not only affects my constituents, but could seriously impact on the work of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Plainly, we all want to improve the rights of disabled people wherever that is possible, and they must have fair access. I will convey his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its relationship with the Department of Health, especially in relation to the drug beta interferon? He may be aware that NICE finally reported on beta interferon in August, after several years. The Department of Health is currently negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies on clinical trials of four different types of drugs. He will know—I see that he nods—that this an almost inhumane process, and our constituents in all parts of the country who suffer from multiple sclerosis are being put through it. Will he encourage somebody from the Department of Health to come to the House and make a statement? If he cannot do that, will he at the very least ensure that my written question, which has been tabled for priority answer on Monday, is answered on Monday by that Department?
Mr. Cook: I shall draw the Department's attention to the hon. Lady's question. The issue has been raised a number of times on Thursdays. The whole House will welcome the fact that progress is now being made. The Government are involved in discussions with the
1010
manufacturers to see whether we can find a cost-effective way of proceeding with clinical trials. That will provide us with a medical and financial perspective on whether the drug indeed offers a value remedy that can be prescribed with safety and confidence to those who suffer from multiple sclerosis.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has a reason for abandoning the process that was followed in the previous Parliament of allowing the Chairmen of all Select Committees to be represented on the Liaison Committee. It would appear from the Order Paper that, in future, there will be only one Chairman representing those Select Committees that have two Sub-Committees. Can he explain the reason for that, as it appears to disfranchise one of the Committees?
Mr. Cook: No Committee will be disfranchised; every Committee will be entitled to have its Chairman on the Liaison Committee. It is a matter for the Committees to choose whom their Chairmen may be. Of course, we changed the Standing Orders in June, in response to the report of the Liaison Committee, in which my hon. Friend played a distinguished part, which suggested that all Select Committees should have the right to appoint Sub-Committees. We have given that right to all the Committees. It is a matter for the House, but I would be surprised if it wished in those circumstances to provide a basis for the Liaison Committee on which the Chairmen of all Sub-Committees and all Committees should at all times be members.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Leader of the House accept that small shareholders in BT are very angry and resent the reported fact that the departing chairman, Sir Peter Bonfield, may receive a golden pay-off of more than —14 million? That is obscene and it is happening in spite of the fact that billions of pounds of shareholders' money was lost. Indeed, share values have collapsed during the period in which Sir Peter Bonfield has held that responsibility in BT. Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently find time to enable the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to introduce a Bill requiring shareholders to vote formally on individual directors' pay and pay-off packages, to prevent this scandalous pay-off, which is perceived as rewarding failure?
Mr. Cook: I believe the figure is £1.4 million, not £14 million, but it is still a considerable sum and the hon. Gentleman's point still stands. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that we intend to empower shareholders with the right to review the rewards of executives. I echo her observation that, at a time when workers are losing their jobs and shareholders are losing their money, we expect executives to share some of the pain.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on flood alleviation measures, so that we can consider what further funding could be made available to projects such as the Hatch End flood alleviation scheme in my constituency? It is being championed by the excellent local residents

1011
association. Its completion is of considerable interest to my constituents and businesses in Hatch End affected by flooding last year.
Mr. Cook: We have considerably increased spending on flood protection, as a result of which more homes are protected—many more than two years ago. We shall ensure that that investment is made. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is willing to receive applications from the Environment Agency, and if it puts forward that particular proposal I am sure that it will be sympathetically received.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to have an early debate on the Government's use of the Crown's prerogative? Does he understand that there is considerable concern among hon. Members that the power to recall Parliament is vested in the Executive and not in the House, and that we are deploying troops for a substantial period without the House's authority being obtained on a substantive motion? Does he understand that motions on the Adjournment, although desirable and useful, are not a proper substitute for a substantive motion authorising such action?
Mr. Cook: I am very interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views. I should like his confirmation that he expressed those views when the Government of whom he was a member repeatedly committed troops on a motion for the Adjournment. That is the long-standing basis on which the House has debated these affairs. I repeat what I said last week: whether or not there is a substantive motion, no one who has sat through the debates that we have had on this matter can be in any doubt about the will of the House and the overwhelming support from both sides for what we are doing.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on young people? The alienation of young people from the political system must be one of the greatest causes of concern. Other issues that affect young people include the provision of youth service facilities in our communities.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important point. All hon. Members attach importance to ensuring that the health of our democracy is strong among young people as well as among the rest of the electorate. I cannot promise a debate on this subject in the near future, but my hon. Friend can continue to raise this important issue through the vehicles available to private Members.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry makes a statement at the Dispatch Box next week on the Aldous report, which her Department has not published? It refers to the affairs of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), Hollis Industries and related Maxwell companies. It is essential that the report be published, and that the Secretary of State explain to the House why her predecessor did not make further inquiries, bearing in mind what the report is alleged to have said.
Mr. Cook: No, I shall not. Section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 was drafted by the Conservatives
1012
when they were in office. It explicitly provides that material provided in the course of an inquiry should remain confidential. The right hon. Gentleman might like to explain to the House why they included that provision in the Act if they now object to reports remaining confidential. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, never saw that report. He was informed of the results of the inquiry, and there the matter rests.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on town and country planning? To be more precise, can we have a debate on the type of town and country planning administered by the Israeli Government on the west bank and Gaza? To this day, Palestinian homes are being bulldozed while illegal settlements are being established with encouragement from the Israeli Government. Such a debate would let the Palestinian people know that we are concerned about their welfare, and that we have them and their position at heart.
Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the approach that she outlined. The Mitchell report recommended that there should be a ceasefire, and that it should be supported by confidence-building measures, which plainly must include respect for the homes of people who live in the territory administered by the Palestinian authority. We want to see a return to the peace negotiations. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been in the middle east in the past two days, and that is the message he is carrying.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): The House will welcome the creation of the Liaison Committee and the motion next week to set it up. Will the Leader of the House explain why the motion in "Remaining Orders and Notices" creates the Committee in a new way? It adds new, admittedly distinguished, members who are not existing members of departmental and domestic Select Committees. Will he confirm that that debate will be restricted to the matter of the membership, and will not enable the House to discuss some of the "Shifting the Balance" issues from the report published in the previous Parliament? If in that debate we cannot discuss the future role of the Liaison Committee, will he find time for a further debate so that we can?
Mr. Cook: The terms of the motion are not entirely new: there is a precedent. In the past, Sir Terence Higgins was added to the membership of the Liaison Committee and was treated with respect and honour by that Committee. I have included one additional member—he is a senior Member and has served on the Liaison Committee before—as I believe that the Committee would benefit from his wisdom and experience. However, it is a matter for the House to decide when we debate the motion.
That debate will turn on the motion to set up the Liaison Committee. The wider matters from "Shifting the Balance", to which the hon. Gentleman referred, are being examined by the Modernisation Committee. I hope that, in the near future, it will produce a report which will enable us to debate all those issues.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Following my right hon. Friend's response to the serious and legitimate

1013
question put by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and in the light of the announcement of business for Tuesday 13 November, does my right hon. Friend recognise that he and I have had a deep interest in overseas territories for many years? Are we sure that it does the House of Commons any credit to have a day debating overseas territories rather than an amendable motion on whether there should be military action from 17 November and the beginning of Ramadan? That ought to be a matter of an affirmative resolution.
Mr. Cook: If I may say so, the Government have been punctilious in providing opportunities for the House to debate the coalition against international terrorism. Today will be the fifth full day of debate on the subject since the events of 11 September. We shall continue, when appropriate, to provide opportunities for the House to consider the Government's action and to make sure that we are taking every possible step to ensure that Osama bin Laden is brought to justice before he can strike again.
I strongly disagree with what my hon. Friend said about the British Overseas Territories Bill. It is an important measure and regarded as a matter of great significance throughout the overseas territories. I remind the House that it carries through the commitment that we made in the previous Parliament to extend British citizenship to those citizens of the overseas territories who want it. That commitment is very much welcomed in the overseas territories, and I hope that the House attaches importance to it.
Mr. Gregory Barker: Disturbing and serious claims were made in last Sunday's "Panorama" about this country's ability to withstand and cope with a chemical or a biological terrorist attack. Given the woefully inadequate response from the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about effective co-ordination between civil and military emergency co-ordinators, when will we have a proper debate on civil defence and emergency planning in the light of the current international situation, so that we can reassure an increasingly worried public?
Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will have many opportunities in the near future to raise those issues. It would be a competent matter to raise in today's debate, and in the three-day debate we shall be holding on the emergency anti-terrorism Bill. A civil defence Bill will also have to be considered by the House. There will be plenty of opportunities for the House to explore those issues. However, I hope that none of us will encourage alarmism or public dismay. We regularly practise contingency planning, and we carry out exercises with all those involved. We shall continue to do everything we can to ensure that we are ready to respond, but sometimes it is not wise to publish the full details of that response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I inform the House that almost 70 Back Benchers wish to speak in the debate on the main business. I must therefore, cut business questions short.

Coalition Against International Terrorism
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Heppell.]
1 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful for the opportunity to set out once again the Government's position on international terrorism. It is wholly proper that I should do so again. The threat posed by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network and our response to that threat are matters that the House should debate regularly. That we can and that we do are key differences between ourselves and the repressive regime that we are fighting in Afghanistan.
Yesterday, I returned from visiting Washington, where I had discussions with, among others, the United States Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld. We discussed the future direction of the campaign, how we can sustain its momentum and how we can strengthen the coalition.
I repeated again that the United Kingdom remains steadfast in its commitment to the campaign against international terrorism. Since 11 September, the United Kingdom has stood beside our closest ally, the United States. We will conduct this campaign together for as long as it takes. As the House is aware, many other nations stand with us and many others are making significant offers of military support.
From the outset, we have responded positively to the United States' requests for military assistance by allowing them to use the airbase at Diego Garcia, by firing our own Tomahawk cruise missiles and by providing air-to-air refuelling and reconnaissance aircraft. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence announced last Friday, we have significantly increased our contribution to the continuing military campaign. An amphibious task force, maritime patrol aircraft and transport aircraft have all joined the forces that we had already made available.
The United States has made no secret of how much it values our support. Donald Rumsfeld made that clear in our joint press conference on Tuesday. He repeated that the United States values our involvement in the planning and prosecution of the military campaign. It welcomes our particular expertise in a number of key capabilities and the considerable experience, talent and skill that our armed forces provide. We have long enjoyed a uniquely close relationship with the United States and the tragedy of 11 September has made that relationship closer still.
At the start of the campaign we set ourselves a number of campaign aims. Let me take this opportunity to restate them to the House. First, I shall deal with our wider campaign aims—those that we hope to achieve in the longer term. We aim to do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism, to deter states from supporting, harbouring, or acting complicitly with international terrorist groups, to reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community and to end its self-imposed isolation.
Secondly, I shall set out again the immediate aims of the action that we are undertaking in Afghanistan. We aim to bring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to account. We aim to prevent Bin Laden and al-Qaeda from posing a

1015
continuing terrorist threat and we aim to ensure that Afghanistan verifiably ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism and the associated terrorist training camps. Since Mullah Omar has not complied with the United States' ultimatum, we require sufficient change in the leadership there to ensure that Afghanistan's links to international terrorism are broken permanently.
It is important to remind ourselves that achieving those aims, particularly the longer-term aims, will not be possible by military means alone. The campaign will be fought on many fronts and by many different means. It will be fought with diplomacy, and we have already formed a strong coalition with nations of all religions from across the world. It will be fought with financial measures—we have frozen the bank accounts of terrorist paymasters all over the world. It will be fought with humanitarian aid—$700 million has already been pledged to house and feed the refugees in Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will say more about that later.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that his aim to require sufficient change in Afghanistan's leadership is a sufficient aim? Over 20 years of conflict and civil war in Afghanistan have led to the conditions in which terrorism has been allowed to breed. The country has the most barbaric Government, and has done for years, regardless of whether the leadership came from the Northern Alliance or elsewhere. We need to be more forthright in saying that we require that all the people of Afghanistan should have the right to decide who should rule them.
Mr. Hoon: That is why I expressed the aim in terms of securing a Government in Afghanistan who do not support and sustain international terrorism. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that what follows from that is a stronger and more sustainable situation in Afghanistan; but our immediate aim is to secure a situation in which that country is not supporting al-Qaeda or other terrorist networks.
As I have said, we will bring about those aims in a number of ways, but my immediate responsibility is the military aspect of the campaign. The Ministry of Defence's contribution to meeting the campaign aims is focused on achieving three specific military objectives: to destroy the terrorist camps, to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and to enable us to mount future operations in Afghanistan.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many cluster bombs, delayed action bombs or Gator bombs have been dropped during the campaign, and to which of the military objectives those bombs have been directed?
Mr. Hoon: We have addressed five targets with cluster bombs so far. I shall deal with cluster bombs and their use later.
We know that many of those who carried out the terrorist attacks on 11 September were trained at camps in Afghanistan. Such training cannot be allowed to
1016
continue. That is why we have put those camps out of action. We must use military means to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Osama bin Laden. They did not listen to our warnings and that is why we are now applying direct military pressure. It is because we need to maintain that pressure on the Taliban regime, using all appropriate military means at our disposal, that we must create the right conditions for future military operations in Afghanistan.
Our military objectives are being achieved.
Jeremy Corbyn: Can my right hon. Friend give us an estimate of the number of civilian targets and international aid agency targets that have been hit by coalition forces? What estimate does he have of the number of civilian and military deaths in Afghanistan resulting from the campaign?
Mr. Hoon: Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that there are no civilian targets. As I will make clear in due course, an enormous amount of effort is made to avoid civilian casualties. There are necessary risks involved in military operations, and although we go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, I recognise that that risk exists in a military conflict. It is not possible to give any precise figures about the number of civilian casualties, but I caution my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to avoid relying on anything that the Taliban regime says about the matter.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the number of civilian targets the terrorists hit in the United States on 11 September, how many innocent people were on the aeroplanes and how many innocent civilian targets the terrorists have hit over the past few years?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a clear contrast between the appalling carnage witnessed in the United States on 11 September and the controlled, determined and precise way in which we are responding against appropriate military targets in Afghanistan.
I want to emphasise that our military objectives are being achieved. Since military action began on 7 October, nine terrorist training camps have been destroyed, including all those that were known to be in use when the campaign started. We have disrupted al-Qaeda's ability to train in the open, which will have restricted its ability to carry out further attacks. We have, therefore, achieved our first military objective, which is to destroy terrorist training camps. Of course, terrorist camps can be rebuilt and terrorists can hide and return later, so we continue to press home attacks on terrorist targets, including the caves where they hide.
Our second military objective is to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. We have attacked significant elements of their military installations. Nearly 40 Taliban military facilities have been attacked—all are damaged and many are destroyed. Taliban forces deployed in the field are being attacked. Significant amounts of armour, vehicles, equipment, and stores have been destroyed, including some 150 military vehicles and over 50 artillery pieces.

1017
The focus of recent military action has shifted significantly towards attacking Taliban forces in the field, thereby aiding the Northern Alliance and others who are also fighting them. That is increasing pressure on the Taliban regime still further.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned armour-piercing ordnance. Can he tell us whether depleted uranium is now being used?
Mr. Hoon: It is not being used at present. As I said a moment ago, I shall return to the question of cluster bombs.
We have not yet achieved our second military objective. The Taliban regime is still supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. We do, however, have good evidence that we are getting there. The Northern Alliance is growing in strength, with reports of some areas of local disaffection with the Taliban regime—its brutality, its barbarity and its hypocrisy. There are encouraging signs that the regime is now feeling the pressure acutely.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. May I ask him a question connected with what he said about dealing with the Taliban's front-line forces? Can he give us any estimate of their numbers, and can he tell us how successful the campaign has been in dealing with them over the past few days?
Mr. Hoon: I think the hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not want to go into detail about the precise numbers, as far as we are aware of them. As I shall make clear in due course, however, a very determined attempt is under way to disrupt the front line, and to ensure that the Northern Alliance has every opportunity to take ground and to advance.
Mr. Harry Barnes: If the training camps have been seriously damaged in military terms, and if Taliban airfields and other military installations have been hit, does that not provide an argument for putting the bombing on the back burner rather than escalating it with B52s? It is having a tremendous impact on the Islamic world, and we need its support for our objectives.
Mr. Hoon: I remind my hon. Friend that B52s have been part of the military campaign from the outset. What is different now is that they are targeting the Taliban front line. As for his suggestion of a pause in the bombing, it is important to maintain pressure on the Taliban regime and on al-Qaeda. A moment ago, I mentioned the possibility of terrorist training camps being rebuilt and reconstituted. We simply cannot afford such a development, which is why the military campaign must continue until we achieve the aims that we set out at the beginning.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Following the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), may I ask what assessment the Government have made of the likely effect in the Islamic and Arab world of bombing during Ramadan?
Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that we have regard to sensitivities in the Islamic world in relation to a
1018
continuation of the military campaign during Ramadan. Equally, however, for reasons that I have just given, it is important to maintain the military pressure. It would not be militarily sensible to announce in advance our intentions for as long a period as Ramadan involves. I entirely understand why my hon. Friend has raised the issue, but although we have regard to those sensitivities, we also have a military campaign that we must prosecute successfully.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the Iran/Iraq war, Iran bombed Iraq and Iraq bombed Iran during Ramadan? Does he recall that the Egyptians and the Syrians deliberately launched the Yom Kippur war on Israel during Ramadan? Some of my hon. Friends seem to misunderstand the nature of Ramadan, which those of us who live among thousands of Muslim constituents may understand better.
Mr. Hoon: A number of further examples could be cited, but my right hon. Friend has made his point extremely well.
Patrick Mercer: I apologise to the Secretary of State for not being here at the beginning, but may I take him back to what was said by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)? Following his deeply unhelpful comments, will the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between very precise surgical strikes against targets of high value, and strikes against targets of a purely military nature in areas where—I hesitate to use this phrase—collateral damage is much less likely?
Mr. Hoon: I will deal in due course with the kind of bombing that is likely to be an increasing feature of the campaign, but the targeting of military assets—fixed assets—has been largely completed in Afghanistan, and turning to the deployed military assets of the regime to facilitate an advance by the Northern Alliance is an entirely sensible military strategy.
Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many Afghans who oppose the Taliban are criticising the action, saying that not enough has been done to attack the Taliban's front-line forces and calling for far more action against the Taliban military?
Mr. Hoon: That is now being addressed very emphatically and effectively.
Mr. Mike Hancock: What the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday made it far from clear whether the total removal of the Taliban was an objective in the campaign. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there is any possibility that hostilities could cease and the Taliban could still exist, which would enable them to harbour terrorists in future?
Mr. Hoon: There is no possibility of the Taliban's continuing to exist if they intend to harbour future terrorists and allow terrorist training camps. As we have made clear all along, if the existing regime chooses to give up Osama bin Laden and his main associates and to abandon its support for terrorism, and allows us to verify

1019
that, the military action could end very quickly; but I see no sign of the regime's agreeing to those perfectly reasonable requests.
Mr. Jim Murphy: Does my right hon. Friend believe, and does the intelligence community believe, that bin Laden and his associates will themselves pause in their planning and activities during Ramadan? Has there been any statement from the Northern Alliance or the current Afghan Government that either will pause in their activities? Finally, when my right hon. Friend reaches the subject of targets, will he tell us whether the poppy fields in Afghanistan that cause so much drug-connected trouble throughout the world are a potential future target?
Mr. Hoon: It is certainly important to disrupt the Taliban's ability to sustain their operations, and their support for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. That disruption will continue in a variety of ways. I see no signs of a let-up in the Northern Alliance's efforts against the Taliban regime during Ramadan; nor indeed do I see any signs of international terrorism abandoning its efforts during that period.
Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoon: I will give way one last time. I have given way rather a lot.
Donald Anderson: Ancillary to the military campaign is the campaign for hearts and minds. Bin Laden has been extremely skilful in exploiting modern techniques with mediaeval imagery, as Khomeini did in 1979. What are we doing to counter that? Are we going to recruit people from the private sector, as the United States has done, to put over the coalition's case?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important for us to get the case across. I can give one example of what we are doing: we have recently spent some time talking to the Arab media. I think it very important, certainly on the basis of my visits to the middle east, to get our case across to those who are influencing public opinion in the region, and that effort will continue.
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Mr. Hoon: I will give way.
Mr. Campbell: I am grateful. Indeed, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the Secretary of State for being so generous.
May I return the right hon. Gentleman to the issue of the air campaign? Will he make it clear that there is no question of a separate air campaign and a separate ground campaign? We are embarking on military operations of which both air and ground operations are components. What we require is a fully integrated set of military operations. It is not possible to turn off the air campaign or turn on the ground campaign simply because of a particular date or time of the year.
Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very good point, which I shall address in due course.
1020
I was dealing with military objectives. On our third military objective, we have certainly created the conditions for future military operations in Afghanistan. Nine of the Taliban's airfields have been attacked and put out of action; their air force is effectively no more; their air defence and early warning systems have been wrecked. The coalition has air supremacy at medium and high altitude; coalition aircraft can fly lower and engage targets in the Taliban's front line. Ground troops can be deployed, as the United States proved in the raids on Kandahar nearly two weeks ago.
We never expected military action to be easy or to produce instant results. It will take time and it will take patience. Some people, perhaps, have become too ready in recent years to assume that military force will bring rapid and effortless success. They assume that the campaign in Afghanistan will be like those to expel Iraq from Kuwait or to drive Milosevic's forces out of Kosovo. There are, of course, some similarities. An obvious example is the early use of air power; its use to gain air superiority enables other operations to proceed with much lower risk than would otherwise be the case. Another comparison is the need to deploy and sustain forces far from their usual bases. Yet another example is the importance of wide international support. The Gulf conflict saw, as now, a great global coalition, standing against Saddam Hussein. The Kosovo campaign, too, although led by NATO, involved many countries from outside the Alliance.
There are, however, significant differences. In Kosovo, the enemy was a major and sophisticated standing army. For our forces to operate in safety required an intensive effort, much more so than we have seen over Afghanistan, to reduce the military capability and the power of the Yugoslav army. In Kosovo, the enemy was a modern state, albeit a badly governed one, but still a country with a relatively advanced infrastructure that was being used to support its military forces. There were, therefore, more targets, and they were more obvious.
Compare that with Afghanistan and the Taliban regime. Afghanistan has seen 22 years of almost continuous war. Much of its infrastructure was destroyed or damaged long before the first coalition bomb fell on 7 October. Neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban have standing armies as we understand that term, so our approach must be different. Intelligence is always important in any conflict, but it is crucial in this one. We have to engage relatively small and often elusive targets. That is no easy task. Good intelligence, as ever, is essential.
A conventional military campaign aims to take control of specific territory; that was how we pursued our aims in the Gulf and Kosovo, but that is not how we will conduct the campaign in Afghanistan. We are fighting not a unified state, but fanatical terrorists and their obsessive supporters. At times, we may need to deploy forces within Afghanistan. At times, we will help Afghans opposed to the Taliban regime. Indeed, much of the current air campaign—80 per cent. or so—is directed against the Taliban front line with the Northern Alliance. Certainly, when the Taliban regime falls, we may need to help stabilise the situation in Afghanistan, but we do not need to focus on gaining ground to the same extent as in a conventional campaign.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way with his customary

1021
generosity. A little earlier, he said that the Taliban could stop the campaign against them by yielding up bin Laden and, presumably, his closest associates. Has he thought how we should react if, when the campaign begins to press hard on the Taliban, they tried a move in which they announced that bin Laden and his closest associates had left the country, and if that were verified? Presumably, we would not just call off the campaign; we would still insist on proceeding until the rest of the network was destroyed.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. I listed a number of conditions that we would require to be met before the military campaign and the wider campaign against international terrorism could be suspended, as far as Afghanistan was concerned.
Paul Flynn: My question arises from an earlier intervention. Will my right hon. Friend now kill the myth that the conflict will have some effect on the flow of heroin to this country and confirm what the United Nations has just said—that the Taliban have reduced their poppy cultivation by 91 per cent, but the Northern Alliance has increased its poppy cultivation threefold? A great deal of the heroin coming to this country comes from Burma, Pakistan and other countries. Whatever the outcome of the conflict, it will have no effect whatsoever on the flow of heroin into this country.
Mr. Hoon: I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend, and I caution him against relying on the argument that, somehow, the Taliban regime had reduced the supply of heroin. In fact, the Taliban regime prohibited others from producing heroin so that they could exploit substantial stockpiles of heroin. Indeed, they were seeking to raise the price to derive further cash from that appalling trade. So I do not accept that there would not be a significant disruption of the heroin trade; it would certainly prevent the regime from trading in other people's lives to sustain its own appalling activities.
It is not possible to try to predict precisely how long the military campaign will last. What I can say, and what we have always said, is that we are in this for the long haul. Our assignment last week of additional forces—forces that we can sustain and support for long periods—is a clear demonstration of our resolve to see this through to the end. The campaign will continue for as long as it takes to achieve the aims that I have set out.
There were clearly difficult times during the Kosovo campaign, but we did not falter then. Look at the result: Kosovar Albanians have been able to return home; the region is already showing signs of stability; and two years after the end of military activity, Slobodan Milosevic is now in court. We will pursue those responsible for the terrorist atrocities of 11 September with precisely the same vigour and for as long as it takes, until they are brought to account. To get there, we must be patient and determined.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the National Assembly for Wales on Tuesday that the only hope that the terrorists in Afghanistan have of victory is if we lack the will or the courage to take them on. They think that we will lose our nerve. They could not be more wrong. We will not lose our nerve, because those
1022
responsible for the attacks of 11 September must be brought to account. They cannot be allowed to get away with the murder of thousands of innocent people.
Lembit Öpik: The Secretary of State will be aware that Save the Children, which has about 200 members of staff working in the area, has become aware that many children have become separated from their parents, which will not help to garner support for the coalition over there. Is he willing to hear representations from Save the Children on that issue so that the Government may be able to assist in reuniting those families?
Mr. Hoon: Of course, the Government are always willing to listen to sensible proposals, and I certainly welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Helen Southworth: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that Save the Children says that, before 11 September, one quarter of Afghan children died before the age of five. Will he confirm that the Government are equally determined to resolve that problem, about which the Taliban did not give a damn?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I do not think that I need comment further on her observation.
We must ensure that those responsible are never again able to carry out such attacks, which is why we are acting in self-defence. The events of 11 September demonstrated that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network are entirely prepared to slaughter as many people as they can to pursue their perverted objectives. They have killed on a number of occasions, not simply 11 September. Left alone, they will do so again. We are right to take military action; we simply have no choice.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: My right hon. Friend rightly makes a great deal of bringing Osama bin Laden and his confederates to account. If bin Laden and/or his confederates were to be brought before a court of law—and mindful of the fact that Milosevic has been brought before an international court, as were the criminals of the Third Reich—what kind of court does he, as a lawyer, anticipate that that would be?
Mr. Hoon: If Osama bin Laden were surrendered to a court process, there is one available in the United States or, indeed, the United Kingdom. Osama bin Laden has committed clear and appalling criminal offences in the United States; were he to appear before a court, that is where he should appear. Frankly, the analogy with the Third Reich is not appropriate because there were no appropriate legal actions that could be brought against those responsible at the end of the second world war in the places where they had committed offences; that was the legal difficulty that the countries of the west faced then. Indeed, lawyers at the time argued that the Third Reich had not committed offences contrary to German law.
We are in a wholly different situation. Those responsible for the attacks on 11 September committed the offence of murder in the United States, and I have no hesitation in saying that, if they were surrendered to justice, that is where they should be tried.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I wish to ask the Secretary of State how he would resolve the following dilemma. If Osama

1023
bin Laden were to come into United Kingdom jurisdiction, would we be able to surrender him to America, given the restrictions that we have adopted on not surrendering anyone to a country which has the death penalty?
Mr. Hoon: I would have no hesitation or difficulty about achieving that.
We know that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda can carry out these attacks only with the support of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. That is why they moved there some years ago. That is where they find a safe haven and the support that they need to carry out their terrorist atrocities.
We gave the Taliban regime the opportunity to end their support for al-Qaeda and to hand them over. We waited weeks before we began the military campaign, but the Taliban would not move. We were therefore forced to act. We always said that if they would not comply with our ultimatum, we would act to bring about sufficient change in the leadership of Afghanistan to ensure that their links to international terrorism are broken. That is what we are now doing. The Taliban could still comply, as I have said already. But unless they do, we will be forced to continue the military action that is now well under way.
It is important for those who would be critical of our action in Afghanistan to consider carefully what other course of action would achieve our aims. How else should we bring to account those responsible for the hijacking of the planes and the deliberate murder of thousands of ordinary people? How else should we act to prevent Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network from killing possibly thousands more American, British or European civilians? How else could we exercise our responsibility to the British people to defend them from the threat of fanatical terrorist attacks?
I would much prefer Osama bin Laden and his associates to give themselves up. I would prefer the Taliban to surrender the terrorists and close down the terrorist camps. I would certainly prefer not to have to send British forces into action. But these are not choices that we have. We must not forget that the threat posed to us by bin Laden, his associates and Taliban supporters is very, very, very real. We are determined to bring them to account. Our means of doing so grow stronger by the day.
The increase in the United Kingdom's contribution to the campaign is a clear indication of our resolve. The retention of a substantial naval presence in the region, including Royal Marines, ensures that we have in place a highly capable and flexible military force. Other forces based here in the United Kingdom are also at a high state of readiness. We are capable of deploying these forces quickly and of projecting fighting capability when this is required. We demonstrated this in both Sierra Leone and, more recently, in Macedonia.
Let me explain what immediate readiness means. It means that troops are at very short notice to move and that their equipment is in battle-ready condition. It does not imply necessarily that they will be committed to action immediately, but depending on the nature of the campaign, they may be. I have already explained that this is a different sort of campaign. As it proceeds, intelligence
1024
will bring to light opportunities to take action. Once a specific action has been identified, we will need to give our troops the necessary additional preparation and training required to carry it out. Let me emphasise that, acting always in accordance with international law, the coalition is ready to do everything required to achieve our objectives. That includes, where necessary, the use of cluster bombs.
Mr. John Smith: On the coalition action, will my right hon. Friend welcome today's news that Muslim forces from Turkey have been offered to the coalition to help with any ground force intervention?
Mr. Hoon: Certainly there is a determined effort to involve countries from around the world and the forces of different religions. We have already had offers of support from Islamic countries and I am most appreciative of them.
Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hoon: I must make progress, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
Cluster bombs against certain targets are the best, most effective weapons that we have. Where that is the case, the coalition is entitled to use them; otherwise we could put any ground forces we might ultimately deploy at unnecessary risk. But we will not act in ways that are contrary to international law. I recognise that others will be concerned about so-called carpet bombing. This inaccurate and outmoded term gives the impression that the coalition is engaged in indiscriminate attacks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hoon: Let me make some progress.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The coalition makes carefully directed strikes against legitimate terrorist and military targets. That includes heavy bombers dropping long sticks of bombs against large area targets, such as terrorist training camps or Taliban forces deployed in the field. As with any target, we take enormous care to avoid risk to civilians. When long sticks are dropped, the safety margins are appropriately larger than those for single bombs, as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) pointed out earlier.
Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State will know that I have long campaigned against land mines and, indeed, opposed the use of cluster bombs in Kosovo and former Yugoslavia. I oppose them in this campaign too. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) pointed out that there were two components to our forces: air and land. Surely they will be put at risk by cluster bombs with a delayed ordnance capacity, as well as civilians. Even a just cause can be jeopardised by using unjust weapons such as cluster bombs.
Mr. Hoon: Cluster bombs are not land mines. They are not defined as land mines in the Ottawa convention, for which I know my hon. Friend rightly and effectively campaigned. It is necessary to make a clear judgment on

1025
the threat to our forces. The threat to our land forces of dealing with armoured vehicles that will attack and kill them is far greater than any residual risk from cluster bombs. That is the difficult military judgment that must be taken. My overriding priority must be the safety of deployed British forces. No one in my position could stand up and say that we have not taken all effective means at our disposal to protect those forces.
Ms Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State has said that cluster bombs are not land mines, but they are in effect airborne land mines. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to listen. The cluster bombs used during the Kosovo war contained on average 147 bomblets. The failure rate for each cluster bomb was between 5 and 10 per cent., so for any cluster bomb dropped there are bomblets lying in the soil for months to come, ready to be picked up and to kill or maim civilians.
Mr. Hoon: These weapons are used against deployed military vehicles in areas where we are conducting a military campaign. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but we must take the action necessary to defend our own deployed forces, should that eventuality arise. I could not stand here as Secretary of State for Defence and not take appropriate action to defend our forces going about what is ultimately a humanitarian operation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hoon: I must make further progress. I have given way a considerable number of times.
I am aware that right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about the risk of causing civilian casualties. Military action is, of course, never without risk, but we do everything we possibly can to avoid risks to innocent civilians. The claims of the Taliban regime must be treated with considerable scepticism. They have been completely unreliable in the past and there is no reason to believe what the Taliban are saying today.
We do not take lightly the decision to deploy forces. No Government would want to put United Kingdom military personnel in harm's way. But we must not forget why we are engaged in this campaign. We must not forget what happened on 11 September. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We must not forget that if we do not act, Osama bin Laden and his supporters will continue to pose a threat to global stability and the lives of innocent people all over the world. We have no choice but to act, and to act decisively.
1.39 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Secretary of State and the House for failing to be present for the Secretary of State's opening remarks. I understand that he addressed issues that I wish to address, so he must forgive me if he has to go over the ground again. I apologise for that.
There may be any number of questions in our minds about the conduct of the Government's response to 11 September, but let there be no doubts whatever about what the principal response should be. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spelled out in The Daily Telegraph yesterday, we share the Government's
1026
objectives and continue to support the military campaign to deliver them, because that is the right thing for everyone to do.
As the weeks since 11 September go by and those terrible events begin to recede in our minds, there can be no excuse for forgetfulness or wishful thinking. We must be absolutely clear on the need for continued resolve. We must face reality. Airline hijackings and death on such a scale cannot be treated as a one-off. Terrorism is not a chance event like a lightning strike. Those events were planned and executed to the finest detail for a purpose.
The enormity of the crimes is matched only by the enormity of their strategic significance. The most powerful country in the world—the United States—was subjected to a deliberate and calculated attack. It was a strategic strike. It was a military operation backed by people with strategic objectives, who not only killed thousands of people but created fear and paralysis far beyond the events themselves. They have caused massive economic dislocation. Now that they have seen the effects of their evil, and given that they still possess the means and the motivation, what is to prevent them from striking again and again unless we act?
On 29 October, United States Attorney-General John Ashcroft announced that there may be additional terrorist attacks in the United States and against its interests elsewhere over the next week. I understand that that announcement was based on very strong intelligence indications. The risk remains, not just in America but here in our country, against our citizens in our cities. What is more, if we fail to act, there will be yet more serious consequences.
The United States has been the ultimate guarantor of global security and stability since the end of the second world war. That guarantee has depended on the absolute certainty that the United States, backed by its allies, would defend itself. We in Europe have been the most obvious beneficiaries of that guarantee.
As Henry Kissinger pointed out in his lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies in London last night, if the United States fails the test now, after the most devastating attack on its territory in its history, the whole structure of post-war global security will collapse. That is what is at stake.
All around the world, there are tensions and potential flashpoints where ethnic and border disputes can flare up and where the slenderest threads of deterrence hold the forces of chaos in check. Unless the United States and its allies prevail over the terrorist aggressors in Afghanistan, aggressors everywhere will be given a green light, and they will be aggressors who care nothing for civilian casualties or whether they use cluster bombs.
Western democracies do not like fighting wars. We find it grotesque to weigh the balance of argument on the basis of that awful phrase "collateral damage". We grieve for every death among innocent people caught in a war that is not of their choosing, but we must be prepared to face that choice.
Our enemies are people without scruple who hope to exploit civilised values as a key weakness. Now is the time to stand up for our values, not to be weak and surrender them. That is why we welcome the Prime Minister's speech to the Welsh Assembly on Tuesday, in which he unambiguously reiterated the fundamental purpose of the military campaign in Afghanistan. It is

1027
crucial that we keep explaining, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, the absolute and vital connection between the security of people leading their daily lives and the continued prosecution of the military campaign. The Government have clearly found some difficulties with that in recent days.
Our constituents and their children appreciate the real threat of terrorism. We can trust them to understand that reality. Since 11 September, which of us has not imagined how the worst could happen? We think of our families and our children. It is far harder to watch the bombing on television every night and make a rational connection with the safety and security of our lives—indeed, unless they are properly explained, the war planes and the mushroom clouds of smoke from bombs exploding in deserts and on hillsides thousands of miles away can reinforce a growing sense of unease.
In leading our people through that, I urge Ministers not to flannel them. People naturally want to see that the bombing will lead to progress, but we should not give false reassurance when there is as yet none to give. Attempts to sweeten or dilute the message lead to confusion. People want the facts of the situation. They do not want spin. The debate about whether the Royal Marines are ready was not helpful. Ministers cannot complain about press speculation when all the briefings and public statements about a possible deployment of thousands of troops leading up to last Friday's announcement seemed designed to create that speculation.
Once again, I urge the Secretary of State to question the wisdom of using field commanders for the political task of backing up what he says and reassuring the public back home about the direction of the campaign. I urge the Government to reconsider their media strategy.
Mr. Hoon: Where is the evidence for the hon. Gentleman's assertion?
Mr. Jenkin: My assertion about what?
Mr. Hoon: About the use of field commanders to back some political campaign. Quite simply, that has never been done, and I should be grateful to know why the hon. Gentleman makes that allegation.
Mr. Jenkin: I have nothing against Brigadier Lane or Admiral Burnell-Nugent, but it is clear that they have been authorised to give briefings. Brigadier Lane was interviewed on the "Today" programme. Those political messages would be better put across by Ministers, not military commanders in the field.
Mr. Hoon: Given that the admiral, in particular, was briefing in the context of an exercise, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government should forbid senior military commanders from appearing on the radio or giving interviews?
Mr. Jenkin: They do not appear without the Secretary of State's permission, and I certainly do not think that Brigadier Lane would have appeared on the "Today" programme without the Secretary of State knowing about it. If that is part of the right hon. Gentleman's campaign
1028
to reassure the British public, it should not be: he should ensure that the primary objective is that the public are not confused by conflicting messages. I shall not tire the House by going through those again.
Mr. Kaufman: May I give the hon. Gentleman a piece of advice? During the Gulf crisis and the Gulf war, when I led for the Opposition, as a supporter of the rule of law, I looked for points of agreement with the Government. I did not niggle over points of disagreement. My advice is this: if he and his leader continue in that way, they will not win support in the country. They will arouse contempt.
Mr. Jenkin: I opened by making it absolutely clear where and how deeply we support the Government's objectives, and the Government should realise that. The right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State have shown a little over-sensitivity on this point. If they think that the presentation over the past week has been absolutely perfect, they live in a different world from the rest of us. I know that they do not think that that is true.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Jenkin: I intend to carry on with my speech.
I do not believe that the majority of the British public feel that they have to know so many details of the debate about military preparations. They would hate the idea that Ministers were feeding speculation that might help the enemy and even put the lives of British service men at risk. We are not talking about managing the media for the usual domestic political agenda. Our adage should be, "less is more." The less the Government say about our plans, the more confident people are likely to be that the right decisions are being taken.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Jenkin: I will give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
Mr. Kilfoyle: A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman said that he would prefer the Government to deal in facts and not spin. Does he not therefore welcome the briefings given by Brigadier Lane and his colleagues? Surely he is getting the facts.
Mr. Jenkin: I do not want to drag the House through this again, but clearly there were disagreements. There were conflicts between what the Brigadier and Ministers were saying. Points of information given by the Chief of the Defence Staff did not accord with what Brigadier Lane had said. Unless we can clarify the messages, we will not give the British people the confidence that British forces deserve before they go into action.
The Prime Minister is right to clarify our objectives. The Government must also clarify their military aim. At the time of the previous debate on the subject on 16 October, the Government reassuringly produced a formidable document entitled, "Defeating International Terrorism: Campaign Objectives". It includes the four immediate objectives that have been extensively rehearsed. We support those objectives and we support the bombing campaign as a first step towards achieving them.

1029
We also agree with the Secretary of State that there is plenty of evidence to show that the bombing campaign is effective. It is degrading Taliban and al-Qaeda military assets. It is reducing the terrorists' ability to continue to operate and sending a clear signal to other terrorist organisations and the states that may harbour them that the west will act decisively against terrorism.
The Government's objectives reflect their overall policy and that of the United States Government, however. They are grand strategic objectives to be achieved by political, diplomatic and military means. They do not constitute achievable military aims. That, too, seems to be a source of some confusion. Apart from the appearance of the Deputy Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box yesterday, which I confess I had rather discounted, it seemed to be becoming clear from United States and British Government statements that a simpler military aim was being distilled from the broader strategy—namely, the removal of the Taliban Government.
When I asked the Secretary of State about that aim on Monday, he replied
"Yes. I can give that confirmation."—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 615.]
If there was any doubt left, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said
"Our objectives are clear: to close down the al-Qa'ida Network, bring UBL and his associates to justice and because the Taliban regime have chosen to side with al-Qa'ida, to remove them."
Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to clarify that it is the objective of the Government and the alliance to remove the Taliban Government?
Mr. Hoon: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was absent from the Chamber when I dealt with that matter. I made it clear that the purpose of the campaign—I set out the wider aims and the military aims—is to create a situation in Afghanistan where there is a Government who no longer harbour, sustain and support terrorism. That has al ways been and continues to be the aim.
Mr. Jenkin: That is a softer line than the one the Prime Minister took in his speech on Tuesday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Pathetic."] It is not pathetic. The Prime Minister said that it was the objective to remove the Taliban Government.
Donald Anderson rose—
Mr. Jenkin: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. If the alliance adopts that as its first and principal aim, I can assure the Secretary of State that the Government will have our fullest support. It is hard to see how al-Qaeda can be tackled effectively and bin Laden driven from his hiding places, or how we can begin to resolve the mounting humanitarian crisis, unless we remove the main obstacle to all those things, which is the Taliban. When I wrote those words, I did so with the thought that the Government's objective was to remove the Taliban. I still think that that probably should be the objective. We will support the Government in the use of whatever conventional military force is necessary to achieve that aim.
Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman says that he supports the big picture and the Government's objectives, but surely he is descending into a sort of mediaeval textual
1030
analysis of minor points of difference, which cannot be helpful in the big campaign. He is also being unrealistic and is failing to see the problems of coalition building, as elements of this disparate coalition have different views on whether some elements of the Taliban can be incorporated in a post-Taliban Government. Surely he is being unhelpful. We must keep the coalition going as it is at present, even though there may be certain ambiguities.
Mr. Jenkin: There are more than ambiguities, but I will let the point rest there.
I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. Removing the Taliban does not conflict with our humanitarian policy—it is the humanitarian policy. No arrangements can be made with a Government who had already created a dire refugee crisis before II September and who regularly hijack what little aid can get into the country to feed their troops.
Mr. Robathan: I raised this issue with the Secretary of State, but felt that his answer was not as full as it might have been. Surely it is the conditions in which the Taliban have thrived that must be ended. The last 20-odd years of conflict and civil war have led to those conditions and have resulted not only in refugees and humanitarian disaster but in disaster for the 50 per cent. of the Afghanistan people who are female as well as for all the neighbouring states. We must put an end to that Government and allow the people of Afghanistan the right to choose their own Government.
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. We must be prepared for a long campaign. It would be wrong to suggest that there is unlimited time, however. We need to prove the real value of the air campaign. That is only likely to become apparent when we move to the next stage of military operations, as both the Gulf and Kosovo military campaigns demonstrated.
I do not invite speculation about the nature of the next phase of the military campaign. Ministers will have our support if they continue to provide the Americans with whatever military support they may request and that we can afford them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Jenkin: I will give way to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien).
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having the courtesy to give way. The Leader of the Opposition gained much credit throughout the country for his unequivocal support for the Government in the war against terrorism. However, in what was widely perceived in the media as a wobble by an inexperienced new leader, the right hon. Gentleman seemed yesterday to set conditions for supporting the Government, as the hon. Gentleman has done today. Will he now reiterate on behalf of the Opposition that the Conservative party gives unequivocal and unconditional support to the Government in their fight against terrorism?
Mr. Jenkin: Yes, and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!") That yes means that we will continue to be Her Majesty's

1031
loyal Opposition, playing the role that the British people expect us to play in a democratic Parliament, asking the questions that they expect us to ask and holding the Government to account for the conduct of that campaign.
Mr. Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend agree that on the Opposition Benches there has been nothing but staunch, if thinking, support for the Government's objectives, compared with the ragbag of rebels and dissenters that we have seen on the Labour Back Benches?
Mr. Jenkin: I am tempted to agree with my hon. Friend, but dwelling on such criticisms might be unhelpful.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Surely the one truly important message that should come out of the House today is that the House of Commons—with very few exceptions in any quarter—wholeheartedly supports the Government in their determination to defeat terrorism.
Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. Nothing that I have said today detracts from that view.
The public rightly sense the dangers of a lengthening conflict. May I reassure the Government that the Opposition are not about to set any deadlines? However, the longer this part of the conflict continues and the longer the Taliban remain in power, the less effective the coalition appears to be and the greater is the threat to the political and military credibility of the alliance. That will also tend to obscure the wider issues presented by the threat of international terrorism that we must be ready to face.
There is no need to rehearse here the list of states that we know actively sustain international terrorist organisations. We must also address the underlying factors that give rise to such organisations: for example, the need to rebuild nations such as Afghanistan on the basis of a proper, legally constituted Government whose primary interests are stability and security and who show respect for basic human rights and for the territorial integrity of their neighbours. That is the agenda that the Prime Minister is rightly seeking to address on his visit to Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel, and we wish him every success.
All these wider efforts will come to naught unless we are prepared to follow through the military action that we have started. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are the sworn enemies of every Member of this House. We know that up to 50,000 people have been through the al-Qaeda training camps. We know that they have the will to destroy us and everything that we value most highly. As the Prime Minister said in his first statement to the House following 11 September:
"We know that they would, if they could, go further and use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 14 September 2001; Vol 372, c.606.]
If there is a vote tonight, we will join Ministers and their supporters in the Lobby. Every Member of this House should use this opportunity to demonstrate once again their support for the Government's determination
1032
to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda before they get the opportunity to carry out further atrocities on innocent people. The Government are entitled to that support. That is how Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition see our duty. Every member of our armed services is ready to do their duty. The very least that we can do is to back them with the determination and clarity that they are entitled to expect.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now until the end of the debate.
2.2 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I did not endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of Mr. Speaker during the earlier debates on this extremely serious matter because I wanted to speak with the aid agencies and assess the humanitarian aspects of the crisis. I now want to address my remarks to that issue.
If there is a Division tonight, I shall support the Government because the arguments have led overwhelmingly to the conclusion, consistent with the view of the majority of the British people, that what the Government are doing reflects what the British people expect from a responsible Government.
I do not want to become involved in the war of words about news management between the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, the media's influence on public opinion is important. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for North Essex, if there is a problem regarding news management—in fairness, perhaps there is—the media and the press have their responsibilities as well. It is probably better coming from me as a Back Bencher, speaking for myself alone, if I say that not only do the media have rights, which we are seeking to defend, they have responsibilities. They may from time to time want to address themselves to those responsibilities.
On Monday I listened to the "Today" programme on Radio 4 for about two hours. To the programme's credit, it ended with a brief discussion on that very matter. One of the contributors in the studio was Colonel John Hughes Wilson, formerly of the Defence Intelligence Service. He quoted Lawrence of Arabia's words:
"News management—the press—is the most important weapon of war."
It may be, but if it is, and given the complexities that we are facing, when the media choose whom they want to interview they should remember that a large number of people from the 90-odd nations that support the coalition come from Muslim communities. Perhaps we could hear from them from time to time.
On the diplomatic side, I strongly welcome what the Prime Minister has been doing during the past few days, particularly in seeking to influence Israel and Palestine. We all know that that is really at the heart of a solution to these problems.
Let me mention two countries, Pakistan and India, which Parliament holds in high regard, and the contribution of which they are capable. There are, of course, sensitivities—both countries are nuclear powers. However, on the diplomatic side it is right that we

1033
continue to press for fruitful negotiations on Kashmir, given the friction that there is, the three wars that have already taken place between those two nations arid the enormous pressure on both in the current crisis. We want to be even-handed. India has 130 million Muslims, the largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia.
I come now to the humanitarian challenge in Afghanistan. For more than 20 years, Afghanistan has been in the grip of a huge humanitarian crisis. There has been conflict; for the past three years there has been drought. There were many problems with refugees before 11 September. Some 1.5 million Afghan refugees have settled in Iran and 2 million in Pakistan. Today, the United Nations' projected figure for displaced or stranded people—among the most vulnerable of human beings—is around 7.5 million. That is a remarkable challenge.
Famine and diseases such as malaria are increasing; and infant mortality is also increasing on a huge scale. I believe that everyone in the House wants to respond passionately to that challenge. We know of the big demands on the medical centres. We know, too—I say this with some pride—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has led in dealing with these problems. Of the EU contribution, 19 per cent.—nearly a fifth—came from us. That was well beyond what might be expected on a per capita basis.
I have listened, as have other right hon. and hon. Members, to the important views of the aid agencies, which for years, not just for the past few weeks and months, have been at the front line in trying to deal with the problems. I know that they are not unanimous in their view about, for example, whether there should be a pause in the war. Some, such as Oxfam, and others that speak from its perspective, take the view that that should take place. They tell us in all candour that the delivery of food by air is not reaching those whom it is meant to reach, and sometimes the food packages are confused with land mines. They tell us in all candour that they are suspicious of cluster bombs.
Other aid agencies make the point that for many years, not just in recent weeks, the Taliban's harassments, their looting and seizing of trucks, their objection to women working for the aid agencies even as they bring succour, and their threatening with execution people who use telephones to give their appraisal of the situation, do not make it easy for the Government or those involved in the coalition to deliver the essential humanitarian aid—food, medicine and the rest—that we are determined to deliver. It is precisely the humanitarian crisis that convinces me that our diplomatic, military and intelligence activities simply have to succeed. They cannot be seen to fail.
The efforts against terrorism and the provision of proper humanitarian relief rely on the possession of at least one other airport or some other secure method of bringing vital supplies to at least substantial parts of Afghanistan. That would be an enormous success story. I accept that we would have to work with the Northern Alliance to achieve it, but if we could take the key northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif we could open vital supply routes into Afghanistan. That does mean force, but in the circumstances, consistent with every effort to ensure that civilians are protected, it is not an ignoble objective. I sincerely believe that it is the only choice.
1034
Beyond that—on this, I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we look forward—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. You will have to conclude. I call Mr. Keetch.
2.12 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch: I, too, shall be brief because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). She has to deal with a personal matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) will make a speech should he catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the initiative that the Prime Minister is undertaking in the middle east. It has been suggested that American foreign policy and the situation in the middle east somehow justify the appalling attacks of 11 September. That is ludicrous. Nothing can justify what happened, but it is true to say that the situation in the middle east has an important role to play in finally winning the war against terrorism. We support what the Prime Minister is doing today, especially his efforts in Israel.
We meet here again today to discuss this war. We have never liked using the word "war"—we do not believe that we are at war—but the word is being used and I accept its use. We said from day one that we would support military action that was targeted, proportionate and within international law. We have always made it clear that we believe, and I know that the Government also believe, that the military campaign is just one aspect of the overall campaign that needs to be fought. On that military campaign, we again say that we support our armed forces. We must do all that we can to protect them. They go into action—if they have to do so—with our complete support.
Like many others, including the Secretary of State for Defence, I recently visited Oman. I found our forces there—as I find our forces wherever I see them—in good spirits. I had concerns about several items and I am glad that they have been dealt with. I am especially pleased about the new rifle that the Minister of State for Defence told us will be made available to them.
I want to tell the House about my correspondence with one of the marines whom I met—a young Muslim. He and his parents have written to me welcoming the visits that have been made. That Muslim marine knows—as we all know—that the action being taken and to be taken is in no way a war against Islam. It is worth repeating that the action that is being taken is against terrorism wherever it may be found.
That action is not only military in nature: it involves diplomacy and financial measures, as well as intelligence work about which we may never know. It also includes humanitarian aid. I seek several assurances about the humanitarian project.
I am delighted that no one in the House, in the Government or in the US Administration is prepared to ignore the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. However, it must be admitted that there was a humanitarian disaster there before 11 September—we all know that. We must continue to make every effort to get humanitarian aid into Afghanistan, especially with the approach of winter. If history has shown us one thing,

1035
it is that the fight against terrorism is likely to be a long one. We must not forget that for many people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran time is pressing.
Mr. Richard Allan: Does my hon. Friend recognise the anxiety of many of my constituents that the humanitarian and human rights situation of the Afghan people will improve only if there is the prospect of a stable regime to replace the current one? Does he understand their worry that even if the Taliban regime were to fall tomorrow or next week, unless it is replaced with something better, we shall have created a humanitarian situation that is no better and may even be worse as the land falls into the hands of competing warlords? Does he agree that we need far more emphasis on what will come next, rather than merely focusing on what we want to get rid of at present?
Mr. Keetch: My hon. Friend is right. It is true that any replacement regime, which will have to attract international support, cannot simply be formed, for example, by the Northern Alliance. To have any chance of success in Afghanistan, the regime will have to be representative of all the various communities and tribes in that country. We in the international community must work to ensure that.
Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman repeats what many hon. Members have said about the range of people who should be involved in a post-Taliban Government. Will he make it explicit that that must include women, who have been greatest victims of the Taliban regime?
Mr. Keetch: I make that absolutely explicit. The treatment of women by the Taliban regime is appalling. Any replacement regime must understand that the human rights of all members of society in Afghanistan must be upheld.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Keetch: Yes, but this is the last time.
Mr. Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that there is a great distinction between the appalling behaviour of the Taliban regime and the traditional behaviour of many Muslim communities? To attempt to impose western values on Muslim communities and nations that have a secure and sensible way of governing themselves is exactly the way to lose their support.
Mr. Keetch: I certainly would not suggest to any nation that we should impose targets or quotas, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that the way in which women have been treated in recent years in Afghanistan is very different from the way in which they used to be treated there. Formerly, they were regarded as valued members of their society. I want to see that again. I have visited Muslim societies where women have that right—a point that bears repetition.
May I put a question to the Secretary of State for International Development through the Under-Secretary of State for Defence who is sitting on the Treasury Bench?
1036
The Secretary of State for Defence mentioned that $700 million of aid has been pledged during the war so far. How much of that has actually been delivered? It has been suggested that although it is easy to pledge money, actually to give it is a slightly different thing.
Will the Under-Secretary tell us whether it has been suggested that some of the non-fighting members of the coalition might use some of their military assets to speed up the delivery of aid to the area? That would go some way to alleviate the crisis that might shortly be upon us.
On cluster bombs, Liberal Democrats have to part company to a degree with others. We believe that targeted and proportionate military action is acceptable, but we also have to accept that the use of cluster bombs has a wider international and diplomatic consequence. In its excellent report on the Kosovo crisis, the Select Committee on Defence considered the use of cluster bombs and said:
"At the very least, their reputation as an indiscriminate weapon risks international condemnation, undermining popular support for an action."
Patrick Mercer: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's considerable defence experience, but we both understand that a palpable confusion exists between mines and cluster bombs. They are not the same, and that difference must be made clear if we are not to have one hand tied behind our backs.
Mr. Keetch: There is a difference between land mines and cluster bombs, and that is understood in the report that I quote and I understand it, too. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a few minutes, I shall expand the argument and answer some of his concerns.
We believe that the concerns on the diplomatic front about the use of such weapons are very real. So real does the Ministry of Defence believe them to be that it has now written to every Member of Parliament to give its defence of those weapons. We believe that a sizeable proportion of the bomblets dropped clearly fail to go off. The Secretary of State for Defence suggested that the figure is 5 per cent. The Select Committee thinks that the percentage is higher—perhaps between 8 and 12 per cent.—and, of course, some non-governmental organisations believe it to be higher than that. Given the failure rate of some of those submunitions, which can cause civilian casualties and casualties to our own forces who may occupy the ground, the use of that ordnance seems to be folly, and it should be reconsidered.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Following on from the previous intervention, does the hon. Gentleman understand that, as acknowledged by a Pentagon spokesman in The New York Times of 11 October, the bombs being dropped on Afghanistan are, in fact, Gator bombs—a form of cluster bomb with wires extending between each bomb? They are activated indiscriminately by a tripwire mechanism and are similar to mines.
Mr. Keetch: I do understand that, and I can understand that there may be occasions on which the military use of cluster bombs should be allowed. We certainly would not withdraw them from the British Army's order of battle, but because of the concerns about them in other nations and in this country, we do not believe that they should be used in this conflict.
Mr. David Borrow: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if he were the Secretary of

1037
State for Defence and his senior officers at the MOD advised him that it was in the interests of protecting the lives of British service men and women to use cluster bombs in certain circumstances in Afghanistan, he would say no and put the lives of our service men and women at risk?
Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman must understand that if using such weapons results in a much wider breakdown in the international coalition, that could have more consequences for the protection of our services than not using them. I shall not second-guess what I would do if I were in that position, although I look forward to being in that position, but currently in this campaign the use of cluster bombs is wrong.
On the calls for a pause for Ramadan, which the Secretary of State has discussed, I entirely agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and, indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife. It has been suggested that if we were to pause for Ramadan or some other event, somehow humanitarian aid would suddenly flow. I see no evidence that that is really the case. To cease air strikes could possibly allow the Taliban to regroup and reassemble their forces, and it could possibly allow al-Qaeda to plan and execute another horrific terrorist attack. Therefore, we believe that to pause, or to announce a pause for an event that is coming up in over two weeks would be wrong. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton was right to say that history shows that Ramadan has never necessarily meant a pause in military action. At this stage, therefore, we do not support a pause.
Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Keetch: I must try to make some progress because many hon. Members wish to speak.
I come to the home front, if we may call it that. The safeguarding of the lives of our constituents must be the principal activity of Her Majesty's Government. I want to know whether they will reassess the calls by some people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), for a newly appointed Cabinet-rank Minister to deal with home security. We must ensure that every possible provision is in place to secure the lives of our citizens.
It is clear that there is some confusion about who would control a terrorist event in this country. Would it be the Home Office, local government or indeed the devolved Assemblies? It is clear that there is some concern. I therefore believe that we should consider following the example of the United States and appoint a Cabinet-level person who would be responsible for co-ordinating homeland defence. I believe that the Territorial Army would have a vital role in that. I am glad that the Government are trying to improve the way in which the TA is organised.
It is clear that the war is now undergoing a different tempo and that the combined land and air campaign is changing its movement. We in the House must support that. We have made it clear from the start that we support targeted, proportionate action. Our view has not changed. Others may have changed their position, but we have not.
1038
If our armed forces go into action, they do so with our support. We pray for their safe return home. We have the best armed forces in the world. Again, that will be proven.
2.26 pm
Ann Clwyd: I have not attempted to speak in the House during the campaign, other than to make interventions on various Ministers. I stand here today with a heavy heart because I feel that we are facing an enormous humanitarian crisis.
For the past two weeks, we on the Select Committee on International Development have listened to various people from aid agencies, some of whom have been inside Afghanistan as recently as two weeks ago, some of whom have been expelled, but all of whom have particular knowledge of the situation there. They knew that there was a drought before 11 September, and they warned of its consequences. Since then, it has been made much more difficult to deliver not just food to that country, but tents, clothing and other supplies. They say that there is a two-week window of opportunity before it is too late for hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan.
I am not happy to stand here and say that 100,000 children may die unless we can get that aid to them in time, but that is what the United Nations Children's Fund has told us: 100,000 children could die in that country. Therefore, we all have a great responsibility to ensure that not only the military objectives but the diplomatic and humanitarian objectives are met, as other colleagues have said. I do not believe that the humanitarian objective is being met at the moment, although at the beginning of the campaign we were told that humanitarian, diplomatic and military efforts would run in parallel and would be mutually supportive. Obviously, that is not happening with regard to the humanitarian situation.
It is not the fault of the people who are waging the war, because it is a complex situation. The Taliban previously attacked aid agencies and imprisoned people who worked for them. They did not allow them to work with women. They did not allow many of the things that we expect aid agencies to do in a country. That was before the bombing started. Now that it is under way, we must take notice of the warnings coming from aid agencies across the board, from Islamic Relief to Oxfam, Christian Aid and Care International.
Two weeks running, we have heard those agencies giving evidence to our Committee. They are not so concerned about the people on the borders who are trying to become or are already refugees, because there is usually somebody to look after them. They are concerned about the displaced people inside Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of people were already displaced before the war started but have become even more so. Many have fled in terror to the borders or to friends and relatives out in the country.
There are estimated to be about 2 million displaced people inside Afghanistan. The difficulty will be to reach those people once the snows start. The aid agencies have different views on how to get the food into the country. A lot of figures are bandied about, but one important statistic is that people are getting only 19 per cent. of the food that they need. Whatever we say about metric tonnes, 19 per cent. is clear enough to everybody.
People are underfed. Many are already suffering from malnourishment, exhaustion and fear. Women are particularly vulnerable. Thousands are already war

1039
widows and have to fend for themselves. Dropping food parcels from the air may have to continue as a last resort, but it means that the healthy and the strong can run to get the food, while the weak, the vulnerable and the children cannot.
I am told that truck drivers are reluctant to drive food trucks in Afghanistan. They are afraid of looting, of being attacked and of bombing, because they do not know when it will happen. However, there are donkeys and carts and other ways of getting food to people, and that has to be done before the snows come.
I cannot stress strongly enough that we have a responsibility to deal with the humanitarian crisis, which the aid agencies believe is of gigantic proportions and may become a bigger catastrophe than anything seen before. I am sure that none of us wants that to happen, so we must call on our own Government and on the others involved in the action to find a mechanism to ensure that the humanitarian problem is addressed, and soon, so that at least we can hold up our heads and say that we did what we could. Whatever happens during the military action, we must not allow hundreds of thousands of Afghans to starve, but unless the humanitarian crisis is addressed now, that is what will happen.
2.34 pm
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) speaks with passion, knowledge and commitment on the humanitarian aspect of the conflict with Afghanistan. I know of no military engagement in which there has been such a strong humanitarian element. The precision with which munitions are delivered has been weighed to take into account the humanitarian concerns that she expressed.
Looking around the Chamber, I can see a great number of poppies. The majority of, if not all, Members of the House will go to their war memorial on Remembrance Sunday and bow their head in remembrance of those who, in two world wars and other conflicts, have given their lives in the cause of freedom. We will remember the massive loss of life that occurred, for example, on the Somme. Faulks's book "Birdsong" reminded us that, on day one, 40,000 were killed. We will remember them, and we shall not forget their sacrifice. They were fighting for freedom, democracy and the things that we hold near and dear. That is why we have to engage, again, in military activity against terrorism—in this case, against al-Qaeda. Its members are not democrats and they are not answerable to anyone. They showed not a hint of compassion in the action that they took on 11 September.
Lest we forget that, I inform the House that, last night, I signed a passport application for a family friend. I asked the young man where he had lost his passport and he told me that it was at the bottom of the World Trade Centre. That brings home in a very personal way exactly what happened on 11 September. My former private secretary in the Treasury, Dermot Finch—a good lad from Clitheroe—escaped and was led from an annexe to the World Trade Centre after the second plane hit. He is still traumatised by the awfulness of that experience. It is those parts of the kaleidoscope of images that underpin my conviction that the action that we are taking is correct.
My constituency contains the headquarters of BAE Systems, which makes the majority of our military aircraft, and we understand what conflict is about.
1040
We provide the equipment to reinforce our armed forces to do a remarkable job. The Canberra PR9 flew 50 years ago and it is still flying in this conflict, providing aerial photographs and intelligence for our forces. All the nuclear fuel in the country is manufactured in my constituency, and if we do not contain terrorism, my constituents will be abundantly aware of the danger of an attack on that plant. In some way, we are all connected with the battle; we cannot ignore it.
Last night, some Members had the privilege of listening to Benjamin Netanyahu. Whatever they might think of his conduct as Prime Minister of Israel and whatever their views of the conflict there, they cannot have been other than struck by his message of passion and experience. He described what it is like to live in a country that is permanently engaged in a terrorist conflict and he observed that his country is a democracy that sits in a sea of non-democratic countries, many of which have given comfort and succour to terrorists. His assessment of the 11th was chilling. He said that we had received a wake-up call from hell and that we could either do something about it or press the snooze button—chilling and telling words from someone who has had to deal with the real-world effects of terrorism. I agree that we have to do something, which is why I support the action that has been taken.
There has been some discussion about the clarity of our purpose and whether we have explained our strategy. The Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) responded to such comments, but one of the problems that we face is that there are too many media, too much comment, too many conflicting views and too many difficult messages for ordinary members of the public to take on board. Too many retired generals and army experts pump out their version of what is going on. If there has been a lack of clarity, it is because the media are crowded with observations.
This is a difficult conflict; it is a different conflict. In his remarkable address to Congress, President Bush reminded us of that when he said:
"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success."
The one word that has perhaps not been emphasised so far in our discussions is "patience". We have to be patient and allow time for different military approaches to be tried to see whether they can successfully deal with a resourceful, clever and financially well resourced opponent who could strike anywhere at any time. To do nothing is not an option, which is why I believe that the action that has been taken so far is correct.
I have written to the chairmen of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the British-American Parliamentary Group asking whether they would seriously consider organising programmes of activities and visits to and from their member countries so that Members of Parliament may play their part in improving dialogue and understanding of the issues that underpin the fight against terrorism. It is only by learning and by conversation that we can make our contribution and understand the conflict.
Anyone who has any doubts about the purpose and intention of our actions to date should read the chilling article on the front page of today's edition of The Times. The facts of what the Taliban did to someone who chose to stand and fight against them constitute the most brutal

1041
report that I have ever read. The person involved was amputated to the extent of becoming a complete cripple yet still being alive to tell the story. The article shows that these are not people to be trifled with; these are people who must be dealt with. If that means massive military power in the first instance, so be it.
I have respect for those who challenge and question what we are doing. Mr. Matthew Parris writes with perception and clarity about our affairs in this place. Last Saturday, he wrote a challenging article about the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States and our position in the conflict. Whatever we think about Matthew Parris's analysis and whatever we think about those who have doubts, as democrats we must respond to their concerns to ensure that the clarity of vision and purpose to which the majority subscribe is not deflected. Above all, we should not forget, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, the word "humanitarian". If we do not deal effectively with the Taliban, we shall have ignored the humanitarian aspects of why we are at war in Afghanistan.
2.42 pm
Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a powerful speech about the humanitarian crisis. We should all listen carefully to and read what she says. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) spoke about the big picture, and I shall seek to follow that. In doing so, I shall build on the points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the Welsh Assembly on Tuesday. He had two themes: first, remember; secondly, be patient.
We must remember why the conflict is happening—because of the atrocity of 11 September. We should remember 11 September and also the two United Nations Security Council resolutions that provide us with ample justification in international law. We should remember also the way in which bin Laden has exulted in the deaths that were caused on 11 September. He has made blood-curdling threats about his readiness to use even worse weapons, be they biological, chemical or even possibly nuclear. These are the things that we must remember when people may be inclined to wobble as we get into the three-week syndrome of saying, "Tragically, there have been some civilian deaths. Tragically, there have been certain mistakes." The big picture is that of 11 September, international justification and the continuing threat that we must bear in mind.
The second theme of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the need to be patient. Clearly there are problems as the campaign progresses. I re-read de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", where he questions whether a democracy can continue a foreign policy consistently for any length of time.
When we read our press and see the debates of retired generals on how they would wage the war, alongside the tragic pictures of individual citizens in Afghanistan who have lost their children, there are many temptations to wobble. However, let us remember what happened in Kosovo. Yes, the circumstances were different, but the bombing lasted for 78 days, the refugees have now returned and Milosevic is before the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Yes, it is worth while viewing what is now happening in its proper perspective of 11 September, as well as remembering the theme of
1042
patience. I believe that our goals are clear and that if we wobble now, it will be tantamount to giving a form of victory to bin Laden and his associates.
My next point is this: where are we now domestically and internationally? I want to raise three issues of detail. First, in the past few days questions have been asked about the small number of British Muslims who are going to fight in Afghanistan. I should preface my comments on the matter by saying how much I welcome the statements of the many responsible Muslim leaders in Britain who have made it clear that bin Laden does not speak for the Muslim community. I welcome also the statement by Muslim parliamentarians on 18 October, in which they made it clear that taking military action and countering terrorism are essential.
There is encouraging poll evidence in The Daily Telegraph showing that the British people, with their usual good sense, are not allowing the conflict to damage their relations with British Muslim citizens. Clearly, however, some British Muslims are leaving the country to fight abroad against our own service men. No doubt, the numbers reported in the press are exaggerated, but even if there is only a handful of such individuals, we need to take the matter seriously and ask how our law is equipped to deal with the problem. Of course, there must a due process of law—but which law? The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 is not relevant, as it deals with states and not non-state parties. We may have to consider updating it. I suspect that the Terrorism Act 2000 may not be wholly appropriate because of the question whether the Taliban are a terrorist organisation. We need to consider the Green Paper on mercenaries that the Government are about to publish. Indeed, they have been about to publish it for the past two years.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the most excellent letter in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier)? He commends use of the Treason Act 1351, which Lord Rooker suggested in the other place the Government were prepared to deploy.
Donald Anderson: We need to look at the whole battery of statute law that is available, not least in terms of passports, which are a matter for the Crown prerogative. However, there are two clear points: a clear and serious warning must be given to those who are tempted to go abroad; and statements are needed from leaders in the Muslim community telling people that they support the UK in this crisis or at least that they are ready to deter young people who are tempted to go abroad.
Secondly, on airline security, I want to make one point. Wearing a professional hat, in the past I have seen opportunities given for organised crime, drug running and so on because of lax recruitment of cleaners in aircraft at our airports. We must consider very carefully the recruitment of people who can go airside in our airports and procedures must be tightened.
I want to mention one final related matter: foreign students at British universities taking knowledge and expertise back to their countries that may be used against our interests, especially in respect of techniques for using weapons of mass destruction. How do we deal with the problem? We know, for example, that the woman who

1043
leads the biological weapons programme in Iraq was educated at the university of East Anglia. Of those who were involved in the atrocities in the United States, many were educated in the west. They do not come to the west to learn mediaeval English literature.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Donald Anderson: No. I understand that there is no injury time.
We welcome the enormous benefits derived from the diversity of different cultures, but there should be rigorous checks on students in certain disciplines who come from sensitive countries.
The coalition is holding at the international level. I admire the Prime Minister for his energy on his various visits. We need to be clear about our war aims. We do not know how long the campaign will last. In the fight against terrorism in general it will be a continuing campaign, because terrorism will go on for as long as there are disaffected people who are prepared to kill the innocent for their political ends. All we can usefully do is to try to reduce the water in which the terrorists thrive. That means addressing the problems of poverty, and dealing with the hot spots such as the middle east that give aid and succour to terrorists.
We must be one step ahead of the terrorists. They are unlikely to use the same technique again as they used against the World Trade Centre. They may use other forms of asymmetric warfare, such as crop spraying and biological or chemical weapons. We need the very closest international co-operation across the board to ensure that we are one step ahead of the terrorists, because there will be greater numbers of casualties if we do not stand in their way.
2.51 pm
Mr. John Horam: The whole House listened with great respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). We are all concerned about the humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding in Afghanistan. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), I want to draw back from that terrible tragedy and talk briefly about the wider picture.
One of the Prime Minister's famous remarks was that we should be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That is also appropriate for dealing with the terrible problem of international terrorism. There is no question that we should be tough on the act of terrorism, but for two reasons. First, we have acted toughly, although with restraint, and we must continue to do so. If we show any sign of wobbling, it will send entirely the wrong message: that we are not committed to making the appropriate response.
Secondly, I am afraid that there are more terrorist acts to come. The appalling atrocity of 11 September was a much worse version of other terrorist acts that preceded it over a number of years. Chilling as it may be, we hope that the next act that inevitably will be committed is not even worse than what happened on 11 September.
1044
We must face the possibly of such acts wherever and by whomever they may be perpetrated. It would be totally irresponsible of any Government—whether it be the United States or the UK Government—to be supine in the face of such activity. It is our first duty to protect our citizens, and I am glad that the Government have acted fully and responsibly.
Every rational and caring human being should understand the criticisms and limitations of the bombing. It is clearly not doing much to unearth the whereabouts of Mr. bin Laden. There is a considerable danger that it alienates moderate opinion. We have seen how important that is, and the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about hearts and minds were entirely appropriate. This is a crucial issue, and I was disappointed that some Labour Members took on my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. I am glad that he referred to hearts and minds. Hon. Members should have a united view. We support the Government on the importance of winning hearts and minds.
Perhaps even more important than dealing with the act of terrorism is dealing with its causes. It is difficult for a white, middle-aged Englishman in this day and age to get into the minds of fanatical terrorists from an extreme Muslim sect, but one must try to find out what motivates them.
The events of 11 September were an act of terror against the United States by an extreme Muslim sect. The hatred of America has been driven by the fact that, over the years, there has been American support for the state of Israel, troops have been present at bases in Saudi Arabia in particular and there have been clumsy and mistaken attempts at diplomacy, culminating in disappointment and distrust in the Arab lands. Also, it may be that America is seen as a symbol of the west's materialism.
There is clearly much truth in those charges. The west has not been wholly even-handed on the Israeli-Palestinian problems. Israel is occupying—
Mr. David Chaytor: Is the hon. Gentleman disagreeing with the remarks of his Front-Bench spokesman that the United States has been the guarantor of international security for the past 50 years? Is he suggesting that United States foreign policy over the past 50 years may have contributed to the growth of terrorism in recent years?
Mr. Horam: If the hon. Gentleman were to listen to my remarks, he would discover that I am trying to be even-handed. I am saying that we should consider, from an Arab terrorist's point of view, what blame we may have to accept. However right we might think we are, such terrorists feel that we must take the blame for some things that have occurred in the post-war period. Equally, there are things that the Arab and Muslim worlds need to look at honestly and begin to accept that some of their actions may have contributed to the terrible situation we now face.
Presumably, Arab terrorists adopt a fanatical and extreme version of the Islamic faith, which itself is posited on a strict and puritanical view of the world and a regard for the poor. In fact, those extremists see the leaders of their own countries as having given in to the materialistic

1045
values of the western world against the theism of the Islamic faith. They see a society that tolerates poverty and has not done enough to eradicate it. That is particularly true of Saudi Arabia.
As I have said, I have considerable sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley on the humanitarian tragedy in Afghanistan, but the real epicentre of all this may well be Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. It was significant that a Saudi prince said recently that it was surprising that the planes were not flown into a skyscraper in Saudi Arabia rather than New York. In the mind of an Islamic extremist, those princes in Saudi Arabia are just as much the enemy as the citizens of New York.
Mr. Kilfoyle rose—
Mr. Horam: I will not give way because I have only a little time left.
All that is compounded by the oil situation, the historic ties between America and Saudi Arabia and the huge wealth that has come from all that. There has been a sort of Faustian deal between the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the extremists in their country. The provision of help for such extremists is how the leaders have attempted to keep themselves in power, and it has been highly dangerous
We support the leaders of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and so on because, whatever their faults, they are not extremists. I feel, however, that just as we have a responsibility to look at how we have conducted our diplomacy in the Arab world, they have a responsibility to look at how they conduct their Governments. I think that, however carefully and tactfully we may go about it, we have an obligation to try to make them realise that, even if they do not go as far as democracy—I do not think that there will be much democracy in the Arab, or the Muslim, world—they should examine their societies and see how they can conjure up an atmosphere that would at least diminish the possibility of fanaticism breeding in the terrible way in which it has bred over the past few years, producing atrocities such as those of 11 September.
3.1 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: References have been made this afternoon to the Prime Minister's visit to the middle east. My own view is that my right hon. Friend was right to go there, because it was necessary for him to expose himself to the sheer brutal starkness of emotions in the region and, indeed, to the double standards evinced by leaders in that region.
Yesterday the President of Syria attacked the bombings in Afghanistan, and spoke of the loss of life there; yet his father was responsible for massacring 10,000 people at Horns, in his own country. Today the Prime Minister has had the dubious experience of meeting the Prime Minister of Israel, a war criminal who was condemned by the Kahan commission's judicial inquiry into the Sabra and Shatila massacre in which 800 people were killed. The commission ordered him to be dismissed from the Israeli Government.
My right hon. Friend was then due to visit Gaza to meet Yasser Arafat, himself a former terrorist who, in a supremely and dramatically foolish act, rejected Barak's historic offer last autumn and who, to a considerable
1046
degree, is responsible for the fact that Sharon is Israel's Prime Minister today. Many of us—including me—who have wanted a Palestinian state, and still want one, view with horror the fact that Mr. Arafat presides over a regime that conducts public executions, among other things.
The sheer bitterness of the past is shown by the fact that today people in Gaza have marched on the 84th anniversary of the Balfour declaration—as if they did not have a great deal more to think about than the 84th anniversary of a document handed to a man, Chaim Weizmann, who as it happens lived in my constituency.
All those things show that whatever the outrage—whether it is the outrage of the attack on the World Trade Centre in September, or the outrage of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait—everything comes back to the existence of Israel. Let us be clear about the hypocrisy involved. Bin Laden does not care one jot for the Palestinians. Neither does Saddam Hussein; neither do the Syrians. When I visited Syria, as I did on two occasions as shadow Foreign Secretary, their loathing of Arafat emanated from their very being.
What these extremists—these murderers—do is exploit the plight of the Palestinians as a cause round which they can rally, some sincerely and some certainly not. They would like to destroy the state of Israel if they could, but they know they cannot, so they do their best to disrupt it. Too many Israeli leaders, sad to say, play into their hands. They demand the world's sympathy, but themselves behave like bullies. The great Israeli novelist Amos Oz said on behalf of the Israelis:
"Our sufferings have granted us immunity papers, as it were … After what all those dirty goyim have done to us, none of them is entitled to preach morality to us. We, on the other hand, have carte blanche, because we were victims and have suffered so much. Once a victim, always a victim, and victimhood entitles its owners to a moral exemption."
That, unfortunately, is what the right in Israel—not the left—exploit. As a result, under Sharon's regime, more Israelis have been killed by terrorists within the pre-1967 borders than in any other period—plus, of course, 700 Palestinians, overwhelmingly civilians; that includes state assassinations. At the end of that brutal response by Sharon, an ending to the violence is no nearer—in fact, it is further away—and there is no progress whatever in finding the murderer of Rehavam Zeevi. It has therefore been a waste of time. There has also been terrible loss of life and the kind of destruction that we have seen in Bethlehem, which is an outrage. If such action were conducted against Muslim or Jewish holy places, it would be regarded as an outrage.
There has to be a choice for Israel. The Israeli regime regards that choice as being between the danger of its destruction—which has been an immensely serious concern ever since the state of Israel was set up in 1948—and the sterility of not being destroyed. There are alternatives; there is simply not a choice between the extremist Arab wish to eliminate the state of Israel and the belief of right-wing Israelis that it is their job to fight back, regardless of the effect both on the lives on innocent people and the world. If the Israelis are not going to look for a third way, my own view is that there is no justification for a Nobel peace prize winner like Shimon Peres humiliating himself by sitting in a Cabinet alongside the likes of Sharon and Zeevi, whose murder, of course, was abominable, but whose views were unspeakable; he wanted to chase all Arabs, by force if necessary, out of

1047
Israel. The United States and Britain must therefore offer the Palestinians, whose approach has been equally inexcusable, and the Israelis a stark choice; either they make a meaningful peace and get on with it right away or they lose the aid and military assistance that the west is giving them.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) talked about Mr. Netanyahu. I cannot share the right hon. Gentleman's regard for him; the only thing that can be said for him is that he is not as bad as Sharon. People like Netanyahu and Sharon say, "Don't get at us, we're an independent country. We've a right to pursue our own policies." Okay, we should tell the Palestinians and Israelis, "Be independent if you want, but be completely independent of western economic and military aid." I suggest that we offer that choice, and I do so as a Jew and as somebody who has been a Zionist all his life, and remains a Zionist: as somebody who was brought up as a Zionist and has close ties to the state of Israel. I also do so as the first Front-Bench Member to support the establishment of a Palestinian state, which I still support.
I must tell my right hon. Friends, the American authorities, the Israelis and the Palestinians that we have lost too many opportunities for peace in the middle east; it is sad that this too has become an opportunity, but it is an opportunity nevertheless and we must not lose it.
3.9 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): I agree with every word of the speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman); I also agree strongly with what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) said. I shall not go over that ground, as I have only 10 minutes.
The Prime Minister deserves enormous credit for helping to put together the international coalition against terrorism after 11 September. He deserves even more praise, if the newspaper reports are to be believed, for having tried to dissuade the Americans from acting precipitately. This week he was right to narrow down the war aims and to make clear exactly what our objectives are, now that the air campaign is under way. However, I am concerned at one aspect of the Prime Minister's handling of the situation. The rhetoric from George Bush, such as
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists",
was understandable immediately after the crisis, although unhelpful. Some of the Prime Minister's rhetoric is most unhelpful. Indeed, it will make it more difficult to secure western objectives. If he persists with it, it could prejudice both United Kingdom and western foreign policy, and even our security.
I should like to make several suggestions to the Government on the conduct of the diplomacy and handling of Muslim opinion over the next few crucial weeks. At the heart of the west's strategy is a dilemma: while military activity in Afghanistan may succeed in eliminating al-Qaeda in an organised form, at the same time it may generate sympathies in parts of the Muslim world which could make terrorism more likely. Worse, it could destabilise Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and make it more difficult to protect western interests there. It could
1048
make a settlement in Palestine even more difficult to reach. That crisis has been the source of so much of the sympathy for terrorism, however misguided it is.
The truth is that we are not engaged in a war on terrorism. Inasmuch as the language of war is appropriate, the outcome will be decided by a battle for the hearts and minds of Muslim opinion. Are we confident that our action in Afghanistan, particularly if it becomes prolonged, will not create the conditions for more extremism? That is the heart of the matter.
The Prime Minister, among others, was right to urge the Americans not to succumb to the pressure of public opinion for early action. But public opinion now may be right to argue that if the intervention becomes too prolonged, it may not be in the west's long term interests. I should like briefly to suggest some ways to put in train several diplomatic initiatives to assuage Muslim concerns about our intentions and to give us a bigger window of opportunity for action.
First, we need to make it clear that we have no intention of establishing an indefinite and permanent military presence in Afghanistan, still less an occupation, and we need to say so. Secondly, we should be negotiating with Afghanistan's neighbours to secure agreement that once the terrorist networks are removed, there will be no interference by her neighbours or us in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. Cambodia provides a precedent. We should say that loudly now. Thirdly, we need to set out in detail what we are prepared to do to assist the economic reconstruction of Afghanistan in terms of money and resources. We have not yet heard that package described accurately or with numbers. Fourthly, we should apply some more realism to an earlier stated objective of the Prime Minister, which was to create a "broadly based Government" in Afghanistan. By that I think we should mean only any government structure capable of expelling, and willing to expel, bin Laden and the terrorist networks. We do not mean that we are intending to construct a western style democracy in Afghanistan. Fifthly, we need to lead public opinion so that people grasp that when western leaders talk of an indefinite war against terrorism, they do not mean indefinite action in Afghanistan. That just worries public opinion at home and Muslim opinion abroad and at home. The purpose of the military action is, I hope, limited to closing down the terrorist networks harboured by the Taliban, as the Prime Minister has made clear. It is not the precursor to an endless deployment of military force against as yet unspecified threats. Nor is it our purpose to extend the war aims to Iraq.
The plain fact is that, ghastly though the prospect may be, terrorism is likely to remain with us, as is the war against drugs and crime. I fervently hope that at least the campaign against bin Laden and his groups can be won. I support the Government in their efforts to try to win it, although I realise that it will be difficult.
In the time that remains, I want to discuss my concerns about the Government's rhetoric. There is a growing contradiction between what the Prime Minister does and what he says. That contradiction, if sustained, could erode the credibility of British foreign policy. On the one hand, he has rightly played a crucial role in forming the coalition against terrorism, bringing together international society and drawing together all states in a coalition that rejects terrorism. On the other, he has called for a new international order.

1049
The coalition that we are building is a coalition to uphold international legitimacy—the legitimacy that derives from the notion that only states have the right to use force in international society. Terrorists are revolutionaries—outlaws—in international society. That legitimacy is sustained by the principle that states should not interfere in other states' affairs. In that sense, the coalition that we are building is a coalition of the existing order.
We are forming a coalition against terrorism with states with whose human rights records we disagree and which, in some respects, we find repugnant, but it is a coalition of the current international order, not some putative one. But the trouble is that the Prime Minister's call for a new world order conflicts directly with that coalition building. In that new order, he has asserted the primacy of his and of western values. Of course I agree with him about those values, but he has suggested not just making a rhetorical case for his values, but intervening in other states.
The Prime Minister wants much greater intervention around the world to impose our notion of justice and freedom. He says that globalisation means that anyone's internal conflict may affect everybody and that that justifies interference, even military intervention. It is worth quoting exactly what he said at Brighton:
"This is a tight for freedom. And I want to make it a fight for justice too … justice to bring those same values of democracy and freedom to people around the world. And I mean freedom, not only in the narrow sense of personal liberty but in the broader sense of each individual having the economic and social freedom to develop their potential to the full … the starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in wanton squalor, from the deserts of North Africa to the slums of Gaza, to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan: they are our cause."
In case we had not thoroughly got the message, he continued, "The kaleidoscope"—he means of the international order—
"has been shaken. The pieces are in flux … Before they [settle] let us reorder this world around us."
That new international order is to be an order based on our values, secured by western economic, diplomatic and, in some cases, military strength. The great danger of such talk is that, to the ears of leaders of many countries in the world and particularly to the very ears that the west has been bending in the name of the coalition against terrorism, that will sound very unappealing—even threatening to the stability of their societies.
We are saying, "Either adopt western values or we may be round to see you." We are saying that we carry sticks as well as carrots. Let me make my position clear: the west can and should be a huge force for good in the world. I share the Prime Minister's values, but if the west goes beyond persuasion, and acts of humanitarian intervention, and tries to reconstruct a new world order in its image, many countries in Africa, the middle east and elsewhere around the world that do not share our values will feel threatened. If we do that, we will be treading the path towards not a new international order, but a new international anarchy, for we have neither the military capacity nor the political will to make western values the values of the whole globe.
Now of all times, when we need to deploy military force in an effort to bring greater security to our citizens, is not the moment to shake up the kaleidoscope further. It
1050
is not the moment to frighten the leaders of other countries who do not share our values. Commenting on the Prime Minister's speeches, The Economist said:
"The only plausible explanation of Mr. Blair's planet transforming is that 'the poor man has let the war against terrorism go to his head.'"
Over the top perhaps, but I fervently hope that he puts away his dangerous messianic rhetoric.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
3.19 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). I was fascinated by his speech and I will certainly re-read it tomorrow. It was well worth listening to.
In recent weeks, the Prime Minister has repeatedly told us that the war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban is not about religion or Islam, but solely about terrorism. Such historical and theological ignorance does a grave disservice to us all.
Consider for a moment three recent and indisputable facts. The first is Mohammed Atta's last will and testament, in which he informed us that if he flew a plane into the twin towers, Allah would provide him with 72 virgins for the purpose of sexual congress in paradise. Secondly, shortly after the appalling atrocity on the twin towers had been committed, quite the nastiest and silliest response came from Islamic fanatics and evangelical American Christians. The Reverend Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson told us that the attack on the towers was God's vengeance on America, which had become a country of pagans, gays and lesbians, secular courts and secular schools, and of people who believe in civil liberties. For their part, fanatical Islamic clerics—some of them in the United Kingdom and some of them close to the area that I represent—expressed joy at the attacks. Thirdly, last Sunday, a group of murderous Muslims entered St. Dominic's church at Bahawalpur and killed 16 Christians—mostly women and children—and one Muslim guard.
More generally, the Islamic world seems to be in a state of denial. Our Prime Minister cannot confront the issue because, publicly at any rate, it does not suit him to do so. Denial, as I define it, consists of the failure of the people of the Islamic world to come to terms with modernity and to accept the true nature of what is going on. Denial is part of the deliberate and wrong-headed moves to separate Islam from modernity on the part of those ruling elites who govern theocratic and autocratic countries and, more dangerously, on the part of Muslim clerics around the globe, including some in Britain.
Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sedgemore: I am sorry, but I only have 10 minutes.
One result of that separatism is a refusal to engage in democracy, or to acknowledge human rights and rights for women in particular. One distinguished person who is in denial is Imran Khan, who on television last week refused to accept the evidence that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, despite the fact—and ignoring everything about

1051
the acts against the two towers—that he must know that bin Laden issued a fatwa in 1998 calling for the killing of American civilians and that he recently had a video sent around the globe to incite Muslims to mass murder. If that is not terrorism, then the year that I spent studying the subject was clearly in vain. It is more likely, however, that it was Imran Khan's education at expensive schools in the United Kingdom that was in vain.
The reasons behind the separatist tendencies in modern Islamic thought are difficult to understand. I do not have the Koran at my bedside like the Prime Minister, but after a 30-year gap I am reading chunks of it again. Far from supporting separation, Islamic tradition holds that there have been 128,000 prophets—I will not list them all—including Moses and Jesus as well as Mohammed. Islamic tradition also holds that there have been 104 revealed books, the four most important of which are the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel and the Koran itself.
The desire for separateness on the part of many teachers of Islam seems to defy both the Islamic traditions and such coherence as the religion has. How can hatred be created out of such holy and common roots? Why has Islam produced so many theocratic and autocratic states? Is it the power and control of clerics rather than God, faith, prayer, fasting, charity and pilgrimage that hold the worldwide ummah together? How is it that the so-called purest Islamic state, Afghanistan, is also the poorest and the most despotic?
By refusing even to address those questions, President Bush and our Prime Minister are not only ignoring fundamental issues but allowing confusion to fester and spread. Yes, they are right to say that we must get bin Laden, destroy his networks of terrorism and bring down the Taliban who have succoured him. Yes, we need to look at the role of others in succouring terrorism, including the house of Saud, which spawned and took no action against the Saudi Arabians who make up the majority of the terrorists thus far directly implicated in the attack on the twin towers. Are we going to defend the house of Saud or support dissenters who might wish to bring it down?
War makes cowards of us all. Perhaps the Prime Minister is right to call on us to be resolute when things go wrong. However, doing so would be easier if we knew the endgame, and if there were more clarity about the political, military, diplomatic and humanitarian aims, as well as progress in the conduct of the war. The Prime Minister was probably wrong to suggest that a serious humanitarian programme could be run in parallel with the bombing. The impossibility of it may even be dawning on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
Ironically, the arrest of Osama bin Laden could ultimately be achieved only by a more judicial approach of a kind that President Bush and the Prime Minister have so far spurned. Today's heresies are often tomorrow's truths.
Sometimes—I say this in the friendliest spirit—the Prime Minister gives us the impression that the last place on earth he would go for advice is the Chamber of the House of Commons. He may not be listening, but I will say this. First, he should tell the Home Secretary that in the aftermath of 11 September it becomes more, not less,
1052
incumbent on us to protect our liberties and that detaining innocent people without trial for indefinite periods is not on. Measures to protect religions whose absurdities and hatreds are part of the problem rather than the solution are not acceptable.
Secondly, I believe that the Prime Minister should devote more of his personal attention to the problem of supplying and distributing humanitarian aid, and give more help to the Secretary of State for International Development—although she may not thank me for saying so.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister should stop being so damned preachy about the alleged moral superiority of this backward, fractious island of ours off the coast of north-west Europe, whose culture sometimes seems close to irreversible decline. He should realise that not everyone wants to be British, thank God.
Finally, my right hon. Friend should accept that the British people, not to mention Parliament, expect him and the allies to improve their performance significantly if Operation Enduring Freedom is to succeed. In that regard, those pathetic and autocratic Ministers who seek to blacken the characters of those who challenge the war aims by likening them to the appeasers of Hitler should, in my view, be sacked. If this is to be a fight for democracy, as I believe, we should begin by reinforcing our belief in democracy in this Chamber.
3.28 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). A family medical emergency is keeping her away from the Chamber, although she greatly wishes that she could be present.
In the brief time available to me, I want to concentrate on the middle east. Before I do so, I have a number of observations about cluster bombs and the humanitarian effort. I accept that cluster bombs are not illegal in international law. I also accept that for some military purposes they are extremely effective. However, there is no disguising the revulsion with which they are regarded by many people in the United Kingdom. A Government anxious to maintain a domestic coalition of support would be wise to heed that expression of public opinion. And a Government anxious to maintain an international coalition of support would be wise to do the same.
I cannot believe that the success of the military action in Afghanistan stands or falls on the use of cluster bombs on targets in or near areas of civilian population. It may well be that, in arguing that the use of cluster bombs should be inhibited, one is responding to a political or humanitarian imperative but it is sometimes worth giving up a military capability where the benefits of the political advantage that would be created are so substantial as to outweigh any military advantage that might be discarded.
Let me come to the humanitarian element. I said on 16 October in the House, and it is worth repeating:
"Our moral authority for military action will be severely undermined if we do not fulfil our moral obligation to provide humanitarian relief."—[Official Report, 16 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1073.]
We must do that in practical ways. We should make a bargain with Pakistan and Iran to the effect that if they open their borders to allow unlimited access to refugees, the international coalition will pay all that is necessary to feed, clothe and house those who take refuge there.

1053
We should continue to explore the possibility of safe corridors for the transport of humanitarian assistance. Leaving aside the military and political objective of the capture of Mazar-i-Sharif and its airport, we should accept that there is a humanitarian priority in the capture of that town owing to its potential contribution to the humanitarian effort and the access that it will give to Uzbekistan, from where aid could be provided by road.
I was much taken—as, I suspect, were many hon. Members—by the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is no longer in his place. He speaks on the middle east with rare authority and, as a member of the Jewish community, no doubt with a considerable amount of courage. He was right when he said that the Prime Minister was right to go to the middle east. On that rather uncomfortable visit, the Prime Minister must surely have learned that the difficulty of achieving a settlement in the middle east is equalled only by the urgency of doing so. That effort cannot be postponed. It must be commenced now. It should operate in parallel with the military action in Afghanistan, because no diplomatic task is more urgent for sustaining the coalition than a demonstration of wholehearted commitment on the part of the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States to endeavouring to achieve a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Such an effort is required to provide an antidote to the well-founded scepticism demonstrated throughout the middle east, born of decades of disappointment, and, in the past decade, of disappointment of the promise offered after the Gulf war, which took form in the Madrid conference and later in the Oslo agreement.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am subject, like everyone else, to the 10-minute limit. The hon. Lady may have some sympathy with my next point. Israel has an unequivocal legal right to peaceful existence within secure borders, free from attack or the threat of attack.
What I am about to say next may not please the hon. Lady. Among Palestinians, the scepticism to which I have referred is made all the more acute by the Israeli Government's continuing policy of the expansion of settlements. The Prime Minister says that the Palestinians are entitled to justice, land and a viable state, but how can that be if the policy of settlements is allowed to proceed unhindered? The settlements are illegal at international law. No one in the House denies it. Successive Foreign Secretaries have said so outside the House and at the Dispatch Box.
We assert the primacy of international law as the justification for our military action in Afghanistan. Is it any wonder that we have mountains to climb in persuading many in the middle east of the justice of our cause when they look round at the daily breach of that same law in the occupied territories?
May I suggest two immediate steps—two initiatives that the Government could take? First, we should call upon the Israeli Government, when Mr. Sharon comes to this country in a week or two's time, to freeze the settlements. There would be absolutely no prejudice to the security of Israel if that policy were adopted.
1054
Secondly, we should say to Governments such as the Syrian Government, with whom the Prime Minister spent a rather uncomfortable period yesterday, "We call on you to give no support to any organisation which opposes by the use of the gun or the bullet a peaceful settlement in the middle east." No prejudice whatever would attach to those countries claiming to favour the Palestinian cause if they were to adopt such a policy.
It is overwhelmingly clear that there is a need to break the logjam. There is a need for courage. As I was reflecting before I began these few remarks, we have seen that courage in the middle east already: Begin, Sadat, Rabin, King Hussein, Mubarak. Some of them paid for their courage with their lives, but it has been demonstrated, on so many frustrating occasions, that there is the opportunity for progress, if only the circumstances are favourable and courage is available.
We need that courage again, but on this occasion, when there is a burden and an obligation on the United States in particular, there must be a sense of commitment that will ensure that the courage of those in the communities will be supported by a guarantee—if not in legal or military terms, at least in political terms—on any settlement that may be reached.
Mr. Sharon said that there was a risk that we might treat Israel like Czechoslovakia. If Czechoslovakia had had a patron of quite such power and influence and such financial capability as Israel has in the United States, I very much doubt that Czechoslovakia would have disappeared in 1938.
We have a huge opportunity to rise from the extraordinary circumstances of 11 September. If we raise expectation and do not fulfil it, things will be worse than they were before. We have a huge chance, but a huge obligation to go with it. Let us hope that we have the courage to make sure that we exercise both.
3.38 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I do not seek to patronise the many Members who have already spoken, but I have never heard so many thoughtful and well-researched speeches. Dangerous precedents are being created in the House. I do not propose to follow those speeches in either their preparation or their thoughtfulness.
I agreed with much that was said, although not with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who criticised the Prime Minister for daring to have a vision. Frankly, the status quo is a bloody awful place. We are witnessing an awful thing and, given my right hon. Friend's knowledge of the first world war and the disaster of expecting people to return to the same slums that they had fought to eliminate, surely it is right that a conflict such as this should raise the vision of the participants. If at the end of this conflict we still have the same world as when we entered it, we shall perhaps have failed miserably.
The 11 September seems an age—many lifetimes—away. Much has changed during a short period. After the near universal sadness at the catastrophe there has been some peeling away of support, yet those who argue for homogeneity in the legislature ignore history. If we read the debates that were held in this place during the American war of independence, we find that they were riven by difference. That was true of debates on many 19th century wars—although some of those wars were

1055
seen as too unimportant even to recall Parliament. However, most wars were epitomised by catastrophe and eventual victory, followed by major inquiries revealing the sources of the disasters, which were far worse than anything that I have observed in recent years.
In the first world war, the second world war, Suez, the Falklands, the Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, and even in the limited deployment to Sierra Leone, dissent did not reign supreme, but it existed. That is why ours is a democratic legislature. I cannot say that I agree with those who have dissented from what the Government are doing, because I believe that the Government and the American Government have behaved and acted correctly, with the support of international law, the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council and under the Washington treaty of 1949. The response has been proportionate and, despite the mistakes that have clearly been made, the Government deserve support. The fact that some people are not prepared to offer that support is regrettable, but it is inevitable and in no way to be condemned, and I would never do so.
This debate is well informed. Some hon. Members may not yet have seen the Library briefing paper that was produced this morning—the second edition of its report on Operation Enduring Freedom—and I invite my colleagues to read it very quickly.
The Prime Minister has tirelessly endeavoured to seek to sustain if not consensus, then substantial support in the House. We meet regularly, and an enormous amount of information is available to us—not the full amount. I would not want all the information because someone would be on his mobile phone to Pakistan pretty damn quickly and that would not necessarily be in the interests of our armed forces.
I understand that the Prime Minister is meeting the consultative assembly in Saudi Arabia, which probably has about as much power as we do, so I hope that he finds the experience useful. In fact, the Consultative Assembly in Kuwait has more power than we do, so perhaps we should seek advice on the way in which it operates.
Only time will tell whether the Prime Minister was well advised to go to Syria, but he certainly could not be accused of ducking a difficult fight. It must have been infinitely worse than the worst of all Prime Minister's Question Times, which he must now look forward to with some relish in the light of what he experienced yesterday. However, it must have been deeply galling to be lectured to by a state that the United States considers a terrorist state, and galling to be lectured to by someone in whose nation the traditions of democracy are at best shallow and recent—even that is not an adequate description.
For the Prime Minister to go to Israel—a country to which he has said some rather harsh words—shows how courageous he has been, but it will be an uphill task to convince many in the Arab world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has said, many Muslims are in total denial. All the evidence has not been presented to us, but what has should be sufficient for most people to determine the source of the terrorist acts and that of potential terrorist acts.
When the United States operated on the principle of self-defence, it was clear that more terrorist acts were envisaged and that more would take place. If this is an
1056
attempt—I hope that it will be successful—to prevent such acts of terrorism from being perpetrated on anyone's territory, then that is clearly the objective. When people say that the objectives have not been presented, I wonder what television and radio programmes they have listened to, or participated in, because the Government have given ample expression to the goals of the United States and its supporters.
I do not regard what the Leader of the Opposition wrote yesterday as being substantial dissent; it was dissent on the margins of the argument. Frankly, the support that the Opposition have given to the Government in this conflict is rather greater than the support it ostensibly gave in the Kosovan crisis, which was initially all rhetoric and then almost all criticism. I support and applaud what the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to do and, generally speaking, has done.
It is critical that we sustain, if not consensus, which is not possible, at least substantial support. Some people will read Hansard. There will be people watching this debate elsewhere than in the Public Gallery and looking to see whether there is a vote this evening. Although I repeat that people have the right to go into a different Lobby from the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament, people will notice and draw conclusions that hon. Members who dissent from the Government's view may not wish them to draw.
I have the privilege of representing a large number of Muslims: Pakistanis, Kashmiris who are Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis. The overwhelming majority are—I will not say supporting what the Government are doing—keeping their heads down, which is sensible because race relations are in some form of balance at the moment, if not stability. I fear that things could happen that could be damaging and set race relations back for many years, if not a generation.
I am not trying to be apocalyptic. People will dissent. People can march, write to their Members of Parliament and talk among themselves, but I hope that the elders, if they have any influence—I suspect that it is declining, just like that of the Whips in this place—will express their views to younger members who are subject to influence. Going off and fighting a war against fellow Brits will not earn the respect or enthusiasm of the rest of the population. If they come back limbless, not everyone will be happy if they claim industrial injury benefit. They have a choice to make. I would not expect them to be so incorporated in British society that they are not able to wear any clothes they wish to wear and follow any religion they wish to follow, but there are some obligations, and I think that the overwhelming majority of the Muslim population are more than aware of that.
There are two elements to what Parliament is doing. One is what we are doing here in plenary, making powerful speeches, but more important is what is being done, or should be being done, in Select Committee. The Select Committee on Defence, which I am proud at long last to chair, is doing a lot.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
3.47 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the Chairman of my Committee, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He has been a

1057
distinguished member of the Defence Committee for many years. I agree with what he said about a number of contributions this afternoon, particularly those of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). However, I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch has a quick getaway car available because I have no doubt that his Chief Whip will want to have words with him ere long.
I was slightly disappointed by the attitude of the Secretary of State for Defence. It seemed from what he said that, unless we utter platitudinous remarks or wholehearted support for the Government, we are seeking to undermine the Government's stand in this extremely difficult and important conflict. The thought-provoking contributions by a number of hon. Members have shown that it is possible to support the Government, but nevertheless to question their overall stance. We have a duty to do so. Our constituents may be required as members of Her Majesty's armed forces to go into battle on our behalf. It is entirely right and proper that we should be able to call the Government to account and not be accused of seeking to undermine their efforts.
I do support the Government in what they are trying to do. I do support the Prime Minister. As the right hon. Member for Walsall, South has made clear, so does my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We on the Conservative Benches support the Government. However, there are difficulties.
The Government face serious dilemmas in achieving the military objectives. The events of 11 September were not timed to best advantage from the point of view of prosecuting the perpetrators who reside in Afghanistan. Ramadan and the approaching winter present difficulties. I used to work for a bank called European Arab bank, so I have experience of the Arab world. As we are seeking to build, and need to build, a coalition with the Arabs, we need to be sensitive to their religion, just as I wish that they were as sensitive to my religion as we are encouraged by them to be towards theirs.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton was absolutely right. We need to be able to prosecute the military campaign to its logical conclusion, but we must understand the sensitivities of the Arab world. It is important, if we are to maintain not only the coalition but the support of public opinion in the United Kingdom, that the momentum be maintained. If people feel that this is being dragged out while we sit here, at risk in our own country, not taking any real action to bring the perpetrators to book, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain support.
As the Secretary of State said, as far as we can determine, the al-Qaeda network has been largely flattened and we are now going against the Taliban ground forces. There will come a time when we have eliminated all their military assets and will be left with the need to remove the Taliban Government. The Prime Minister said unequivocally in the Welsh Assembly that it was the Government's intention to remove the Taliban regime, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that.
We must be under no illusions, however: when we remove the Taliban regime there will have to be something else in its place, and that something will not be
1058
achieved by means of universal suffrage in Afghanistan. It will have to be imposed. To achieve that will require the co-operation of a wide range of people, which is no mean undertaking. We should be mindful of the difficulties that the Government and the coalition partners will face in achieving the objective so forcefully declared by the Prime Minister.
We run the risk of engaging our troops in a lengthy battle to maintain in place whatever Government we impose in Kabul. Those are the risks that I perceive. It may be that Ministers have the answers and can further enlighten the House.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): There is no suggestion of the coalition imposing a Government in Afghanistan. The people would never accept an externally imposed Government. Ambassador Brahimi, on behalf of Kofi Annan, is consulting all the different ethnic groups and leaders who do not support the Taliban—that is, most of the people in Afghanistan—to get a transitional Government with the approval of the bulk of the people there.
Mr. Howarth: I am partly reassured by the Secretary of State's intervention, but unless she intends to have universal suffrage in Afghanistan, it will be a form of imposition. The coalition forces are going to change the Government there, and however it is brought about there will be some form of imposed Government. Clearly, there are risks. We could end up with British and American troops supporting the universally approved Government of Afghanistan and being shot at by both sides.
My next concern is the defence of the homeland. Much reference has been made to the attitude of Muslims in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. I reiterate that we all believe that this is not a war against Islam. However, it is not a war against international terrorism as such. It is a specific conflict against a specific threat and a specific enemy—Islamic fundamentalist extremists. Unless we accept that, we are, to an extent, deluding ourselves.
I welcome the fact that clerics in Luton, in particular, have denounced those young men who wish to go to fight against our troops who are seeking to rid the people of Afghanistan of the terrorists and the Taliban. If those young men return to the United Kingdom, they should be charged with treason under the Treason Act 1351 or any other measure that is to hand. One cannot enjoy the privileges of being a citizen of this country and a subject of Her Majesty if one goes out to shoot Her Majesty's armed forces who are seeking to uphold the security of the British people and to defend British interests.
I understand that leading Muslim clerics have a divided loyalty. They are conscientious Muslims and they owe an allegiance in that regard. However, they are also subjects of Her Majesty and they must ensure that that is their No. 1 loyalty. They must also proclaim that message to their followers.
I wish to pay a short tribute to the mayor of Rushmoor in my constituency. Charles Choudhary is a good Conservative councillor who comes from Kashmir. He has been an outstanding member of the Muslim community and an outstanding civic leader. When he held a civic service in Aldershot, he held it at the Royal Garrison church. That was a fine move on his part to demonstrate the need for reconciliation.

1059
The Government face great dilemmas as we stand poised to risk engaging our troops in ground action. Although the Government have our overwhelming support, they must be mindful that, when we ask questions or even have the temerity to criticise, we do so only in the spirit of trying to be helpful. We do not wish to undermine their resolve to defeat this insidious and outrageous form of terrorism.
3.57 pm
Denzil Davies (Llanelli): It is almost four weeks since the United States and its allies commenced military action in Afghanistan, and the initial concern among Members on both sides of the House was that the United States' response would be indiscriminate. That has not been the case. Although there has been inexcusable imprecision in some of the bombing, the response, in the main, has been proportionate and measured. As far as I am aware, it has been in accordance with international law and the resolutions of the United Nations.
Like most wars, one day this war will end. I hope that that will be sooner rather than later, but in the meantime we are dealing with a wide and perhaps rather shaky coalition. I hope that members of the coalition, including the Arab states, will sit down somewhere to try to analyse slowly and painfully the background that led to the horrors of 11 September.
There is no need to waste time trying to discover why the leaders of al-Qaeda plotted their evil deeds or why the perpetrators carried them out. They were evil deeds carried out by evil men, and there is no justification or excuse for them. Terrorist groups, however, are like armies: they need foot soldiers and those soldiers need to be recruited. Therefore, we should at least try to find out why so many young men apparently wish to march behind the flag of such a disruptive, nihilistic and, ultimately, doomed project.
Such a meeting is probably a forlorn hope, but if we ever hold one, western countries should concede at the outset that among the leaders of Islam there is a deep fear that western capitalism—if I may so describe it—worships no God but materialism and that it will destroy their religion, faith and communities. As they see it, global capitalism is already destroying Christianity in the west. They perceive a western society without religion and without morality, in which family life is disintegrating and law and order is collapsing. Perhaps they see only what they want to see; perhaps they want to see only the bad and not the good. However, I do not think that we can say honestly that their fears can be dismissed as being entirely without foundation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has considerable knowledge of the middle east and I cannot speak about it with the same authority. Sadly, the conflict in the middle east must be a powerful recruiting sergeant for the foot soldiers of terrorism.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Denzil Davies: No. I am sorry, but I do not have the time to do so.
1060
The United States is perceived as the great Satan. There is a rather simplistic conviction, in my view, that if the United States were to withdraw its support from Israel the conflict in the middle east would end. I do not believe that the United States or the European states could withdraw from that part of the world—the historical, cultural and religious pressures are probably too great.
It is fair to say that previous United States Presidents—President Carter some time ago, and President Clinton—worked hard to try to establish some form of even-handed settlement in the middle east. Mr. bin Laden and his associates were not and are not concerned about that. Nevertheless, a just, durable and even-handed peace in the middle east would be a major impediment for the recruiting agents of terrorism.
If I dare mention it, there is religion. I believe that all great religions must try to evolve and adapt to meet changing times and changing circumstances. The trick is to do so without destroying core beliefs and values. Some would argue that Christianity has almost adapted and evolved itself out of existence, but if religions do not adapt and evolve they wither and die.
Some would assert that, in what I might call the evolution stakes, Christianity has had a number of advantages over some of the other great religions purely because of the time and the place from which it came. It had to struggle at birth with Greek history, Greek culture and Greek philosophy. That may have led to compromises and different attitudes.
Christianity has two holy books, and the second is very different in essence and in nature from the first. From an early time its books have been translated, probably into more languages than the holy books of most other religions. Some would say that translation itself becomes an act of adaptation as the translator tries to struggle with the different concepts of the different countries whose language he or she is seeking to use.
Some would say that those advantages helped Christianity to try to adapt. Followers of Islam have said to me, or would say, that many do not accept that the factors to which I have referred are advantages. Even if they did accept that there have been advantages, I think that they would rightly and legitimately point out that despite the so-called advantages the most terrible atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity, and by supposedly Christian countries. Nevertheless, I think that, objectively, it is fair to say that over the years the factors that I have mentioned, and possibly others, have gradually ameliorated Christian intolerance and, in some instances, Christian fanaticism.
If the meeting that I described is still in existence, and if the chairman has not been thrown out of the window, I might finally mention democracy. Is it a coincidence that almost all the Arab member states of the somewhat loose and shaky coalition have authoritarian, if I might use a fairly benign word, and not democratic Governments? If countries in the middle east could move towards not necessarily a western form of democracy but some form of democratic representation, they would provide young men and, probably more importantly, young women with a diversity of outlets for their energies, idealism and skills. Some countries, including Bahrain, are already trying to move towards some form of representative democracy. Again, such an outcome would be one of the best bulwarks against the recruiting agents of terrorism. I do

1061
not know whether the United States would be comfortable with a democratic Saudi Arabia or whether the west would be prepared to accept an elected Islamic fundamentalist middle eastern state. The transition to democracy might be very shaky and difficult, but in the longer term everybody would still agree that a movement towards democracy in those countries would create more stability and make for more stable change.
Finally, military action is, alas, necessary to defeat the terrorism of 11 September, but it will not be sufficient in itself. Somehow, somewhere, the members of the coalition must get together to exchange views and ideas and to give and take criticism. No country, community or religion has a monopoly on wisdom. I believe that we need the common wisdom of humanity to create the conditions that are necessary to try to ensure that 11 September never happens again.
4.6 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I, first, make it plain that Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, and the Scottish National party condemn utterly international terrorism and agree entirely with the aim of the international coalition to bring bin Laden to justice? Obviously, no one could ever allow the events of 11 September to pass without some action.
Some three weeks ago, mine was the first political party to call for a stop to the bombing of Afghanistan. A few hon. Members from other parties joined our cause of stopping the bombardment that was putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk. We were then described as appeasers. Today, it seems that the situation has changed. It is now apparently right, or at least legitimate, that we should hold that view. There seems also to have been a change of opinion outside Government. A poll in yesterday's edition of The Guardian showed that 54 per cent. of those questioned wanted the bombing to be stopped on humanitarian grounds. One wonders whether the change of the Government view is coincidental with that poll.
At the outset of the crisis, the British and United States Governments stated that there was a need for military, diplomatic and humanitarian action. Unfortunately, it seems to many of us that action on the military front has at times been indiscriminate and is becoming more so, and that the humanitarian front is completely ineffective. The military objectives for the campaign have been rather vague, perhaps of necessity, and the tactics used have sometimes been questionable. Abdul Haq, the former mujaheddin commander who was recently murdered, said not long ago in The Scotsman:
"Before the attacks started, the Taleban's people were very nervous, and their support in the population was very low. Everyone was afraid. But once the bombing started, people began to say, Well, it's not so bad. We have known worse. We can stand it."
A few days after the first bomb was dropped on Afghanistan, an American military general was reported as saying:
"Afghanistan is not target rich at this moment in time".
Yet the bombing continues at an increased rate. One has to ask why. In the article to which I have already referred, Haq also said:
"The best thing would be for the US to work for a united political solution involving all the Afghan groups. Otherwise, there will be an encouragement of deep divisions between different groups, backed by different countries and affecting the whole region."
1062
I think that that is fairly obvious by now, but it seems that there has been a switch at least in emphasis and objective. Although the objectives have always been vague, the ultimate goal is, rightly, to get rid of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. It seems that the emphasis has moved and is now on overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. We accept that there is a strong link between the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, but the Taliban are not the major threat: they are part of the terrorist network.
It was reported in the press at the beginning of the week that the American Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, admitted that looking for bin Laden was
"like looking for a needle in a haystack",
and that we will be lucky to catch him. Does not that lead us to question exactly what is being targeted in Afghanistan?
Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Llwyd: I am sorry, I have no time.
Some people have referred to a second Vietnam, and I do not know whether that is helpful.
Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify whether, if a speaker takes an intervention, that time is added on?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a discretionary power, and it has been used in this debate.
Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
By using such terminology, we endorse the volatile climate throughout the western world that bin Laden is trying to create, and may help him to achieve his objectives of making us more aggressive towards nations that we do not understand, putting doubts in people's minds and inciting racial hatred among the paranoid and xenophobic minorities in our communities.
Osama bin Laden has succeeded in portraying the action as a war of faith. I think that is wrong, but he is apparently succeeding in that view. Hitherto, the west has not been successful in convincing people that this is a conflict with terrorism. By definition, terrorism is elusive: it has no permanent geographic base, no permanent leadership, not all terrorist groups have the same reason for being and the definition of terrorism is not clear.
Osama bin Laden is and must remain the target of any military action, and if further action is to be taken it must be properly targeted at destroying the al-Qaeda network, with bin Laden as its leader. He is the personification of this terrorism, but he is elusive, and finding him will be very difficult. He and the al-Qaeda network must be made to pay for the attacks on 11 September, not the innocent civilians of Afghanistan, who are certainly not the aggressors.
As reported in The Times last week and confirmed today, cluster bombs are being used. One civilian a week is killed in Kosovo and one a month in Laos—30 years after they were dropped on the Ho Chi Minh trail. Those bombs are designed to massacre anything within 100 ft.

1063
I endorse the eloquent comments of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on cluster bombs. Those so-called dumb bombs do not automatically detonate. They are a threat to civilians in Afghanistan, and will remain a threat for many years to come. As for the semantic debate about whether they are land mines, 10 per cent. of the bomblets do not detonate on impact. About 15 per bomb do not explode, and the failure rate of cluster bombs reaching their targets can be as high as 50 per cent. They are pretty indiscriminate. They are bright yellow, so they attract children, who pick them up with horrific consequences. By using those weapons, we are definitely putting at risk the lives of thousands of people, not just now but in the future. We are unleashing weapons over Afghanistan that will blight communities for a long time to come.
During last week's statement, the Secretary of State for International Development said that she would come back to me on the subject of cluster bombs. I am sure that she will refer to them when she winds up the debate. We must question whether such weapons are appropriate in the action being taken in Afghanistan. If military action is to be targeted as we expect, the use of such indiscriminate weapons cannot be justified.
According to The Times last week, United Nations mine clearing officials in Pakistan have been begging the United States Government for ordnance details, flight paths and bomb footprints to help them to rescue people following an attack on the village of Shaker Qala, which was full of bright yellow bomblets.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mary Robinson, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Islamic Relief, ActionAid, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development and Tearfund have all called for the bombing to be stopped. They noted that from the outset there has been a huge humanitarian problem, which is getting worse.
Pressures are mounting. With the onset of winter, harsh weather conditions and snow there is thought to be about a fortnight left to deliver the aid to where it should be. The World Food Programme has estimated that it needs $700 million in aid for the next six months alone, and we know that much more investment will be needed in the long run to rebuild Afghanistan. That view is also shared by Islamic Relief.
Kofi Annan has called the crisis in Afghanistan the worst humanitarian crisis in the world at the moment. My party, Plaid Cymru, and the Scottish National party reiterate their calls for the Government to stop the bombing and to refrain from allowing the use of cluster bombs and Gator mines.
I hope that the Government will publish a strategy for the delivery of humanitarian aid as soon as possible. The Secretary of State for International Development confirmed the other day that she would do so. A total of 100,000 Afghan children are in danger of dying during the winter. The scale of the unfolding tragedy, exacerbated by the imminent onset of winter, requires the international community and the authorities in Afghanistan to place humanitarian needs at the centre of all plans and activities to resolve the wider crisis. Failure to do so will be to sit back and allow one of the worst catastrophes in human history. It will appear to some to be a ghastly and grotesque Old Testament reply to the atrocities of 11 September.
4.16 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has done the House a great service by bringing to its attention the moving article in The Scotsman by the late Abdul Haq. I commend it to Ministers. It was written only a short time before he was brutally murdered. He made a powerful plea for an end to the bombing.
I have one observation and one question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I commend her for sitting here throughout the debate. It is said time and again that bombing was a success in the former Yugoslavia and that it brought down Mr. Milosevic. That is twisted history. It was not bombing that brought down Milosevic; in fact, it strengthened him. Milosevic was brought to his knees because the rug was pulled from under him by the Russian high command in Moscow. It was the withdrawal of Russian support that brought about the current situation in former Yugoslavia, which is by no means satisfactory—ask the Macedonians.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about Iran. She has taken an interest in the refugee problem in eastern Iran. There are 2 million refugees in the area of Mashhad and eastern Iran. The Iranian Government have complained bitterly and understandably that 3,000 of their customs officers have been murdered by drug-running elements related to the Taliban. The Shia in Iran have no time for the Taliban—they greatly dislike them. At the same time, they tell the west, time and again, "For heaven's sake, stop the bombing because it strengthens rather than weakens the Taliban." People who might have imploded the Taliban—
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Iranian Government dislike the Taliban regime greatly because they persecute the Shia within Afghanistan. I am not aware, however, that they have called for an end to the bombing. They have criticised the injuries to civilians and the loss of the Red Cross warehouse, but they want the Taliban regime to be overthrown.
Mr. Dalyell: I have been active about Iran because I went there four years ago. Last Monday, I was invited by the Iranian ambassador in London to meet him alone. I imagine that he was speaking for the Iranian Government and the Iranian authorities—he is an extremely intelligent senior diplomat—and he was against the bombings. A matter of fact such as that can be checked—
Clare Short: I will do so.
Mr. Dalyell: I hope so, because I would like an answer.
I think that more attention should be paid to guidance from the Iranian Government. There are between 80 million and 90 million Iranians on the borders, and I think that their opinions should be listened to.
4.20 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: No one who has been following recent events in Afghanistan can have failed to be moved by the scenes of utter destruction and human misery there. Poverty and illiteracy in Afghanistan are not new, but unquestionably have been exacerbated by those recent events.

1065
It may suit some commentators to suggest that the condition of Afghanistan is a result of the present Taliban regime, but that is not entirely true. We must recognise that the west, in abandoning Afghanistan in the period following the end of the Soviet occupation, in a real sense gave rise to—or at least contributed to—the problems we now face.
The defeat and withdrawal of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent washing of hands by America and the United Kingdom, left a power vacuum—a vacuum filled by many members of what is now the Northern Alliance. We are all fully cognisant of what happened then. The ensuing civil war was bloody, and there were faults on all sides. People turned to the Taliban in desperation, as a last hope—as a group that could stop the bloodshed and rebuild a country riven by war.
The problem is that the Taliban, at least the worst parts of it, allowed rogue elements to operate freely. In the absence of western influence, bin Laden and al-Qaeda were allowed to flourish under their protection. And it was not only al-Qaeda; I have recently heard bin Laden described as a sort of venture capitalist of terrorism, and if we consider the groups with which al-Qaeda or bin Laden himself has links we begin to see the scale of the problem.
I am thinking of groups such as Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines, and Al Gama'i al-Islamiyya, whose former senior member, Rifa'i Taha Musa, appeared on a video with bin Laden last year threatening retaliation against the United States. Then there is Harakat al-Mujahidin, whose new leader, Farooq Kashmiri, has been linked to bin Laden and who allegedly operates training camps in eastern Afghanistan. There is the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, another organisation with militant bases in Afghanistan; and there is one of the closest known associates of al-Qaeda, Al Jihad, the Egyptian Islamic group whose original jihad was responsible for the 1981 assassination of President Sadat.
Again and again, we see the same countries cropping up—countries suspected of harbouring, nurturing or turning a blind eye to such terrorist organisations. Syria, Iran, Libya, Iraq and even Saudi Arabia: the list is all too familiar, and may make uncomfortable reading. Those countries, however, now have an opportunity to forge new relationships and alliances in the campaign against terrorism, and the Prime Minister is surely right to try to bring them into the fold. Some such alliances may well he long-lasting, and could change the international scene significantly.
What I am endeavouring to illustrate is that the tentacles spreading out from bin Laden—the many-headed Hydra, as he has been described—are myriad. That is why removing him and al-Qaeda must be a priority.
The Prime Minister is on record as saying that the eradication of the Taliban regime is a legitimate objective; the Defence Secretary reconfirmed that this afternoon, and was right to do so. However, with what does he envisage replacing the Taliban? There are moderate elements in the Taliban—Taliban for reasons of expediency—that will have a useful role to play in any future Government of that country. I know that that was the view of the late commander Abdul Haq, of whom we have already heard this afternoon. His execution by the Taliban was a real loss. The west was afforded the opportunity to support Abdul Haq, who was pressing a policy that, had it worked,
1066
would have resulted in a power-sharing Government in Kabul made up of all elements ranging from the Northern Alliance to former Taliban members and, of course, to the Pashtuns, under the former king.
Now, because of Abdul Haq's death, the situation is more complicated. It is surely right that the coalition has effectively halted the Northern Alliance from advancing on Kabul alone, but we need to know what is planned, particularly with winter approaching. Members who have soldiers based in their constituencies—there can be few of us without a strong local military connection, such as in my constituency where we have a Royal Marines training camp at Lympstone—including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), wish to know what the clear aims and objectives are before the troops go in.
I agree with those who say that that will be a long process, but that does not mean that the aims cannot be clear from the outset. Unfortunately, there is a creeping feeling that, having started bombing, the Americans do not know what to do next. They cannot entirely be blamed as they are in something of a predicament, but the bombing cannot continue indefinitely. There is growing evidence that it is already hardening moderate Afghan opinion against the coalition. Domestically, we are beginning to hear the traditional muttering of Labour Members expressing discontent about the bombing; not far beneath the veneer of new Labour beats the heart of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and unilateralism.
We are therefore calling for clarification—not for operationally sensitive information, obviously—of what we hope to achieve before we commit British ground troops. The alliances that we make now are critical and will be the key to the post-Taliban Afghanistan. We cannot expect to rid the world of terrorism in one go; that is the work of decades. Indeed, it is the first real challenge of the 21st century. However, we can make a start, and we must do so in post-Taliban Afghanistan, a country which we must not abandon again. We must show the Afghan people this time that there is an alternative way and eventually encourage all those displaced Afghans in Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere to return home. We must help to rebuild the infrastructure of that country.
It is encouraging that the United Nations Special Representative Mr. Brahimi and President Musharraf of Pakistan agreed on Tuesday that the unity of Afghanistan and its territorial integrity must be preserved. There have been calls, not least from Government Members last week and from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) this afternoon, for women to be included in any new Government. I remind the House that we are talking about a backward Muslim country; we cannot insist on imposing our own liberal views on it, however right we deem them to be.
Mr. Kaufman rose—
Mr. Swire: May I continue? I am just winding up my speech.
Of course, the rights of women must be respected in a post-Taliban Afghanistan, and that can come through education and organisations such as Learning for Life, a United Kingdom-registered charity which started educating mainly Afghan refugees in Pakistan in the early

1067
1990s. Learning for Life has been working closely with Pakistan's national rural support programme and helps to run over 160 schools in Pakistan, bringing primary schooling to young girls otherwise denied even a rudimentary education. Organisations like that, with their unparalleled experience, can play a major part in helping to emancipate women in tomorrow's Afghanistan.
Our challenge in a post-war Afghanistan is to help bring that country and its inhabitants, regardless of gender or ethnic background, into the 21st century. If we succeed, we can make Afghanistan a no-go area for terrorists in future.
4.30 pm
Mr. Roger Godsiff: I shall talk about the impact of the events of 11 September on British Muslims. Like the Secretary of State, more than 40 per cent. of my constituents are British Muslims.
I wish to make it clear from the start that I support the actions of the international coalition. I do not say that with any joy. I do not like our country being involved in a war. But, I regret to say, there is no alternative. International terrorism is a threat to us all and if we do not combat it, it will kill us.
The overwhelming majority of British Muslims unreservedly condemn the atrocities of 11 September, not least because nearly 300 Muslims were killed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) gave us his opinion of his constituents' attitude and he described his Muslim constituents as keeping their heads down. He is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) described them as being in denial, but I am not sure about that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has the correct interpretation. The vast majority of Muslims are keeping their heads down because they fear the consequences for race relations. Unfortunately, now is a time when the vast majority of moderate Muslims need to stand up and be counted. They have to reclaim their religion, which has been hijacked by small fanatical groups, who have contorted and twisted the teachings of Islam.
All of us who represent multicultural communities know stories about a minority of clerics who preach fire and brimstone versions of the Koran at Friday prayers. The vast majority of Muslims know that those contorted versions are untrue. Unfortunately, until now, they have tended to opt for the quiet life. Rather than confront, cause a row or have an argument, they have said that such clerics are talking nonsense and thought that if they ignore them, the clerics will go away. Sadly, that option no longer exists.
These fire and brimstone sermons preached by some unscrupulous clerics have had a huge effect on a number of impressionable young Muslims. Because the older members of the community have chosen not to confront those who twist and contort the Koran, some impressionable young ones have believed that what is being said represents what the Koran says. Those of us who represent multicultural constituencies all know that what I am saying is, regrettably, true.
The option no longer exists for the overwhelming majority of Muslims to keep their heads down. They must stand up and reclaim their religion. They must confront
1068
those people who, in my judgment, have hijacked it. If they do not, the great danger is that the vast majority of the non-Muslim population will judge the entire Muslim population and the entire Muslim community by the actions of the fanatics who carried out the outrages of 11 September.
I want to make one more point. I have given my opinion on how the Muslim community has to reclaim its religion and not allow it to be hijacked. However, there are international issues that are of great concern to the Muslim community in this country. There is no relationship between the atrocities of 11 September and what I am about to say, but we must recognise that Palestine and Kashmir are crucial to the British Muslim community.
What is more, when we are discussing Palestine and Kashmir, we are discussing just causes. The right of self-determination for the Kashmiri people is a just cause. The right of the Palestinian people to have their own state, as our Prime Minister recently said, is also a just cause. Unless those international issues are addressed by the international community, they will continue to fester and to be a breeding ground for terrorists who want to use them for carrying out the activities that resulted in the atrocities of 11 September.
4.37 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: Like the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—[Interruption.] I am afraid that I cannot help having a bad cold. All that was available a few moments ago, at the last minute, was a bit of Members' toilet roll. I apologise for that humorous interruption, particularly to the Secretary of State.
I return to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, which is where I started. He referred to the quality of the speeches and the fact that a common thread has crisscrossed the House today in appreciation of the situation that this country faces. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) described the experience of listening to a former Israeli Prime Minister and talking to someone who had lived with terrorism each day. We would not have to go far from this building while remaining in the United Kingdom to talk to close on 2 million people who have lived with the trauma of terrorism each day for 30 years. Many Members of the House and of the other place have first-hand experience of the trauma of terrorism as it affected their lives and their constituents.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke for a lot of people from the Jewish community in this country and many, many others when he talked with great sincerity and great depth about the truisms that apply to the situation in Israel and Palestine, and the clamour in the mind of any just-thinking person for a Palestinian homeland. Even if that were accomplished tomorrow, the likes of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and for that matter the regime in Afghanistan, would not go away, nor would the acts of terrorism stop.
There are words in the English language that can accurately describe how people must feel about what happened on 11 September, but the events defy description for most reasonable people. The people who perpetrated those acts were evil. They did not do it for religious reasons. They did it out of sheer evil and because it was a way to get what they wanted, which was to impose their will on other people.

1069
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) asked who was to blame. The one thing that is certain is that the 6,000 people who died in New York were blameless. They did not play any part in the cause of their deaths. They did not incite an act of such vicious terrorism.
The Prime Minister has been right to restate the aims and to say why we are in the coalition fighting this battle. The title of today's debate is the "Coalition. Against International Terrorism" and I hope that the fight does not begin and end in Afghanistan. This war must surely go way beyond the bounds of the present problem. We need some commitment and vision from our Government. They must explain where they believe we are going in the campaign against world terrorism. Surely it will not end with the capture or death of bin Laden. It will not end when the Taliban cease to rule Afghanistan. It will not end just by bombing the training bases there out of existence. It goes much further than that.
As a nation, we are surely adult enough to know that in any conflict or war it will be impossible to avoid the suffering of innocent people. No military commander engaged in the coalition's effort against terrorism ever set out to harm or bomb innocent people. Mistakes happen. The authorities in Afghanistan have sited sensitive military equipment and even their own bases close to vulnerable civilians. They have done so deliberately to incite the sort of press coverage that we have seen in the past 10 days.
The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that once we start this war we must ensure that we are able to finish it. In the past month, many hon. Members have insisted on knowing the endgame. No one who has given what has gone on in the past 50 years any thought can believe that the Government can come up with a magic remedy and explain to the House today what the endgame really is. That would be impossible.
In the past three weeks, not a day has gone by when I have not received at least a couple of letters from constituents who are rightly concerned about the humanitarian situation. Many of those people were writing to me about the plight of the people of Afghanistan before the bombing started. Where was the concern of the Afghan Government for what was happening? Where was the help from the Saudis, Kuwaitis and the Gulf states for the 25 per cent. of all children who died in Afghanistan before reaching the age of five? Most of the aid was generated in the United States, the United Kingdom and European Union states.
The Americans are not fighting Islam and it is a myth to suggest that they are. Every time hon. Members mention Islam in the same breath as bin Laden, they give credence to the suggestion that this fight is based on religious grounds. It is not; it is a fight against evil and against those who will kill people without thinking and will do so again and again.
Of course we should respect the rights of Muslims and their religious festivals. Ramadan is an important festival. The terrorists will not recognise it, however, and when it has suited them, Arab states have chosen not to recognise it as they waged war either on each other or against the state of Israel, as many hon. Members have said. We have to be realistic. A month's respite from the activities of the coalition will allow the Afghan forces of evil and others to re-arm, re-equip and re-establish themselves in other locations.
1070
We must naturally respect the Muslim faith, but this is not a battle against Muslims. It is a battle against evil people who continue to perpetrate crimes and are planning crimes now, probably even against this very building. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) spoke of the need for the Muslim people whom he represents to stand up and be counted. I agree entirely. Many have done so and continue to do so. Many of the young Muslims whom I represent have made it clear that they distance themselves from what has gone on. They are proud to be associated with this country and want to continue to be part of the multicultural cocktail of which we are so proud. They should not be tarred with the awful brush of the evil perpetrators of crime. We should distance ourselves from justifying the likes of bin Laden and his cronies by linking them with the word of the Islamic faith—the Koran—or with Muslim rights.
Bin Laden is not winning the propaganda battle, or if he is, it is only among the cronies who support his evilness. I do not meet people who want to see replicas of the atrocities of 11 September. No one I have spoken to, who has written to me or criticised what I have said publicly has said that they were pleased at what happened or would like to see it repeated. The propaganda battle that we must win is about doing this for the right reason—to rid the world of people who will take others' lives without a care in the world.
We must do all we can to help the countries involved, not just during this crisis and for a few months afterwards, but for as long as it takes. The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) spoke about rebuilding the infrastructure of Afghanistan. It is hard to imagine what that means in a country like Afghanistan. How do we put something back together that has taken 20-odd years to destroy? I went to Grozny—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
4.47 pm
Mr. George Galloway: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), I hope that the Government will listen to what I have to say. I know something about the Islamic world and have spent the best part of 10 years warning in this Chamber about the rising tide, the rising radicalism and the Islamicisation of the Muslim world and the terrible clash that would result. My warnings were not much listened to before; I hope that after 11 September they are being listened to more.
Let me respond to a number of difficult and troublesome comments made during the debate. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) should not ask British Muslims to choose between Her Majesty and their religion, for they will not do it. They will put nothing in front of their religion. They will not put Her Majesty in front of their religion any more than I would put Her Majesty in front of mine. It is an unrealistic and unfair demand.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who has left the Chamber, that no one in this country should be told to keep their heads down during a period of national debate and soul-searching such as this. I appreciate that he may not have meant it in quite the way it sounded, but it sounded very bad.

1071
I deplore the comments of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) about foreign students at Britain's universities. I am married to a biologist—a scientist—who took her PhD at Glasgow university. She is a Palestinian with an Arab name, so I am acutely sensitive to this point. Foreign students in this country, whatever subjects they study in British universities, should not be made to feel uneasy or put under a searchlight, as the comments of the right hon. Member for Swansea, East seemed to imply.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), a former Minister indeed, seemed to think that any Parliament anywhere should be required to give unequivocal and unconditional support to the Government. That might be the kind of Parliament that Osama bin Laden would have in mind; it is not this kind of Parliament. The only thing more depressing than the demand of the former Minister that Parliament should show unequivocal, unconditional support for the Government was the rapid surrender to it by the spokesman for what he himself described as the loyal Opposition.
I shall vote against the Government this evening, albeit on a procedural motion, because I believe that a substantive motion should be on the table to allow hon. Members to table reasoned amendments and the House to express deliberate judgment on the aims and conduct of the war.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Galloway: I do not have time. I believe that some of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members will join us in the Lobby and that a substantial number of hon. Members will abstain. We and the abstainers will only grow in number in the days to come.
There is a fantastic dislocation between the atmosphere in the Chamber and the atmosphere outside in the country, and still more in the wider world. One would not think, listening to the Secretary of State for Defence, that more than half the population of this country want the bombing to stop now so that humanitarian aid can flood in. One would not know, listening to some of my colleagues who often lecture us about feminism, that more than half the women in Britain are demanding an end to the war. One would not know, listening to the Liberal Democrat spokespeople, that more than half the Liberal voters in the country are demanding an end to the war. One would not know, listening to some Labour Members, that millions—if the opinion polls are right, some 12 million to 14 million people—in this country were demanding an end to the war, or that millions of them were Labour voters.
One certainly would not know from some hon. Members who represent constituencies with substantial Muslim populations that there was great unease and opposition to the war in our country. One would not know that the campaign was going disastrously around the world. One would not know that it is scarcely possible for an American politician to set foot in the Arab countries. Our Prime Minister has to go as what The Wall Street Journal unkindly described as "the American ambassador" to those countries.
1072
When our Prime Minister goes to Arab countries, he receives short shrift from the leaders whom he meets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, countries such as Iran are unequivocally against the bombing. Syria lectured the Prime Minister yesterday against bombing. If anyone here thinks that public opinion in the Arab world is with them, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I have the benefit of watching Arab television, listening to the phone-in programmes and reading the Arab press. If Members of Parliament think that they have the support of the Islamic world—1.3 billion people strong—they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Our new friend General Musharraf promised his people at the outset that the campaign would be short, sharp and targeted. The fact that it is neither short nor sharp is the reason why it is now a dagger pointed at his heart. Everyone in Pakistan knows it. More than 90 per cent. of the people of Pakistan are demanding that their Government desist from co-operating in the savage bombardment of Afghanistan. That is a fact. The Secretary of State for International Development may think that General Musharraf is secure in his post. I do not know anyone else who thinks that the self-appointed president of Pakistan is in any way secure.
Sharp? B52s, sticks of bombs, carpet bombing—is that sharp? We saw just how accurate the targeted, laser-guided weapons were. Now we have moved to carpet bombing from B52s. We are told that the bombing is of military positions, as if the military lines in Afghanistan were somehow wholly separate from the villages and towns in which people lived, not to mention from the displaced people in Afghanistan.
Sharp? Cluster bombs? I never thought I would hear Labour spokespeople defending cluster bombs. Is the military struggle with the Taliban so finely poised that we cannot eschew the use of cluster bombs? I watched the Secretary of State for International Development on the beach at Brighton—done up in her mine-clearing suit—weeping about the victims of land mines. She knows that in so far as cluster bombs are not land mines they are worse than land mines, because land mines at least are mapped—land mines dropped from aeroplanes are by definition unmappable.
I only have time to deal with a couple of additional points. The aims of a campaign such as this cannot be separated from its likely outcome. Members who wish it to be restricted to Afghanistan are fooling themselves: this war is going to be extended to other countries. If they do not want that to happen, they must join us now. If they do not want the Northern Alliance, they must join us. The Northern Alliance are the people who destroyed and beggared Afghanistan in the first place, whose mediaeval obscurantism put the women in chains, destroyed the towns and cities, took the women out of the universities, hanged the former President Najibullah from a lamp-post—they put his penis in his mouth and left him hanging to rot. That is the Northern Alliance—your new best friends whom you hope to put into power.
My last point is this: we want this war stopped during Ramadan—not out of respect for the Muslims, but because it would give the Government a chance, without losing face, to send a message to the Islamic world that they are going to pause during the holy month of Ramadan; that they are going to consider how the project

1073
has gone so far; that they are going to consult more widely; that they are going to try diplomacy; that they are going to try legal means and political means during that pause in the war; and that, above all, they are going to flood the country with humanitarian assistance—food and kindness—which will do far more to win the masses of Afghanistan to their cause than bombing them from B52s and bombing them with cluster bombs will ever do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes, but I can see that a considerable number of Members still hope to contribute. Perhaps if Members could curtail their remarks, even more of them may catch my eye.
4.57 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) spoke with great passion and some knowledge of the Arab world, but he also spoke with inaccuracy and from a position with which I cannot agree.
One inaccuracy is about Najibullah. In fact he was the president of the amalgamation—the coalition that made up the Northern Alliance—and was hanged by the Taliban. Secondly, land mines are not neatly marked "Achtung Minen!". I am a trustee of a land mine clearance charity with 1,200 local employees in Afghanistan; they go through the ground bit by bit, trying to clear mines—whether they were laid by Soviets, Afghans or whoever. The mines are not neatly marked.
As regards President Musharraf, he was indeed self-appointed in a coup, but I happen to know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin has spent a great deal of time in Baghdad, where he called Tariq Aziz "my good friend". Can he tell the House—not now, because I shall not accept an intervention from him—who appointed Saddam Hussein but Saddam Hussein himself, for whom the hon. Gentleman has spoken up so loudly and clearly in the past?
I shall turn back to the subject in hand: the international coalition against terrorism. I particularly want to associate myself with the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). It would be pointless to repeat what he said, but I stress that it is essential that we react to what happened on 11 September. It is no good merely criticising from the sidelines in the way that we have just heard. If we do not act—if the west does not act—the same thing will happen again. Next time, it may be London, or Glasgow, or Birmingham.
The idea that we could reason with al-Qaeda is ludicrous. That organisation's aim is, as we understand it, to destroy the United States of America. Is there any negotiation on that from an American point of view? I think not. There can be none.
I should like briefly to consider four points—the aim of the coalition, the humanitarian actions, news management and how the crisis affects the United Kingdom. First, we must stick to our aims—that is why we have them—but we could be a little clearer. On the fourth immediate objective, the Secretary of State for Defence said that we would require
"sufficient change in the leadership of Afghanistan to ensure that their links to international terrorism are broken."
1074
We have to go further and, as the Prime Minister has said, the Taliban have to be removed because, while they control Afghanistan, the barbaric civil war will continue; it is a breeding ground for terrorism.
The headline story on the front page of The Times today, which I commend to the House, was the most awful tale of barbarism, brutality and injustice. The regime acts in a horrific way, contrary to all international law and agreements and certainly not to the benefit of its people—in particular, its women and children.
We should not aim to impose a Government—that should not be our business. There may not be universal suffrage with voters' lists, but that does not mean that the people of Afghanistan, even if they are not on voters' lists, cannot say who they want to have as their leader or their Government. We should aim to allow all the people of Afghanistan, including the 50 per cent. who have to dress in the fearful burka, to have some say in a Government whom they accept. Of course, that is not easy. I have no idea whether it may involve the king, a Loya Jirga or a constitutional commission, but that should be our aim. We should not allow a barbaric, mediaeval regime to succeed or last. We certainly do not want to go back to civil war.
Lastly, on our aims, we should remember what happened in 1991, when people said, "You must not go on into Baghdad." We did not need to impose a Government on Baghdad, but we allowed Saddam Hussein to survive, because we did not cut off his republican guard. By allowing him to survive, we have had to put up with another 10 years of instability and terrorism in the middle east.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for International Development for what she has said about the humanitarian aid effort. She is quite right. We should know that there will be hardship, possibly disaster, this winter, even if we stop bombing now. In about two weeks' time, the snows will have descended and those in the mountains will have insufficient food. It will be awful and we must help the World Food Programme and others as far as we can, but the best solution for the poor, benighted Afghans is a successful conclusion to the war—for their sakes, not ours.
We must give as much as necessary to the subsequent reconstruction. We must be magnanimous in victory and use our influence over our Northern Alliance allies—if that is what they are—because they do not have a good record of behaviour in the past, and they are certainly not the Blue Berets of the UN. They are former mujaheddin, and anyone who has read the stories of that time knows that the mujaheddin could be very barbaric towards their captives.
A huge effort will be required by the whole world—the western world, in particular—but it may help with the hearts and minds that have been mentioned. Whatever happens, we must not forget Afghanistan, as we did in the past. When the cold war ended, we left those who had been sitting in refugee camps for 10 years to sit for another 10 or 12 years in ghastly camps in the dust in Pakistan.
I visited my first refugee camp, near Peshawar, in 1985. I visited another one with the International Development Committee in 1999. The former was run by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the latter by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,

1075
but whoever runs the camps, they must be controlled by those who pay for them. I need not remind the House of the dreadful situation outside Goma and other places in the Congo in 1994, when the UN was actually delivering food aid and other things to the Hutu Interahamwe, who had fled from the massacres that they had committed in Rwanda.
There is little proper education in the Afghan refugee camps. Frankly, they are like a bit of backward Afghanistan. The women are subjugated and segregated, and madrassars may or may not flourish. They provide a breeding ground for discontent and extremism. When we have camps in future, we must have no Taliban in control; it is very easy for the camps to be under such control. There must be no weapons. There must be no conscription into armies by the Taliban, Northern Alliance or whoever. There must be proper education and skills training for all. There must be good health care, especially for women. There must be good food, and seeds, and whatever is necessary, and those camps must be open for women, who should not be subjugated there. No one will ever accuse me of being a feminist, but it is outrageous that 50 per cent. of the population of Afghanistan, many of them educated people, should be subjugated as they are at present.
Finally, let me refer to the relationship between international terrorism and events in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer a question on something about which I have been thinking for some weeks. Apart, thankfully, from a great difference in degree and scale, what exactly is the difference between the murderous attack on the World Trade Centre, and the attacks on the NatWest tower, now tower 42, in February 1993 and on Canary wharf in February 1996, both of which killed people and caused enormous damage? Will the Government pursue all the people who committed and assisted in those dreadful attacks on the two tallest buildings in London with the same vigour as they are pursuing the perpetrators of the attack on the tallest building in New York?
5.6 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I support the Government's action to fight international terrorism. That means support for the military action, support for the strong attempts to destroy terrorist bases and networks, making great effort to minimise civilian casualties, and support for the action to break up international terrorist networks, which are passing both cash and information around the world with the sole objective of carrying out unacceptable terrorism. The work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be welcomed and praised in that respect. He is making efforts on the international scene to ensure that those networks are destroyed.
That campaign is difficult and will be long lasting, but it is essential that we recognise the uniquely lethal nature of current international terrorism. It knows no borders, it knows no boundaries. Its aim is to maximise the mass killing of civilians as a religious imperative, bringing personal salvation—activities fuelled by hatred. It might be as well to note the statement in the official Palestinian Authority daily published on the morning of 11 September this year:
"these suicide bombers are the salt of the earth, the engines of history".
1076
The suicide bombers to whom that publication referred on that fatal morning were the suicide bombers who had been attacking and killing the civilians of Israel.
We have taken a significant step forward in meeting the international threat of terrorism with the passing of United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 on 28 September. That resolution stressed the importance of states not perpetuating terrorism themselves, and not directing or organising the targeting of civilians with the aim of mass destruction. This country has an important position in taking that forward. We are chairing the committee that will be in charge of implementing the resolution. It gives us in this country a continuing important role in dealing with that major issue.
We, and indeed the international community, must also face the fact that Iran and Syria are the sponsors of terrorism that fuels major conflicts, including ones that have been referred to today. They fund and support groups such as Hamas. Indeed, in May 2000 a new headquarters for Hamas was opened in Damascus. Iran and Syria also support Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—groups dedicated to wrecking any possible chance for peace in the middle east and bent on the destruction and elimination of Israel.
Let us remember what the former Hezbollah leader, Hussein Massawi, said:
"We are not fighting so the enemy will offer us something. We are fighting to wipe out the enemy."
I urge all those who believe that the heart of the conflict and the savage international terrorism that we now face is something to do with finding a just solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians to take heed of what is happening around them: the terrorist groups funded by, among others, Iran and Syria are dedicated to the destruction of peace and the destruction of Israel, and after that they will carry on to destroy more and more.
It is essential that we have a just peace in the middle east and that we see Israel and Palestine as independent states, living in peace, side by side in agreed secure boundaries. I want to see Jerusalem a shared capital. I want to see the end of settlements. I want to see land exchange and a solution to the refugee problem, to include the resettlement of refugees and compensation. I want to see the realisation of the vision propounded by Shimon Peres, that most courageous Israeli leader, in his book "The New Middle East", published in about 1994. He spoke about a vision of economic co-operation throughout the middle east, with Israel and Palestine, and other Arab states, working together.
When Barak made his proposals for a solution to the conflict only a year ago, and then later at Taba, it was the Palestinians who, regrettably, foolishly, rejected them.
Let us never forget, too, that the first suicide bombing in Israel happened on 6 April 1994—nothing to do with either Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Sharon, neither of whom I hold any brief for. That attack, in which eight people were killed on a bus in Afula, was Hamas's attempt to wreck the peace process then under way. That group, plus others, went on to kill hundreds more people, hoping to continue to wreck the possibility of peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
The name of Mr. Atta is familiar to us. He is known to us as the pilot who flew the plane into the World Trade Centre, murdering thousands of people. The name is

1077
known in Israel, too, because in the 1980s this same Mr. Atta killed people by throwing a bomb at civilians on a bus. He was arrested, but Israel was then persuaded to release him as a gesture of good will as part of peace negotiations. The persuasion came from President Reagan. We all know what Mr. Atta went on to do.
I raise these points not because I believe that the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is the cause of what we witnessed as thousands of people were murdered in New York and Washington, but because many Members have suggested that it is at the heart of the conflict. It is not. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be resolved—I have explained how that might happen—and I hope that pressure can be brought to bear on both sides to bring everyone back to the negotiating table to seek peace along the lines that I have outlined.
The threat that all of us—whatever our religion, ethnic identity or country—face is the threat from international terrorists who know no boundaries and no mercy. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and I realise the strength of the opposition to those who seek peace. I realise the depth of their hatred against most of the world, and I believe that we should redouble our efforts to fight international terrorism while recognising that that will bring difficulties and that, inevitably, innocent civilians may be killed. Our target, however, is the terrorists and the breaking of international military, financial and intelligence and information networks.
The fight will be long and hard, but it is a fight for humanity. If we do not win it, we will find that the terrorists who planned and executed their deadly deeds in September of this year will simply work out new plans and gather and improve their access to biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as they devise their new crimes against the whole of humanity.
5.17 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important and timely debate.
Just five weeks before the terrible events of 11 September, I chaired a meeting on the 107th floor of the World Trade Centre in New York. I saw the images on television of the towers crumbling with such an horrific loss of life. As one can imagine, it was a very humbling and reflective experience for me.
As President Bush, in his address to a joint session of Congress on 20 September, said:
"the enemies of freedom committed an act of war".
It was an act of war against every free nation and, equally, an act of war against all those in the Islamic world who believe in peace. To that end, it was absolutely correct for NATO to invoke article 5. recognising that an attack on the United States is also an attack on the rest of us.
It is the duty of every citizen in this country to stand by the campaign against terrorism that is designed to bring those capable of committing such terrible crimes to some form of justice. Those attacks could have been directed at any western freedom-loving nation, including the United Kingdom. That is why we must remain resolute.
I would, however, like to focus my comments on the humanitarian aspects of the war against terrorism. It is through many of the humanitarian issues arising from the
1078
war—particularly those that relate to the behaviour and the attitude of the Taliban towards their people—that the arguments for military action are most apparent.
The level of humanitarian need in Afghanistan is highlighted by the United Nations website. Under the somewhat dispassionate title "Crisis at a glance", it points out that 7.5 million Afghans may need aid to survive. Nearly 20 per cent. of those in need are children under the age of five and, since 11 September, tens of thousands of Afghans have fled to Pakistan in search of safety and assistance. Some 100,000 families inside Afghanistan may be cut off from aid when snow blocks the roads later this winter. That is certainly a serious and disturbing scenario.
The number of people who need aid in Afghanistan amounts to nearly a third of its population of slightly more than 25 million. That is a chilling statistic. Our response will mean the difference between a nation that can survive post-Taliban and a nation that is so destitute and starving that the path to recovery could be insurmountable.
That said, we must not let such shocking figures result in knee-jerk reactions that can only lead to a loss of focus on the task at hand. Governments and charitable organisations that are already undertaking invaluable work in attempting to alleviate the humanitarian crisis must be supported wholeheartedly and encouraged in their efforts.
Those who call for a pause in the bombing risk putting in place a strategy that would do much more harm than good. Of course we must show compassion. We must take responsibility for helping ordinary, decent and peaceful people in their time of need. When 60,000 families are entirely dependent on the World Food Programme for their food, there is a blatant need for our intervention. However, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition commented in The Daily Telegraph only yesterday, the Taliban disruption of aid efforts dates back to before the military action commenced. Fundamentally, most aid efforts are seriously curtailed. The regime that we are fighting actively prevents and blocks aid reaching those who most need it.
The most urgent and the most humanitarian action that we can take is to continue the military action until the Taliban are disabled and removed from power in Afghanistan for good. Until that regime is removed, there will be a need—it may not be extinguished for years to come—for risky aid missions to Afghanistan. Those will fail continually as the Taliban steal the produce for their soldiers and redirect medical supplies away from the sick and needy.
That does not mean that we should forget the estimated 6 million people who are still in Afghanistan and who desperately need aid to survive. These are people who do not have the resources or the ability to escape across the Afghan borders. Hundreds of thousands of them will be cut off from food and aid by snow and winter conditions in the weeks to come. Winter in Afghanistan is extremely harsh. There must be an emphasis where possible on bolstering supplies for those areas that may well find themselves isolated and impoverished through bad weather.
The World Food Programme is finding ways of bypassing Taliban blocks. However, with a lack of trucks, fuel and local knowledge, there is understandably an incredibly difficult task ahead. Taliban obstruction tactics

1079
may not let the World Food Programme's target of 52,000 tonnes of aid through into Afghanistan. While the Taliban remain in government, all the support necessary must be put into ensuring that aid can be delivered when the opportunity to do so unhindered presents itself.
It is those Afghans who have not managed to escape, especially those in the northern hunger belts where food levels are critically low, who must receive our most urgent attention. However, food supplies must not be our only concern. The Taliban regime can only be described as backward. The Taliban run a country contrary to the principles and beliefs that the vast majority of civilised countries hold sacred. For example, there is the situation of women.
Continued and focused military action to remove the Taliban and to reconstruct Afghanistan as a respected nation will bring greater recognition of the rights that we take for granted. Of course, our primary focus must be to defeat the terrorists. We must block the ability of those who seek to commit further atrocities to carry them out.
Those who harbour terrorists are also harbouring intolerance. They starve their people not only of food, but of basic equality. If the Taliban continue to rule in Afghanistan, not only will we have no guarantee that they will cease to give protection and a home to terrorists, but the humanitarian crisis will only worsen as thousands try to leave the country for a better life elsewhere, only to be persecuted for wanting what we take for granted.
This war is about standing up for democracy and for people who live in freedom and safety. The Taliban's support for and protection of terrorists is undoubtedly interwoven with their appalling domestic record. It is logical that a regime that does not care for its citizens will never care for the citizens of other nations. We must continue to prove that we have compassion for the Afghan people. That can occur only through achieving their liberation. Material aid is essential, but the removal of the Taliban will aid the people of Afghanistan far more in the long term. It can be achieved only through staying on course and continuing to stand together with the United States of America and the rest of the coalition determined and resolute in our aims. Those aims include delivering a future for the innocent people of Afghanistan. That is how we can best aid them and it is our true humanitarian mission.
5.26 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I am very pleased indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have the chance to speak in this very important debate.
The events of 11 September were a crime against humanity. Nobody on either side of the House doubts that action must be taken in the long and short term, and that it must be diplomatic, legal, military and political. The question being debated in the House this afternoon is whether the current short-term military strategy in which we are engaged is the right one. Even as we meet today, public opinion in this country is turning against the bombing. Colleagues will ignore public opinion at their peril. It is turning against the bombing not because people are wobbling, as some Ministers rather patronisingly assert, or because people have forgotten 11 September, which is the other patronising assertion.
1080
Nobody will ever forget where they were when they first saw the pictures of those aeroplanes flying into the twin towers with the consequent horrific loss of life. Just as the mushroom clouds over Hiroshima have for ever been the image of death and destruction in the 20th century, I believe that those images of planes flying into the twin towers will be the image of death and devastation that symbolises the 21st century. No one has forgotten 11 September. Still less is public opinion turning against the bombing because the public lack moral fibre, as has also been asserted. It is turning against the bombing for precisely the opposite reason. It is the innate moral sense of the British public that is leading them increasingly to ask questions of this particular military strategy. Some of us in the House believe that it is our duty to come here, ask these questions and hold the Government to account.
Some colleagues who support the bombing cling to the notion of precision targeting. Some of them appear to believe that war can be like a video game and that technology can reduce civilian deaths to some marginal percentage. I urge those colleagues who are so quick to talk about precision bombing and new technology when some of us quote the figures of civilian casualties to look at the reports that were published in the aftermath of Kosovo on the actual accuracy of those bombs, as opposed to the accuracy that was claimed at the time.
An article in Flight International in August last year referred to a Ministry of Defence operational analysis that said that only 40 per cent. of the bombs dropped by the RAF in Kosovo hit their targets. Colleagues cannot comfort themselves with the notion of precision targeting that somehow drains warfare of its blood, its horror and its sacrifice.
Colleagues should be left in no doubt about the fact that a cluster bomb that falls to the ground with many of its bomblets unexploded is as brutal and as much a threat to civilian life as any land mine. Is the battle in Afghanistan so in the balance and in such a precarious position that we have to use weapons that have been condemned all over the world? I urge colleagues to consider the horror of yellow cluster bombs being lodged in the ground, and children and young people running to pick them up because they are the same colour as the humanitarian food parcels of which colleagues are so proud. I hope that we hear a little less about precision targeting and make a closer study of the accuracy of the bombing during the war in Kosovo.
I have a word to say to the tendency in the House of Commons that I would describe as "cluster bombs for feminism." It will be of no comfort to the women of Afghanistan to hear the protestations and concern about their civil rights when thousands of them have died from a war that may continue through the winter into the spring. Many thousands more will die as a result of the humanitarian disaster, which all the aid agencies, without exception, have said will happen if there is no pause in the bombing.
Any military action that is part of a long-term, complex political and diplomatic initiative to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism must be politically sustainable. I remind colleagues that, as a consequence of the bombing campaign, which is only a few weeks old, there have been riots in northern Nigeria and Indonesia, and that 70 per cent. of the population of Pakistan are against the bombing. In Europe, people are beginning to express their

1081
concern about the bombing in Le Monde and other journals. I do not believe that a bombing campaign—accompanied by a rising tide of civilian casualties—that lasts through the winter into the spring, which is the earliest there can be a proper ground war, is sustainable in the eyes of the public. If it is not sustainable in public opinion, it is not politically sustainable and it runs the risk of undermining the political and diplomatic objectives that colleagues profess to hold.
I cannot speak for Muslims in other constituencies, but if colleagues continue to assert against the evidence of their own eyes that the Muslim community in this country supports and is happy about the bombing, they will be leading themselves into error. Of course the Muslim community deplores the events of 11 September and shares the world's horror, but it is deeply unhappy about the bombing. Colleagues must take cognisance of that fact.
Time is against us, so my final point is about the humanitarian crisis. I repeat that every aid agency has asked for a pause. We have 20 days to save millions of people in Afghanistan from starvation. Colleagues should beware of mixing up the humanitarian mission with the political mission. What the aid agencies are frightened of—more than the bombing—is that they are seen to be partisan. Aid agencies that are seen to be on one side in a war can no longer effectively carry out their mission. Mixing up the humanitarian rhetoric with the military rhetoric will make the job of the aid agencies very much harder in the long term.
The events of 11 September were a crime against humanity and no one will forget where they were when they saw the pictures on television. The British public, however, are turning against the bombing and, what is more, whatever their views on that strategy, they cannot understand how British troops might become involved in what everyone accepts will be the most difficult and dangerous ground war in our lifetime without a vote in the House of Commons. That is why, I, with some of my colleagues, will vote against the bombing if we have the chance to do so later today.
5.35 pm
Patrick Mercer (Newark): It seems to be my lot to speak shortly after the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). He always speaks with enormous skill and persuasive powers, but again, he was inaccurate. I level the same accusation at the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). We must make sure that we understand the use of cluster bombs. They are directed at airfields, area targets and specific targets such as armoured vehicles. They are not land mines and they are not designed to attack personnel.
Also, the term "carpet bombing" is not accurate. [Interruption.] We seem to have another aerial weapon. Our carpet has indeed been bombed!
Everything that is now being done is designed to shatter the cohesion and morale of our enemies in Afghanistan. People will get hurt, including those who are not directly involved. War is a dirty business and soldiers, civilians and the innocent may be injured. We have only to ask the relatives of the 6,000 people whose graves are in the centre of New York and Washington.
The Secretary of State for Defence said earlier that additional troops have nom been committed and that we can sustain and support them over a long period. He said that that is a clear indication of our resolve.
1082
Last week, I spent some time in Oman with members of the Select Committee on Defence talking to troops on Exercise Saif Sareea 2. It was clear that they were expecting to be committed for a further operation. I spent some time with the officers of the headquarters of Third Commando brigade. There were two quotations that were causing them some trouble. The House will be familiar with the first, because it has oft been quoted, but that will not stop me doing it again.
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
Those Royal Marines had no doubt that the fight facing them would be particularly difficult.
The second quote, which they found even more contentious, is from Colin Powell when he was faced with the commitment of troops to the Balkans some years ago. He said:
"We do deserts, not mountains."
Both those quotations were giving the brigade commander and his staff considerable cause to think.
How does one decide whether that senior commander should have been "used"—as was suggested earlier—to make a political point? Let us think what is involved. The Third Commando brigade has been on exercise in hostile and difficult conditions for several weeks. It is only 60 per cent. manned and is short of one third of its combat power. It is under-recruited by a platoon—what the Royal Marines would call a troop—in each company. The commander of that brigade must now regroup. He must draw troops from two different commandos, 40 and 45, into a single cohesive unit. He must give them support weapons, artillery, sappers and the like. He must also winnow out the mountain leaders from his troops throughout the brigade. No wonder, then, he says he is not yet sure about his specific targets. He is not yet sure what specific training he will be asked to carry out; he is not sure about his tasks, his rules of engagement, or the operational command and control of his unit.
Those are all legitimate military points of view. Let us not be too harsh on the commander; but let us understand that what he says is very different from what the Secretary of State for Defence would suggest—that the troops are ready for immediate action. They are not, and they cannot be.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: By drawing attention to the supposed inadequacies of the forces he describes, is the hon. Gentleman not giving them as much "support" as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)?
Patrick Mercer: Absolutely not. We need to give our forces some breathing space. They need time to be ready. Let me add that any coalition war will encounter difficulties when one nation is leading and another is trying to follow. These men have our full support, but we need to understand what is going on.
Whatever gesture we are making, 200 men—a rifle company group—are not enough to be a
"clear indication of our resolve".

1083
We can generate at least a brigade. I believe that we must generate a brigade, and I would like to see preparations for the training of the rest of our armed forces for the long haul that the Government tell us lies ahead. I see no indications of that now.
I spent some time talking to a warrant officer in the Royal Marines, who told me, "I have been in the Royal Marines for 18 years, and I have two years left to serve. During those 18 years I have spent most of my time fighting terrorism. I have seen comrades killed in Northern Ireland, and I have protected Kurds in Iraq. I believe in this cause, and I know that my men will do whatever you ask us to. I ask just one thing: do not require us to go with one arm tied behind our backs. Let us go with our gloves off, ready to do the job, and we will do it for you."
We have the finest troops in the world, and I believe that a vote tonight must be a vote in support of that warrant officer and those men who are ready to put their lives on the line for this country and for freedom.
5.43 pm
Ross Cranston: I want to deal with some of the criticisms of the coalition's actions in Afghanistan. In doing so, I do not suggest that people do not have genuine and heartfelt concerns about what is going on—they have, and they deserve to be answered. I shall begin the task of answering them in the short time available to me.
The first criticism of the coalition's actions relates to the very basis of the action in Afghanistan. Shortly after the events of 11 September, the chairman of Charter 88 wrote:
"Declaring 'war' on terrorism is the worst possible response … True security will come from international co-operation based on equality, justice and the rule of law, through which conflicts can be resolved by peaceful means."
I do not know whether, seven weeks on, Mr. Alexander still holds that view, but it is profoundly wrong. The fact is that al-Qaeda poses a clear and present danger to us. What it did on 11 September—there now seems to be no dispute about its involvement—is, by its own account, part of an on-going terrorist campaign, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan have given succour to al-Qaeda. The Taliban were given an ultimatum to deliver bin Laden, but they refused, hence the military action. To think that we can deal with such groups through
"international co-operation based on equality, justice and the rule of law"
is to misunderstand what we are up against. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday:
"We have a group of people in Afghanistan who are sworn enemies of everything the civilised world stands for, who have killed once on a vast scale and will kill again unless stopped. They can't be negotiated with."
Far from undermining the rule of law, as Mr. Alexander suggested, our action is in accordance with it. Article 51 of the United Nations charter gives nations an inherent right to individual or collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack; that right runs alongside the right of self-defence in customary international law.
There can be no question, in this instance, but that there was an armed attack. The response of the UN Security Council in 1998 to the east African embassy bombings,
1084
and on 12 September this year in Security Council resolution 1368, recognised that states have duties to suppress acts of international terrorism and that that is essential to the maintenance of international peace and security. Most significantly, UN Security Council resolution 1373 was passed on 28 September; in it, the council, acting under chapter VII of the charter, imposes on states duties to refrain from supporting terrorists, to deny them safe havens, to prevent them from using their territories and to bring them to justice. Afghanistan is therefore clearly in breach of international law. Far from taking the law into its own hands—an accusation made by Mr. Alexander—the international coalition is acting to uphold it.
Another fallacy propounded by the critics concerns the means. Even if, the argument runs in its simplest form, we must act against terrorism, we should not bomb Afghanistan. I have already said that the action against Afghanistan is both necessary and legal. Some critics of the bombing seem to be suggesting that the coalition is somehow trying to colonise Afghanistan; others that the bombing is targeting Afghan civilians; and others that it is creating a humanitarian crisis. None of those strands of criticism is valid. Given the history of the Afghan wars in the 19th century and the Russian invasion in the last century, to carry out the first charge would be extremely foolish. The aim is to remove the Taliban regime with a view to allowing all Afghans to retake control of their country.
The bombing is certainly not targeting civilians. As in the Kosovo campaign, the attacks have aimed, first, to destroy air cover and air defence; secondly, to interdict, as far as possible, the operation of command and control facilities; and, thirdly, to attack military camps, installations and forces. All that is perfectly proper; it is necessary and proportionate under the UN charter's right to act in self-defence. It is necessary to prevent a repetition of armed attack and is proportionate as a means of achieving that end. It is also in conformity with the humanitarian laws of war, most authoritatively set out in the Geneva conventions and protocols.
The 1977 first protocol puts the matter starkly:
"The civilian population, as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack."
The Geneva protocols are located in the real world and recognise that there may be incidental loss of civilian life. The 1977 first protocol therefore prohibits attacks, which may be expected to cause civilian loss, when that would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. There have been, and will be, civilian casualties in this type of conflict, which can only be a matter of very profound regret. No one who is a parent can fail to be moved by photographs of children injured and killed in such conflicts.
I wish to make two points. First, the number of strikes that have gone completely astray—as opposed to falling just outside the target—is small. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening the debate this afternoon, we cannot accept Taliban claims of numerous civilian casualties. I commend to the House the article in The Times this morning by the BBC correspondent, Simon Ingram. He visited a bombed building in Kandahar and wrote:
"And yet there were things that didn't fit. Where were the wounded or the bodies? Why had the building been targeted in the first place?"

1085
It had been claimed that 15 people had been killed and 20 injured. In his account he points out that one building bombed was occupied by the Taliban religious police and that another bombed building was a short distance from four parked Taliban tanks.
The Geneva protocol makes it clear that states such as Afghanistan must not put civilians in that sort of position. Civilians must not be used as shields. Moreover, article 58 provides that parties must remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives and avoid locating military objects, such as the tanks that Mr. Ingram saw, in populated areas.
Mr. Galloway: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Ross Cranston: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has had his platform.
As for the bombing impeding humanitarian aid, the more immediate threat is the Taliban themselves. The United Nations has complained that humanitarian aid and property is being looted at gunpoint. I am sure that the Secretary of State for International Development will address that point when she replies.
If I had more time, I would address other fallacies advanced by the critics—for example, that this is somehow a war with Islam or that the changes in domestic law proposed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department are unacceptable infringements of civil liberties. The bottom line is that what the coalition is doing is lawful, necessary and right.
5.52 pm
Sue Doughty: I have supported the Government's action, to a certain extent with reluctance. That is true of many of us who do not want to see bombing and the loss of life. On 11 September we knew that a response would be necessary. The statement made on 10 October by al-Qaeda spokesman Sulayman Abu Gaith, suggesting his group had no intention of respecting the principle of distinction between civilians and the military, showed a total disregard for international humanitarian law. The tragedy was perpetrated by terrorists, who should be brought to judgment.
The Prime Minister has now given more clarity to our aims: to close down al-Qaeda and bring bin Laden to justice. He has made it clear that our attacks on the Taliban are intended not simply to downgrade their capacity to stand between bin Laden and us but to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan. We have been given a clearer idea of what has been achieved in the first three weeks of bombing. The Prime Minister said:
"We have destroyed the Taliban air force, put Taliban airfields and air defence systems out of action; destroyed all the main al-Qaida camps; profoundly damaged Taliban command and control facilities, and dramatically reduced their capacity to communicate with their forces in the field."
What targets are left, and what is their strategic significance? I am not trying to second-guess the armed forces, but in the coming weeks and months I want them constantly to make judgments about what will be necessary to achieve the original objectives and to carry out the minimum necessary, not the maximum.
It has been suggested that the United States military have been instructed to prepare plans for the possibility of a full ground invasion after the winter. If a full ground
1086
invasion is intended but not possible during the winter months, we cannot use bombing sorties simply to pass the time. Although the threat is specific, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, the location of the people we are trying to flush out is not. The need for precision is so important.
Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Sue Doughty: No. I want to continue.
If there were a break in the bombing or a significant scaling down of military action in the winter months, could bin Laden or the Taliban take advantage in a way that compromised our position? I would be interested to hear a response on that. Would air action also grind to a halt as the snows arrived? Could our aims be better progressed by that approach, because of the opportunities it would allow for moving refugees, providing aid and easing relationships with the Islamic communities?
Fostering relations with Muslims in the region is surely key to our success, first during the military campaign and then during the campaign that will follow. That must be given political consideration, as Ramadan will soon begin. We have suspended bombing from time to time for Friday prayers and we must consider the impact of the most significant part of the Islamic calendar—one of the five pillars of Islam.
When we are all confirming our respect for those of the Muslim faith, we must be sensitive to the impression that we will give to others if we bomb throughout Ramadan. I hope that that will be taken into account by those who make the decision. There are those who say that Osama bin Laden is not representative of that community, but sadly, there are plenty who fail to hear that message.
There will also be plenty who perceive and use continued bombing as an act of hostility towards the Islamic world. Like many others, I have concerns about the use of cluster bombs. I understand the difference between land mines and cluster bombs. Nevertheless, the risk of damage, explosions and damage to civilians in the 100 yd radius around cluster bombs deeply concerns me.
The Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported this week that cluster bombs were dropped on the village of Herat in western Afghanistan.
Clare Short: It is a city.
Sue Doughty: I thank the Secretary of State.
Herat was littered with unexploded bomblets, restricting the movement of local people, who will suffer not only now, but for years to come. Using cluster bombs is wrong, and doubly wrong when we criticise the Taliban for their humanitarian record. The Prime Minister said in his speech to the Welsh Assembly that we are doing all we can to limit civilian casualties, but while we continue to use cluster bombs that cannot be the case.
We are working towards understanding the real situation in Afghanistan and many wise views have been expressed. We know that our knowledge is imperfect, but we also know that there is a greater food shortage than before and that that is partly due to current action. However, it is much due to three years of drought, recent events and 20 years of armed conflict, resulting in 3.6 million refugees. Tens of thousands of people are on the move.

1087
Our response is not yet sufficient. Daily ration packs are inadequate to feed all but a few, and we have discussed the problems associated with that. With winter coming on, it is so important that we put not only food but shelter and fuel into the area. If a pause in or scaling down of military action allows much greater humanitarian aid to be given, we must celebrate that and make our message clear that the people of Afghanistan are important to us. We must invest in them by providing the things they need.
We must also recognise that help will be needed to distribute food in Afghanistan, as local drivers are rightly afraid to enter hostile territory. If we want borders with neighbouring countries to be open to refugees, that will require a massive effort not only by allied forces but by our coalition colleagues to support the provision of temporary help for the refugees.
The Government have told us that this is a long game. The longest game, however, must be building a future for Afghanistan—one in which the people of Afghanistan, both men and women, have a stake and which they can accept as being owned by them with their government. The United Nations should not be left by itself. There will still be collective responsibility.
Mr. Goodman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Sue Doughty: I am sorry, but I am running out of time.
There will still need to be serious investment for the future for a long time. We must recognise that before the recent events Afghanistan was the poorest state in Asia. Having formed a coalition, we can use this opportunity to persuade its other members to give humanitarian aid and to offer Afghanistan the help that it will so badly need.
We support the aims of the coalition to bring bin Laden to justice and to remove the threat of terrorism. In doing so, I urge caution in the coming months on those who are taking the decisions on our behalf—caution in further bombing. They must ensure that any action has a positive outcome and can lead to meeting the objectives that we know so well. Efforts must continue to maintain support and relations between the allied forces and the Islamic community at home and worldwide.
I commend the Prime Minister's constant efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution. I urge that those efforts should continue, as far as is possible, because without those solutions we will have no future. They must continue not only for the next few months but for years afterwards as we try to achieve peace in the central and eastern areas of the world, as many hon. Members have said so eloquently. Before we do much more bombing, may we please consider why we are doing it? Please, may we call a halt to the use of cluster bombs?
6.2 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I have been waiting for some time to deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who is no longer in his seat. He made some disparaging comments about the campaign to give the women of Afghanistan a voice in the new Government that will, hopefully, replace the Taliban regime. He should know that there are many Muslim
1088
women parliamentarians. Men and women are considered equal in Islam. They may be considered different, but they are certainly considered of equal status. I hope that the campaign that has been led by women in the Labour party to give Afghan women a voice will be successful.
Mr. Goodman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived in the Chamber. I see no reason why I should give up any of my precious 10 minutes for him to intervene.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) talked about people being happy with the bombing. I do not know one person who is happy about it. I am extremely uneasy about bombing, in particular when I see the civilian casualties. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence express his reluctance for military action. We must ask ourselves, however, whether there is any credible alternative. We should not assume that people are happy and cheerful and do not care about the civilian casualties. Those of us who support the action that the Government are taking are very unhappy and uneasy about what is happening and we wish that there were an alternative. Unfortunately, there is not.
It is crucial that we prevent bin Laden and his associates from acting again and again. People who have been responsible for the deaths of 6,000 innocent civilians will never stop. They were deliberately murdered; it was not collateral damage in any sense; it was a deliberate targeting. The people responsible will not stop now. What is to stop them? They will attack again and again, so we have to track them down. We have to unseat the Taliban regime, which is protecting them. I know of no way of doing it other than the way we are doing it.
I have had about 500 letters and e-mails about the terrorism in the United States and the Afghanistan situation. Many express unease at what is happening. I have read all those letters and e-mails very carefully, although I have not been able to respond to all of them in detail. Not one has suggested alternative action that would be effective in unseating the Taliban and destroying the terrorist network.
There is a strong pacifist element in my constituency and a very active organisation called CamPeace. It is campaigning vigorously against the war and has campaigned against military action in the past. Many hundreds of my constituents have supported the organisation, signed its petitions and participated in vigils which are held regularly. I understand that many people are against bombing a poor country ravaged by years of conflict and poor governance. However, I hope that the people who support CamPeace understand what they are supporting.
CamPeace has never accepted that Milosevic could carry some guilt for the atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo. I have taken some material from the CamPeace website. It says about Yugoslavia:
"The great majority of the refugees who were forced to leave Kosovo for the neighbouring countries fled after the start of the bombing. It is now clear that the NATO bombing, far from 'averting a humanitarian catastrophe", actually accelerated and intensified it."
CamPeace refers to Carla del Ponte as
"Chief Persecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia".

1089
It highlights a news archive with articles such as
"Was the Srebrenica Massacre a Hoax? … Serbian ethnic cleansing scare was a fake, says general … Film proves death camp photos were lies".
That shows what kind of organisation CamPeace is. It does not even accept that it was right to intervene in the genocide in Kosovo against both Muslims and Christians. The organisation has no credibility with me and I hope that it has none with my constituents.
I hesitate to speak about the middle east after the excellent contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Peace in the middle east sometimes seems further away that ever. The vengeance attacks by the Israeli Government on the people of Palestine contrasts sharply with the attitude of the American Government, following the atrocities of 11 September. There was no quick retribution by the United States; instead, there was a thoughtful, considered period during which an offer was made to the Taliban to give up Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network so that it could be prosecuted. The offer was not accepted and military action has been started.
America's reaction was very different from that of the Israelis following the assassination of a Cabinet Minister. The incursion into previously unoccupied areas horrified many of us. Israel needs and deserves security. Palestine needs and deserves an independent state. Pressure must be brought to bear on the Israeli Government in particular to help bring about a Palestinian state and peace in the middle east. I believe that America, by its actions, now has the moral high ground and can bring not only financial but moral pressure to bear on the Israelis. That is extremely important.
I have been appalled by the many attempts to make this conflict into a conflict between Muslims and Christians. My local newspaper, the Cambridge Evening News, reported a short time ago an attack on two Muslim students who were wearing their traditional dress, their burkas. They had them pulled off their heads by some men as they crossed Parker's Piece in Cambridge. That has given rise to a great deal of anxiety. There was anxiety among Muslim women before this incident, and now there is more. I have tried to express my solidarity with the Muslim women's association in Cambridge. It does a good job. We need to stand firmly together and show that we are all on one side against international terrorism and for world freedom.
6.11 pm
Hugh Robertson: When I spoke during the previous debate, there was a sense across the House that we were at something of a turning point in the conflict. I firmly believe that, with the decision to deploy ground troops, that corner has been turned.
I should like to pick up some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). She was right when she said that everyone supported the aims of the operation. There is no alternative. It is important to remember that no service man ever wants to go to war, but they do so on this occasion because they believe that the cause is just. Therefore, it is appropriate that the thoughts of the House are with the service men who are about to be deployed to that region and their families here in Britain.
1090
This operation has a degree of complexity that we have never undertaken before in this country. Military operations thrive on one clear aim. We saw that clearly in the Falklands and the Gulf. The original war aims laid out by the Government were to bring Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to justice, to prevent the network from posing a continuing terrorist threat and then to deal with the Taliban who support them. In the three weeks since then, we have seen an inversion of those war aims, for understandable reasons.
We are now trying to destroy the Taliban. We hope by so doing that we will destroy al-Qaeda and therefore smoke out, in the words of the American president, Osama bin Laden. That has produced a slight difference of opinion between the military men and the politicians here in London. It is nothing more serious than that. It is made worse by the desire of journalists to pick it up and make a story. It is important that they behave responsibly, as many of us here are trying to do.
Following on from all that, there is a clear need—I am sure that the Secretary of State will address this in her reply—for a clear alternative structure for Afghanistan after the Taliban. Laying that out will have an enormously beneficial effect on many of the Muslim countries that we hope to involve in the process. I have always thought that once the Americans started to carpet bomb it would probably be a great deal less time than we thought before something happened. It is easy to predict that the Taliban will see some defections sooner rather than later and start to melt away into the hills. I and many other people across the House are extremely worried that, if that happens, regions will start to fall to anti-Taliban forces such as the Northern Alliance before an alternative Government have been put in place.
Like many hon. Members, I hope that the alternative Government will involve some form of ruling council that is 10 to 12 strong, representing all the different tribes. We must be ready to dominate the situation and not allow a vacuum to occur. There is clearly a role for a NATO force—I hope that it will have a heavy Muslim contingent—and probably, and I hope quickly, a United Nations force in its wake.
Such a force would have three clear roles. The first would be to maintain law and order. I am sure that we all agree that there would be nothing worse than the cycle of reprisals that might occur, if the Northern Alliance came sweeping down to fill the vacuum left after the Taliban. Secondly, that force could guarantee the security of any embryonic Government who are put in place in Afghanistan. Thirdly, and most important if we are to win the hearts and minds of the local population, that force must safeguard the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Furthermore, it is clear that the international coalition will have to play a considerable role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan when the conflict is over. I am sure that the role of the Secretary of State for International Development will be crucial in determining our contribution to that. It is thus vital that we have a coherent and viable plan for the reconstruction of Afghanistan post-Taliban.
In addition, there are a large number of diplomatic considerations that we need to address. Many of us have concerns about the state of Pakistan as regards its internal politics and what may happen there. That applies equally to Saudi Arabia, which—rather curiously—has been the

1091
home of many of the terrorists involved in these actions. That is a difficult problem to solve. I visited Saudi Arabia some years ago and was very aware that there was a middle class, which in effect generates all the wealth but has almost no power in government. Finding a way through that will be one of the challenges that awaits us in the future.
The final component will be whatever happens in the middle east. I must admit that I have always been something of an admirer of the state of Israel. One can only have an admiration for a nation that pulled itself up by its boot straps to create a state from the wreckage of the second world war. The problem is that the Israelis have never really come to terms with their gains in the 1967 war, which created much of the current mess.
What is important at present is that we set out a plan for a viable state of Palestine alongside Israel. It is vital that the Israeli Government do not confuse our determination to rid the world of the threat of terrorism with an opportunity to grab more land and establish more settlements.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support the Government's efforts to win this war against international terrorism. However, as part of that multi-faceted effort, it is especially vital that we have a coherent strategy for the reconstruction of Afghanistan when the war is over. During our previous debate on this subject, I said that wars were easy to start but much more difficult to bring to a successful conclusion. Tonight, I fear that the difficult stage may only just be starting.
6.18 pm
Mr. Jim Murphy: I am delighted to be able to speak briefly in this important debate. I do so in support of the Government, in the knowledge that no one lightly advocates or takes pleasure in military action, especially where civilians are so tragically affected. There is great anxiety throughout the House about those civilian casualties. That would be nothing, however, compared to the guilt I should feel if Osama bin Laden and others were allowed to continue their bloody reign of international terrorism, and if the Taliban were allowed to continue the governance of Afghanistan.
I respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in the same spirit as she offered us her comments earlier. I say to her and those whom I describe as the radicals-in-favourof-doing-very-little-at-all tendency: simply to pause, or halt, the bombing as they suggest—whether for the limited period of winter or for Ramadan, or perhaps, in the view of some people, such as my hon. Friend, for good—would merely allow the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to continue to prosper. They would see weakness, when in fact there is only determination on our part to weaken bin Laden and his organisation.
There are many things on which I could comment, but as I have only a limited time I shall raise a few concerns. As part of building the international coalition, we have lifted nuclear sanctions against India and Pakistan. I worry that we are perhaps stoking up some difficulties for ourselves, in that two nuclear powers could still be involved in a conflict over Kashmir a few years down the line.
1092
I reiterate that I fail to understand why the poppy fields remain untouched and have not been included in the list of targets that we have identified. We should do all we can to end that grotesque industry, by providing agricultural support and investment so that the Afghans can grow decent crops that do not poison the people of their country or the wider world.
I wish to make another substantive point: some hon. Members have rightly concentrated on the terrible civilian deaths in Afghanistan, but I want to comment on the terrible civilian deaths in the middle east. The death of a civilian in Afghanistan is as tragic for the individual's family as is the death of a civilian in the west bank or in Tel Aviv, but I fail to comprehend those who advocate the view that the lack of a peace process in the middle east caused the actions of Osama bin Laden, or that the lack of meaningful dialogue produced Hamas.
Let us remember that when peace seemed most likely in the middle east, when Labour's Ehud Barak was in power, suicide bombings against Israeli civilians were a weekly occurrence and the attacks of 11 September were probably initially planned during that very period. I do not believe that anyone has been fooled into thinking that the guiding principle of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah or any of those organisations relates to the settlements, the status of Jerusalem or the complex issue of the return refugees. Indeed, we could solve each and every one of those issues and Hamas would still bomb civilians, Hezbollah would still launch Katyusha rockets and Islam Jihad would continue its bloody trade.
As the Prime Minister has said on his visits to the region, there is an urgent need to return to the Mitchell peace plan and for Israel to show all possible restraint, subject to its right to defend itself and its citizens and with the guarantee of security that it deserves. However, the Palestinians, along with the Syrians and the Iranians, should do more to rein in those terrorist organisations, whose guiding principle is not specific, but includes the very destruction of the state of Israel and the gross undermining, if not destroying, of the American way of life and American and European cultures.
In reining in the terrorists, the Palestinians deserve absolutely the right to statehood and a viable state, with defined borders. Anything else would be a recipe for insecurity, and the last thing that Israel and the Palestinians need is continued insecurity. The Palestinians also need economic prosperity, but that has not happened during the peace process. The poverty of the Palestinian population grew the longer the peace process continued, and we cannot tolerate that type of peace process.
In conclusion, it is high time to decouple any phoney connection between the actions of Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists with the lack of a peace process in the middle east. There should certainly be a solution to the problems of the middle east, but despite the events of 11 September, not because of them.
6.23 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: We are very glad to have this opportunity to debate international terrorism again. It has been very apparent this evening that, as the process evolves, we have fresh questions to ask, and it is important that we have the opportunity to do so. I particularly thank the Secretary of State for International Development for coming here yet again to debate the humanitarian aspects, especially as we understand that her Department is extremely busy now.

1093
I have gained the impression this evening that two debates have been going on simultaneously—one on the rights and wrongs of the military action and the other on the effectiveness of humanitarian action—but the truth is that the two are inextricably linked. Our aim is to support the Government, and I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), for one, was certainly clear about that in his speech. Of course, I sympathise with those who are asking for a pause in the bombing. That opinion was put with great passion—even epitomised—by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway).
No one likes war. No one unless there is something wrong with them, likes bombing people. No one likes to think that innocent people are being killed. To ask our service men to put their lives on the line, we must be clear about our aims.
Several hon. Members spoke of the nature of the threat that we face, the terror that has destroyed lives and compromised our normal way of life. Tonight on the wire comes news that anthrax has been found at an American embassy in Europe for the first time. The threat is present and on-going. The terror affects our ordinary daily lives. The President of the United States has had to go into hiding. We know the threat to have been very high in recent days. One of the fundamental questions is: do we want to go on living like this?
Several hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock)—correctly defined the perpetrators as "evil", as an "extreme sect" and as having hijacked Islam. That is important, because it will differentiate the terrorists from their false claims. It is not a holy war; we must not let bin Laden take us into one.
The Taliban's behaviour towards its own country both before and after 11 September is one of the fundamental problems that we seek to address. Before 11 September, it was the Taliban who were forcing aid workers to leave the country. The Taliban have abandoned their people, not us. Any aid worker who stayed in Afghanistan risked punishment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) said, 7.5 million people are at risk of starvation this winter and that is due in no small part to the way in which the Taliban have ruled their country. It is true that it is due in part to the famine and drought that they face, but it helps to emphasise the fact that fighting the Taliban is vital. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said in his article in The Daily Telegraph yesterday:
"Removing the Taliban does not conflict with our humanitarian policy. It is the humanitarian policy".
Given all that, does the Secretary of State agree that the most significant humanitarian policy that the Government could adopt would be to rid Afghanistan of that brutal and oppressive regime, which has been the scourge of a country and a people for far too long?
Any war in any country will raise humanitarian questions. This war is certainly no exception. May I ask the Secretary of State about the news that 300,000 of the most vulnerable refugees have been allowed to enter Pakistan? We welcome that news, but has any similar progress been made in relation to opening the borders with Iran? What representations has her Department made
1094
to the Government of Iran regarding the refugees now gathering on the Iranian border? What extra help can her Department offer to deal with the real risk of political instability that that brings?
We welcome the news that some refugees will be allowed to cross the border into Pakistan, but unless care is taken that could exacerbate the problem. As I have said before, intermittent opening of the border causes people to mass at the Afghan border. What action is the international community taking to help those who have arrived on the border but cannot cross? Aid agencies report enormous difficulties helping refugees on the border owing to the presence of the Taliban themselves. How does the Secretary of State think we can best get aid to those people?
Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Lady agree that the United Nations should consider setting up a refugee zone inside Afghanistan, a safe haven that is protected from bombs, armaments and the Taliban and is provided with humanitarian aid? The people who wanted to get away from the difficulties could find a haven there.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Of course, without the co-operation of the Taliban, it is particularly difficult to bring about anything within the Afghan borders.
Geraint Davies: By force.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman says "by force", but surely that is the point, I hope that he will concur with the Prime Minister that the removal of the Taliban is essential to the strategy.
Who will decide who is vulnerable enough to be allowed to cross the border? It has been reported that the Pakistani soldiers patrolling the border let through those who can pay, but not the widows and children who have no means of bribing them. Will the UN be able to monitor who can enter Pakistan?
The camp near Chaman is run by the Taliban. It was described by Ruud Lubbers as "like a prison". Are aid agencies allowed access to the camp? He also said that there were real fears that the camps would become training grounds for the Taliban. Are there any checks on refugee camps as potential recruiting grounds for the Taliban? Last winter, people throughout Afghanistan died of exposure in camps. I repeat the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that everything possible be done to raise conditions in the camps to internationally acceptable standards.
I appreciate that it is very difficult to know exactly what is going on inside Afghanistan, but can the Secretary of State tell us whether there have been any measures to improve relief and shelter for the 2 million internally displaced people this winter? So far, there has been no national appeal jointly organised by the aid agencies. Given the possible longer duration of the war in Afghanistan, will she endorse such a national appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee to ensure that there is enough support to sustain the humanitarian effort in the longer term?
Last week, the Secretary of State said that only 10 per cent. of the aid pledged had actually come in. What is her assessment today of the likelihood and time scale of the

1095
pledges being fulfilled? In the International Development Committee this week, the aid agencies were asked how long a ceasefire would need to be to get enough aid in, but the answer is that it is already too late to get the past two months' supplies in, as well as enough stocks for the winter.
Great emphasis was laid on finding alternative means of bringing in aid. We welcome the news in today's press that DFID, with its Russian counterpart, has agreed a joint effort to deliver 9,000 metric tonnes of food in the north-east region. We understand that the programme is to be launched in the next two weeks, coinciding with the first snows. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the drivers will prioritise the areas most likely to be cut off by snow and not unload in more accessible areas?
In the International Development Committee on Tuesday, the point was made that there are gaps in the World Food Programme's aid, because staples are provided but not the complementary foods needed for babies, children, the sick and the elderly. Will the Secretary of State recognise those gaps and see what can be done to provide more appropriate food?
I hope that the Secretary of State will take these comments in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. The humanitarian situation unfolding before us could affect the whole course of the war. We face a terrorist threat that could cause great instability both here and in Afghanistan. These terrorists have no respect for our human rights and freedoms or those of the people of Afghanistan. We are not willing to allow them to compromise our way of life, and we should be equally determined to ensure that they no longer compromise the right to life in Afghanistan.
If we are to win the war—and I firmly believe that we owe it to the people of Afghanistan to win it for them—we must convince Afghans that the war is not against them. The people of Afghanistan could yet become our greatest allies in our bid to rid the country of the terrorists who have ruined it for too long. Let us do all that we can to build their trust.
6.34 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): This has been a good debate and most of the speeches have been extremely thoughtful and have addressed the real complexity of the situation facing us. It will be impossible for me to do justice to all the points that have been made, especially those relating to the humanitarian situation, and I shall be sure to write to the hon. Members to whom I am unable to respond tonight.
As I informed the House last week, the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is dire. We cannot be sure that it will not get worse. We are succeeding in increasing supplies into Afghanistan, but the situation remains very worrying and very fragile.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Clare Short: No, not yet.
I shall come to the details of the present situation in a moment. Before doing so, I want to remind the House, the country, and especially my hon. Friends who are
1096
calling for a bombing pause, that the situation inside Afghanistan has been desperate, with terrible suffering resulting from endless war and misgovernment for very many years. For example, in 1998, the United Nations had to truck in 750,000 tonnes of wheat to keep starvation at bay. UN operations have been very difficult and harassed for very many years. The reality is that the Afghan people's plight has been desperate for a long time but until very recently too few people have been concerned about it.
As one of my hon. Friends said, a quarter of all the children in Afghanistan die before they reach the age of five. That is one of the worst figures in the world. Illiteracy was a major problem before the Taliban appeared, affecting 90 per cent. of girls and 60 per cent. of boys, and Taliban policies have worsened things terribly. Within three months of the capture of Kabul in 1996, the Taliban closed 63 schools in the city, throwing 103,000 girls out of school.
The Taliban also ordered that women could not teach. That meant 7,800 women teachers losing their jobs and 148,000 boys being thrown out of school. The Taliban also shut down Kabul university—it is not true that women were not educated in Afghanistan before the crisis—and that sent home 10,000 students, 4,000 of whom were women.
When the Taliban took Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998, a brutal and massive massacre followed, with thousands of corpses left littering the streets. There is continuing persecution of Shia and Sufi Muslims because the Taliban do not recognise Sufism or the Shia as legitimate traditions within Islam.
It is not true to suggest that there was not a terrible humanitarian and political crisis in Afghanistan before 11 September. Those who suggest that simply stopping the bombing would make everything all right are misleading themselves and misleading the public.
These are just a few examples of the barbarism that the Taliban have inflicted on the people of Afghanistan. As the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) pointed out, we must be clear that the removal of the Taliban Government, which is necessary to secure our objective of bringing bin Laden to justice and closing down al-Qaeda's headquarters in Afghanistan, is also absolutely necessary if the people of Afghanistan are to have any hope for the future. Those objectives are not clashing; they are completely complementary.
Lynne Jones: Is my right hon. Friend not being disingenuous in accusing those of us who want there to be a pause in the bombing of being against all military action and of being naive enough to think that the terrible humanitarian situation will be relieved overnight? My position is that bombing is interfering with the delivery of relief. We cannot get any information from my right hon. Friend about its impact, but it must surely be having an impact. The priority now, and part of the campaign against terrorism, must be to get humanitarian relief delivered to the people of Afghanistan.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady must confine herself to an intervention.
Clare Short: I have many faults, but being disingenuous is not one of them. Those who suggest that

1097
the only problem with humanitarian relief is the bombing are misleading themselves and misleading the country. They are not paying enough attention to the seriousness of the situation that we and that the people of Afghanistan face. I do not respect those who do not attend to the detail. I respect everyone's right to dissent—this is an enormously complex and difficult situation—but when people get up and pontificate, they really should do more work about the realities inside the country.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Clare Short: No, I will not.
The reality is that the needs of Afghanistan have been largely ignored, as a couple of Opposition Members have said, since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. Since then, UN appeals have not been fulfilled. Warlords have devastated the country, and the brutal regime of the Taliban has made things ever worse. Afghanistan is suffering terribly. It has become like an economic black hole. It is causing intense suffering to its own people while sending out waves of insecurity and chaos to the surrounding region. The reliance of the ruined Afghan economy on the growing and sale of drugs has been undermining and corrupting neighbouring countries. It is an extremely dangerous situation for the people who live in the region and for the world as a whole.
Part of the nightmare—if we do not remain determined to succeed, it is one that we could face—that would result if we were to fail in our present efforts could be the destabilisation of Pakistan. Indeed, it could be the Talibanisation of Pakistan. We would then have a Taliban regime with a nuclear weapon facing another nuclear power with an unresolved problem over Kashmir. These matters are enormously serious.
I say to my colleagues and people outside the House—I am receiving thousands of letters, and thank heavens we live in a country where people are so troubled by the war and the bombing—that they are right to be troubled. War is always ugly. Bombing should always be regretted, but it is essential to the interests of the people of Afghanistan and of the world that we carry through our current efforts to success.
The reason why bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network are headquartered in Afghanistan is the same reason why people are suffering so terribly. Afghanistan is a failed state. There is gross misgovernment by a brutal regime that twists and distorts all the teachings of Islam. We must bring the war to an end as soon as possible, and to achieve that we must do all that we can to support Ambassador Brahimi, who is leading the UN effort to bring together a transitional Afghan Government representative of all the people. That is the way in which the war will be brought to an end. That is the way in which the international community will be able to co-operate in bringing massive further humanitarian relief into the country and then helping in the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
Harry Cohen: I am in agreement with what my right hon. Friend says. However, has she heard the report on CNN today that cluster bombs are being dropped that are the same colour as the packaging of food parcels? Will she intervene so that that bombing is stopped at least until this matter is sorted out?
Clare Short: I am coming on to cluster bombs. I must confess that I try to avoid watching CNN. I will deal fully
1098
with the point raised by my hon. Friend and others when I made a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan.
Ambassador Brahimi's work is continuing intensively throughout the world, as is the preparation of plans for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan. The plans have not yet been published, but I agree that it is important that all who are troubled by the war know that we are deadly serious about sticking with this and helping the Afghan people to have a proper country and a decent future. Today I can announce that I am making available £1 million to Ambassador Brahimi to help facilitate his efforts.
We must ensure that food and other humanitarian relief is provided to the people of Afghanistan for as long as it is needed, and that refugees are properly cared for. I say to the hon. Member for Meriden that the numbers of refugees have been much fewer than we expected. The UN appeal expected 1.5 million. About 80,000 refugees have made their way across the borders. The borders are closed, and that is a problem. We are trying to get them open. We are giving commitments to the Governments of Iran and Pakistan that we shall ensure that all the costs are recovered to them. The problem is that they were both left with 2 million refugees after the withdrawal of the Russians from Afghanistan, so they do not entirely believe that. They are also worried about arms and Taliban supporters coming in with refugees and destabilising their countries.
We have to keep up the pressure and care for the refugees. At the same time, we must have some sympathy and concern for the worries of surrounding countries that fighters will cross the borders, as they have before, and bring about destabilisation.
Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Clare Short: No, I shall not do so for the minute. I am sorry; I shall give way later if I have time.
I can inform the House that food is getting into Afghanistan in larger quantities now than at any time since 11 September. As I said last time I spoke to the House, so many figures are flying about because of all that has happened in the past month. After 11 September, the withdrawal of international staff because of the threat to their lives meant that food stopped going into the country. Then it started again, but the bombing stopped it. So there have been varying amounts of food and the average for the month appears much worse than the actual performance on getting food into Afghanistan. I am providing figures that will go into the Library today on daily delivery into the country, which gives the clearest possible picture of the trend. Hon. Members will see that the trend is an upward one, but we must not be complacent and must do better.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Clare Short: No. I understand that my hon. Friend told the country that I was not saying what I meant. I resent that deeply. I would not dream of standing up and not saying what I mean about these matters. My hon. Friend should not have said such a thing.
The World Food Programme has increased deliveries and resumed them through the border at Chaman near Kandahar, where there are many displaced people. I am

1099
pleased to announce that the UK has agreed to contribute £600,000 to help fund a joint effort by the World Food Programme and the Russian Government to increase food deliveries from Tajikistan to north-east Afghanistan in the next few weeks. As a result of that effort, a further 9,000 tonnes of food will be delivered into Afghanistan in the next two months.
As I have said before, our information on food delivery inside Afghanistan is incomplete, partly because the Taliban will not allow humanitarian workers to use telephones. They do so under threat of losing their lives. So we cannot even get accurate reports about the situation inside the country. There have been more reports of looting and vandalising. The Taliban still have control of the World Food Programme warehouse in Kandahar and the 1,600 tonnes of food stored in it. Sadly, however, many tonnes of food were lost when the International Committee of the Red Cross warehouse in Kabul was bombed—something that we should all regret very much. There should be a very thorough inquiry into how that occurred.
As a result of all those difficulties, the World Food Programme has decided where possible to bypass its warehouses in urban areas and deliver food directly to rural areas and communities. That means that distribution is fanning out across the country and more deliveries are occurring in that way, which is highly desirable.
As I have said, I genuinely understand all the people who call in their letters for a pause in the bombing, as well as my hon. Friends who make such calls, because they feel emotionally that is unbearable to bomb a people that is hungry. The truth is, however, that a pause would simply incentivise the Taliban and other fighters to attack humanitarian convoys. It would make the situation worse and would not be a solution. We must restrict the bombing to military targets, be very careful in doing it and bring it to an end as soon as possible, but pausing for humanitarian purposes would be a grave error. Future supplies of food would become military targets in order to prevent the conflict from continuing. It would be an error of enormous proportions.
Liaison between the humanitarian effort and the military to ease the delivery of food has improved since the start of the conflict, but it could be much better. It is crucial that we learn the lessons of previous crises in Kosovo, Bosnia and East Timor. Those lessons must be put into effect so that the military can ensure that it minimises all possible obstacles to the humanitarian effort. We did that well in Kosovo, but it is not operating now as well as it could. It could be corrected and we must get on with that with great urgency. I have experts in this area in my Department. We are working very hard to improve matters and we must ensure that more is done.
On cluster bombs, I promised the House in response to questions asked last week and again today that I would find out all I could about their use. I understand that 200 such bombs have been used against five targets. One of those targets was a terrorist training camp, while the others were Taliban military positions. The cluster bombs used are armed with general-purpose bomblets designed for use against vehicles and buildings. They are designed to explode on impact. None of the cluster bombs dropped over Afghanistan contained delayed action minelets or land mines. Britain has signed the Ottawa convention—
1100
some of my hon. Friends can take pride in that—so no UK facility could be used if such bomblets were being used. That is an important contribution.
Despite the terrible difficulties that we are facing, more food is getting into Afghanistan and deliveries inside the country are continuing. However, the situation is fragile. Before 11 September, we were faced with a country of 20 million people between 5 million and 7 million of whom needed food trucked in by the United Nations in order to remain alive. The so-called Government of that country was obstructing the delivery of humanitarian relief. The situation is very difficult, and it will continue to be difficult. No one should be complacent, but no one should pretend that the military campaign is causing the difficulties.
We must be intelligent and serious enough to pursue a number of objectives at the same time. We must be determined to bring bin Laden and his associates to justice and to close down the al-Qaeda network. That requires the replacement of the Taliban Government. At the same time, we must continue to truck in food and to provide for the refugees. We must unite the world around a plan for a replacement Government in Afghanistan who are representative of their people and want to co-operate with the international community.
Those objectives are difficult and complex, but they are do-able. Anything else is intolerable. Stopping the bombing and not taking action would result in more disasters like that at the World Trade Centre, and the people of Afghanistan would continue to suffer this abominable misgovernment that has brought them as low as they are today.
I shall now give way to my hon. Friend.
Geraint Davies rose—
Mr. Alan Simpson rose—
Hon. Members: Which one?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought the right hon. Lady was giving way to her hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson).
Clare Short: No, I was not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I bow to correction.
Geraint Davies: Has my right hon. Friend considered the viability of setting up United Nations runs and protected zones within Afghanistan for humanitarian aid to be delivered to people who would be protected from possible falling bombs?
Clare Short: Yes, indeed. In Islamabad, the representative of the UN special mission to Afghanistan said to me that we must have many different plans and enormous flexibility to be able to move forward, depending on how the situation develops on the ground. We hope that we will enable UN workers to return to parts of the country, so that trucking in food and humanitarian supplies will become easier in those areas—it will be areas rather than routes. It is difficult to negotiate with the Taliban to get any co-operation to bring in food. However, all such instruments will be tried.

1101
As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South misled the country about my views without even talking to me, so I have no intention of giving way to him. [Interruption.]
It is important that the talk of a war against terrorism be tempered by our explanations to the British people of our strategy to deal with this crisis. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady. This important debate is coming to a climax, and the Secretary of State should be heard in greater silence.
Clare Short: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The al-Qaeda network exists in 60 different countries, and its headquarters are in Afghanistan. We must bring different measures into play at the same time, one of which is the sharing of intelligence and information so that people responsible for co-operating with the network can be arrested and brought to justice, and the network dismantled. We must take much firmer action on money laundering. There is a big link between drug dealing and money laundering, which enables the network to function. Co-operation on action against money laundering can begin to dismantle the network.
We need military action in order to weaken the Taliban's military forces so that al-Qaeda cannot continue to operate in Afghanistan. We need to maintain our humanitarian effort to keep the people of Afghanistan fed. We must co-operate with the United Nations in preparing the ground for a new Afghanistan. Alongside that, we are working with the Governments of Iran and, most particularly, Pakistan so that they are not destabilised by our current activities.
Ms Julia Drown: My right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out the dreadful position facing women in Afghanistan. As we prepare for the future in Afghanistan, what can her Department do to ensure that women have a stronger voice in the future?
Clare Short: People sometimes talk as if the treatment of women and girls in Taliban cities such as Kandahar is an example of the traditional treatment and education of Afghan women. That is wrong. Herat, for example, is an ancient and civilised city. It is a centre of learning and education. It is 5,000 years old and is talked of as a great city in the history of the world. There have been many great women at the university there—scholars, architects and so on. Many of the educated women have now left Afghanistan as refugees, but we must lay the plans for the new inclusive transitional Government that will enable the educated people of Afghanistan to return and help in the restoration of their country. Restoring the right to education for girls and boys is crucial.
A couple of weeks ago, I visited the North-West Frontier province, where there is a great deal of movement across the border with Pakistan. The education Minister there told me that the answer to backwardness and extremism is the education of girls. On behalf of our Government I undertook to work with the Government in the North-West Frontier province to ensure that, as rapidly as possible, boys and girls are educated. We must ensure that the full wonderful glory and civilisation of Islam is properly honoured by us, across the world and in
1102
Afghanistan. There is no teaching in Islam that says that girls should not be educated or that educated women should not be respected. That is a complete distortion, and bringing it to an end will be a priority for all of us as we create a new Afghanistan.
These are enormously serious and sombre times. As has been said, this is probably one of the most complex military and humanitarian disasters that the world has seen in recent years, if not ever. We must hold to our resolve and be determined to succeed. Success is possible, but very—
Mr. Dalyell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 373.

Division No. 48]

[6.58 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Dalyell, Tam

Weir, Michael

Galloway, George

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Wood, Mike

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tellers for the Ayes:

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Mr. Paul Marsden and

Price, Adam

Mr. Kerry Pollard.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Allen, Graham

Browne, Desmond

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Bryant, Chris

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Burden, Richard

Burnett, John

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Burnham, Andy

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Burnside, David

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burstow, Paul

Atkins, Charlotte

Burt, Alistair

Bailey, Adrian

Butterfill, John

Baird, Vera

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Barker, Gregory

Cairns, David

Baron, John

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Barron, Kevin

Cameron, David

Battle, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Beard, Nigel

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Bell, Stuart

Bercow, John

Caplin, Ivor

Berry, Roger

Carmichael, Alistair

Betts, Clive

Casale, Roger

Blackman, Liz

Cash, William

Blears, Ms Hazel

Caton, Martin

Blizzard, Bob

Cawsey, Ian

Blunt, Crispin

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Chope, Christopher

Borrow, David

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Boswell, Tim

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Bradshaw, Ben

Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

Brady, Graham

Brake, Tom

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Brennan, Kevin

Brooke, Annette

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

1103

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clelland, David

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hancock, Mike

Clwyd, Ann

Hanson, David

Coaker, Vernon

Havard, Dai

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hawkins, Nick

Cohen, Harry

Healey, John

Colman, Tony

Heath, David

Connarty, Michael

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Conway, Derek

Hendrick, Mark

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Hendry, Charles

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hepburn, Stephen

Corston, Jean

Heppell, John

Cotter, Brian

Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

Cranston, Ross

Hill, Keith

Crausby, David

Hoban, Mark

Cruddas, Jon

Hodge, Margaret

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Holmes, Paul

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Hood, Jimmy

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

David, Wayne

Hope, Phil

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Horam, John

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Howells, Dr Kim

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

Hoyle, Lindsay

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Dawson, Hilton

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Denham, Rt Hon John

Iddon, Dr Brian

Dhanda, Parmjit

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Dismore, Andrew

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jenkin, Bernard

Doughty, Sue

Jenkins, Brian

Dowd, Jim

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Drew, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Drown, Ms Julia

Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Joyce, Eric

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Keeble, Ms Sally

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Edwards, Huw

Keetch, Paul

Efford, Clive

Kelly, Ruth

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Kemp, Fraser

Etherington, Bill

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

Evans, Nigel

Farrelly, Paul

Khabra, Piara S

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Flint, Caroline

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Follett, Barbara

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Foster, Don (Bath)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Lansley, Andrew

Foulkes, George

Laws, David

Francis, Dr Hywel

Laxton, Bob

Gapes, Mike

Leigh, Edward

Garnier, Edward

Leslie, Christopher

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Letwin, Oliver

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Levitt, Tom

Gilroy, Linda

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Godsiff, Roger

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Goggins, Paul

Lidington, David

Goodman, Paul

Linton, Martin

Gray, James

Lloyd, Tony

Grayling, Chris

Loughton, Tim

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Love, Andrew

Greenway, John

Lucas, Ian

Grieve, Dominic

Luff, Peter

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Lyons, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McCabe, Stephen

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

1104

McDonagh, Siobhain

Rosindell, Andrew

MacDonald, Calum

Ross, Ernie

MacDougall, John

Roy, Frank

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Ruane, Chris

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Ruffley, David

McIsaac, Shona

Salter, Martin

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Savidge, Malcolm

McKechin, Ann

Sawford, Phil

McKenna, Rosemary

Sedgemore, Brian

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sheerman, Barry

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Sheridan, Jim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Short, Rt Hon Clare

McNulty, Tony

Simmonds, Mark

Mactaggart, Fiona

Simon, Siôn

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Maples, John

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Marris, Rob

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Martlew, Eric

Soley, Clive

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

May, Mrs Theresa

Southworth, Helen

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Meale, Alan

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Mercer, Patrick

Spicer, Sir Michael

Merron, Gillian

Spring, Richard

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Squire, Rachel

Miliband, David

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Miller, Andrew

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stoate, Dr Howard

Moore, Michael

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Moran, Margaret

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Morley, Elliot

Stringer, Graham

Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mountford, Kali

Stunell, Andrew

Mullin, Chris

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Munn, Ms Meg

Swayne, Desmond

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Swire, Hugo

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Tami, Mark

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Norris, Dan

Taylor, Ian (Esher amp; Walton)

Oaten, Mark

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Timms, Stephen

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Todd, Mark

O'Hara, Edward

Touhig, Don

Organ, Diana

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Pearson, Ian

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Perham, Linda

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Picking, Anne

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Pickles, Eric

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pickthall, Colin

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Plaskitt, James

Tyler, Paul

Pond, Chris

Tynan, Bill

Pound, Stephen

Tyrie, Andrew

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Viggers, Peter

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Vis, Dr Rudi

Primarolo, Dawn

Walley, Ms Joan

Prisk, Mark

Ward, Ms Claire

Prosser, Gwyn

Wareing, Robert N

Purnell, James

Waterson, Nigel

Quinn, Lawrie

Watkinson, Angela

Rammell, Bill

Watson, Tom

Rapson, Syd

Watts, David

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

White, Brian

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Whittingdale, John

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Wiggin, Bill

Robathan, Andrew

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Willis, Phil

Rooney, Terry

Wills, Michael

1105

Winnick, David

Wright, David (Telford)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Tellers for the Noes:

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

John McDonnell and

Woolas, Phil

Mr. Simon Thomas.

Question accordingly negatived.
7.12 pm
John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the record may we clarify the fact that all four Tellers in tonight's vote are opposed to the war and that it was a procedural issue that demarcated them as Tellers?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that that will be evident. If there is any doubt about it, individual hon. Members can undoubtedly make it clear in the usual way.
It being after Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed.

Cotswold Canals
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
7.13 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am pleased to move this Adjournment debate and I know that others wish to say something about this important canal network, so I shall be precise.
This is an important issue and I immediately declare a non-pecuniary interest as a vice-president of the Cotswold Canals Trust, like the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Although we draw no benefit from it, other than of a helpful kind, it is important to put that on the record.
I wish to speak almost exclusively about my part of the Cotswold canal system—Stroudwater—which goes from the Gloucester-Sharpness canal to Stroud and slightly beyond. Obviously, if and when we see the completion of this network it will link the Severn to the Thames, which is an important statement in terms of our ability to see how waterways can be opened up properly.
Mr. James Gray: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is not time to make a speech and I shall not delay the House. Does he agree that an important part of the network is the Wilts and Berks canal, which will join the two canals together to create a genuine network around the area?
Mr. Drew: I am more than happy to agree, because we are here in the true spirit of co-operation to ensure that we get the whole canal opened up, although I shall highlight particular problems that make that more difficult.
I am, as always, grateful to several people who helped me to prepare information, particularly those in British Waterways: chief executive David Fletcher and regional officers Chris Mitchell and John Lancaster. I am pleased to have met Roger Hanbury, chief executive of the Waterways Trust, several times recently. He is a good choice to ensure that we get the new organisation up and running so that it is as effective as possible.
Last but not least, I pay tribute to those members of the Cotswold Canals Trust who have, over many decades and through their voluntary and earnest efforts, kept alive the dream of reopening the wider canal network and the Stroudwater canal in particular. I must refer to Bruce Hall, Neville Nelder and Ken Burgin. Many more people are worthy of a mention, but we are short of time.
The debate is opportune, because it comes on the back of two important documents. The first, which is entitled "Waterways for Tomorrow", was released by the Government a couple of years ago. It is a stimulating read. For a long time, people thought that canals came on the back of every other form of transport and were of the past. However, the document proves that canals can make a difference to our overall integrated transport programme and, more particularly, that they have a vital role in tourism, recreation and economic regeneration. I shall say more about that later.
It is important to put it on record that professionalism increased as our effort to open up the canal network gathered pace. I have paid tribute to people, so I must

1107
do likewise to organisations. British Waterways has exercised increasing influence and it took the network under its wing. Both it and the Waterways Trust are committed to the attempt to reopen the network.
I must also refer to the recently released report on the feasibility of restoring the Cotswold canals, which was produced by British Waterways and commissioned by the Waterways Trust and which shows that reopening, rather than being a long-held aim, is an eminently deliverable concept over time. The Minister might like to say how we can get funding and help.
I want to go over the key issues, of which there are several, and we cannot but start with technical matters. There is an understanding that the canal is historically important, as it dates back to the end of the 18th century, and we know that there were technical problems, because of water transference and because physical obstacles had to be overcome, not least the Sapperton tunnel, which remains in place and which will no doubt still cause difficulties if and when we get the canal open.
In the meantime, we must discuss the practical problems in my neck of the woods. Unfortunately, the canal system goes under the M5 and the A38. It also merges with the River Frome. None of those problems are insuperable, but in their own right they are a headache and we need to recognise that that is why the £82 million cost suggested by the report commissioned by the Waterways Trust is a fair estimate. I would argue that the goal is achievable. We will create a win-win situation in terms of reopening the canal and the tourism and recreation benefits that come on the back of that. We will also get the benefit of economic regeneration.
There are other issues. Of course, funding is important in its own right. I would like to think that the Minister can give us a steer and tell us how we can raise the money. It will not come from a single sector. A genuine relationship between the public and the private sector is needed, combined with the voluntary endeavours of those who have done so much to keep the spirit of the canal alive.
I would highlight the role that must be played by the south-west regional development agency, which is certainly in favour of reopening. Again, we must consider carefully how it can raise money. Obviously, we would be grateful for any help from central Government. We will also be looking for lottery funding. We understand that the Government cannot influence that, but I want to ensure that the matter is put on the table during this debate.
Planning and land ownership issues are involved and I will not pretend that the reopening of the canal has universal acclaim. Some individuals are disturbed by the thought that it will reopen—I and the other hon. Members present know them well. I understand the problem and that is why, in principle, I am concentrating on the western part of the canal, where there are not the same land ownership issues. We cannot avoid those issues, however, which must be sorted, and we must do so through dialogue. People must feel that they are being taken into the loop of discussion and we must ensure that they are listened to.
There are also planning issues. I will not wax lyrical on those, as I have received various rejections in written answers to parliamentary questions. I have raised the issue
1108
of Ebley wharf in my constituency, which is being funded on the back of a private development. I see that the Minister is laughing. He knows that I am slightly at variance with the way in which that matter has been handled.
If we do not get a proper balance between public, private and voluntary sector funding, the danger is that the canal trust must consider potentially conflicting development. That is what people in the area I mentioned feel, which is a shame. Some of the good will that has been built up over generations could evaporate if people see that the canal restoration is being funded through unnecessary and undesirable development. I will pass on quickly from that issue, but we must be aware of it.
On the western side, thankfully, land ownership is concentrated largely in the hands of the Company of Proprietors. I must mention the late Fred Rowbotham, who was the chairman of the company for years and wanted to see the reopening of the canal. Further east, many individual owners are involved, which will make reopening more difficult.
Water management is an important issue and we underestimate it at our cost. One can raise revenue through the movement of water and, if we can reopen the canal, we can move water. The Gloucester-Sharpness canal provides water for the Bristol water service, so the canal could raise revenue as it would allow access to drinking water. It could also act as a means of flood relief. Given the Minister's particular responsibility, he might wish to allude to that.
I touched on the rationale for reopening this canal network. It could be used for leisure-inspired activities and there may be a freight use, which I would not want to underestimate. Waste movement has also been mentioned.
Regeneration is another key argument and it is one of the factors that unites everyone. It is the factor that has driven me to pursue the matter as it is key in my constituency. Reopening the canal could regenerate the areas alongside it. It is not the key reason, perhaps, why Stroud will regenerate as a town, but if the project can be engineered it can only help that regeneration. I want it to happen sooner rather than later and many of my final conclusions will be based on the time scale involved. Fund raising can seem like an endless activity unless we can put a definite time scale on it. More and more people are becoming aware of that and thinking hard how to do it.
I am pleased that the keynote approach is one of partnership. The Conservative Members here tonight, whom I am pleased to see, represent areas that are part of the partnership. The canal system passes through countless local authorities as well as the other organisations to which I have referred. Many individuals also want to play a part.
Realistically, the only way in which we will reopen this canal system is by phasing the funding and engineering. It would help if we could get the project team up and running as soon as possible, and there is the will to do that. This is about maintaining momentum, building partnerships and making sure that the current style of leadership continues.
In conclusion, I have some questions for my hon. Friend. To me, the most important single organisation is the south-west regional development agency. How can we engage with the agency to ensure that it can lever in resources and work with the Waterways Trust? How can

1109
we resolve some of the land ownership questions? They are tricky and we will have to face up to them sooner rather than later.
On a more general note, how can British Waterways borrow money? I have seen some material in formal Government publications and elsewhere. I asked a question for written answer about what degree of freedom British Waterways, as a public corporation, has outside Treasury rules. It would be fair to consider that opportunity.
There are the issues about navigability and whether British Waterways subsumes some of the activities currently undertaken by the Environment Agency and other organisations. I should be grateful for anything that my hon. Friend has to say about that.
How can we keep expectations rolling along in terms of deliverability? Finally, restoring the canals and regenerating the land alongside them is a genuine way for rural regeneration to link into transport and the use of brown land. The sooner we can deliver that, the better.
7.28 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who procured the debate, for allowing me to participate. I had not been aware that it was to take place until I saw it on the Order Paper, but I am now delighted to be able to participate.
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Cotswold Canals Trust, in common with the hon. Member for Stroud. I am very pleased to be associated with that organisation. We are talking about restoring the canal link that linked the Severn to the Thames. A Bill was put through Parliament as long ago as 1783 to allow construction to begin to take place. In 1787, a 3,817 yd tunnel was built. To construct such a long tunnel—probably the longest that had ever been built in the world at that time—was no mean engineering feat. It remains the third longest canal tunnel in the United Kingdom today.
The hon. Gentleman told us that the link from the Thames to the Severn is in two parts—the Stroudwater canal, which leads up to the tunnel, with the Thames and Severn canal on the other side. The hon. Gentleman's part of the canal, the Stroudwater canal, is a much smaller project to complete. The feasibility study undertaken by Gloucestershire county council in 1996 estimated that that part of the restoration would cost about £10 million. Apart from the road links—the M5 and the A38 are significant problems that need to be overcome—the hon. Gentleman's part of the canal is largely in the same ownership.
The part that is covered by my constituency represents a much bigger engineering project. I have already mentioned that the tunnel is collapsing in places. The substrata of the canal have been a problem ever since the 1780s when the canal was opened. Cotswold limestone is porous and needs to be lined with clay. There are also altitude problems just at the other side of the tunnel at the Daneway, which is 350 ft above sea level. To give you an idea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the engineering feat that was achieved, to get the water up to that level, there were 28 locks, and to get it down again there were another 15. It was a major engineering feat to build the canal in the first place, and it would be a major engineering feat to restore it to its former glory now.
1110
Having said that, if the Government were to give sufficient lead—this is why it is important that the hon. Member for Stroud has secured this debate tonight—the huge amount of voluntary work that has already taken place in my section of the canal could be completed. I went one Sunday afternoon to see 100 volunteers working on the lock gate by the western spine road. That is an example of the enormous amount of voluntary work that is being done for a project that many people would like to see completed.
I am sure that the Minister will not be able to give precise pointers about where the funding might come from, but if he were to give a steer that the restoration was something that the Government would like to see happen, the huge number of volunteers and local people involved in the project would be able to combine their energies to ensure that the project was completed.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I thank all those people whom the hon. Member for Stroud has thanked, especially the Cotswold Canals Trust and its chairman, Bruce Hall. I also thank the local authorities, which are extremely supportive of the two projects.
Some landowners in my constituency have reservations about the restoration. By and large, the people who use canals are peace loving, quiet and well behaved. The canals give a great deal of opportunity for other leisure pursuits such as fishing. Some 7 million people walk by the canals each year. This is a highly commendable project. It is very environmentally friendly. It would bring great benefits to the whole of Gloucestershire, especially to tourism in this depressed time after the foot and mouth outbreak. It would be a good fillip to the Cotswolds if the Minister said something positive this evening.
7.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for his knowledgeable speech and I congratulate him on obtaining this debate. As I told him before the debate, as part of my preparations for it I have been reading extensively about the canal system, which I found absolutely fascinating. I can well understand hon. Members on both sides of the House having such an interest in it; it has enormous potential and its history is interesting. Waterway restoration has been under way since the 1950s, and more than 400 miles of derelict waterways have been restored.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud rightly said, that restoration has brought with it the benefits of revitalising rundown areas, generating new jobs and development and increasing opportunities for leisure, recreation and tourism. I want to make it clear that the Government strongly support waterway restoration, because it acts as a catalyst for social, economic and environmental regeneration. There are currently more than 100 active restoration projects, each of which will make its own contribution.
Restoration of the Cotswold canals is one of the country's leading restoration projects. It is an ambitious project, as my hon. Friend said. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) rightly stated,

1111
it offers the opportunity to re-establish the link between the Thames and the Severn, which would make it of national importance to the waterway system.
Mr. David Cameron: Will the Minister take it from me that there will be considerable support in my west Oxfordshire constituency for the reopening of the Cotswold canals? The upper Thames flows through my constituency from Lechlade in one corner towards Oxford in the other, and there is great potential to open up that waterway. Our canals are a great leisure benefit to people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said.
In his remarks, will the Minister pay some attention to the call, which has great merit, to transfer leisure and tourism responsibility for our rivers from the Environment Agency to British Waterways? The latter is well placed to take a co-ordinated approach to leisure and tourism, taking in both canals and our rivers.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, in relation to the current review of the Environment Agency—the quinquennial financial, management and policy review. It covers certain waterways where the Environment Agency currently holds the navigation rights and is considering whether they should be transferred to British Waterways. That decision has not yet been made, and it rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I can assure the House that she will take notice of the remarks that have been made and will give careful thought to the issues. Whatever the outcome, in developing the benefits of rivers and canals there are enormous merits in a closer partnership between British Waterways and the Environment Agency.
I am aware that regeneration will bring about restoration and will add impetus to the restoration schemes in the area, including the Wilts and Berks canal, which would reconnect the Thames with the Kennet and Avon canal via Swindon. The restored canals offer a possible route for water transfer from the Severn to the upper Thames, where there are significant water supply problems. The commercial possibilities of water transfer could help to fund restoration—a point made by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend asked me to give some pointers regarding the finance that would be needed to fund that major restoration project. Obviously, there will be considerable discussion, but the regional development agency is a key player. The agency has joined a partnership to examine the feasibility of restoring the canals, and is considering raising funds for a feasibility and environmental impact study. It expects there to be other contributors, but the matter is under consideration.
There is also the heritage fund, for which landfill credits could be used. There is a great deal of mineral extraction in the area and there is real potential for landfill credit funding for the restoration. There could be partnership approaches involving the local authority, voluntary bodies and other organisations. British Waterways is ready to give technical advice and support. It has raised considerable sums, through water networking
1112
and by using canals for such things as cabling. Considerable revenue is raised from that, so it, too, offers possible funding. My hon. Friend referred to the potential of planning gain as a means of funding some of the restoration.
A range of opportunities can be examined, and the benefits are great. The British Waterways study reckoned that about 1.8 million new visitors could be attracted to the area and that they would bring with them spending power of about £8.5 million, creating about 500 new permanent jobs and more than 1,400 temporary construction jobs. That would be a significant boost for the economy of the area, as the hon. Member for Cotswold pointed out.
As an occasional canal user, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the great attractions of inland waterways is the peace and quiet. The restoration would not be a threat to landowners, as the hon. Gentleman suggests; many benefits could be brought to the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked me some questions about land ownership. Clearly, the best way forward is negotiation. We could take powers in relation to the construction of canals and railways, but in a restoration project of this kind it is better to proceed by negotiation. I am sure that that can be achieved.
My hon. Friend asked about the borrowing powers of British Waterways. It has the power to enter into public-private partnerships, and it has done so successfully. It also has the power to borrow according to Treasury rules, but it does not have the power to borrow on the open market at present.
I shall conclude by giving hon. Members the assurance that they seek. Although the Government do not underestimate the magnitude of the task, which may cost more than £80 million, I want to make it clear that we support the principle of such restorations.
Mr. Drew: It would be remiss of me not to invite my hon. Friend and Lord Whitty to visit that wonderful canal. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend perhaps help the various parties by updating himself and Lord Whitty on what they wish to do?
Mr. Morley: I assure my hon. Friend that I should be only too pleased to update my noble Friend Lord Whitty, who has responsibility for inland waterways in DEFRA, but I also assure him that I found the scheme so interesting that, if I can take the opportunity to visit his constituency, I shall be only too delighted to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "And ours."] And those of other hon. Members—I seem to be awash with invitations at the moment.
In conclusion, I wish to say on behalf of the Government that we wish the restoration partnership every success. Although there will be many negotiations—we have to recognise that it is a long-term project—if we can play a constructive and positive role, we shall be only too pleased to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Debt Relief
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1997–98, on Debt Relief HC 563, and the Government's response thereto, HC 1056; the Fourth Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1998–99, on Debt Relief and the Cologne G8 Summit, HC 470; and Fourth Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1999–2000, on Debt Relief—Further Developments, HC 251, and the Government's response thereto, HC 474.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
2.30 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng):: Debt relief and poverty reduction must lie at the heart of our response to the challenges—as well as the opportunities—that globalisation presents to our world. This debate is timely, not least in its link to the debate that is taking place in the House. Undoubtedly, there is a link and we wish to recognise that; tackling poverty in the developing world is not a matter for Governments alone. We have had some success in tackling poverty and we should celebrate that as well as responding to the challenges and recognising the distance that we have to go. That success has often been due to grass-roots organisations in the developing world. That is particularly true of those organisations centred on the needs and contributions of women, who are playing their parts as agents of development in the developing world. Moreover, there has been a contribution from grass-roots organisations and non-governmental organisations with a broad base of membership in the developed world, especially in our country. We should rightly use an occasion such as this to pay tribute to the work of NGOs, which have ensured, day in and day out, that debt relief and poverty reduction do not slip off national and global agendas.
Progress towards debt reduction targets accelerated during the past year. We want to go faster but we are achieving a great deal. The issue is vital, as recent events have demonstrated. Those events have shown how closely interdependent all the nations of the world are, and how closely linked are our destinies. Poverty and crippling debt in one part of the world have implications for the whole world, and it is important to recognise that. We have a duty to spread the benefits of rising prosperity as widely as possible.
The United Kingdom has a good track record in tackling debt. We could do more and are determined to do so, but it should not be forgotten that this country called for and secured a review of the original heavily indebted poor countries initiative. We pressed our G7 and other international colleagues to adopt challenging targets on debt reduction and on the number of
320WH
countries that receive debt relief, and we have made a commitment to grant 100 per cent. debt relief to every country that qualifies under the HIPC initiative.
Of course, freedom from debt is not an end in itself. The international community has, therefore, set challenging targets for reducing poverty, improving health and fostering education. We desperately need to see progress in those areas in particular. It is right that we should have set those targets, and it is right, if we are to call ourselves a community at all, that we should recognise that, in an effective community, nations share responsibility for the welfare of the whole community.
The subject excites interest on both sides of the House and should not be a matter for acrimonious party political debate. I doubt that we will have acrimonious debate in the Chamber today: indeed, I am sure that there will be much consensus. It would not be right to refer to this country's track record in tackling debt relief without mentioning the role that has been played over the years by successive Chancellors and Prime Ministers, and without recognising the rapid progress that has been made in the past four years. Even our political opponents would be obliged to concede that the rate of progress has been unprecedented, and I have no doubt that they will make such a generous concession in the debate in the light of my opening remarks.
It is important to recognise that if we are unable to work together on those issues, we are less likely to be able to break the vicious cycle of debt, poverty and economic decline that has more and more people in its maw. We must build consensus on the need to devote substantial resources to this issue and to make it the focus of all our nation's energies and commitment. If we do not do so, the scale of the human tragedy will be enormous. Every day this year, 30,000 children will lose their fight for life. It is, literally, a fight for life. Several hon. Members have seen such children in the grip of dysentery and respiratory disease, never mind in the last, fatal stages of starvation that bring with them apathy and lassitude. Many children die from curable diseases such as malaria, which is a major killer in the developing world, but which is by no means the only killer that could be prevented if appropriate action were taken. We could do so much more, and we must redouble our efforts to do so.
By the end of the debate, 3,000 more children will have given up that struggle and will no longer be alive. We know that if there were access to appropriate diagnostic tools and drugs—some of which cost little more than 12 cents—that number could be reduced. HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis kill 5 million people each year, again mostly in developing countries. Millions of cases of HIV could be prevented through well targeted, low cost prevention and care strategies. Countries such as Uganda, Thailand and Senegal have made the prevention of HIV and AIDS a priority, and have managed to stem the spread of the disease. Uganda took an early decision to confront the pandemic head-on and it has done so with great success.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The Financial Secretary has outlined the Government's actions on health issues and they have taken a lead with the global health fund, which was established to tackle the

321WH
problems that he has described. Will money for that fund be additional to current international aid spending?
Mr. Boateng: I shall come to the global health fund in due course, and I shall also tackle additionality.
Health is not the only issue; education is key. Some 900 million people aged over 15—one sixth of the world's population—are illiterate. Public expenditure per pupil in the 19 least developed countries is less than $40 or £27, compared with $200 or £136 per pupil in developing countries. Some $5,300 more is spent per pupil in advanced economies. In the United Kingdom, spending per pupil aged 14 to 19 is equivalent to $5,316 or £3,625. That is the disparity; £27 is spent at one end of the scale and £3,625 is spent in our country. That is the background against which we must act to ensure that the talents of further generations are not wasted.
Under the historic agreement secured in Cologne, the HIPC initiative was enhanced to provide more debt relief to more countries. In autumn 2000, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank committed themselves to ensuring that debt relief for 20 countries would be agreed by the end of the year. The target was met and then exceeded when agreements were reached for 22 countries. Some 23 countries have now reached that point, and will receive $54 billion of debt relief in total—$34 billion under the HIPC initiative and $20 billion from traditional methods of debt relief. Mozambique is among those countries: it reached the HIPC completion point on 25 September. Three other countries, including Ghana, are expected to reach a decision this year. President Kufuor of Ghana and his Government must be congratulated for deciding to proceed to the HIPC decision point so early in their Administration. That was brave and showed foresight, and they are to be commended.
Many countries that are engaged in armed conflict have yet to benefit from debt relief. As a result, they have exiled themselves from the support that HIPC and the international community can provide. Due to the HIPC initiative, countries' annual debt service payment will be reduced by a third. That represents an average stock of debt reduction of about 50 per cent. on top of debt relief mechanisms such as the Paris Club rescheduling, which reduces debt stock further to 67 per cent. Those are real gains.
The autumn IMF and World Bank meetings were cancelled in the wake of the terrible events of 11 September at the World Trade Centre. Ironically, as a result, some of the poorest people in the world will, or do, feel the aftershock of the appalling attack on the United States. Nevertheless, and importantly, the business of the fund and the bank continues. The G8 leaders' meeting in Genoa this year reaffirmed our commitment to making globalisation work for all citizens, especially the world's poor. The leaders called on countries engaged in conflict to turn away from violence. That remains the hope and focus of determined efforts by the international community and we do not intend to allow the events of 11 September to deflect us.
At the fund's spring meeting, it was agreed for the first time to offer emergency post-conflict assistance on concessionary terms. That will act as a powerful
322WH
incentive to ease the discord that comes from conflict and to ensure that peace delivers its dividend to people who have been afflicted by armed internal or external conflict.
Significantly, we are working with our international partners, both governmental and non-governmental, to prevent conflict from occurring in the first place. That is particularly important for sub-Saharan Africa, where spending on conflict resolution has increased by 42 per cent. in real terms. The concerted effort to prevent conflict will be an important test of our capacity to ease a situation that all too many countries and people face.
I shall say a few words about the lead given by the United Kingdom. At the beginning of the new millennium, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the task of combating debt and delivering a real reduction in poverty should be seen as central to what we were doing. At a rally, he said

"because poverty is so great and the need is so urgent, neither you nor I want the richest countries to benefit any more from the debts of…the poorest countries".

The Chancellor made it clear to the audience and all 41 HIPC countries that we as a nation would renounce our right to receive any benefit from the historic debt owed by those countries.
Since that time, we have driven forward the international agenda, making it clear that we are all interdependent and have responsibilities. In recognition of that fact, we have imposed a unilateral ban on export credits for unproductive expenditure. That policy means that Britain's export credits will support only productive enterprise that assists social and economic development. We have worked to build capacity in poor countries and reduce the burdens placed on the recipients of aid. Importantly, we have begun writing off the £100 million owed by HIPCs to the Commonwealth Development Corporation and debts owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department—100 per cent. of all HIPC bilateral debt. That was and remains an important step, but we must do more with our international partners to refocus the debt relief programme with the central object of reducing poverty and providing more debt relief to more countries more quickly.
At the same time as delivering on the reduction of poverty, the provision of education and the construction of a viable national infrastructure in countries afflicted by global poverty, it must be recognised that we cannot achieve our objectives by sentiment alone. We must move from sentiment to strategy. That is the importance of the poverty reduction strategies upon which debt relief is conditional. It is not a question of dropping money into a bottomless pit to be squandered by a ruling elite on their pet projects, wealth and self-glorification or on the pursuit of conflict. The strategies must be firmly rooted in an evidence base that ensures that they reduce poverty and improve the provision of education and the health of the people.
Country-owned, community-operated poverty reduction strategies are, of course, an innovation, but there must be a buy-in from the country receiving them. They have to feel that they own them. It is not about distant and unaccountable organisations prescribing

323WH
conditions under which aid will be offered in a new form of neo-colonialism. This is about the countries themselves, working in partnership with the international community.
Mr. Andrew Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Would he agree that one of the difficulties is that there is a plethora of plans for each of the countries concerned—from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and others—and that we need a single plan that is accepted by the country concerned to help to lead it out of poverty?
Mr. Boateng: We certainly need to recognise the importance of international financial institutions working together to achieve a clear focus to the strategies that are put in place and we have advocated and promulgated a programme of reform of international financial institutions that is designed to achieve a greater and clearer focus.
The importance of the strategies is that they aim to put the countries concerned in a position in which they can reach the targets set internationally for poverty reduction. Those targets are aimed at reducing the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by half by 2015; enrolling all children in primary school by 2015; making progress towards gender equality and empowering women by eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005; reducing infant and child mortality rates by two thirds by 2015; reducing maternal mortality rates by three quarters by 2015; providing access for all who need them to reproductive health services by 2015; and implementing national strategies for sustainable development by 2005, so as to reverse the loss of environmental resources by 2015.
Those targets come from agreements and resolutions of a series of world conferences organised by the United Nations in the first half of the 1990s. Conferences are all very well but what makes a difference is what happens to the people who have to live, day in and day out, with the poverty demonstrated by the figures we have shared so far in the debate. We will be judged by that, rather than by our resolutions or our international or domestic debates.
Progress has been made on some of the targets in some parts of the world. For example, China reduced its number of people in poverty from 360 million to 210 million between 1990 and 1998. However, conflict and the spread of HIV-AIDS threatens the achievement of targets in many other areas. Sustained economic growth, which is vital for long-term reductions in poverty, is proving elusive for many countries, particularly in the current circumstances.
I should like to say a few words about the global health fund because, as hon. Members have already indicated, it is of enormous importance and we need to get it right. In some areas it is clear that we need to redouble our efforts. Health is one of them. Together with our international partners, we established the global health fund to assist. The UK's role was integral at its inception. We wanted to ensure that the fund's structure would allow it to address the major communicable diseases of HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, which hit developing countries hard. The fund
324WH
will support expanding coverage of critical interventions for prevention and treatment of those diseases by providing developing countries with the resources to purchase key commodities and strengthen systems to procure and deliver them effectively, safely and equitably.
The Department for International Development is working with other donors, developing countries and multilateral agencies to ensure that the fund is operational by 1 January 2002. The technical working group, chaired by Professor Chrispus Kiyonge from Uganda—a former Minister of Health who made a distinguished contribution to the development of health policy in that country—was established in Brussels on 27 August. It will meet three times between now and December to take key decisions on the establishment of the fund. It is intended that the fund be launched and become operational at the third meeting.
On resources, the latest tally for contributions stands at $1,831 million from the United States, and the United Kingdom has pledged $200 million over the next five years, to be disbursed when the appropriate structures are in place. That represents a significant contribution to dealing with the problem. I stress again, however, that it is only the beginning and that a great deal of work remains to be done, not least with pharmaceutical companies to get them to play a proper role and make an appropriate contribution.
Many years ago Kwame Nkrumah, speaking of the need for an independent Ghana at a time when the whole continent of Africa was looking forward to independence and freedom from colonial empires, said:
"The right of a people to decide their own destiny, to make their way in freedom, is not to be measured by the yardstick of colour or degree of social development. It is an inalienable right of people which they are powerless to exercise when forces, stronger than they themselves, by whatever means, for whatever reasons, take this right away from them."
Subsequently the old empires that dominated Africa have ceased to exist. What has followed has not always benefited Africa. Sadly, some African countries are now in a worse position in terms of per capita income, infrastructure, health and education than they were at the time of the twilight of empire. That is part of Africa's great tragedy. It has also become clear in the interim period that the forces of oppression were not all imperial. Some were home grown and some have continued to hold too many people in their thrall. Greed, avarice and corruption, as well as a lack of accountability and transparency, have characterised far too many post-colonial Governments.
The good news is that that trend is now being challenged effectively. There is a real sense in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world that it is important to develop democratic institutions, to ensure transparency and accountability and to stop corrupt oligarchies preying on the people of those countries. In the light of that growing recognition, it would be an appalling shame and a dereliction of our responsibilities in the developed world if we did not ensure that the burden of crippling debt acquired over the years was lifted when at last there was a proper strategy in place to tackle the root causes of inequality and development failures. Our debate today is important because it marks the concern of hon. Members from all parties to ensure that combating poverty and providing debt relief remain high on our national agenda.
3 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I welcome the debate. It is a pleasure to face the Financial Secretary to the Treasury across the Chamber once again.
Debt relief and poverty reduction are crucial issues for the United Kingdom and more directly for the countries whose fate we are debating this afternoon. When considering the raw statistics published by organisations such as the World Bank, one must be careful not to become inured to the tragedy of what is taking place in the world. Tables of figures cannot do justice to the truth that there are still countries in Africa where more than 10 children out of every 100 die in infancy. They are not just statistics: most of those deaths are preventable, and every case reflects the most appalling human suffering and tragedy. The 113 million children of primary school age who do not attend any sort of school are more than mere statistics: the talent and energy of those children, our fellow human beings, are wasted because they lack the opportunities that we take for granted for our families.
On behalf of the Opposition, I am happy to tell the Minister that we shall seek a constructive debate on this subject with the Government and with outside organisations. The right hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to the work of non-governmental organisations in the field and in pricking the conscience of politicians and suggesting fresh thinking. My party has recently embarked on a major policy review, as part of which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and I are looking forward to a sustained dialogue with NGOs and other bodies involved with debt and international development.
I was grateful for the Minister's acknowledgement of the work done when they were in office by John Major and other senior Conservative politicians to bring Britain's influence to bear in the multilateral institutions in an effort to reduce the burden of debt upon the poorest countries in the world. I return the compliment and give the present Administration credit for their energy and the priority that the Government, and the Chancellor of Exchequer personally, have given to the issue. I do not pledge to abstain always from criticising Government during the time that I am Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, and I certainly will not abstain from questioning them about the impact of their policies. However, it will always be our intention to seek constructive dialogue and debate.
It is important to recognise that neither debt relief in general, nor the HIPC scheme in particular, are panaceas. About 80 per cent. of the world's poor live in countries that are not eligible for the HIPC scheme, and all developing countries will depend for their future development upon several means of assistance, of which loans, although important, will be only one. Obviously, aid will continue to be important: the World Bank estimated that a 10 per cent. cut in overall net aid flows could, if implemented, wipe out overnight the entire benefit of the HIPC debt relief arrangements.
Even more important to the long-term sustainability of poorer nations are an increase in world trade and decisions by the industrialised powers to allow much freer access to markets for goods and services produced by developing countries. In that context, I welcome the commitment announced in February by the European
326WH
Union to remove tariffs and quotas on all imports from less developed countries. If there is time, I hope that the Minister will bring the House up to date on the progress of that agenda and say whether the forthcoming meeting in Doha is likely to include discussions on how to increase access to the markets of developed countries.
As the Minister said, the leaders of poorer countries have responsibilities. Such countries are not helped if we always caricature their people as helpless victims who will inevitably be permanently dependent upon others. The Minister's comments about encouraging signs in Africa were pertinent. Many African countries have been misgoverned and, in some cases, plundered by their rulers. Stable political institutions and the rule of law, as well as sustainable economic policies, create the conditions that allow poor countries to attract investment and ensure that loans and aid are used to the advantage of the population to relieve poverty, not salted away to benefit only a corrupt elite.
Leaving the HIPC scheme and other issues until later, I will focus first on the impact of the current international crisis on the approach of international agencies and our Government to the countries of south and central Asia. I put on the record that I visited Pakistan just over a year ago; the details of the visit are in the appropriate place in the Register of Members' Interests.
To what extent is the British policy on debt cancellation and rescheduling affected by the international crisis and by the political and strategic need to keep some of the countries of central Asia within the alliance against terrorism? Pakistan and the central Asian republics that once formed part of the Soviet Union are poor countries: average annual income in Pakistan is about $500, which is about £730 on today's exchange rate. Central Asian countries are saddled with both the appalling economic and environmental legacy of communism and the consequences of a severe and lasting drought. In addition, Pakistan and other nations bordering Afghanistan have been affected by the flight of millions of Afghan refugees into their territories. There is a clear case for international help.
I hope that the Government are willing to state openly whether there is truth in media suggestions made in recent weeks that the normal rules that apply to poor countries seeking help with debt rescheduling are to be bypassed so as to cement the position of Pakistan and the central Asian republics in the international alliance. Let me give some examples of those reports. On 30 October, the Financial Times reported that Pakistan was seeking a debt rescheduling agreement with the Paris Club that would result in the maturity of its Government debt being extended to up to 40 years and its interest payments reduced. I understand—I believe that the Minister will agree—that those terms are usually reserved for much poorer countries.
Other press reports have suggested that the Spanish Government are asking the next European Council of Finance Ministers meeting to discuss an emergency package for the countries affected by war. Since ECOFIN is due to meet in a matter of days, it would be helpful if the Minister could advise us whether that topic will be on the agenda. The French newspaper Libération says that G8 and the international development banks will convene a meeting shortly to consider a package of emergency help for central Asia.

327WH
There is a powerful case for making exceptions for political reasons. It could be argued that the current overriding priority should be the campaign to defeat international terrorism. However, if that is the case, I hope that our Government will be candid about what is going on so that everyone clearly understands. I hope too that in any international discussions the Government will be alert to the risks of misuse of concessionary loans. The countries concerned already have high levels of military spending as a proportion of their gross domestic product, and it would be wrong if debt concessions intended to relieve poverty in those central Asian countries were used to subsidise further expenditure on their armed forces.
As the Minister made clear, there has been some progress to report on the HIPC scheme. By the end of June this year, 23 countries—most in Africa—had reached decision point and began to receive debt service relief. According to the World Bank, that relief will over time amount to about £34 billion and will reduce the indebtedness of recipient counties to below the average of all developing nations. The bank states that after HIPC relief those countries will spend about 2 per cent. of GDP on debt service, compared with 7 per cent. on social expenditure, including primary health care and education. I endorse the Minister's comments about the importance of giving priority to expenditure on education and health and to involving civil society, especially women, in a sense of ownership of the poverty reduction strategies that are part of the HIPC package.
I welcome the progress that has been made, but I have several concerns and questions to ask about the British contribution to debt relief and the HIPC scheme generally. Addressing British policy first, the Government should be given credit for their decision to go beyond the HIPC scheme. At the final event of Jubilee 2000, the Chancellor announced that the UK would renounce completely its right to debt repayment from the HIPC states. His announcement was in two parts. He said that immediate 100 per cent. debt relief would be given to those countries that had agreed at the decision point poverty reduction programmes under HIPC. I assume therefore that 100 per cent. relief is being given to the 23 states that have reached the decision point.
However, the Chancellor also said that other HIPC countries for which no poverty reduction programme had yet been agreed would still make debt repayments, but that Britain would hold them in trust, with the idea that moneys would be released to those countries once a poverty reduction strategy was in place. Will the Financial Secretary tell me, at the end of the debate or in writing, how many countries fall into that category, how much is held in trust, what happens to the interest on that money—I hope that it is added to the money, not channelled into the Exchequer bank account—and what happens if, for any reason, a country fails to reach its decision point? As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, a number of the very poor countries we are discussing are plagued by civil war and desperate internecine conflicts. We understand that Britain, the IMF and the World Bank cannot easily bring about a resolution of such disputes, but are we to insist indefinitely that those countries continue making interest payments?
328WH
I wish the HIPC scheme well and hope that it works, but we need to explore some of the criticisms and concerns raised by NGOs and other organisations in recent months. There has been confusion over the total sums of money involved, but the Financial Secretary's remarks explained to a considerable extent how that disparity in figures has come about. The World Bank always talks about £34 billion of debt relief over time, whereas the G7 communiqué after the Genoa summit, and the Chancellor in the House on 19 July this year, referred to debt relief of £53 billion. I understood the Minister to say that the higher figure was made up of the £34 billion from the HIPC scheme, plus £20 billion from what he called "conventional debt relief". I would be grateful for further explanation of whether that £20 billion of conventional debt relief is targeted only on the 23 countries that have reached their decision point, or whether we are talking about the sum in the context of every eligible HIPC country. Is that £20 billion, like the HIPC £34 billion, dependent on the poverty reduction programme and the strategy of the World Bank and HIPC, or is it a concession that is being made in any case to the poorest countries under previously negotiated arrangements?
The fact that the scheme is not progressing as fast as its authors hoped or intended is also of concern. It started in September 1997 when the Mauritius mandate set a target for three quarters of eligible countries to reach decision points by the end of 2000. That target was endorsed by the G7 at the Cologne summit in June 1999, but it appears to have been revised downwards in January 2000. In his Gilbert Murray memorial lecture, the Chancellor said that he hoped that 25 countries would be signed up and at decision point by the end of that year—in other words, 10 months ago. Sadly, by the end of 2001, only 23 countries will have agreed their poverty reduction strategies, reached decision point and begun to receive debt relief under the HIPC scheme. That is just over half of the eligible countries, rather than three quarters as was originally hoped.
I acknowledge that in some cases a civil war or some other conflict has made progress impossible. However, I would have thought that the existence of conflicts in countries such as Congo or Sierra Leone was known when the target of three quarters of eligible countries was first set in 1997. Why has the target to which the international community agreed proved impossible to meet? I accept that Britain is only one of a number of countries involved and that it is not in the gift of the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor to command every creditor nation or the international organisations to jump when the British Government want them to, but some explanation of the failure to reach the target is required.
Doubts also exist about the long-term sustainability of the HIPC scheme. The Minister will have seen the Jubilee Plus report that was published in September. Although it contains some comments with which I disagree, it is an interesting report that asks searching questions about HIPC and provides statistics and other evidence that needs to be examined. It argues that the indicators of sustainability employed by the World Bank and the IMF are flawed. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views.
The report suggests, with evidence to support its conclusions, that even if one applies the criteria established by the World Bank and the IMF, the scheme

329WH
will fail some of the very poorest countries. It predicts that the debts of Chad, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Niger will be unsustainable in terms of the World Bank's own criteria after they have received HIPC relief. The total debt of some countries is even projected to be higher after that relief than it would be if the scheme had never existed. The striking case cited in the report was of Gambia, whose debt is projected to fall dramatically at completion point in 2002, but to rise again afterwards. The reason given for that projected rise is that the scheme would not reduce the stock of debt so much as reschedule it over a longer period. The level of debt service would not be adequate to offset the buildup of interest on the existing stock of that country's debt. If the Jubilee Plus critique is correct—if as many as seven countries would still have unsustainable debts according to the World Bank's criteria, and if some countries would have higher debts with HIPC than they would without it—we should seek convincing answers about the flaws of the scheme in practice.
A further cause for concern which has been aggravated by recent international events is whether the assumptions on which the World Bank has made its forecasts are over-optimistic. International institutions that have made projections for the development of the poorest countries have assumed that there will be fairly vigorous economic growth during the next decade, which will ensure that debt service costs fall whether as a proportion of exports, GDP or Government revenues. They have assumed that exports from HIPC countries will grow much faster in the next decade than they did in the 1990s. I am not sure whether we would be wise to place great faith in such assumptions.
Commodity prices have been soft, and the prices of some of the key commodities on which the poorest countries depend, such as coffee, cocoa and tobacco, have fallen—quite sharply in some cases—since the events of 11 September. Oxfam says that the crisis that those terrorist outrages have sparked is creating
"an economic disaster in developing countries".
It cites the problems caused in Uganda by the dramatic drop in coffee prices. Uganda is one of the countries with a good track record under the HIPC scheme, and it would be a tragedy if that progress went into reverse now. The IMF thinks that Niger will take 15 years to reach the International Development Association's $895 GNP per capita threshold, but the private sector is more sceptical: Standard and Poor's assessment is that Niger would take 366 years to reach that standard. Again, that raises questions about whether the HIPC scheme is a sustainable, long-term solution to debt problems.
The Minister will know that Jubilee Plus and others have argued for a different approach to some of the problems that the debt crisis has caused. Jubilee Plus has said that the international community must create an international bankruptcy procedure to allow for an emergency standstill and for international arbitration to re-order a poor country's debts and so enable it to continue to trade without having to damage its social infrastructure. This is my first parliamentary outing as the Opposition spokesman on this subject, and I shall not commit my party to endorsing that proposal, but it is an interesting idea that should be further examined. I
330WH
certainly want to engage in a dialogue about its advantages and drawbacks with the relevant organisations. I was intrigued to find that Jubilee Plus—which one might assume is on the political left, especially given the authors of some of its publications—is not the sole voice backing the idea: it has also been endorsed by the United Nations Secretary-General and by Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who was regarded as one of the keenest apostles of free markets in Russia and eastern Europe.
The proposal would raise many complicated issues and would have to be enforceable in national courts. There would be implications for the IMF, as well as a risk that an international bankruptcy arrangement would result in the price of borrowing rising for all countries, including those that had acted responsibly, spent their loans well and produced a good return on them. The World Bank has noted that the public debt of low-income countries—not just the HIPC—amounts to $460 billion. Poorer countries will need to borrow to finance development well into the foreseeable future. Against that one must set the difficulties inherent in the current system. A question mark hangs over whether some of the debts of the very poorest countries, however frequently they are rescheduled, will ever be repaid. Are we merely deferring the day when we have to admit that for the world's poorest countries, talk of debt repayment is pretty much a fiction?
I hope that we shall have many opportunities to debate the detail of specific proposals and policies to tackle this important issue. I conclude by saying that my party will remain determined to seek cross-party agreement wherever that is possible. Our policy objective will be to enable our fellow human beings to have the material standard of life and the opportunities for health and education that we all take for granted and to which they are entitled simply by reason of their humanity.
3.31 pm
Ms Julia Drown: Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Mr. O'Hara. I apologise to my colleagues in advance—I may need to slip out of the debate later to attend some business in the House.
I congratulate the Government on what they have done and on scheduling this debate. It shows a willingness to highlight an issue that is of vital importance to millions throughout the world and of great interest to many individuals, Churches and other organisations in our constituencies. Although much has been done, if one examines the scale of what is needed it becomes clear that we have taken only the first steps to alleviating poverty. We need a sea change in thinking on the issue and, more importantly, a sea change in the lives of people in heavily indebted countries.
The Government led the calls for and signed up to the international objective to halve world poverty by 2015. That is a glorious objective. Kofi Annan, however, has said that without further debt cancellation the target is only a pipe dream—not just difficult or challenging, but a pipe dream. There are problems with the current HIPC process. Although I shall have time to touch on only two of them, I hope that other hon. Members will outline other problems and the available solutions.

331WH
I should like to focus on the potential changes in the light of the outrageous attacks in America on 11 September. Although I will not give the terrorists the satisfaction of hearing me say that the world has changed, I do not think that we can possibly ignore what happened. Thousands of innocent people were killed, and thousands of others were injured. It seems that we cannot express enough our sympathy with the families who were affected. However, equal grief and sympathy need to be shared with families in the poorest countries of the world, who have daily to come to terms with the same number of people dying. The fact that it happens every day does not make it more acceptable but less so. The ignorance of many people—who do not know that people's lives would be saved if Governments could afford to spend more on health and education instead of on debt repayments—should not make the situation any more acceptable.
There has been enormous international effort in response to 11 September. However, I cannot help feeling that that sends out the message that we value the lives of those who died in the World Trade Centre more than those of people who die unnecessarily in the poorest countries of the world. I accept that the Prime Minister has taken steps to recognise that difficulty. In his speech to the party conference, which the Minister mentioned, the Prime Minister spoke of building a world in which all individuals have the
"economic and social freedom to develop their potential to the full … The starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant … they too are our cause."
That cause requires significant debt relief, even more so due to the world economic slowdown that has been predicted since 11 September and will hit the poorest the hardest.
The events of 11 September have led to a huge increase in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Pakistan, a middle-income country in conflict that has so far been excluded from the HIPC process, is now being considered. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that it seemed as though Pakistan would be given help and questioned whether it should because it is seen as a middle-income country, but the help is needed. Militarily, it is a high spending country, but that means that help needs to be tied conditionally. It should not take thousands of lives to be lost in America for Pakistan's need for help to be appreciated and for action to be taken on it. Other countries such as Nigeria, which is also excluded from the HIPC process, deserve support. They should not be ignored simply because they happen not to border a country where there is a crisis to which everyone's eyes are turned.
Whatever we think of the Government of Pakistan, we should consider how the debt originated. Most of it accumulated because foreign Governments made large loans to the previous military ruler, President Zia. Pakistan's debt service repayments make up 47 per cent. of the Government's budgetary expenditure, yet the country has great needs. Adult literacy is at 44 per cent., which is lower than the figures of many countries in the HIPC process. Bolivia's figure, for example, is 84 per cent., and Zambia's is 76 per cent.
The number of people in Pakistan who live without the basic minimum levels of nutrition is shooting up hugely, and was up to 44 million by 1999, more than in
332WH
many western countries put together. The reality of the problems was conceded by the IMF, which said that the "long-term external outlook" was
"unsustainable, with most debt indicators worse than for many countries supported by the HIPC initiative".
That shows that the HIPC process does not reach far enough to all the countries that need its help.
The Paris Club is now coming forward and it seems that Pakistan will be given help, although only bilateral help. The international institutions—the IMF and the World Bank—are not doing enough to help countries such as Pakistan. There are strong suggestions that the IMF will soon provide Pakistan with an additional $2 billion, but in loans. New loans cannot be the answer for a country that puts nearly half its money into debt service repayments. Pakistan is not the only case. Eleven HIPCs are denied debt relief because they are engaged in conflict. They all need help, albeit conditional help due to their military problems.
There is an undeniable link between poverty and conflict. Debt relief that ploughs money into poverty alleviation programmes would decrease the chances of conflicts breaking out and neuter the appeal of any fundamentalism of the sort behind the 11 September atrocities. People are vulnerable to extreme ideas when they are hungry, poor and desperate, but the conflicts help no one in the long run. As we saw on 11 September, no one is immune from the dangers of fundamentalism. Preventive measures such as conditional debt relief for countries in conflict must be a better way forward than for everyone to deal with the aftermath of conflicts. The 11 HIPCs in conflict must receive help, and so must countries outside the HIPC initiative such as Nigeria.
Nigeria's total debt is becoming worse rather than better; it is three and a half times its level in 1980. Since then, its bilateral debt has grown by a staggering 3,350 per cent., and debt and education spending have reversed their positions. Spending on servicing debt has risen from 2 per cent. to 8 per cent. of GNP, while spending on education has fallen from more than 6 per cent. to just over 1 per cent. Even so, Nigeria pays only about half its scheduled debt service, and for every £1 it receives in aid, £100 flow the other way in servicing debt.
Nigeria was originally classified as a HIPC country but in August 1998 the IMF and World Bank removed it from the list. Debt relief is vital if the new civilian Government are to survive. We should do more to support the new democracy there. Poverty has been at the root of ethnic and religious conflict that has torn the country apart many times. There is also real potential for problems of fundamentalism there. Debt relief is needed to get the people out of poverty, to allow the Government to spend meaningful amounts on public services, health and education, and to consolidate democracy.
We should also remember the ecological debt that the west owes to Nigeria. Companies such as Shell and Mobil have had a huge impact on the Niger delta—they have plundered it—with great ecological costs. Some of the long-term effects of oil pollution on that country are still to be seen. Nigeria is among the countries that need help.
In addition to the millions of people affected by debt, there are millions who say that the issue should be a Government priority. Twenty-four million people

333WH
signed the Jubilee 2000 petition that called for more than the $100 billion of debt relief that was achieved. While $100 billion every 20 years is not a bad start—indeed, it is an achievement, amounting to $4,000 for every person who signed the petition, which is good going—much more still needs to be done. We need to improve the HIPC process to give conditional help to countries in conflict. We need to give more bilateral and, particularly, multinational institutional help, through the IMF and the World Bank, to countries that are outside HIPC but which are still desperate. We also have to use our influence to bring other countries that are not yet so firmly on board, such as Japan, into the process. We need to show that it is in Japan's interests to create a more stable and prosperous world.
The Minister said that 11 September must not deflect the work being done on debt. Events since that date show what can be done with political will. Not only should the Government not be deflected, but even more energy and commitment should be expended on stopping the unnecessary loss of thousands of lives every day.
3.42 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I too congratulate the Government on selecting this subject for debate, and on choosing a senior Treasury Minister to deal with it. The two facts suggest that the issue is at the heart of Government thinking.
I apologise for the fact that I am to speak in this debate, rather than the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the issue, who is speaking on the Floor of the House. My credentials for speaking at all on this matter are a little dated. In the mid-1980s I worked with Harold Lever, who later became Lord Lever, on what became the Lever report. That eventually gave birth to a series of initiatives in the Commonwealth, notably the Kingston and Toronto initiatives, laying some of the foundations for the present HIPC initiative. Conservative and, later, Labour Ministers energetically followed up that work, to their credit.
The problem about having spent a long time working on a problem is that one tends to develop a certain world-weary cynicism at seeing the wheel being enthusiastically reinvented. The problem goes back a long way. I think that it was at the 1976 summit of the UN conference on trade and development that the issue of low income, debt and debt relief was first argued through. A quarter of a century later we are still trying to get to grips with it.
My second introductory point is that I have mixed feelings about the way in which the debt problem, or the loan conduct problem, has reached the heart of the debate on development. Although I am humbled by the enormous commitment shown by many British people, Churches and NGOs on the issue—their commitment is inspirational and Members of Parliament should do all that we can to encourage it—the danger is that we shall focus on a small corner of the jigsaw and ignore the rest. Trade and capital flows, which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) mentioned, are still important and relevant.
334WH
I want to focus on the HIPC initiative and the current state of affairs. I do not want to go over the controversies about numbers, I believe that the value of debt relief for the 23 countries that have so far gone through the first stage of the process is about $20 billion, but that figure is largely meaningless because it relates to flows in the distant future. The current value is much smaller.
It is probably more useful to think about annual debt relief. My understanding is that that will be about $74 million—million, not billion—per year over the next five years, and about $65 million per year in the subsequent five years. We are not talking big bucks; these are relatively small sums, and even they are probably inflated because some of the countries were not paying the debt and probably never would. That is therefore a reduction from a hypothetical level. We are talking about modest but valuable assistance.
I should like to expand on some of the criticisms that have already been mentioned. First, the problem of sustainability has been made much worse by the events of the past few months. It now seems almost certain that there will be some form of global recession, affecting the United States, Germany and much of western Europe and east Asia. Recession will inevitably depress commodity prices—it always does—and the definition of sustainability, which I seem to recall entails a move from a 300 per cent. to a 150 per cent. debt to export ratio over the next three years, would be wildly optimistic in an environment in which export yields were decreasing substantially in a world of decreasing commodity prices.
Such a scenario would be much easier to deal with if international institutions existed that could handle fluctuating earnings from developing country exporters. The problem is that the structures are not satisfactory. The IMF has had a compensatory financing facility for many years, but it is highly conditional and very expensive and it is not something that the countries that we have been talking about can use. The European Union has a stabilisation of export earnings facility. That, too, goes back many years, but it is both limited in quantity and rigid in its application. Therefore, neither of those two schemes is likely to rescue such countries.
If there is a significant economic downturn and if it results in a significant depression of commodity prices, the framework within which HIPC concessionality has been devised will have to be rewritten. I hope that the Government are willing to acknowledge that.
My second point relates to the efficiency of the scheme. When I looked through the current progress report what struck me was that 23 countries have gone through the first stage of debt relief, but only three have completed the process. It is a complicated scheme. For a country to take full advantage of it, it has to satisfy such demanding processes as the poverty reduction programme, which entails three years, I think, of proven adjustment. Therefore it has to have stable, highly committed and highly competent government. That is a rather testing set of assumptions, and many countries are not going all the way through the pipeline.
Both the hon. Member for Aylesbury and the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) have made the point about conflict-affected countries such as Sierra

335WH
Leone, Congo and Ethiopia that do not simply have economic problems resulting from war, but have fallen into arrears to the IMF, and the IMF will not trigger release of debt relief unless those arrears are cleared. It is unrealistic to consider poverty reduction programmes for such countries, when they are still talking about basic reconstruction and putting simple administration in place. The HIPC framework, which assumes a country at peace, does not fit that model; some degree of flexibility must be introduced to cope with such countries.
There is also the problem of countries falling outside the number of those in the scheme; 23 are in the scheme, but 41 could be in it. Within the 41, Ghana should be the next of the big countries to begin the process. It has taken a lot of difficult decisions in the past two decades and it would be good for that to be recognised by its entrance being accelerated.
The difficult case, as the hon. Member for South Swindon has acknowledged, is Nigeria. I speak with feeling on the subject because, in my job before becoming an MP, I had the fruitless task of trying to persuade General Abacha and his cronies to adopt more sensible policies. However, they have gone. In those days, it would have been stupid to press debt relief on Nigeria because the money would have simply gone into bank accounts here instead of being used for Nigerian development. Fortunately they have gone, and Mr. Obasanjo and his Government are clearly committed to taking a more proactive approach to development. They are doing a lot of sensible and quite courageous things, but they need to be supported. Whether it is done under HIPC or a parallel programme does not matter, provided that they receive help. Nigeria is the biggest country in Africa, and the demonstrative effect of what it does is enormously important. I therefore hope to receive some encouraging signals that Nigeria is on the list and is being actively considered for something substantial.
As for Pakistan, I have rather mixed feelings. I understand that the British initiative so far—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—is to relieve £20 million of its £50 million official debt, which is about 0.01 per cent. of Pakistan's external debt. Pakistan clearly needs help with the cost of refugees, and I would totally support anything that helped it to cope with that problem, but we are in great danger of thinking only of economic sweeteners designed to help a military Government who are doing us political favours. Some dangerous things are happening with Pakistan, such as its textile export quotas being arbitrarily written off, which drive a coach and horses through a sensible trade policy. I hope that what happens with Pakistan is measured and takes account of further developments and the needs of other countries in the region such as Bangladesh and India, which as far as I know are not being given any extra assistance.
I shall say a little about the relationship between HIPC and poverty reduction, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Swindon. HIPC can play a useful role in poverty reduction only if that role is substantial. I believe that the debt relief already given amounts to about 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of the GDP of the countries concerned. That is not a large sum. It is only a small lever, which will make it difficult to move such a large weight. I fully support the principle that
336WH
debt relief should be linked to poverty reduction. Of course it should: we do not want the money going into corruption or into elite and ostentatious lifestyles. Although the agencies must ensure that that does not happen, we must be realistic about how much poverty reduction can be achieved with programmes that in aggregate offer rather small resources.
I wonder how much new money is contributed by the HIPC initiative and the wider debt reduction programme. What matters ultimately is whether that new money is bringing new flows to developing countries. Analytically there is no distinction between a new aid flow and debt relief except for the fact that debt relief is free foreign exchange. If increased debt relief is offset by reduced aid flows, because people think that the problem is being solved, those countries are no better off. My question to the Treasury is how much of those additional resources are genuinely additional? I know that it is difficult to prove the point, but some conviction on that score would be helpful.
The looming additionality debate is a big issue, because the debt relief that has been agreed under HIPC is about £30 billion, half of which is in the form of debt relief given by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the regional development agencies—the multilaterals. It is right that they should be involved in debt relief; indeed, it would be meaningless to talk about debt relief unless they were involved. However, the funds of the World Bank, and particularly of the International Development Association, have to be replenished. Simply using their reserves or resources to write off debt will not advance long-term development unless those countries are genuinely replenished at a higher level. I hope that the Minister will give us a commitment that the wider context of additional flows is being properly considered, both in general and in relation to the multilaterals.
We are often pessimistic about development. I have been involved in the issue in varying degrees for a long time, and some positive things are happening. If one had listed the countries that would qualify for HIPC 25 years ago, Bangladesh would have headed the list and India would not have been far behind; but those countries are now producing real development and, although they still have vast numbers of very poor people, poverty is visibly and distinctly declining. If one were to ask Indians today if they wanted debt relief, they would be offended because it would affect their international borrowing capacity. Although China and many other countries in east Asia also have shown real progress in many respects, there is a hard core, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where problems are getting worse and a concentrated effort from the international community is required. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, that is not a matter only of debt relief, but of aid and trade.
I fully support the European Union's everything but arms initiative and the efforts being made on multilateral trade negotiations that focus on the problems of developing countries and remove access barriers. If we can put all those ingredients in place, we shall have a genuinely comprehensive approach to the development problem of which we can be proud.
3.55 pm
Glenda Jackson: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is not the official spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats on this area of

337WH
policy, but he could have fooled me—he made an extremely interesting and well-informed contribution to the debate. I congratulate the Government on affording the Chamber the opportunity to discuss these issues.
Not a single hon. Member could say that such issues do not feature regularly and at great volume in their constituency postbags. I am holding a letter from a constituent, Mr. Keiran Proffer, who was aware of this debate and urged me to ask several questions and to state on his behalf his views on the alleviation of the appalling poverty that leads to almost incomprehensible deaths among children, often from preventable diseases; a total lack of education; and, for many people, the belief that they and their families have no possibility of hope or advancement.
In his letter, Mr. Proffer says:
"The World Bank and International Monetary Fund must take swifter and deeper measures to cancel debt, with refinancing from the G7 nations as necessary."
He is concerned about the limited number of countries that are on the HIPC list. He also argues that there are
"at least 50 countries that are both heavily indebted and poor",
and thinks that the amount of debt relief due to be delivered is totally inadequate. However, he admits that
"there have been successes—debt cancellation works".
I must be honest and say that I am not convinced that, on its own, debt cancellation does work. Although I was a strong supporter of Jubilee 2000, as were many of my constituents, I fear that—almost inevitably, given the size of the problem that we are attempting to deal with, with the best possible motives—we may be deluding ourselves if we believe that there is just one answer to the immensely complex problems that have arisen in the world as a result of aspects of human nature such as greed, violence and intransigence. The problems created by the deprivation of a vast portion of the world of what we, as a developed nation, regard almost as ours by right—although we know that in truth it is not—can seem insurmountable. I am worried that a sizeable proportion of the world may be coming to believe that the only simple solution is debt cancellation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham about additional aid. However, I disagree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), who said that poverty and deprivation cause people to fight. That is not true. People who are genuinely poor do not have the energy to fight, as is evident to those who have been to third-world countries, as I have been privileged to do. The obvious example that comes to mind is that of Ethiopia, which I visited in 1985 at the behest of Oxfam. The most remarkable aspect of that visit was the equality of poverty. A civil war was going on, but neither of the warring parties prevented aid from getting to the people who needed it. I should say, in the light of the current debate on the Floor of the House, that that is in marked contrast to what is happening in Afghanistan, if we are to believe what we read. The shared experience of poverty and of seeing children or elderly parents die did not provoke in any of the people whom I was privileged to meet the trigger for engaging in violence. During my time there—I questioned the aid agencies closely on this matter—not one sack of grain was stolen, but everybody was
338WH
starving. Not one area in which the necessary food supplies were stored needed a lock. My point is that people who are truly deprived do not create conflict.
Ms Drown: The point that I wanted to get across, which I clearly failed to do, is that there is a potential link among poverty, lack of education and vulnerability to becoming involved in fundamentalism and conflict. There is a better route: by educating and supporting people we can show them that there is a better world and life for them and their families.
Glenda Jackson: I would not disagree with my hon. Friend's remarks, but when I hear the word "fundamentalism" the next word that comes to my mind is "Christian". Although Christian fundamentalists are, in my experience, extremely well educated and neither poor nor hungry, they will argue, for example, that they are entirely within their rights to blow up abortion clinics and publish on the internet the names of gynaecologists who are prepared to carry out abortions. Fundamentalism is not necessarily the trigger.
I shall return to my point, which I am reluctant to give up: in the main, conflict comes from basic human nature. We all have it, and it is reprehensible, but we shall get nowhere if we do not acknowledge that although human beings can do their best in the scale of things, it is equally possible for them to do their worst. That stems from greed, arrogance and a belief that one, whoever one may be, is superior or that others are inferior. A lack of education and integration, and an inability to tolerate an alternative argument, keep societies, individuals and nations in situations that we, in our privileged position, find unacceptable.
We have a moral duty—the world has this moral duty—to examine consistently what we find unacceptable in this area. We equally have an intellectual and moral duty to argue, not only within our own Chamber but in international chambers and across our country, that there is no simple solution to the problems with which we are attempting to deal. If we pretend that there is such a solution, we are deluding ourselves and cheating those whom we are most committed to helping. A great deal is being done, but more needs to happen. I should like to see greater trumpeting of the world's successes. The process of bringing to the world the benefits that it deserves is, in many instances, made more difficult by the problem seeming insuperable. Nevertheless, the problem can be and is being overcome.
I mentioned my experiences in Ethiopia. which, in 1985, was suffering its second great famine. When we saw the pictures we thought the problem insuperable, but it was dealt with. In Ethiopia, I met two little nurses who had never been out of England in their lives. They were faced by 150,000 starving people in a field. They could not save them all, but they achieved a great deal with the help of people in the area. We can achieve a lot, but we must not delude ourselves about how we can do so. Similarly, we must not delude the people whom we are trying to help about our methods.
I was interested to hear in the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that the Opposition are re-examining their policy in consultation with agencies and non-governmental organisations,

339WH
which is something that the Government also do. I hope that the Opposition will have discussions with the people in the countries that we want to help, and not necessarily with the Governments and the experts that have been there for a long time trying to solve particular problems. If we spoke more often to the people on the ground there could be enormous benefits. We know from experiences in our constituencies and areas of interest that the most interesting idea often comes from an unexpected quarter. Again, we delude ourselves if we believe that we can turn the world around by letting our anxiety result not in giving real help, but in an imposition of our ideas.
4.5 pm
Tony Baldry (Banbury): I welcome debate, and the Government's commitment to take this issue forward. It carries on the work begun by John Major and continued my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) as Chancellor. The commitment of the present Chancellor and his team is evident.
I apologise to the Chamber for the fact that what I will say this afternoon may be a little technical, but this subject is technical in many ways. Today's debate has three reports from the Select Committee on International Development tagged. They were interesting reports, which commend to the Chamber, and they are an indication of the importance that the Select Committee attached to the subject in the previous Parliament. I am sure that the Select Committee will return to it during this Parliament.
First, the good news: the G8 summit at Cologne for the first time stated explicitly that the central purpose of debt relief was to free resources for investment and to tackle poverty. I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) that there is no total solution, but the issue remains of importance. The approach of ensuring that resources were freed for investment and to tackle poverty was strongly supported by the UK Government, as stated in their response to the last report on debt relief by the Select Committee. My first technical point derives from a quote from that response:
"The reduction in the export ratio from a range of 200–250 per cent. to a 150 per cent. greatly improves the prospect of countries achieving a sustainable exit from their debt problems."
That should be a move forward that underscores the relationship between debt relief and poverty reduction. That relationship is crucial for half the population of heavily indebted poor countries, who live below the dollar-a-day poverty line in grinding persistent poverty; it is crucial for the one in six children who die before the age of five of poverty-related diseases, and for the 50 million children who are not in school today.
It is self-evident that heavily indebted poor countries urgently need every dollar of the $59 million collectively that, without this initiative, they would be obliged to transfer to their creditors each day. They now have that money to fight disease, recover from conflict and reduce poverty. That is good news for Uganda, Mozambique and Benin which are already benefiting from the HIPC programme.
The bad news begins when we look at the details of the debt relief and poverty link and the outcome in Cologne. It moves beyond relief given by developed countries—in
340WH
all fairness, the UK is good in this respect, but Japan is poor. The HIPC definitions of sustainability reflect the dominance of G8 creditors, the inclination of those creditors to favour certain client countries and a reluctance to absorb losses that mirror mistakes of past initiatives.
That raises two questions. First, does the G8 approach help debt sustainability? The answer to that is, clearly not. Consider the following comment on the World Bank's criteria for HIPC debt sustainability as
"quite narrow from an overall development perspective. It does not deal with issues of domestic debt, which are important for fiscal sustainability, nor does it measure the adequacy of public resources to address priority development programmes after debt service has been paid."
That is not a comment from Jubilee Plus or a non-governmental organisation; it is the World Bank's own assessment of its initiatives, which was included in a document entitled "The Challenge of Maintaining Long-term Debt Sustainability". Even the World Bank believes that its own criteria are quite narrow from an overall development perspective.
The decision on how much debt to cancel is based on a series of projections about the state of the economies of HIPCs in the next 15 to 20 years. The sustainability of the debt is therefore judged against expected levels of exports, revenues and GDP. If export growth proves lower than projected, it is clear that debt relief is likely to become unsustainable. That is a serious problem, which prompts my second question. Why has the World Bank set such optimistic economic projections for debt payments? In almost all cases, the World Bank has suggested significantly better economic performance by HIPCs in the next decade than they have managed in the previous one.
Moreover, the World Bank has assumed a relatively neutral external environment, and has not taken into account the vulnerability of HIPCs to external shocks. Obviously, the impact of 11 September looms large, but the problem existed even before then. If one compares previous GDP growth for the 23 HIPCs with current World Bank projections, there is a considerable and disconcerting difference. From 1990 to 1999, GDP growth for the 23 HIPCs was 3 per cent. Why, therefore, does the World Bank predict nearly double that average—5.5 per cent.—for the period 2000–10?
Furthermore, in the past decade, all 23 HIPCs undertook IMF reforms and in 1999, all experienced the IMF lending change from the enhanced structural adjustment facility to the poverty reduction and growth facility. However, none experienced any dramatic growth improvement at that time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out, the forecasters Standard and Poor's predict an average growth of just 2.5 per cent. for those countries in the next 15 years, which is a long way short of 5.5 per cent. Nor are forecasters such as Eurodad particularly optimistic. It is clear that, even with debt relief, the low growth of HIPCs will not suddenly be reversed. The World Bank has set itself a tough and quite possibly elusive mythical gold standard of performance for the HIPCs.

341WH
That brings me back to the G8 announcement on the reduction of export ratio. I apologise for using such shorthand phrases—hopefully, those who take a close interest in these matters understand them. Given the World Bank's 150 per cent. criteria, some countries will not meet the sustainability threshold soon enough. Burkina Faso will have to wait until 2007. This autumn, I and several other hon. Members attended the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Burkina Faso. All of us took the opportunity to do exactly what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate advocated: we talked, so far as was possible, to people on the ground, as she put it. Burkina Faso cannot wait until 2007—it, and countries like it, need help now.
Under the terms of the criteria, Rwanda will not receive help until 2008. This morning, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)—I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara—and I were fortunate enough to meet the Rwandan Speaker, who made it clear that what is being achieved in Rwanda is very impressive. He also made it clear to us and other members of the Select Committee that for Rwanda the most important thing is poverty reduction. Every single person on the streets in Rwanda wants a reduction in their grinding poverty. He further pointed out the considerable efforts and tough decisions that the Rwandan Government and people had to make simply to get into the HIPC programme. He said that, as far as possible, everyone in the country will be involved in drawing up the poverty reduction strategy, so that there will be public ownership. Rwanda deserves to be rewarded for that effort sooner rather than later. Likewise, other countries such as Tanzania must wait until 2010.
The problem is more immediately compounded by the World Bank's use of debt to export ratio instead of debt to revenue ratio. It is clear that two countries, Chad and Zambia, have debt to revenue ratios above 250 per cent., but because their debt to export ratios are below 150 per cent., they are deemed sustainable. Is that not Mickey Mouse mathematics? There must be an alternative, more accurate measure. Some doubt should be cast on the World Bank's criteria when most of the 23 HIPCs have higher export than revenue levels.
Consider four such countries: Bolivia, Malawi, Rwanda and Burkina Faso. Each has a different economic pattern, because each has a higher debt to revenue ratio than debt to export ratio. Each therefore sees its chances of debt rescheduling decrease. Surely there should now be more tailored policies for specific countries. I will return to that important point.
What is the economic impact of the World Bank's criteria? Countries with higher debt to revenue ratios that are deemed sustainable—Chad and Zambia—are being made to sweat economically just to have a scintilla of sustainability. In those countries, debt servicing will have to come before health and education services. The World Bank will be seen, in principle, to be giving to the people of those countries but, in practice, will be taking. That cannot be right.
342WH
So perhaps the good news is not all that good. The difficulties are not confined to Chad and Zambia. They are compounded when we consider the economics of all HIPC countries since 11 September. A recent report by Jubilee Plus noted:
"the greater fragility and vulnerability of their economies has not been considered at all."
There has never been a more relevant time to consider that fragility and vulnerability. As has already been mentioned, commodity prices are falling. Such countries' economies rely on coffee, cotton and tobacco. The prices of those have already fallen by 7.4 per cent. this year, and the World Bank now expects them to fall further.
That will clearly lead to fragility in those countries' debt sustainability. It will exacerbate further the debt payments of Zambia, Tanzania, Senegal, Mauritania and Cameroon, which already exceeded those countries' combined health and education budgets. According to Oxfam UK, the effect will be that a HIPC's debt payment of $2 billion per year will nearly equal the $2.7 billion cost of education and health in those countries. Less money will be spent on, for example, combating HIV/AIDS, although recent reports suggest that, on current trends, a quarter of Africa's population will be vulnerable to that by 2015.
My point, which I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will take on board, is this: we should examine the mechanisms that are meant to be helping the HIPC countries to see whether they are really doing what we intended. What is happening is, perhaps, not what was intended. Earlier debt relief programmes such as the Baker plan and the Brady plan lacked development sustainability and a focus on developing countries economically and politically.
There is no question but that HIPC is a massive improvement. However, poverty reduction is essential. For example, it strikes me that with better education in HIPC countries, we will see generations with better health and opportunities and that are better placed to build economies, rather than being burdened with debt. In the Financial Times recently, Oxfam UK stressed to the G8 countries the importance of more debt relief, more aid and more trade access to the HIPCs after 11 September. The newspaper noted that
"disentangling the direct effects of September 11 from existing weaknesses in the world economy is not easy".
Whatever the problems of disentanglement, 11 September tragically happened to the world—including its poor countries—and all will now have to live with the consequences.
In the week following the attacks, US trade figures showed a dramatic slump, which suggested an economic decline. There followed a collective operation to reduce interest rates in the United States, the United Kingdom and the euro zone. HIPCs and similar countries now need extra help.
Why under the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are vulnerable food producers in HIPCs locked into unequal trade bargains when we remove trade barriers? Why has the EU not honoured its trade commitment to allow HIPCs proper access to northern markets? I could go on. Clearly, trade liberalisation must be considered carefully. In three days, at the World Trade Organisation summit in Doha, the world will

343WH
have an opportunity to launch a new trade round and provide reassurance of an optimistic economic future. There is now a chance to tackle poverty through trade liberalisation.
A report from the Centre for Economic Policy Research on trade liberalisation and poverty convincingly asserts that
"trade liberalisation can have a direct impact on poverty … through its impact on the government's fiscal position."
That is desperately needed and would directly assist HIPCs in dealing with their debt and developing not only sustainability but stability. The report stresses that
"the impact of trade liberalisation is very country-specific"
That means country-specific policies on trade, in a different manner to HIPC debt relief and could mean the plugging of another gap in sustainable debt.
The report further suggests that trade liberalisation would mean that
"some service reforms can aid the poor directly—for example, those in transport, health and education."
That is simply not happening now. Surely, debt and development might be sustainable through the liberalisation of trade.
Is there another approach? Yes, although it would clearly involve the reform of G8 and HIPC status. Jubilee Plus has called for a new, independent and transparent process that would give poor countries the mandate to declare an emergency standstill on debt, when such payments became unsustainable. It calls for the right of such countries to have their debt sustainability determined by an independent and publicly accountable process. That strikes me as a firm and fair approach to debt relief. It is a call that would require broad interpretation of article VIII(2)(b) of the articles of agreement of the IMF and that has recently received the support of the UN Secretary-General.
Would that not be better than widening to HIPC 3? The proposal would mean that more than three countries—Uganda, Mozambique and Benin—would have the chance of sustainable debt in the near future. It is a reality that, under even the present HIPC scheme, seven countries of the 23 will still be living with unsustainable debt for the foreseeable future. The World Bank openly admits that debt relief has failed for those countries. The effect of that failure will be felt by the people of such countries for years to come.
The good news is that there has been some progress on debt relief, and the Governments of rich countries have evinced a willingness to help the people of poorer countries. The bad news is that the methodology of relief makes sustainable development difficult. We need to do much more for millions of poor people to give them the chance of leaving lives of grinding, unremitting poverty. I hope that the Financial Secretary and the Treasury team will continuously review the HIPC mechanisms, to ensure that they work as intended.
4.23 pm
Mr. Andy Reed: I join in congratulating the Government on finding time for this extremely important debate. It is timely given the topic of debate in the main Chamber; the two subjects are inextricably linked.
344WH
I should like to review the issues that pull us together. The matter has total cross-party support: in the past Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and I worked closely with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on debt issues. We are pleased that we are now building on that success and that many MPs—literally hundreds—are working together to ensure that the issue does not go away. Part of the problem with the Jubilee 2000 campaign was that it had an end date. Unfortunately, the issue has not gone away. In fact, even more may need to be done now than previously, because there is a feeling that we have achieved something whereas we have not.
I have only one rider: debt relief is not a panacea. I have seen some interesting figures, but the basic one is that if every country in the world met its UN debt-relief target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP, debt relief would look like a picnic. Such relief is extremely important for the countries that we are discussing, and we can talk about the countries that are just outside HIPC and others that should be included. However, it is important to remember that debt relief is only part of the overall solution.
I became involved in politics in the first place on the basis of debt relief and third-world debt. I belonged to a Church youth group that used to spend Sunday evenings discussing important issues. Someone from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade spoke to us one week, and someone talked about third-world debt the next. I wrote a letter to my MP, who is now the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), and I am sure that I received a nice reply. However, doing that was not enough for me; I decided to get involved in politics.
At the time, that felt relatively naïve. People may recall the food mountains and wine lakes, yet every day we saw stark images of millions of people dying on our television screens. Those images have not gone away, although the food and butter mountains and wine lakes may have. There is a basic principle that the world has enough food to feed its people, but our system does not put those two things together, and that is what should drive us.
Part of the problem, which I realise as I become increasingly involved, is that we lose sight of the big picture. We have heard many statistics today—unfortunately, I have more to go through—but the most chilling was that 3,000 children will die during this debate. That is the figure on which we need to concentrate. We must remember that that is the basic reason why we are here today and put into the debate the passion and fire that I am sure brought many of us in this Chamber into politics in the first place.
I recognise the commitment of my right hon. Friends the Financial Secretary—even though he has briefly left while I am speaking—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My criticism of the HIPC initiative in no way indicates a lack of support from the Chancellor and Ministers in the Department for International Development and the Treasury during the years when I have worked on the issue.
It is, however, right to talk about HIPC's failings, as hon. Members have. I agree that we cannot just re-jig things and shuffle around the deck chairs. HIPC has reached the point at which its lack of credibility is

345WH
recognised not only by NGOs and Jubilee Plus but by the World Bank. We have heard various quotes, which I shall not repeat, but World Bank reports show that there are fundamental flaws in what is being done.
Returning to the big picture, we need to ask what new structures are required and what a new HIPC should look like. I am not talking about a new enhanced HIPC or HIPC 3; we need to start again and perhaps base it on the informal workings of the Paris Club.
One difficulty, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon mentioned, is that countries such as Japan, which has tremendous debts compared with those of the UK, are still not playing ball. I therefore call on the Government to act unilaterally wherever possible. I know that there are arguments against doing that, but when we consider the problems with HIPC, there comes a time when we have to go the extra step. I hope that the Minister returns to the Chamber so that I can repeat that point when he is here.
Other Members will know from their constituency postbags that debt relief is certainly not a minority issue. I have the honour of representing Loughborough, which includes the Quorn hunt. Foxhunting tends to produce a large postbag. I was pleased this year when the Jubilee 2000 campaign letters outnumbered those from foxhunters and anti-foxhunters. It was a good indication that at last people recognised the importance of the issue and were conversing about it, especially in view of the chilling fact that during this debate 3,000 children will die, as they do every day.
I shall not go over the facts and statistics of HIPC's achievements and the problems involved as other hon. Members have already done so and time is short. We should focus on HIPC's success stories. In Uganda, for example, HIPC's ability to deliver on the poverty reduction programme means that money earmarked from the savings on debt relief has gone directly into primary schools and primary education. The Uganda Government have been able to double the number of primary school places available within three to four years, which is a relatively short time, and by 2004 all children may have access to primary education.
As the Minister said, it is so important to get the basics right; shifting the emphasis of the money for debt relief to health and education will give the next generation's economy the sustainability that it lacks at present, as even the World Bank and the IMF recognise.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): The hon. Gentleman and I have worked closely together on this matter for several years. Does he agree that it is also necessary to encourage enterprise in the economies, because if the money saved as a result of debt reduction goes back into the economies, roads and transport infrastructure can be built? It is not just a matter of health and education or even of human rights but of generating what President Museveni has constantly written about in his books: self-help in the country's economy, creating wealth from within the population, generating enterprise and encouraging small businesses.
Mr. Reed: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have worked closely on the issue for some
346WH
time. That such co-operation is possible is a strange thing about the House that is difficult to explain to constituents and others. The hon. Gentleman's great knowledge on the subject is something that I have welcomed in the past few years, despite our differences on a range of other issues. It is nice to hear him talk about something other than Europe.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right; health and education are important for the next generation, but economic sustainability is important for countries too, as they need to be self-sufficient. That touches on other, interlinked, issues raised in the debate that have been affected by commodity prices since 11 September. As I said earlier, debt relief on its own is not a panacea; it has to work in conjunction with aid and be taken into account in world trade talks if we are to ensure that these countries have a sustainable, long-term future. We do not want them to come back in 20 or 30 years' time with the same problems.
HIPC's failures have already been discussed, but there are a series of questions to which I should like the Government's reply. I am delighted at the lead taken by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in the G7 and the G8 to push the matter on to the international agenda. I am far from impressed by HIPC's performance; however, we can use our influence on the IMF and the World Bank to make these poverty reduction programmes work for the poorest people.
As hon. Members have said, we need to take a bottom-up approach to the problem. I have been doing some research and I have pages of tables. Although I am not 100 per cent. certain one way or the other whether the programmes are working, the evidence shows that they have not made one jot of difference to many of the world's poorest people. That is how I measure whether the programmes are working; we need to look at the situation from the perspective of the people we are trying to help.
It is difficult to get something from the Dispatch Box to the doorstep; an announcement in the House does not necessarily translate well to our constituencies. It is difficult enough getting to Loughborough; trying to apply some of the policies to far-flung places around the world that desperately, and quickly, need our help adds to the complications.
There are serious concerns about HIPC. Let us find a way to move beyond just re-jigging the furniture and having a HIPC 3. We should consider new ideas, but we have to consider how those ideas should be implemented. The IMF and the World Bank clearly approach this from a banking perspective, yet, ultimately, the people we are trying to help are not banking customers. They are not even the Governments. They are the people on the ground, and the World Bank and the IMF having a veto over these issues makes the situation extremely difficult.
The example that I have heard is that of a president—I shall not name the country—who wanted to present his own poverty reduction programme to the board of the World Bank but was refused by the junior official who had attended the original meetings. Although the official might have been very intelligent and had a couple of PhDs from Harvard, it is only right in terms of world democracy for an elected president to have the opportunity to present his own poverty reduction

347WH
programmes to the World Bank. I hope that we can use our influence on the World Bank and the IMF to ensure that the focus of what we are doing moves away from the technical and starts to look at the needs of the individual.
It has been a difficult debate and there are many who want to contribute to it. It is also a technical debate, and sometimes we can lose the big picture and get bogged down with HIPC, structural adjustment programmes, the IMF and all the technical arguments. I simply want to ensure that we focus on people. I have had my highs and lows in Parliament, but one of the highs was to hear the Chancellor announce the 100 per cent. debt relief at No. 11 Downing street. Eighteen years earlier, as a naïve teenager, I wrote my first letter to a Member of Parliament, but hearing that announcement was one of the humbling and unforgettable moments of my time in Parliament. Now I realise that there is so much more to do.
I have rejected all the technical arguments that I was going to put today. I have not read out anything that I wrote down and so my notes would be of no use to anybody. I feel this from the heart. This is about people and making sure that if we have this debate in 12 months' time another 3,000 children do not die during another three-hour period. Let us move away from the technical and try our hardest to move through this mire of figures, facts and tables and focus on delivering real poverty reduction, health, education and sustainable local economies in the countries that we are trying to support.
4.36 pm
Mr Mark Hoban: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on a subject of particular interest to me. My father's cousin was a missionary in Kenya and as a child I constantly heard stories about the role that first missionaries and then NGOs such as CAFOD—the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development—played in looking after the health and education of many people in developing countries, as well as responding to their spiritual needs. It is entirely consistent with the compassion that they demonstrated to those of all faiths and none that Jubilee 2000 has raised the awareness of the issue of third world debt. It has played a major role in ensuring that third world debt is on the agenda not just of this Government but others in the international community.
In spite of Jubilee 2000's work, the alarming fact remains that, for all our aid and support to developing nations, through successive Governments of both major parties and successive generations, what we give has been nothing compared to what we ask in return. For every £1 in grant aid to developing countries, more than £13 comes back in debt repayments. On every day in 1999, $128 million was transferred from the poorest countries to the richest in debt repayments. Although hon. Members may differ on how they would tackle the effects of poverty, that balance sheet is unacceptable. The statistics on debt are shocking in aggregate. The total external debt of aid recipients was $2,534 billion at the end of 1999, with debt service payments of $300 billion. Those figures are quite dry and do not tell us about the impact of third world debt.
Let us look at the example of Zambia. Due to the HIV/AIDS crisis, life expectancy there is expected to fall from 43 to 33 years—a level last experienced in Europe
348WH
in mediaeval times. More than 500,000 children are out of school, and those numbers are not declining. Yet debt service after enhanced relief under the HIPC scheme still remains more than combined spending on health and education in 1998.
To demonstrate the effect of debt relief, it has been estimated by the United Nations development programme that for each additional 1 per cent. of gross domestic product spent on health and education, child mortality is reduced by 24 per cent. In 1999, Zambia paid $438.5 million-13 per cent. of GDP—in total debt service. The same survey reveals that, if that money had been invested in Zambian health care, child mortality would have been reduced from 202 deaths per 1,000 live births to only eight per 1,000—the same rate as in the United States.
There are countless other examples of how the burden of debt can throttle what little life opportunities are on offer in many poorer nations. Other hon. Members have spoken about the initiatives that could be followed through to improve the effectiveness of the HPIC initiative. I shall not dwell on them, but I should like to raise one issue. We have said that debt relief is only part of the picture. I would like to deal with world trade, which offers developing nations the chance of a stable path out of poverty.
It is essential that the problems of the developing nations are not considered in a vacuum of debt relief policy, because those problems are intrinsically bound up with the real world economy. I found it strange when commentators complained about the Genoa summit prioritising concerns about the world economic situation—before 11 September—and argued that priority should have been given to the third world, as if the two were unrelated. We can more easily afford debt relief when the global economy is strong, while heavily indebted poor countries are more able to use debt relief to their long-term advantage when they are also able to increase trade and output.
As in Genoa, there is a problem in that many groups seeking to alleviate third-world debt are also sceptical about the benefits of free trade. The strongest charge against globalisation tends to involve accusations of increased inequality resulting from free trade and the global economy. However, let us consider the case of east Asia.
The World Bank states that the number of people living on less than $1 a day in east Asia fell from 418 million in 1987 to 278 million in 1998. The key reason for decreasing poverty in the poorest parts of Asia was the growth of China, which saw an average rise of 7.7 per cent. a year in private consumption per head between 1980 and 1997. The underlying reason was growing trade. The Chinese ratio of exported goods and services to GDP rose from 6 per cent. in 1980 to 22 per cent. in 1988.
An article in today's Financial Times quotes the World Bank report:
"Abolishing all trade barriers could reduce global income by $2,800 billion … and lift 320m people out of poverty by 2015, if co-ordinated actions were also taken to promote trade and reforms in developing countries".
The article goes on:
"There is a strong concern in the bank that poverty reduction strategies that form the basis for IMF and World Bank lending to poor countries have too little trade strategy in them."

349WH
That is an important message, so I hope that the World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha goes ahead.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has argued that globalisation and increasing world trade can increase prosperity in certain parts of the world. Does he accept, however, that some parts of the world—Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, for example—have seen their percentage share of world trade decrease? If globalisation is to work, institutions such as the WTO and the IMF must recognise the need for sustainable development throughout the world. The hot spots during the period to which he referred should not have been allowed to arise.
Mr Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We must ensure that trade policies are sustainable and reasonable. I agree that that is not as simple as saying that free trade will solve the world's problems—far from it. Trade reform must take account of different factors, many of which diverge, including environmental considerations. Indeed, an article on www.ft.com today referred to the impact on the next world trade round of environmental concerns raised by the EU and the worry of many developing countries that those concerns were being used as a pretext for legitimising protectionism, particularly in agriculture. We must ensure that the next world trade round considers the concerns of developing countries and that environmental arguments are not used as a form of covert protectionism.
Notwithstanding the concerns of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), growing free trade between prosperous nations and heavily indebted poor countries can be a source of sustainable poverty relief, but only if it goes hand in hand with sustainable debt relief.
4.15 pm
Ann McKechin: I declare an interest as a member of the council of the World Development Movement.
The Government should be commended for calling for a new international effort to tackle poverty, especially after the events of the past few weeks. There is little prospect of meeting our target of halving the number of people in absolute poverty by 2015 unless we crack the problem of massive debt cancellation. Only 23 countries are at decision point in the HIPC scheme, but another 50 countries have been identified by the Jubilee Plus campaign as being heavily indebted and poor. That shows the extent of the problem that we still face.
Some Members mentioned the failures of the HIPC scheme, into which many of us who campaigned on debt put much reliance and effort. Its aim—to reduce debt to a level where it could be repaid—was fundamentally flawed and written to the criteria of the creditors not the debtors. It ignored the latter's problems of development and poverty and how they would tackle them. Northern aid donations are still being used to pay off debts, and the Department for International Development last year used aid funds for Sierra Leone's debt repayments to the World Bank and IMF. As has been said, some African countries are paying $1.4 billion per annum on
350WH
debt repayment, rather than using those resources for health, education, preventing AIDS and economic development.
The Chair of the International Development Committee spoke about the difficulties of calculating sustainability. A recent internal World Bank report stated that it overestimated growth level in HIPCs. If their exports continue to grow at just over 4 per cent., as they did in the 1990s, rather than at the growth rate estimated by the World Bank of over 6 per cent.—which seems excessive in view of world events—they will never reach a sustainable level of debt servicing, and that is in the World Bank's narrow criteria. It is also true that the World Bank is giving relief only on debts incurred at the point when the debtors announced that they had a problem with their debts. Debts incurred after that date are not taken into account in the sustainability equation and the criteria take no account of the extent or depth of poverty in a country.
Many hon. Members have mentioned today that HIPCs are still paying more in debt servicing than they are in their combined health and education budgets. The debt relief that was announced at Cologne has resulted so far in only 6 per cent. of HIPC debt being relieved and, as has been stated, further payments will not make any substantial difference if the current scheme continues. Government revenue should be spent first on poverty reduction, with resources left over being used to repay debts. As early as 1988, the International Development Committee accepted that unstable debt was debt that cannot be repaid without damaging the prospects of economic and human development. Studies estimate that if we take a rights-based approach to debt relief, we are talking about having to write off more than $600 billion owed by 71 countries.
HIPC applies only to official creditors—the World Bank and the development banks—but much of the poorest countries' debt repayment is to private international financial institutions that have not undertaken any risk. If a country does not repay its debt, the World Bank suspends relief to it. Banks are not made to take the penalty of bad lending decisions, which runs counter to normal commercial practice. Where there is no risk, there is no penalty and so the penalty falls on innocent people in third-world countries. On the other hand, private international institutions actively promote free market policies that have driven the pace of globalisation on behalf of the richest stakeholders and that create injustice in the world economic system.
It is also disgraceful that some donor countries have put pressure on HIPC countries to withdraw from the scheme. Japan, for example, has put pressure on such countries as Ghana and Laos to withdraw, on the basis that instead of debt relief they will be given grants or aid tied to Japanese goods. Again, we have had the difficulty of a delay in payments from the US Congress, which has in turn slowed down the entire procedure.
I also have doubts about the poverty reduction strategy papers that were introduced as part of the Cologne settlement. They were supposedly designed by the recipient countries and endorsed by the World Bank and the IMF but they bear a close similarity to the structural adjustment programmes that attracted so much criticism in the past decade. A quarter of the developing countries' debt has been estimated to be

351WH
odious—that is, debt that has unwisely been made to dictators, particularly those backed by the west during the cold war. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) made a telling reference to the case of Pakistan and the debts provided under the regime of President Zia.
G8 leaders increasingly point to the value of other resources to hide their inaction on debt. I have severe doubts about the global health fund, which is in no way adequate to tackle the problems faced by the developing world. It applies a top-down rather than bottom-up policy, which does not bode well for good international relations. The issue of how trade can assist the situation has been mentioned. I agree that we have to look carefully at the next round of trade negotiations to ensure that we allow better trade terms for the poorest countries. However, only about 1 per cent. of world trade comes from the very poorest countries. Africa receives only 1 per cent. of foreign direct investment flows. Even the proposed trade reforms are unlikely to benefit the very poorest countries in the short and medium term.
The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called for radical debt relief and has said that if we are to meet the international development targets to which the Minister referred all donor countries and private international financial institutions should consider wiping off all their official debts. It is widely thought that there is a link between conflict and poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made some telling points on the subject, but debt reduction would reduce the economic distress that leads to armed conflicts. Ultimately, the eradication of poverty comes down to political will. It is not just a question of pure finance. Leaders in the north who signed up to the international development targets will have to find sufficient funds if they are genuinely to support the poverty reduction process. We need immediately to stop taking payments from the poorest countries instead of waiting six, seven or eight years until they have reached some completion point that has been arbitrarily decided by the World Bank. All creditors need to commit to a 100 per cent. cancellation of debt for all the poorest countries.
We should reassess the basis of poverty reduction strategy papers so that they are the subject of valid discussion between the north and the south rather than an imposed solution. We need to consider a fundamental change to the multilateral trading system that permits a huge amount of northern protectionism, while liberalising southern markets without much protection to them. Trade should instead be focused on reducing world poverty. We need to begin new consultation and to engage in new dialogue between the north and the south, to establish a way of dealing with the money freed by debt cancellation. If we consider those aspects of the matter, we shall achieve the targets for which we have so long campaigned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Order. I advise hon. Members that it is my intention to call the Minister not later than 5.20 pm.
4.55 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: There is always a danger that debates in this Chamber will be overshadowed by those on the Floor of the House, and no doubt today there is an even greater chance of that. However, what we are discussing is important in the context of the debate on the coalition against international terrorism. I dare say that the ideas and views emerging from members of all parties in this Chamber will be of more use to the Government's long-term efforts to defeat international terrorism and to settle a new world order than those to be heard on the Floor of the House. Not having been present in the House, I cannot be sure of that, although a good deal more sense is being spoken in this Chamber—and there is more consensus too. It is only by such consensus that we shall progress.
I recently had the pleasure in the House of meeting Paul Robeson Jr, the son of the American singer and civil rights campaigner. He reminded hon. Members of the words of his father down the telephone line to the miners' eisteddfod in Porthcawl in 1955, when the House Committee on Un-American Activities had stopped him travelling to Wales. As well as singing with the miners—which has become part of folk history in Wales—he spoke of "abundance, dignity and peace". It is my view and my party's view that we will not get peace until we secure abundance and dignity for the developing world—and particularly, now, in the middle east and the countries around Afghanistan.
We need to discuss abundance. We have riches in abundance in this country and the question arises how we can share our development, progress, technology and wealth with developing countries so that they also receive political progress and dignity, which will in turn lead to peace.
I had many positive things to say about the Government's present policies, which are very proactive, but I shall not say them now—not as a criticism, but because those things have all been said. Instead, I shall straight away discuss the difficulties. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made some pertinent points about changes that may occur with respect to international development aid. I should like to hear from the Minister about ensuring that, in cementing the international coalition against terrorism and related activity, we do not try to provide aid or debt relief to countries in a way that undermines some of their long-term aims. We shall shortly consider the International Development Bill for the second time. That Bill does away with tied aid and it is important that in doing that we do not introduce a form of tied debt relief. Are we looking to the political nature of some countries that we want to help?
I shall comment on Pakistan shortly, but I ask the Minister, if he cannot respond on my point today, to think about an imminent decision that the Government will have to take on the Ilisu dam. He mentioned the Export Credits Guarantee Department in his opening remarks. It is understandable that there might be pressures on the Government to give the go-ahead for the Ilisu dam, despite a damning environmental assessment, because, of course, we want Turkey on board in our efforts with respect to Afghanistan and related areas. We must think not only of the economic benefits that the Ilisu dam might bring, but the huge

353WH
destabilising effect with respect to water resources in the middle east. That question brings home the difficulty of some of the decisions that the Government must make.
It is unfortunate that this debate is taking place when not only this country but all the Development Assistance Committee countries—the richest countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—are contributing less as a proportion of GDP to development aid. Last year, that proportion dropped from 0.24 per cent. to 0.22 per cent. I accept that in the past year the Government have considerably increased the share of GDP given to international development. However, we are still well short of the DAC average of 0.39 per cent. Next year, we may reach 0.33 per cent., but that still falls well short of our international commitment to reach and maintain 0.7 per cent. Although the current rate of progress should be welcomed, it means that it will be 50 years before we reach that figure. Only four countries have reached 0.7 per cent., so we are in a majority, but it is not a majority to which we can be proud to belong. We should try instead to join the minority.
Many things have been said during the debate on the difficulties of the HIPC process, and many hon. Members have prayed in aid the important report by Jubilee Plus entitled "HIPC—flogging a dead process". From that report, hon. Members have understood that there are many questions to be asked about HIPC, but I will not reiterate those questions. I underline only what I take from that report: the HIPC process, however much it benefits countries such as Uganda, Mozambique and Benin, manages the long-term debts of those countries more than it allows them an exit from those debts. All hon. Members who have contributed to the debate want heavily indebted countries to come out of debt, not simply to manage their debt better. The Government are faced with the challenge of ensuring that a new or alternative HIPC initiative will enable them to do that.
Countries in conflict that lie outside the HIPC process form another important issue. It is frustrating that the countries most in need are in conflict and that we cannot deliver aid to them, as we cannot ensure that the aid gets to the people who need it. However, we should remember that the G8 statement after the Genoa summit said:
"Debt relief—particularly the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative—is a valuable contribution to the fight against poverty, but it is only one of the steps needed to stimulate faster growth in very poor countries…In particular we look to countries affected by conflict to turn away from violence. When they do, we confirm that we will strengthen our efforts to help them take the measures needed to receive debt relief."
There is no more pressing example of violence in developing countries at the moment than what is happening in Afghanistan and surrounding countries. We know that Afghanistan was the poorest country in Asia before 11 September. It had already suffered 25 years of civil war and three years of drought, and one quarter of Afghan children were dying before their fifth birthday. The country was in dire need of aid before 11 September, but the reasons for that are complex and go back further than the Taliban. I am anxious to know how we can deliver aid to Afghanistan in the course of
354WH
a conflict—if it is not a war, it is certainly a conflict. That measure is being discussed in the House at the moment, but we must bear in mind that we are trying to defeat an opposition, a Government and a terrorist network in one of the poorest countries of the world.
Associated with the problems of Afghanistan are the problems for world trade following 11 September. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made that point. The World Bank has already estimated that the poorest countries will suffer most as a result of the terrorist attacks, mainly due to commodity prices, as the hon. Gentleman said. The World Bank expects an extra 10 million people to fall below the poverty line of $1 a day, which will lead to an extra 20,000 to 40,000 child deaths. Although we all know about the scale of the attacks in Washington and New York, we should bear in mind the additional 20,000 to 40,000 deaths as a consequence of them. We must redouble our efforts to ensure that international aid reaches the places where it is most needed.
I conclude by referring to a couple of matters that have not so far come up in debate. First, the need for sustainable development should feature more strongly in international aid. I hope that we shall be able to amend the International Development Bill to put sustainable development on a far more secure footing in the legislation than it was when the Bill first came before the House. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research carried out work about a year ago on the countries most likely to be affected by climate change. They were Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. Sustainable development must be included in international aid programmes.
Secondly, the Tobin tax has not been mentioned so far; perhaps it should have been. I know that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) chaired a meeting last night on the subject, and will no doubt expand on it in this debate. If the Government are not in favour of the Tobin tax or something similar, they have a responsibility to explain what other form of global tax there should be to help to fund international development. If we are moving towards a system in which we support global Governments and, through the HIPC initiative, to a global programme of relief for the poorest and most heavily indebted countries, we must consider how we can use taxation measures in the next few years to help those countries.
I look forward to the Minister's response to this interesting and varied debate.
5.5 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), and with those of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who spoke about the link between this debate and that on the Floor of the House. The long-term way to deal with terrorism must be to tackle poverty worldwide. The world needs to make a fresh start in dealing with debt relief and poverty reduction. However, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, only 20 per cent. of developing countries are involved in the HIPC initiative; 80 per cent. are not. We need to expand the way in which we offer debt relief to the poorest countries of the world.
I noted the Financial Secretary's observation that conferences are all very well but what really matters is what happens on the ground. I agree. Nevertheless,

355WH
there are some interesting conferences coming up—four in the next 11 months. The World Trade Organisation is meeting in Qatar next week and the following week there is the meeting of the IMF and World Bank. I hope that the United Nations conference on financing for development in Monterey, Mexico in March 2002 will bring together those two. That will lead to the world summit for sustainable development in Johannesburg in September 2002. Thus, there is a road map for updating HIPC and making progress with debt relief and poverty reduction—learning the lessons from what we have got wrong in the past five years and building on what we have got right.
To make progress, and to ensure that debt relates to Governments' capacities to collect revenues, we must ensure that there are sustainable debt procedures. All countries have to borrow against their tax base and their Governments should ensure that only debt able to be repaid is taken on. That is an important principle. Parliaments that represent democratic civil society should be required to approve all new borrowing arrangements worldwide. I should certainly like that requirement in any update of the HIPC initiative. Those Parliaments should receive regular reports on the performance and use of those loans to ensure that they are going to areas of which they approve, especially in terms of poverty reduction.
That idea is not a new one. It was agreed by the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Berlin in December 1999, at which a resolution was passed relating to a new global financial architecture. I was honoured to serve on the drafting committee of that conference. On my return, I discussed the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, after expressing doubts initially, said that it sounded like an excellent idea. Will the Financial Secretary—not necessarily today, as I have sprung it on him—pursue the issue and determine whether it can be taken forward? It is important that any new loans, especially if they relate to the way that the HIPC initiative progresses, must be approved by civil society which, so far as I am concerned as an elected Member of this House, is represented by parliamentarians.
Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be rigorous public accounting procedures in each of those countries and that those should be consistent with international accounting standards?
Mr. Colman: I certainly agree with that. The move towards international accounting standards should ensure that that is implemented throughout the world. My further point was that, to reassure the lower end of my postbag, it is crucial that the HIPC arrangements are accountable. The majority of letters that I receive are very much in favour of HIPC, but others write to tell me that they think that it is disgraceful that debt is being forgiven because the money saved is not being spent in the way in which I claim. It is important that Parliament has a role in each of the HIPC countries to review how the poverty reduction strategies are progressing. I am concerned that organisations such as Jubilee Plus has not sufficiently reviewed the situation. It needs to follow through to see what is happening.
As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, he and I and other hon. Members visited Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso, which are part of the HIPC initiative,
356WH
in September. Both of those cases are interesting. Burkina Faso is just coming to its decision point. Ivory Coast has completed its passage through the HIPC process and there is a decision pending about whether there should be a further HIPC procedure there. There was great consternation among developed countries and multilateral institutions that there was still no anticorruption legislation in Ivory Coast. The delegation met all its political parties, but there was no consensus on how such legislation might proceed. There was rumour of a case in which 18 million euros had been embezzled by a member of the Government, which had not been followed up. I would hope that Jubilee Plus would examine that sort of thing.
Similarly, in the case of Burkina Faso, we heard allegations from non-governmental organisations based in the United Kingdom that civil society was not being allowed to review the poverty reduction strategy. The organisations were excluded. It is important for Jubilee Plus, which I strongly support and which is doing an excellent job, to ensure that the other half of the process—the review of how the HIPC initiative is working in the countries that have undergone the process—occurs. As the hon. Member for Banbury mentioned, we saw an excellent example of the other part of the process when we met the Speaker of the Parliament of Rwanda, where it is working very well indeed.
This debate is about poverty reduction, but hon. Members have extended it into other areas, so I seek the indulgence of the Chamber in doing so too. It was remarkable, in Ouagadougou, to be able to put one's bank card into a high street bank ATM and remove CFA francs. The CFA franc is the currency of Burkina Faso and it is linked to the French franc, which is linked to the euro. Extraordinarily, some 70 million Africans are in the eurozone—as it will be from 1 January 2002—and already have an exchange rate. That is a good example of the kind of alternative way of reducing poverty that should be examined. It is interesting that, in my experience, many Commonwealth countries have lost out significantly in currency depreciation since their currencies ceased to be linked to the pound sterling in the 1970s.
I have been talking about Lomé countries, and one of the themes of the debate has been the need to examine trade issues, which are also linked to poverty reduction. We need to ensure that access is tariff and quota-free. I am disappointed that the "Everything but Arms" initiative has been delayed for up to seven years and I hope that that can be brought forward. We need open access for developing countries to developed countries.
As the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said, the Financial Times article explores the huge benefits for developing countries. The World Bank said:
"Expanding trade could well increase annual GDP growth by an additional 0.5 percent over the long run—and by 2015 lift 300 million people out of poverty in addition to the 600 million escaping desperate poverty with normal growth. Developing countries stand to gain an estimated $1.5 trillion of additional income in the 10 years after liberalization policies are begun; developed countries would see their incomes rise by some $1.3 trillion."
The Government have not made a statement about what goals they believe are to be attained in Doha next week, but the World Bank has said that, for developing

357WH
countries to benefit, developed countries must be willing to put the issues of agricultural products and textiles on the negotiating table because those are what the world's poor produce. A round that brings down barriers in agriculture, advances the timetable on textiles and agrees to curtail anti-dumping while taking up the concerns of industrialised countries has the potential to be a true development round. I hope that the Financial Secretary will have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is the lead Minister on the issue, to see whether we can make progress on those matters.
The WTO meeting will be followed by the IMF-World Bank meeting. There, we shall have a great advantage because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a chairing role at the IMF and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development plays a strong role at the World Bank. I hope that they will take up the proposals of numerous colleagues in this debate for revising the HIPC scheme and for introducing emergency standstills and independent arbitrations—those ideas are well worth exploring.
I am also concerned that Ministers should pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about countries such as Tanzania, Pakistan and many others, which receive large numbers of refugees and should get specific IMF help. Programmes are available in addition to the HIPC scheme for countries that are coming out of conflict, but it is important that we also consider countries that receive refugees.
I was pleased that the hon. Member for Ceredigion picked up on my wish yesterday to debate the Tobin tax, which I hope the Financial Secretary will consider. There is new evidence on how it might work and my right hon. Friend should read the technical note to the Zedillo commission, which John Langmore, the deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, wrote on 21 August and which describes in detail how the proposals could be implemented.
The Continuing Linked Settlement system, which will come on stream at the beginning of 2002 and be based in London, will enable all currency transfers around the world to be put through a single system. The argument has been that the money will simply move offshore and into tax havens, but the post-11 September drive to stamp out tax havens and to deal with money laundering and hot money movements will make it possible for the world financial community to decide that it is best to put all currency transactions through one system, which will have sufficient capacity and ensure that the Tobin tax works. The small level of tax—0.001 per cent. of the currency transaction—would produce $53 billion, which would provide the basis that many people want for achieving overseas development assistance levels. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) said, the poorest countries would not benefit immediately from trade development. It is important to recognise the fact that overseas development assistance is needed and that a new source of it must be found.
358WH
Three or four conferences will soon take place and form an important map for dealing with debt relief and poverty reduction. After each conference, I look forward to further parliamentary debates so that we can hear how the Government have fared, hold them to account and move towards a world without poverty, which is what we all want.
5.19 pm
Mr. Boateng: The debate has been highly worth while and characterised by passion and conviction from all. It also showed experience and knowledge, not least in the considerable grasp of technical detail that one would expect from such distinguished members of the Select Committee on International Development as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). They certainly did not disappoint in that regard, and were right to be technical in such a way. We need to develop technically efficient and effective vehicles if we are to deliver a product that reflects the values and principles that we all espouse about the importance of reducing poverty, and the contribution of health, education and trade to that aim.
Some of the trenchant technical criticisms made in the past three hours, not least of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative—I intend to write to hon. Members to do justice to the nature of their arguments—draw attention to the need to ensure that we devise such mechanisms correctly. If we do not, there is a danger that they will be blown off course.
No technical mechanism could guarantee to guard against a crisis such as that sparked by the events of 11 September. Given that HIPCs are likely to be especially adversely affected by the recent economic slowdown, it will be important to ensure a trenchant analysis of its impact on them and their capacity to fulfil the process. At the G7 meeting of Finance Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer went out of his way to emphasise the importance of the International Monetary Fund, in collaboration with the World Bank, making a thorough analysis of the impact of the events of 11 September on sustainability and economic growth in the countries concerned. Such analysis is being made and it will be important to bear in mind the possible need to make modifications in policy and the delivery of it as a result, if that is shown to be necessary.
I want to tackle several of the points made, in addition to writing to hon. Members about some of the more technical ones. It was asserted that the HIPC initiative had failed as it would not deliver sustainable debt levels for most of its countries. It is true that recent IMF and World Bank analyses show that 67 countries will have a debt-to-export ratio above the threshold and we heard of some examples. The Government have always acknowledged that as a problem, and we shall continue to work to help those countries to exit the HIPC process with sustainable levels of debt. The assistance and contribution of the Committees of the House, of all right hon. and hon. Members and of NGOs is important.

359WH
The Government are committed in the long term—it is not a short-term response, stimulated by recent events—to supporting Pakistan's economic reform programme. We recognise that the current crisis has had, and will continue to have, an impact on Pakistan's economy and we are working with other donors to ensure that the whole reform process, including the reform relating to the entrenchment of democratic institutions, will stay on track. In the meantime, as well as taking a number of other measures, we have provided £40 million to help deal with the Afghan refugees in Pakistan and £11 million of short-term assistance to host communities in Pakistan. It is important to recognise that, as we are not major creditors of Pakistan, our influence is inevitably limited.
For reasons that hon. Members understand, Nigeria does not qualify for HIPC status. We are working with the IMF to ensure that, as Nigeria achieves the IMF programme of reform of its economy, it gains some benefit as a result. Nigeria has not dropped out of our agenda. It is a major and important nation and we are working with others internationally to ensure that its reform process is supported.
360WH
It is important to remember—several hon. Members have touched on this—that since this Government came into office a major plank of our programme has been that our relations with international financial institutions should be subject to reform. We have pioneered and championed a reforming agenda for the IMF and the World Bank, not least in view of some of the experiences that hon. Members on both sides of the House have outlined today. Those institutions still have a long way to go in terms of transparency and accountability, and in how well equipped they are to put in place the sort of programmes that deliver the changes that we all seek. I shall be writing to hon. Members on a number of issues. The Tobin tax is one.
What we have heard today is not only a justification of why it is just as important to debate the matter in this place as it is in the Chamber but a reflection of the real concerns of those whom we represent. We have done our best—all those who contributed to the debate and all those who bothered to attend—to reflect those concerns and to do justice to that vital topic.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Devolved Administrations
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is with regard to(a) Ministers And (b) officials in his Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly committees; and to what categories of document he gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (1) Scottish parliament, (2) Welsh Assembly, (3) Northern Ireland Assembly and (4) House of Commons Select committees. [7030]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1003–05W.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on bringing forward the programme for the new aircraft carriers. [8425]

  Dr. Moonie
  It would be imprudent to bring forward significantly the programme to build the two new aircraft carriers, especially given their size and complexity. Time spent now in assessing the developing designs, in step with decisions on the aircraft to be operated from the ships (including the Future Joint Combat Aircraft and the Future Organic Airborne Early Warning Aircraft) will allow us to optimise the design of the ship so that it best meets our future operational requirements. This assessment phase is due to complete in 2003, and the planned In Service Dates of the two carriers remain 2012 and 2015.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what action his Department is taking to ensure sub-contracting work for the alternative ships logistics to be built on the Rivers Tyne and Clyde is awarded to United Kingdom companies; [R] [8131]

  (2) what proportion of the contract value of the alternative landing ships logistics to be built by Swan Hunters on Tyneside will be placed with north-east companies; and if he will list all United Kingdom and overseas subcontractors scheduled to receive orders of £500,000 and above. [R] [8130]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Department's contract with Swan Hunter requires the company to maximise the use of competition when awarding sub-contracts for the build of the Alternative Landing Ships Logistic. However, the final choice of supplier must rest with Swan Hunter as the prime contractor. It is up to prospective UK suppliers to 766W
  submit competitively priced bids to the prime contractor for equipment that meets the Ministry of Defence's requirements.

  Swan Hunter has so far placed only a small number of sub-contracts. While Swan Hunter has indicated that most sub-contract work is likely to be placed with UK companies, it is too early to say how much work will be placed with companies in the north-east.

  Negotiations are under way for the contract with BAE Systems Marine, Govan. The same conditions will apply to the sub-contract for the BAE Systems' vessel once a contract is agreed.

  Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme; and if he will place a copy of an unclassified version in the Library. [10969]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 661W, to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

  Type 45 Frigates
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the Government have undertaken with the United States regarding the possible use of type 45 frigates as part of the USA's plan to develop a missile defence to protect the US and its allies. [10966]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Light Armoured Vehicle
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the need for a light armoured vehicle for the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [11500]

  Dr. Moonie
  The lessons we have learned from recent operations have shown that the procurement priorities we set out in the Strategic Defence Review, and its overall focus, were broadly correct. We keep these priorities under review. As part of this we have considered the capability which can be offered by light armoured vehicles, and we assess that they will contribute importantly to our forces' ability to react rapidly to global events. I set out how we currently intend to deliver this capability in my answer to the hon. Member on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 406W.

  Swift Sword II
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if units have adequate fresh rations for the purposes of Swift Sword II; and if he will make a statement. [11504]

  Mr. Hoon
  All forces deployed on Saif Sareea II had adequate fresh rations. Rations were scaled to provide five days fresh and two days Operational Ration Packs (ORP) in each seven day period with the ORP being consumed during training phases. The provision of rations on the exercise has proved extremely efficient and feedback from the forces and unit commanders has been positive.

  Future Carrier Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a down select decision on the Future Carrier Programme; and if he will make a statement. [11452]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: We are currently in discussions about the CVF procurement strategy with both candidate prime contractors, BAE Systems and Thales Naval Ltd. We hope to be in a position to make an announcement about the way forward in the next few weeks.

  Afghanistan
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effects of the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan; and how many of these have been used in the conflict. [11435]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: Cluster bombs are the most effective weapon against certain targets and, while that remains the case, they will continue to be used in Afghanistan. As at 29 October, coalition forces had used cluster bombs against five targets: one terrorist camp and four Taliban military installations.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his most recent estimate is of the cost to the United Kingdom of the military action in Afghanistan; what estimate he has made of the weekly cost to the UK of(a) current and (b) planned deployment; and if he will make a statement. [11646]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 114W.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications are required to be made to British helicopters in order to enable them to undertake operations in Afghan air space. [11039]

  Mr. Hoon
  Equipment deployed by UK armed forces on operations is modified as necessary to perform in the environment in which it is used.

  Hawk Aircraft
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the sale of Hawk aircraft to India; when he expects contracts to be signed; what other medium to long-term prospects he has identified for overseas sales of Hawk aircraft; and what discussions he has had with BAE Systems at Brough on the implications for employment at the plant of sales of Hawk aircraft. [11570]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 October 2001, Official Report, column 626, to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). Progress with commercial negotiations is a matter for the company and the Indian Government. The Ministry of Defence maintains contact with BAE Systems on employment at Brough relating to sales of Hawk. The Government will continue to support BAE Systems in whatever way we can with the promotion of this first class aircraft in appropriate markets.
  768W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to advancing an order for Hawk 127s as part of the RAF's Military Flying Training System. [11571]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: We are closely examining our future flying training needs with a view to putting in place a system that will meet the needs of all three Services. We will give full consideration to purchasing Hawk 127 but this will be part of an analysis of all available options.

  Body Armour
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much Kevlar is stocked by British manufacturers of body armour; where Kevlar is manufactured; and if he will make a statement. [11569]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Kevlar is a Dupont Commercial brand name for one product line associated with the Aramid family of materials. Information on the total quantity of Aramid materials held commercially is not available to the Ministry of Defence as the companies concerned consider it Commercial in Confidence. Recent inquiries of these firms have however, indicated that they have sufficient stocks available to meet the MOD's requirements.

  Kevlar supplied to British manufacturers of body armour is manufactured by Dupont at their facility in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the tendering companies for body armour are British-based. [11567]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: On the last tender exercise for body armour, all of the five companies invited to tender were British-based.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if body armour can be constructed of materials other than Kevlar. [11568]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Yes. Kevlar is a Dupont commercial brand name for one product line of the Aramid family of materials. Other manufacturing companies make their own Aramid fibres, for instance Twaron. Materials other than Aramids can be used for ballistic protection but have cost, weight and/or bulk limitations, which could affect individual performance.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many suits of body armour are on order by his Department; and what estimate he has made of the need for body armour in view of land operations in Afghanistan. [11565]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: There are no orders currently outstanding for body armour within the Department. There are currently sufficient stocks of body armour available to meet current planned deployments.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tenders are open for the supply of body armour; when they will be concluded; and how many companies he expects to tender. [11566]
  769W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: One tender exercise is currently on-going for the supply of a sample quantity of body armour fillers and plates. Once these samples have been evaluated, Invitations to Tender will be issued to up to five UK-based companies within the next month.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he will provide the cockpit training environment needed to train pilots for the Eurofighter Typhoon. [11572]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: We intend that pilots should undertake both simulated training, provided as part of the Eurofighter Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids (ASTA) project, and live airborne training in two-seat and single-seat Eurofighter aircraft. A single source collaborative development, production and in-service support contract for ASTA was placed in April this year with Eurofighter GmbH, who will also provide the aircraft to be used for training.

  FADEC System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the mean time between failure rate of the FADEC system on the Chinook Mk2 in its first year of operational service and (b) the target figure agreed with the manufacturer; if his Department's contract with Textron Lycoming included a reliability warranty for the FADEC system; if this was met; and if he will make a statement. [11779]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the reasons for and (b) the circumstances relating to the departure of the deputy head of the Ministry of Defence Police. [11766]

  Dr. Moonie
  The contract of Mr. Tony Comben as Deputy Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police was terminated on Wednesday 24 October 2001. I am withholding the reasons for his departure under Exemption 8 (Public Employment) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Mr. Comben's departure was completely unrelated to complaints against him from members of the public, currently being investigated.

  Combat Effectiveness Gender Study
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Combat Effectiveness Gender Study will be published. [11746]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am currently considering the conclusions of a review on the employment of women in the armed forces and will make a further statement in due course.

  Departmental Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of staff employed by his Department by region and nation of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [6828]
  770W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1009–12W to the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart).

  Porton Down
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what biological or biologically derived samples have been supplied by the Defence and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down to(a) USA, (b) France, (c) Belgium, (d) Sweden, (e) Australia, (f) Germany, (g) Austria, (h) Spain, (i) Netherlands, (j) Norway, (k) Italy, (l) Japan and (m) Canada since 1990. [11502]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1990 the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down has supplied in excess of one hundred biological or biologically derived materials to these countries for medical and veterinary research purposes.

  The majority of this material has been supplied under International Collaboration Research agreements relating to biological detection capability and potential medical countermeasures. However, it would not be appropriate to publish a list of the biological material supplied to these countries as this could reveal operational capabilities and deficiencies. I am therefore withholding this information in the interests of National Security under category 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Batch Two Frigates
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the costings are for the Romanian acquisition of the two ex-Royal Navy 22 Batch Two frigates; how much the reactivation, refits training and long-term support package will cost; and if he will make a statement. [11782]

  Dr. Moonie
  Negotiations concerning the disposal of ex-Ministry of Defence equipment involve matters of commercial and customer confidentiality. I am therefore withholding the information under Exemption 1 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to recommend a ban on the manufacture of cluster bombs by UK companies. [11884]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans to recommend a ban on the manufacture of cluster bombs by UK companies.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil on 20 July [ref. 422]. [9960]
  771W
  Hilary Benn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development replied to the hon. Member in her letter dated 1 October; a copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  Cheap Medicines
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations(a) her Department made to the Department of Trade and Industry and (b) she will make to the WTO Summit on providing developing countries with access to cheap medicines. [11465]

  Clare Short
  We work closely with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) among others on access to medicines. The UK Government are working with the European Union and others to ensure that the WTO's existing rules on intellectual property help developing countries gain access to medicine. This means making sure that new medicines are developed while at the same time allowing developing countries to take appropriate measures to protect public health in national emergencies.

  Intellectual property rights need to be part of wider action to address the problems facing developing countries in developing effective healthcare to all their citizens. That is why the UK strongly supports the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria and why the Prime Minister asked me to form a high level working group to report back by May 2002 on what else needs to be done. On 8 October, I chaired the first meeting of the high level working group on access to medicines, at which Government Ministers and officials—including representatives from DTI—met with a range of key stakeholders to look at ways of increasing research and development into the diseases of the poor.

  The UK supports the development of a meaningful declaration on this issue at the Doha ministerial conference, which should affirm and clarify flexibilities within the TRIPS Agreement to allow developing countries to protect their public health needs.

  Devolved Administrations
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is with regard to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department giving evidence to (i) Scottish Parliament, (ii) Welsh Assembly and (iii) Northern Ireland Assembly committees; and to what categories of document she gives (A) full access, (B) restricted access and (C) no access to (1) Scottish parliament, (2) Welsh Assembly, (3) Northern Ireland Assembly and (4) House of Commons Select committees. [7033]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office,Official Report, 15 October 2001, column 1003W.

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will urge the WTO to commit itself to achieving the international development targets at the next round of WTO negotiations. [11150]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government believe that the WTO should commit itself to achieving the international development targets. This would send a strong message 772W
  that the WTO is part of the fight against poverty and that its promotion of trade liberalisation is a means for development, rather than an end in itself.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposal the United Kingdom Government plans to make at the next multilateral round of WTO negotiations to ensure that it is a development round. [11479]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government are committed to pushing for a development round of trade negotiations at the WTO, to be launched at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, 9 to 13 November. This should bring substantial benefits to developing countries, particularly by increasing their access to markets for products of interest to them, such as agriculture and textiles. We are pushing for an agenda for the negotiations that will satisfy the varying needs of developing countries. Once such a round is launched we will continue to work hard for an outcome that will benefit the poor in developing countries.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on food security in southern Sudan for the next six months. [11159]

  Clare Short
  It is harvest time now in southern Sudan. Present indications for the next six months throughout most of the area look better than in some previous years. We will continue to monitor needs and respond accordingly.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to visit southern Sudan. [11158]

  Clare Short
  I am considering a visit to Sudan if it will help encourage progress towards peace.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many companies have registered to be learning providers under the Individual Learning Account scheme. [9685]

  John Healey
  In England, 8,504 learning providers are currently registered with the Individual Learning Account Centre.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the proportion of state secondary schools which will be specialist schools by the end of 2003; and if she will make a statement. [11475]

  Mr. Timms
  By September 2003 we expect there to be at least 1,000 operational specialist schools. This will take the proportion of maintained secondary schools which have specialist designation to 32 per cent. By 2005 we plan for at least 46 per cent. of secondary schools to have specialist status. Over time we want to ensure that all
  773W
  maintained secondary schools which want to and are ready have the opportunity to become a specialist school as part of their strategy for school improvement.

  Post-16 Students
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements have been made to ensure that schools with post-16 students do not lose income as a result of the Learning and Skills Council taking control of funding in 2002. [8846]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Member with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action her Department took in recognition of Energy Efficiency Week. [11511]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 592W. As Energy Efficiency Week was aimed primarily at domestic energy use, and its environmental impact, no additional action was taken in recognition of the week. The Department does, of course, have a well-established and on-going commitment to energy efficiency across all its activities.

  Communities Projects
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department plans to take to ensure community access is maximised in respect of wired up communities projects. [11207]

  John Healey
  We are piloting the wired up communities initiative in 14,000 households in seven areas across England, including inner city, rural and coalfield communities. An evaluation report on this pilot phase is due to be published in spring 2002. Findings will be carefully considered before any decisions are made on how best to maximise community access to ICT. However, our existing policies also mean that by the end of 2002 there will be 6,000 UK online centres—.including 3,000 public libraries—operating across England to provide widespread community access to ICT facilities.

  School Performance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what percentage of students achieved five A to C grades at GCSE in each local education authority in England in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and what the percentage change in performance was in each case; [10936]

  (2) if she will list the schools in England where the percentage of students achieving fewer than five grades A to C was less than 25 per cent. in 2001; and for each school, (a) the percentage change in performance compared with 2000 and (b) the local education authority in which the school was situated. [10937]
  774W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department will publish 2001 GCSE (and GNVQ equivalent) results for each local education authority in England in a statistical first release on 20 November and data for schools in England in the secondary school performance tables on 22 November. I will then write to my hon. Friend with the information he seeks and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the changes which have taken place within the export credit guarantee arrangements in the last four years. [9560]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the UK's official export credit agency, was recently reviewed. Work on implementing the findings of the Mission and Status Review Report, presented to Parliament in July 2000, is currently well under way.

  The Review strongly reaffirmed ECGD's primary role in bringing economic benefit to the UK by helping UK exporters and investors to win valuable business abroad.

  It also set out an important agenda for change to ensure that ECGD works to help Government meet their international objectives, including those of sustainable development, human rights and good governance.

  Energy Needs
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's submission to the performance and innovation unit's review of future energy needs. [9563]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department submitted an initial contribution to the PIU's Energy Policy Review on 1 August. The submission represented officials' preliminary analysis of some of the key issues that PIU will need to consider during their review. Its purpose was to stimulate debate about energy policy issues.

  Fixed Term Contracts Directive
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy on implementation of the EU fixed term contracts directive. [9564]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government held a public consultation early this year on the implementation of the fixed term directive and the responses received are currently being considered. The directive is due to be implemented by 10 July 2002.

  Equal Pay
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department is taking to reduce the pay gap between men and women. [9565]

  Ms Hewitt
  Denise Kingsmill's review of Women's Employment and Pay will be reporting very shortly, and we look forward to discussing her findings at a December conference. Government Departments are reviewing their
  775W
  pay systems and we are promoting action in local government. The Equal Opportunity Commission's model for voluntary pay reviews will also soon be available.

  Universities and Business
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage co-operation between universities and the business community. [9566]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's "Excellence and Opportunity" White Paper, published last July, set out a comprehensive range of actions to strengthen links between business and universities. Over £100 million has recently been awarded to Higher Education Institutions under these measures.

  Sole Trader Businesses
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help she makes available for a person who wishes to start a business as a sole trader. [9568]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This Government are committed to promoting enterprise across society by increasing the number and quality of business start-ups.

  This is focused at a local level through the Small Business Service's Business Link network, which provides a comprehensive package of tailored high quality business support to meet the needs of all small businesses in their areas, including to those starting a business as a sole trader.

  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will introduce anti-discrimination legislation required by the EU directives. [9569]

  Ms Hewitt
  We shall introduce new anti-discrimination legislation in time to meet the deadlines which we agreed in the Employment Directive: namely, 2003 for sexual orientation and religion; and 2006 for age.

  I am considering with colleagues across Government how best to introduce legislation on these issues while fulfilling our commitments on existing legislation on race, disability and sex discrimination. We shall publish a consultation document about our plans for new legislation within the next three months.

  Miners' Compensation
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the miners' compensation scheme. [9570]

  Mr. Wilson
  In total, more than £600 million has now been paid out. Progress on Vibration White Finger has been maintained, and there are clear signs of progress on respiratory disease. Well over 1,000 medical assessments are now being carried out each week. We expect to see the number of full and final offers increasing sharply over the next few weeks. I recognise the need for constant vigilance to ensure that improvements are sustained.

  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of miners' compensation claimants have received interim payments. [9572]
  776W
  Mr. Wilson
  As at 14 October the Department has made 40,000 interim payments to respiratory disease claimants, and 40,000 to Vibration White Finger claimants. However, the Department is not able to quote these as a percentage of claimants as some claimants may have received more than one payment.

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress being made in processing miners' compensation claims. [9577]

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of the miners' health compensation scheme. [9586]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), on 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 997.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many retired coal miners in each of the last five years died before industrial illness compensation was paid to them. [8508]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The number of coal miners whose date of death is after their date of claim, and who have not received any compensation, including interim payments, for respiratory disease is broken down as follows:

  Number of claimants who have not received any compensation for respiratory disease

  1997

  209

  1998

  805

  1999

  1,377

  2000

  1,486

  2001

  1,255

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further action she is taking to promote renewable energy. [9571]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are about to introduce the Renewables Obligation which will provide a substantial long-term incentive to the renewable energy sector as a whole with the potential to create a market worth over £1 billion per annum by 2010. We are backing up our commitment to the Obligation with additional initiatives worth over £260 million over this and the next two financial years.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to ensure the future competitiveness of British manufacturing industry. [9573]

  Ms Hewitt
  The favourable macroeconomic framework the Government have established, together with our policies to foster productivity and help firms innovate and grow, are the best way to ensure the future competitiveness of the UK manufacturing sector.

  Glas Cymru
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the potential of Glas Cymru to be a model for social enterprise. [9574]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's Social Enterprise Unit, launched last month, will be examining a wide range of potential models for successful social enterprises.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance her Department is giving the textile sector. [9575]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department provides considerable financial and other assistance to the Textile and Clothing Industry. The focus for much of this assistance is the priorities identified by the industry itself in the report of the Textile and Clothing Strategy Group, "A National Strategy for the UK Textile and Clothing Industry", which was published in June 2000. Current priorities include support for the development of innovative technical textiles, the supply chain, the fashion industry, training and skills, e-commerce, and public procurement.

  Competitiveness (North-West)
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department has taken to support the regional economic competitiveness of the north-west after 11 September. [9579]

  Ms Hewitt
  The North West Development Agency is preparing a report assessing the impact of the events of 11 September and its aftermath on the economy of the region and identifying what needs to be done. The events underline the importance of existing programmes of advice and assistance, and the urgency of the review of the Department of Trade and Industry's business support activities that I initiated earlier this year.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have closed since April. [9580]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 986W.

  Small Business
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support she gives to small businesses. [9581]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government provide a wide range of help for small businesses, including support from the Small Business Service, which, through its national network of Business Link Operators provides information, advice, or access to experts on just about everything needed to start and run a business.

  Services include business planning, finance, regulation, marketing, exporting, employment issues, training and development, innovation, design and ICT and E-commerce.

  Broadband
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government have taken to expand broadband cabling at competitive rates in Wales. [9583]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are working to ensure that broadband services are available in all parts of the country. To this end we are developing a strategy together with all interested parties. The £30 million fund for regional development agencies and the devolved Administrations is focused on extending broadband networks to those who are not offered access by the market, including in rural areas. In Wales, the National Assembly is carrying forward its own work on broadband in rural areas with our support and assistance. The Assembly First Minister made an announcement on 24 October regarding, investment to speed roll-out in the public sector.

  In addition, we are examining the scope for aggregating public sector demand in order to speed up the roll-out of broadband services.

  Rural Post Offices
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for improving the rural post office network. [9584]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to providing transitional financial assistance to rural post offices and decisions on this will be taken following advice from the Postal Services Commission which is expected later in the autumn. In addition, implementation of the Performance and Innovation Unit recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Government, will help to modernise and sustain the whole post office network. We have made available a £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where traditional services would otherwise close.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional measures she plans to take to assist manufacturing industry. [9585]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's support for manufacturing is wide-ranging; from schemes to encourage innovation and collaboration with the science base, to work with specific sectors on targeted programmes to enhance their competitiveness, to exporting services and regional and local support. I am strengthening assistance to manufacturing industry through our increased support for the regional development agencies to raise innovation, enterprise and skills. We are taking forward our announced initiative to provide a manufacturing advisory service, based on provision of services on a regional basis. We are also introducing measures to help workers develop their skills and increase their prospects of finding new employment if they lose their jobs.

  Embedded Generation Working Group
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the function of the Embedded Generation Working Group is. [9562]
  779W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Embedded Generation Working Group provided advice about access for small generators to distribution networks. It made its final report in June.

  Ofgem is presently consulting on regulatory issues arising from the report. A Co-ordination Group is being established to ensure that the wider recommendations are addressed.

  Biological Weapon Production
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to ensure that pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom are not engaged in the production of biological weapons. [9576]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 923, the legislative measures that he intends to introduce in the very near future to counter international terrorism threats. The legislation will include clauses to cover the intention to use, produce, possess or participate in unauthorised transfers of chemical and biological as well as nuclear and radiological materials.

  Newspaper Distribution Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent representations she has received on restrictive agreements in the newspaper distribution industry; and if she will make a statement; [11767]

  (2) if she will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate possible restrictive agreements in the newspaper distribution industry; and if she will make a statement. [11885]

  Ms Hewitt
  Under UK competition legislation, the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour. The Director General has considered complaints about anti-competitive behaviour in the newspaper distribution industry but has so far taken the view that the industry is highly competitive overall. Representations received about restrictive agreements in the newspaper distribution industry have been passed to the Director General.

  Multinational Companies
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts regarding the mandatory use of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for multinational companies. [11151]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None. The Government support the voluntary nature of the OECD guidelines and are not aware of any plans by EU partners to make them mandatory.

  Trade Trends
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the trends are in the export and import of goods in the current year; and if she will make a statement. [9556]
  780W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The latest estimates of trend produced by the Office for National Statistics (based on data to August), show both the value of exports and imports falling in recent months. This follows record levels of trade in 2001 quarter 1.

  Energy Efficiency
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department took in recognition of Energy Efficiency Week. [11516]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 592W. My Department is fully committed to supporting energy efficiency, achieving an improvement of some 50 per cent. in energy efficiency at standard prices in 1997–98 compared with 1990–91. An energy audit is currently under way with a view to making further improvements.

  Registered Designs Regulations
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will propose an amendment to the law to provide a definition of "Royal Family" for the purposes of Section 1(1)(c) of Schedule Al of the Registered Designs Regulations 2001; [11883]

  (2) for what reason the Registered Design Regulations 2001 provide that registration of any representation or colourable imitation of any member of the Royal Family shall be refused registration under the Registered Designs Act 1949. [11936]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Registered Designs Regulations accord with the views taken by Parliament when concluding the Trade Marks Act 1994, which implemented equivalent provisions of another directive. In particular, this provision is exactly equivalent to section 4(1)(c) of that Act, which specifies a public interest exception to trade mark protection.

  There is no statutory definition of "Royal Family" provided by the 1994 Act or these Regulations. It is a matter for the courts to decide how far this public interest exception to protection extends.

  Electricity Trading
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make an announcement on the Government's response to Ofgem's reports, 'The New Electricity Trading Arrangements-Review of the First Three Months' and 'Report to the DTI on the Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators' of 31 August. [12614]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government believe that NETA has been a success in its own terms. The introduction of a more efficient regime into a more transparent, inclusive and efficient pricing system has meant that wholesale electricity prices are up to 25 per cent. lower than the artificially high prices that existed under the Pool arrangements. In addition, Ofgem's findings show rapid emergence of a strong and liquid forward curve—this will contribute to UK's longer-term security of energy supply by providing reliable longer-term price signals for investors to use in planning new generation.
  781W
  The Government recognise the issues faced by smaller generators under NETA. The Government remain strongly committed to renewable and combined heat and power generation. At the same time, we are committed to the regulatory framework set out in the Utilities Act 2000, the principles and structure of NETA, which has already delivered a good deal of real benefit to consumers, and promises to do so in future as well.

  The Government have reviewed and considered Ofgem's reports, as well as views put forward by industry, both in the course of Ofgem's review, and to DTI. In light of these, I have issued a consultation document today, seeking views on the issues raised by Ofgem's reports and specific proposals. The Government's key proposals are, broadly:
  ensuring imbalance prices are genuinely cost reflective—this will reduce the risk for everyone, but for smaller and unpredictable generators in particular; and
  ensuring that effective consolidation services emerge—this will reduce the risks for smaller generators further. The Government have proposed setting up a working group that will look urgently at obstacles to market driven consolidation, including the possibility of encouraging consolidation.
  The Government are also seeking views on other proposals put forward by industry.

  I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of the House.

  Employment Tribunals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of cases dismissed by employment tribunals on the grounds that they were scandalous, frivolous or vexatious in each of the past 10 years. [9728]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: It would not be possible to measure the number of cases dismissed by employment tribunals on the grounds that they were scandalous, frivolous or vexatious in each of the past 10 years.

  Such information is not available from the employment tribunals service database, which only records the outcome of each case and not the reasons for the outcome.

  However, survey evidence suggests that in 2000–01 there were between 2,600 and 5,200 tribunal cases where the applicant was advised against taking their case forward.

  Icelandic Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims under the Icelandic Trawlerman's Compensation Scheme have not been processed due to claimants sailing on Icelandic water vessels after 1979; and if she will make a statement. [10458]

  Ms Hewitt
  There were 1,115 claims on hold from trawlermen who continued fishing after 1979 on vessels that formerly fished in Icelandic waters. I have decided to amend the rules of the scheme so that such fishing no longer disqualifies men from receiving compensation.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) benefits and (b) costs to the construction industry are of the aggregates tax. [10645]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The environmental benefits of the aggregates levy will be more efficient use of virgin aggregate and a greater use of recycled alternative. This will reduce the environmental impacts of virgin aggregate extraction—such as damage to biodiversity and visual intrusion. In addition, all revenues raised will be recycled to business through a 0.1 percentage point cut in employers' national insurance contributions and a new £35 million sustainability fund aimed at delivering local environmental benefits to areas subject to the environmental costs of aggregates extraction.

  The levy will be charged at £1.60 per tonne on the commercial exploitation of virgin aggregates in the UK, including those imported from abroad. Aggregates exported from the UK will be exempt.

  A full regulatory impact assessment was published at the time of Budget 2000. The impact on the actual costs to the end user will be dependent on the commercial decisions of those in the supply chain.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the occasions on which guidance has been given to Railtrack by Ministers or statutory bodies at national level since May 1997, indicating in each case the body concerned. [8949]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator have not given formal guidance specifically to Railtrack.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he had meetings with the Chairman of Railtrack between 25 July and 5 October. [9834]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met John Robinson, the Chairman of Railtrack, on 25 July, on 27 July at the Rail Delivery Group and on 5 October. As agreed by the Secretary of State and Mr. Robinson, officials held a number of meetings with Railtrack and their advisers during this period.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the level of reserves the successor to Railtrack will require to support a BBB credit rating. [10437]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The appropriate level of reserves would be determined once the railway administrator has been able to assess Railtrack Plc's true financial position on the basis of a better understanding of its assets, liabilities and cost base.
  783W
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total amounts paid by Railtrack to(a) directors and (b) shareholders were in each year since privatisation. [10399]

  Mr. Jamieson
  (a) The Directors of Railtrack Group Plc received total remuneration of over £10.4 million for the period 1996–97 to 2000–01 inclusive. The annual breakdown is shown in the table.

  Directors' remuneration

  Year

  £000

  1996–97

  1,386

  1997–98

  2,167

  1998–99

  2,046

  1999–2000

  2,153

  2000–01

  2,669

  (b) Since its flotation on 20 May 1996, Railtrack Group Plc have paid over £700 million to shareholders in cash, or equivalent, dividends. The annual breakdown is shown in the table.

  Shareholder dividends

  Year

  £ million

  1996–971

  180

  1997–98

  121

  1998–99

  133

  1999–2000

  137

  2000–01

  138

  1 The 1996–97 payment includes £69 million of dividends relating to performance in 1995–96, when Railtrack was in the public sector, but not paid until after privatisation.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with(a) Moodys, (b) S & P, and (c) other credit rating agencies concerning Railtrack and its successor; and if he will make a statement. [11128]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials have met with credit rating agencies as part of their overall objective of ensuring that the rail network continues to receive sufficient funding to operate on a normal basis during the administration of Railtrack Plc and, separately, to develop further the Government's proposals for a Company Limited by Guarantee.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to seek parliamentary approval for a voted loan to Railtrack plc in administration. [11219]

  Mr. Spellar
  Parliamentary approval will be sought during the forthcoming Winter Supplementary estimates.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ensure the separation of the safety regulation from the ownership of the rail network following the creation of the successor to Railtrack. [10474]

  Mr. Spellar
  The regulator for railway safety is the Health and Safety Executive. There are no plans to change this.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings his Department has held with financial institutions since the Railtrack administration announcement. [10764]
  784W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have had meetings with their financial advisers, bondholders and with credit rating agencies to ensure that the rail network continues to receive sufficient funding to operate on a normal basis during the administration of Railtrack plc and, to discuss the Government's proposals for a Company Limited by a Guarantee.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions with which institutions holding Railtrack bonds his Department has held discussions since the administration order; and if he will make a statement. [10761]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials of my Department were present at meetings organised by representatives of bondholders. A number of institutions would have been present at these meetings.

  Rail Freight
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the most recent guidance he has given to the Strategic Rail Authority on the 10 year plan target for rail freight; and what the original target was. [10441]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A key target of the Government's 10-Year Plan is for rail to achieve a significant increase in its share of the freight market by 2010.

  In pursuance of this and other targets for the railway, the Secretary of State published on 13 July this year draft directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority. This requires the authority, among other things, to secure increases in capacity to accommodate the expected growth in freight traffic.

  Rail Infrastructure
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he informed the Strategic Rail Authority of his Department's discussions with(a) passenger rail franchisees and (b) train operating companies to take over responsibility for operating and maintaining railway infrastructure in the areas where they run train services. [9831]

  Mr. Spellar
  Officials have had meetings on such matters with train operators' representatives or their advisers at their request. These have not resulted in any changes in policy about which the Strategic Rail Authority needed to be informed.

  Rail Investment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the first special purpose vehicle for investment in the rail infrastructure will be in operation. [10438]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Plans exist for special purpose vehicles to be created to undertake works in connection with the replacement of the South West and South Central passenger franchises and the development of the East London Line. Other opportunities also exist but are generally less well advanced at present. It is not possible at this stage to be specific about timing which is a matter for commercial negotiation among the parties involved.

  Rail Safety (Vehicle Access)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what safety improvements have been suggested by Railtrack and the Highways Agency following the incidences of vehicles on the track at(a) Selby on 28 February, (b) Bletchley in Buckinghamshire on 24 August and (c) Wilsford in Lincolnshire on 30 August; what action has been taken as a result; and if he will make a statement on the funding of the improvements; [10904]

  (2) what arrangements exist between Railtrack and the Highways Agency to co-ordinate provisions to prevent road vehicles getting on to railway tracks; [10910]

  (3) if the vulnerability of the sites of the incidences of vehicles on the track at (a) Selby on 28 February, (b) Bletchley in Buckinghamshire on 24 August and (c) Wilsford in Lincolnshire on 30 August (i) had been identified by Railtrack prior to the accident and (ii) had been subjected to a risk assessment; [10905]

  (4) how (a) the Highways Agency and (b) Railtrack establish the vulnerability of locations from which vehicles might accidentally gain access to railway tracks; [10903]

  (5) if the vulnerability of the sites of the incidences of vehicles on the track at (a) Selby on 28 February, (b) Bletchley in Buckinghamshire on 24 August and (c) Wilsford in Lincolnshire on 30 August (i) had been identified by the Highways Agency prior to the accident and (ii) had been subjected to a risk assessment; [10906]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The assessment of roads is an operational matter for the relevant highway authority, in consultation with the relevant rail authorities if a road crosses a railway.

  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is the highway authority for the site at Great Heck, near Selby, where a vehicle left the road on 28 February 2001. I can confirm that the barrier provision at this site met all the relevant standards. On Monday 12 March this year the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), announced in a PQ that the Deputy Prime Minister had asked the Highways Agency to review its standards for nearside safety barriers. He also announced that the DPM has asked the Health and Safety Commission to convene a working group that will look at the circumstances of incidents where vehicles have blocked rail lines and whether there are features in common that might have been prevented. When I have the reports from the Highways Agency and from the Health and Safety Commission, I will be able to consider what action needs to be taken by those responsible for the road and the rail infrastructure.

  M5 (Junction 10)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to announce a decision on implementing two-way access to the M5 at junction 10; and if he will make a statement. [10982]
  786W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is proposing to carry out a route management strategy study on this part of the trunk road network, which will examine the role and performance of the M5 and include consideration of Junction 10 near Uckington in Gloucestershire.

  The study is expected to be commissioned around the turn of the year and will take approximately 12 months to complete.

  If the study concludes that alterations to the Junction are merited, the scheme would have to be adopted into the Highways Agency's programme, following consultation with, and a recommendation from the Regional Assembly. This is in line with procedures outlined in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 (PPG 11).

  Accordingly, it is not possible at this time to give a reliable prediction of when I may be able to make an announcement.

  Heathrow
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on Heathrow Terminal 5. [10402]

  Ms Keeble
  No decision has yet been taken on the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow. The applicants for planning permission and other interested parties will all be told of the decision in the usual way, and an oral statement will be made to inform Parliament.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the Government's decision on Terminal 5. [11428]

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the proposed building of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. [11473]

  Ms Keeble
  No decision has yet been taken on the proposed fifth Terminal at Heathrow. The Secretary of State will announce his decision once he has completed his full and careful consideration of all the issues. The applicants for planning permission and other interested parties will all be told of the decision in the usual way, and an oral statement will be made to inform Parliament.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the aviation industry regarding the safety of residents living under flight paths into Heathrow Airport. [11147]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The safety of residents living under flight paths into Heathrow Airport is best assured by the safety regulation of aircraft, operators and air traffic movements. The safety regulation of UK registered aircraft and operators and of air traffic control in UK airspace is the day-to-day responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The Authority has regular contacts with the aviation industry.

  In addition, following the attacks in New York and Washington, aviation security has been heightened at all UK airports. An urgent and thorough review of aviation security has also been undertaken, involving Government,

  787W
  the CAA and industry. This has looked at a wide range of measures aimed at enhancing aviation security and safety still further, for the benefit of both passengers and people on the ground.

  Pollution (Aircraft)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reduce environmental pollution from aeroplanes and aircraft fuels. [10559]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is continuing to work with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and other interested organisations, both national and international, on a range of measures to further improve the environmental performance of aircraft. This includes developing and introducing better technologies, adopting more optimal operating practices, and devising economic incentives to encourage the use of cleaner aircraft. The Department is also supporting national and international research aimed at reaching a better understanding of the environmental impact of aviation and of the effects of possible action to mitigate it.

  Stingray
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what targets have been set by the Government for cutting evasion of vehicle excise duty from the introduction of the Stingray system in(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the UK. [11234]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have set a target of 700,000 successful cases against evasion of vehicle excise duty for Great Britain in 2001–02. The mobile camera system will help to achieve this demanding target.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Stingray system is to be used throughout the country. [11236]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The national launch of the new mobile camera system took place in London on 11 October. The systems are now in use across the country.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated cost is of implementing the Stingray system in(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the UK. [11232]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The full cost of implementing the mobile camera system which will be used across the UK was around £2 million including the purchase of the equipment, staff and other costs. The units are mobile and will be displayed flexibly across the UK.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what savings he estimates will arise from the introduction of the Stingray system. [11230]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We estimate that the new mobile camera system will generate around £9 million per annum in additional revenue from enforcement action against evaders and from increased voluntary relicensing.
  788W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated cost is of the advertising campaign for the introduction of the Stingray system. [11229]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The cost of publicising the VED enforcement campaign, including the new mobile number plate readers, was £640,000 for the national launch in London on 11 October and £240,000 in Scotland on 23 October. A further £1 million will be spent on additional campaigns involving the new system for the remainder of the UK over the rest of the year.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to monitor the effectiveness of the Stingray system; and if he will make a statement. [11235]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The effectiveness of the new mobile camera system will be monitored by: the number of unlicensed vehicles captured by the system; the number of successful cases pursued against VED evaders captured by the system; the penalties, fines and revenue recovered from those evaders, and the deterrent effect measured by the additional revenue received from induced relicensing as a result of the publicity campaigns.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated running costs are for the Stingray system. [11231]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The estimated running costs for the 11 units of the mobile camera system is £1.2 million per annum.

  Airport Security
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of the £1.67 million allocated for research into methods for improving transport security has been specifically aimed at improving airport security in(a) Scotland and (b) the rest of the UK. [11424]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The benefits accruing from my Department's Research and Development programme for aviation security are equally available to all airports in the United Kingdom.

  Vehicles (Pedestrian Protection)
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what expert advice he has received on the conclusions of the German Federal Research Organisation BaST on the compatibility of the Phase One and EEVC tests on vehicles designed for greater pedestrian protection. [11108]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have had no specific advice. BaST recently highlighted the difficulty of designing for different headform sizes, particularly the 4.8kg and 3.5kg headforms. This is not a new issue, and it is one which industry would have been aware of when the negotiated agreement was originally prepared.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what
  789W
  expert advice he has received on the conclusions by the Dutch Ministry of Transport on the option by the EU for the draft negotiated agreement on vehicles designed for greater pedestrian protection. [11106]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have not received any specific expert advice on this, but we understand that the Dutch favour going to a Directive.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the draft negotiated agreement on vehicles designed for greater pedestrian protection will permit manufacturers to pass the EEVC tests instead of the Phase One industry tests. [11107]

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Northampton borough council1

  Revenue Support Grant (£ million)

  7.322

  8.080

  7.550

  7.249

  7.772

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates (£ million)

  6.021

  6.171

  6.674

  7.548

  7.359

  South Northamptonshire

  Housing Investment Programme (£000)

  625

  471

  538

  1,483

  22,135

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  Northampton

  Housing Investment Programme (£000)

  2,520

  1,959

  2,131

  6,720

  9,100

  Capital Receipts Initiative (£000)

  529

  1,590

  1,653

  n/a

  n/a

  South Northamptonshire

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy3 (£000)

  807.27

  —

  —

  —

  817.05

  Northampton

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy4(£000)

  765.55

  —

  —

  —

  797.38

  Northamptonshire county council allocations

  Transport Supplementary Grant (£ million)

  1.078

  0.886

  0.935

  —

  —

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline (£ million)

  1.078

  0.886

  0.935

  —

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval (£ million)

  1.300

  1.369

  2.236

  5.089

  11.866

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant from 1999–2000 (£ million)

  —

  —

  0.488

  0.051

  —

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant from 1998–99 (£ million)

  —

  0.697

  0.697

  0.697

  0.890

  1Northampton borough council 2001–02 settlement key figures

  Standard Spending Assessment (SSA)

  Total SSA—£20.6 million

  Increase over 2000–01—£0.615 million or 3.1 per cent. (average for class authority 4.6 per cent.)

  EPCS SSA—E20.108 million

  Increase over 2000–01—£0.503 million or 2.6 per cent (average for class of authority 4.5 per cent.)

  General grant

  Total grant—£.15.131 million

  Increase over 2000–01—£0.313 million or 2.1 per cent. (average for class of authority 3.9 per cent.)

  Council tax 2000–01

  Budget increase 3.4 per cent.—Band D council tax £145—Band D increase 5.9 per cent.

  2Includes MRA

  3Combined Management and Maintenance Allowance per dwelling 1.2 per cent. increase in cash terms but 8 per cent. in real terms.

  4Combined Management and Maintenance Allowance per dwelling 4.2 per cent. increase in cash terms but 5.4 per cent. in real terms.

  SRB Funding in Northamptonshire

  Year

  SRB Rd 1

  SRB Rd 5

  SRB Rd 6

  Total

  1997–98

  1,548,796

  —

  —

  1,549,045.63

  1998–99

  1,024,501

  —

  —

  1,549,045.63

  1999–2000

  1,783,938

  11,954

  —

  3,098,091.26

  2000–01

  1,485,000

  70,678

  14,925

  1,572,603.00

  2001–02

  942,812

  96,678

  134,700

  1,175,190.50

  SRB Round 1—Northampton Partnership—Target area—Northampton wards of Dallington and Kings Heath, Delapre, Southbridge, Castle and St. Crispin

  SRB Round 5—Northamptonshire Connecting Communities—Target Area—whole county

  SRB Round 6—Target Area—Northampton wards of Dallington and Kings Heath, Castle and St. Crispin
  790W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The negotiated agreement, as drafted, does not specifically cater for this. However, it would be illogical if, in practice, vehicles which met the full EEVC Phase Two requirements were not permitted under Phase One.

  Departmental Policies (Northampton, South)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Northampton, South constituency, the effects on Northampton of his Department's policies and action since May 1997. [11283]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is as follows:

  Rural Farm Building Grant

  2001–02: £82,431—Towcester

  The SRB funding represents the total SRB allocated during the financial year to a number of projects in the wards listed. The SRB Partnerships appraised and approved the vast majority of these projects. Therefore, East Midlands Development Agency does not have this information readily available. Moreover, as some of these projects operate in all wards and some in specific wards it is not practical to calculate how much funding has been allocated to individual wards.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the planning applications for housing development in Northampton on greenfield sites(a) which he has called in and (b) for which he has issued a holding direction since 7 March 2000, indicating (i) the location, (ii) number of houses and (iii) area of land involved. [11285]

  Hectares

  Location

  Number of houses

  Area of land

  (a) Cases called in since 7 March 2000

  Banbury Lane Phase IV, Northampton

  Approximately 175 dwellings

  6.8

  Land at Pineham North, Northampton

  400 dwellings (as part of mixed use development incorporating B1 business, B2 industrial, B8 storage and distribution open space, landscaping)

  68

  (b) Cases on which a Holding Direction was issued since 7 March 2000

  Banbury Lane Phase IV, Northampton

  Approximately 175 dwellings

  6.8

  Land at Pineham North, Northampton

  400 dwellings (as part of mixed use development incorporating B1 business, B2 industrial, B8 storage and distribution open space, landscaping)

  68

  St. Crispins Hospital, Northampton

  186 dwellings (plus some limited retail facilities)

  7.4

  St. Crispins Hospital, Northampton

  900 dwellings (plus 150 bedroom hotel, local retain and community facilities)

  72

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning decisions he has called in since 7 June; and when he will determine them. [11427]

  Ms Keeble
  Since 7 June 2001, 64 planning applications have been called in, of which four have subsequently been withdrawn by the applicants.

  Called-in planning applications are normally considered at a planning inquiry, following which a planning inspector reports to the Secretary of State. We have set targets for Government Offices for the Regions to issue 80 per cent. of decisions on called-in planning applications in 13 weeks and 100 per cent. in 20 weeks following receipt of the inspector's report.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the contracts awarded to(a) AEA Technology and (b) Amey Vectra Ltd. by his Department and its predecessor agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1999. [11017]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The following contracts have been awarded by my Department and its predecessor agencies since May 1999 to;

  (a) AEA Technology by:

  (i) Central Department:
  Management Support for the Safety & Health Business Plan;
  Beacon Council Round 2 Theme Research: Sustainable Development/Local; Environmental Quality—Maintaining a High Quality Local Environment;
  Contaminated Land Research Audit;
  National Cycling Strategy—For the Provision of Marketing and Promotional Activities;
  792W
  Ms Keeble
  The planning applications listed are those submitted for housing development in Northampton on greenfield sites which the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has called in or issued a holding direction, since 7 March 2000. Also indicated is the location of the development, the number of houses to be provided and the area of land involved.

  National Cycling Strategy—For services to promote the national Cycling Strategy;
  Promotion of National Cycling Strategy;
  School Travel Seminars 2000—Organisation of Workshops and regional seminars;
  Are you doing your bit—travel awareness campaign research;
  Provision of services to DETR/DEFRA;
  DETR/DEFRA contribution towards cost of EU SAVE project (55 per cent.);
  DETR/DEFRA contribution towards cost of EU SAVE project (20 per cent.);
  DETR/DEFRA contribution towards cost of EU SAVE project (9 per cent.);
  Provision of feasibility studies into environmental and marketing conditions (four contracts);
  Air Quality at UK Regional Airports;
  Local Air quality modelling for the South East and East of England Regional Air Service Study;
  Regional Air Services Part 3: Air Quality Modelling for Midlands & Scotland
  Professional Advice on Energy Matters;
  Cost Effectiveness of noise reduction measures: Phase 1;
  Ethanol emission testing;
  Greener fleet certification scheme;
  An in-service emissions test for spark ignition petrol;
  Evaluation of traffic modelling & appraisal research programme;
  In-Car particulate exposure;
  Greener fleet certification scheme (company car fleets);
  European particle measurement programme: Phase 1;
  Rail research strategy co-ordinator;
  Study of Air Quality at Airports (two contracts);
  Comparative Study of the environmental effects of rail & short haul air travel;
  Developed Countries Commitments to reduced/limit emissions of Greenhouse Gases during the period 2008 to 2012;

  793W
  Development & Implementation of a methodology to verify projected UK emissions of HydrofluoroCarbons, Perfluorocarbons & Sulphur Hexafluoride;
  Assess atmospheric Ozone Measurement at Lerwick and Camborne;
  Develop, maintain and archive the annual UK inventory of GHG emissions by sources and removals by sink;
  Organise & provide technical support for IPCC expert workshop on good practice for reporting GHG Inventory guideline;
  Carry out cost effectiveness analysis reduction Options for UK emissions of Methane and Nitrous Oxide;
  Preliminary study to assess the likely effects of the EU Landfill Directive and the Government's draft waste strategy on GHG emissions.

  (ii) Vehicle Inspectorate:
  Diesel Emission Research;
  Research Work on the Influence of On-board Diagnostic Fault on Vehicle emission.

  (iii) Maritime and Coastguard Agency:
  Ensure EUROSPILL was millennium compliant, update tidal data, display marine hazards;
  Chemical dispersal of oil—a route for rapid removal from the environment;
  Research project 473—Safety First Project;
  General Technical queries in areas where the Agency does not possess the expertise Testing whether oil dispersant is still usable;
  Administrating scheme and paying grants for scheme which supports merchant navy training.

  (b) Amey Vectra Ltd by

  (i) Maritime and Coastguard Agency:
  Undertake surveys of customers and staff when requested by MCA on a call off basis.

  (ii) Highways Agency:
  Engineering Services.
  Information on contracts let by non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  New Homes
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to require all new homes to be built equipped with(a) fire alarms and (b) sprinkler systems. [11406]

  Dr. Whitehead
  When the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations in Approved Document B were amended in 1992, provision was included for mains wired, interconnected smoke alarms to be provided in all new dwellings, resulting in new homes being provided with smoke alarms since 1992.

  Although there are currently no plans to revise the Building Regulations to include provisions for domestic sprinkler systems, we are keeping this under review in the light of emerging standards, and improvements in sprinkler technology. We have recently let two research contracts to look at the whole issue of residential and domestic sprinklers, including an assessment of their actual effectiveness and the undertaking of a Regulatory Impact Assessment to consider their costs and benefits. The results and conclusions of this work should be available around the end of 2003.
  794W
  We will need to await the findings of the research work referred to above, before we are in a position to consider more fully if the provision of residential sprinklers should be a requirement of the Building Regulations.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to require all new homes to be built as homes for life. [11405]

  Ms Keeble
  There is no intention currently to require all new homes to be built as homes for life in the sense of 'Lifetime Homes', as promoted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The need for more accessible homes is met by the general provisions of Building Regulations plus an assessment of specific local needs by each local authority.

  Since October 1999, Building Regulations have required key provisions to be made in all new homes which will enable disabled people to visit family and friends in their homes and enable occupants to cope better with reducing mobility and to 'stay-put' longer in their own homes. These provisions do not necessarily facilitate fully independent living for all disabled people as individual needs will vary considerably from case to case.

  In addition to the general provisions of Building Regulations, local authorities are required to collect information on their existing housing stock (both public and private sector) to inform their housing investment programme. Local house condition surveys are the best way of achieving this and the Department publishes good practice guidance 'Collecting, Managing and Using Housing Stock Information' DTLR 2000 to assist local authorities in undertaking such surveys. The content of surveys varies from survey to survey, depending upon the requirements for which it is being commissioned. Where information in relation to wheelchair access is required this can be specified as one of the aims of the survey.

  Planning policy guidance for housing (PPG3) requires local planning authorities to plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community, including those in need of special needs housing. PPG3 stresses that a community's need for a mix of housing types is a material planning consideration which should be taken into account in formulating development plan policies and in deciding planning applications involving housing. The Department supports this through good practice guidance. "Better Places to Live", published in conjunction with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, highlights the advantages of homes designed to adapt to the changing requirements of residents, particularly in terms of providing for reduced personal mobility.

  The Housing Corporation's Scheme Development Standards for all new build homes funded with Social Housing Grant already adopt the 'Lifetime Homes' criteria for both the external and internal environment in respect of user groups and visitors with limited mobility.

  Housing Development
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of housing development has been undertaken on brownfield land since the Government adopted the 60 per cent. target. [11403]
  795W
  Ms Keeble
  The national target is that by 2008, 60 per cent. of additional housing should be provided on previously developed land and through conversions of existing buildings. The latest information available from the Department's Land Use Change Statistics is that between 1998 and 2000, about 57 per cent. of new dwellings were built on previously developed land (including new dwellings provided from the conversion of existing buildings, which account for 3 percentage points). These statistics are unlikely to reflect yet the effect of our planning policy for housing set out in PPG3 because of the time lag between granting planning permissions, completing dwellings and recording changes in the field.

  Leicester Mayor
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects a referendum to be held regarding the election of a Mayor for Leicester. [11426]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Leicester City Council have proposed a Leader and Cabinet constitution, and hence have no plans for a referendum on the election of a Mayor. As we have made clear to the Council, during the two-month period beginning on 13 September when they sent their proposals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we will be considering whether or not their circumstances include those where we may direct a referendum.

  Overhead Powerlines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce a moratorium on the erection of overhead powerlines(a) in general and (b) near houses in rural areas. [11184]

  Ms Keeble
  We have no plans to introduce a moratorium on the erection of overhead power lines.

  Road Schemes (East Anglia)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment his Department has carried out of public opinion on(a) the building of a new motorway between the M25 and Chelmsford and (b) upgrading the A12 to a three lane route into East Anglia. [11772]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The London to Ipswich Multi-Modal Study is currently underway and is looking at the ways in which all modes of transport can help to solve the existing transport problems in the corridor between London and Ipswich. As part of the study, there will be public consultation on options in the spring of 2002 following which a preferred option will be recommended which will take into account the results of the public consultation as well as the results of other analyses.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recommendation by its advisory body regarding proposals for a new motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford. [11771]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The London to Ipswich Multi-Modal Study is currently underway and is looking at the ways in which all modes of transport can help to solve the existing 796W
  transport problems in the corridor between London and Ipswich. As the study is not programmed to finish until July 2002 no recommendations from the study have yet been received by the Secretary of State.

  Domestic Sprinkler Systems
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent estimate he has made of the value of domestic sprinkler systems in preventing deaths and injuries arising from domestic fires. [11146]

  Dr. Whitehead
  None. The issue was last looked at by the Community Fire Safety Task Force in their 1997 report, "Safe as Houses." The Task Force concluded that sprinklers did not represent a solution in the medium term and considered the cost of nation wide installation in all existing domestic dwellings as being prohibitive. Similarly, the Task Force did not see any evidence to suggest the UK public is ready to accept the mandatory installation of sprinklers in their homes. They also felt that any mandatory installation would pose significant enforcement difficulties and could infringe upon the rights of private householders.

  However, the Government recognise that domestic sprinklers have a role to play in promoting life safety, particularly for the most vulnerable; the Fire Safety Advisory Board will continue to assess their value in the light of emerging standards, and improvements in sprinkler technology. We have, therefore, recently commissioned research into the benefits of sprinklers in residential properties, including the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Assessment. The results and conclusions from this work should be available in a little over two years from now.

  Additionally, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, which we propose should replace the Housing Fitness Standard, includes guidance in respect of hazards from fire. Although not mandatory for houses of multiple occupation, sprinklers may well be recommended where the risk of fire is high.

  Aviation Industry
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's action to support the aviation industry and communities dependent on airports. [9582]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have moved quickly to underwrite, on a temporary basis, third party war risk insurance for airlines and service providers to the airline industry, an initiative which has been widely copied elsewhere. The meeting of European Transport Ministers on 16 October endorsed guidelines issued by the Commission on emergency aid measures, and we will take these guidelines into account in considering whether further aid should be paid to the British airline industry. The Employment Service is working closely with the aviation industry and all the strategic partners (regional development agencies, local authorities and the Learning and Skills Council) to assess the impact of any redundancy announcements, and to introduce appropriate measures.

  Community Transport Services (Fuel Duty Rebate)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish plans for extending fuel duty rebate to a wider range of community transport services; and what plans he has to include school bus transport within the rebate scheme. [11624]

  Ms Keeble
  Following consultation with relevant organisations in the spring, we will be bringing forward regulations later in this financial year on the introduction of fuel duty rebate (FDR) for a wide range of community transport services.

  As far as school transport is concerned, bus services specifically designed to convey only pupils to school are not eligible for rebate. However, services provided or secured by a local education authority are eligible providing that some seats on the vehicles concerned are normally available to the general public and are regularly used by them. There are a large number of school services that do receive FDR by virtue of the fact that they meet these eligibility criteria.

  Cycle Carriage (Railways)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if the level of cycle carriage on trains of a minimum of six cycles is specified in railway franchise agreements; and if they will be in future; [10907]

  (2) what measures are in place to ensure that the existing level of capacity for cycle carriage on trains is retained when rolling stock is refurbished or replaced; [10908]

  (3) what (a) guidance the Strategic Rail Authority has issued and (b) standards it has set for the provision of facilities for bicycles (i) on hoard new rolling stock and (ii) at stations; and if he will make a statement. [10909]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No specific guidance has been issued nor standards set with regard to the number of bicycles that are carried on trains or for the provision of facilities at stations. There are many different types of rolling stock in use on the network and the design of each largely dictates whether bicycles can be carried, and if so how many. Franchise agreements require train operators to carry bicycles on their services where it is practicable for them to do so, and subject to the availability of appropriate space. These arrangements will be maintained in future franchise agreements. The Strategic Rail Authority are obliged by their Directions and Guidance to discuss with train operators the provisions they are making for cycle carriage when ordering new stock. The Authority meet regularly with representatives from cycling organisations and has established a "flexible space" working group to look at how the interiors of rolling stock can be designed to make best use of available space for wheelchairs, pushchairs, bicycles or other bulky luggage.

  Affordable Housing (Key Workers)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to grant local authorities greater powers to specify quotas of affordable housing for key workers; and if he will make a statement. [10732]
  798W
  Ms Keeble
  Under the Starter Home Initiative we will be helping 10,000 key workers to buy their first homes over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04, mainly through shared ownership or equity loans. A further 1,200 key workers will be able to buy or rent homes under the Housing Corporation's programme of new affordable housing. We are also looking afresh at planning guidance as a means of providing more opportunities for key worker housing.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many children in local authority care were placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation alone in the last year, broken down by local authority. [9820]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not collected centrally. The Department does collect data about placements of looked-after children in a broader category consisting of lodgings, residential employment or living independently. This data category does not denote whether the young person is living alone or with other people.

  On 31 March 2001, 1,100 looked-after young people in England were reported to be placed in this broader accommodation category. This represents 2 per cent. of all children who were looked after on that date.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Chief Crown Prosecutors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many and what percentage of chief Crown prosecutors are(a) black, (b) Asian and (c) women. [11390]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Chief Crown Prosecution cadre comprises of 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors and five London-based Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutors, of whom 44 have provided details of their ethnic origin.

  The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Recording the Ethnicity of Staff, in its guidance on the use of ethnicity data, states that:
  "It is Civil Service policy that where there are fewer than five people from any ethnic group identified in summaries, exact numbers will not be published".
  The statistics are:

  (a) fewer than five (less than 11.4 per cent.) have declared that they are black;

  (b) fewer than five (less than 11.4 per cent.) have declared they are Asian; and

  (c) Eight (17.0 per cent.) are female

  2000–01—of 14 appointed, none was as a member of an ethnic minority.
  C panel
  There are 73 members, of whom 27 are women.
  1999—of 48 appointed, one identified themselves as Asian; one as from some other group or class.
  2000—of 11 appointed, one identified themselves as Asian.
  2001—of 21 appointed, none was a member of an ethnic minority

  799W
  Provincial Panel
  There are 155 members, of whom 16 are women.
  2000—of 56 appointed; one identified themselves as black; one as Asian.
  The Law Officers are committed to promoting diversity and equal opportunity with respect to membership of the panels and actively encourage woman and ethnic minorities to apply. Advertisements for all recruitment exercises appear in the specialist legal journals "Bar News" and "The Law Society's Gazette" and state that women and members of ethnic minorities are particularly encouraged to apply.

  Treasury Solicitors Panel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many members of the Treasury Solicitors Panel are(a) black, (b) Asian and (c) women. [11391]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General maintains three London panels for civil work, subdivided by seniority: A, for those with over 10 years' experience at the time of appointment; B, for those with between five and 10 years' experience at the time of appointment; and C, for those with between two and five years' experience at the time of appointment. The Attorney-General also maintains a Provincial Panel.

  No comprehensive data are held on the ethnic origin of all members of the panel. Since the introduction of a competitive appointments system in 1998 all applicants have been asked to complete an equal opportunities monitoring form which asks them to indicate their ethnic origin. Completion of the form is voluntary and in consequence the information given may not be entirely accurate. With regard to ethnic origin, I set out the results of the equal opportunity monitoring of the recruitment exercises since 1999.

  A panel
  There are currently 28 members, of whom four are women.
  1999—of 10 appointed, one identified themselves as black; one as Asian.
  2000—of 12 appointed, one identified themselves as Asian.
  B panel
  There are currently 77 members, of whom 18 are women.
  1999—of 23 appointed, two identified themselves as Asian.

  Bar Council Complaints Committee
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment she has made of the handling of complaints submitted to the Bar Council Complaints Committee; what redress she intends to put in place for those who believe their complaint has not been given fair consideration; and if she plans to introduce changes to the complaints framework in relation to the actions of(a) barristers and (b) solicitors. [11404]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The legal profession is self-regulating. The Bar Council's lay Complaints Commissioner deals with complaints about banisters. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) deals with complaints about solicitors. These complaints handling procedures are subject to independent scrutiny by the Legal Services Ombudsman. The ombudsman, who is a lay person, may consider
  800W
  complaints about the decision reached by the professional bodies, as well as concerns about the handling of a complaint and act accordingly. In the financial year 2000–01, the ombudsman was satisfied in 94 per cent. of referrals concerning complaints handling at the Bar, as opposed to a satisfaction rating of 57 per cent. for referrals concerning the OSS.

  The Lord Chancellor has reserve powers to appoint a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner (LSCC) if it appears to him that complaints about members of any professional body are not being handled effectively and efficiently. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to appoint an LSCC to oversee the Bar Council and is currently considering the position in respect of the OSS. His decision will be announced in due course.

TREASURY

  EC Prospectus Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact which the proposed EC Prospectus Directive will have on(a) the listing cost of small and medium size companies and (b) the availability of capital to growing businesses in the UK; [7734]

  (2) what discussions he has had with representatives of the Alternative Investment Market and other representatives of the UK financial services industry regarding the EC Prospectus Directive; [7741]

  (3) what measures he will take to reduce the impact of the EC Prospectus Directive on the Alternative Investment Market. [7740]

  Ruth Kelly
  An effective single passport for issuers was identified as a priority for completion of the single European market in financial services at the Lisbon Council in spring 2000. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the Prospectus Directive meets this goal; and that it meets the aim of reducing the cost of raising capital for EU companies, including SMEs and growing businesses.

  The Directive, as currently drafted, could lead to an increase in the disclosure costs of small and medium size companies (SMEs), and the cost of accessing capital by SMEs. However, negotiations are at an early stage, and there are a number of issues that are as yet unclear, such as its relationship with other existing directives, and the way that its provisions will be used.

  HM Treasury has actively sought the views of interested parties, and is engaging with industry practitioners (including representatives of the Alternative Investment Market) through round-table consultation meetings. HM Treasury officials and Ministers are in close touch with the European Commission, the Belgian presidency, the European Parliament, and other member states of this and other directives which affect the financial services industry.

  Company Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for
  801W
  Trade and Industry regarding the European Commission's proposals for a single consolidated company tax base announced in Brussels on 23 October. [11203]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's position is that tax harmonisation, including proposals for a consolidated company tax base, is not the way forward for Europe.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he supports the European Commission's plans for a consolidated EU company tax base announced in Brussels on 23 October. [11200]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax harmonisation, including proposals for a consolidated company tax base, is not the way forward for Europe. The Government will not support any action at European level that will threaten jobs or the competitive position of British business.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the need for further EU-level reforms of company taxation to achieve the economic goals established at the Lisbon European Council of March 2000. [11210]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's view is that company tax issues need to be considered in the context of the economic goals established at the Lisbon European Council and the business agenda agreed at the Stockholm European Council, which means reducing unfair state aids, acting against unfair tax competition, promoting R and D and innovation, a better, simpler regulatory environment and boosting skills.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the European Commission's proposals for the introduction of a consolidated company tax base across the EU would be introduced by qualified majority voting. [11201]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Decisions in this area are subject to unanimity. Tax harmonisation, including proposals for a consolidated company tax base, is not the way forward for Europe.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of the variation in effective company tax rates across the EU. [11208]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's view is that fair tax competition not tax harmonisation is the way forward for Europe. The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK remains an attractive location for business, with strong international links and high levels of both inward and outward investment.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a breakdown of the effective company tax burden in each EU state. [11209]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are a number of approaches that can be used to calculate effective company tax burdens. Information is contained in a variety of sources, including the OECD's publication "Revenue Statistics 1965–2000" and the Commission's Communication "Towards an internal market without tax obstacles: a strategy for providing companies with a consolidated corporate tax base for their EU-wide activities" (COM(2001)582), both of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Investment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecasts he has made on the level of investment into the UK over the next three years. [10658]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: Inward investment into the UK is a component of the balance of payments financial account, and only part of it contributes to UK gross domestic fixed capital formation. The Government do not produce forecasts for the components of the balance of payments financial account.

  Double Taxation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has held with European finance ministers regarding proposals for changes to EU-wide double taxation. [11202]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Double taxation treaties are a matter for member states not for the EU.

  Former Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding shareholding for employees in former nationalised industries. [9552]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Shareholdings held by employees of former nationalised industries are a matter for each individual company.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much the climate change levy will cost British industry in the first year of its operation. [9567]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy will raise an estimated £1 billion a year, all of which will be recycled back to business through cuts in the employers' rate of national insurance contributions and support for energy efficiency. While the levy is broadly revenue neutral across manufacturing and service sectors, its exact effect on any specific sector or industry will depend on a number of factors including: the future energy consumption of firms in the sector and employment levels in those firms; the number of energy intensive firms in that sector that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement; and what use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy exempt 'new' renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision is made for Railtrack in the 2000–01 Government budget. [11089]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  No provision was made for any direct payments from the UK Government to Railtrack in the financial year 2000–01.
  803W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revision he has made to his public expenditure provision for Railtrack in 2000–01, following the decision to put the company into administration. [11088]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have made no revisions to their public expenditure provisions for Railtrack for the financial year 2000–01.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the planned £30 billion public investment in the railway industry in the 10-Year-Plan is in the budget for the next three years; and how much of that amount is earmarked for Railtrack. [11409]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The 10-Year-Plan for Transport set out £14.7 billion of public investment expenditure for rail over the next 10 years, with the remainder of the public support total constituting revenue support.

  Of the public investment total, around £3.6 billion was for the first three years. The majority of this amount was earmarked for renewals network grants to Railtrack.

  Registered Designs Regulations
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason it was necessary to include the provisions of section 1(i)(c) of schedule Al of the Registered Designs Regulations 2001. [11846]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the question answered, on 1 November 2001, Official Report column 778W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  International Swimming Events
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what stadiums there are in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) London capable of holding international swimming events under the auspices of FINA; [11019]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the level of investment needed to upgrade United Kingdom (a) international athletics and (b) international swimming stadiums to international competition standards; and if she will make a statement. [11020]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: There are a number of athletics and swimming facilities across the United Kingdom that are used regularly for international athletics and swimming events which meet IAAF and FINA standards. The main athletics stadiums are: Crystal Palace in London, the Alexander Stadium in Birmingham, the Gateshead Stadium, the Don Valley Stadium in Sheffield, the Meadowbank Stadium in Edinburgh and the Scotstoun Stadium in Glasgow. The main swimming centres used for international 50 metre competition are the Ponds Forge Centre in Sheffield and the new Manchester Aquatics Centre.
  804W
  Sport England has set aside £21 million from the National Lottery to fund a regional high performance centre at Crystal Palace which will have improved facilities for athletics, boxing, swimming and tennis. The refurbishment will bring the existing 50 metre pool up to FINA standards.

  World Cup 2002
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to introduce a deregulation order to allow more flexible liquor licensing during the football World Cup Finals in 2002. [11552]

  Dr. Howells
  None. The statutory consultation and the periods for parliamentary scrutiny and approval set out in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 for making a regulatory reform order could not be completed by the time of the World Cup Finals next June. The hospitality and leisure industry has made no formal request to have licensing hours varied to allow them to serve alcohol during early morning games. As the games will be shown on BBC and ITV terrestrial television channels, the public demand to attend licensed premises to watch the games is now likely to be limited. However, licensed premises which do wish to open very early to sell alcohol during televised games can apply for special orders of exemption from the magistrates courts (and in London, from the Commissioners of Police for the City and the Metropolis) in respect of this special occasion, and under the terms of the Licensing Act 1964 it is for the magistrates, or the chief officers of police in London, to decide whether any additional hours should be permitted.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by her Department; if she will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans she has to sell further such assets over the period of the current comprehensive spending review; and if she will make a statement. [10843]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The Government Art Collection is the only collection of art for which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has direct responsibility. The collection at present comprises approximately 12,000 works of art. None of these has been sold over the last three years, nor are there any plans to do so. The Department holds no stocks of antiques or fine wines.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those regulatory impact assessments published during the latest six-month period. [12435]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish regulatory impact assessments for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business.
  805W
  I have presented to Parliament today a Command Paper listing regulatory impact assessments published between 1 January and 30 June 2001. Copies of those listed have been placed in the House Libraries. This is the fifteenth such Command Paper.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foxhunting
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Masters of Foxhounds Association about the restarting of foxhunting. [10005]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: Officials from this Department have met a number of organisations including the Masters of Foxhound Association regarding the possible relaxation of foot and mouth disease controls over foxhunting.

  Institute for Animal Health
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the places of origin of cattle tested in error during the recent work undertaken by the Institute for Animal Health; [10828]

  (2) if she will publish the results of the recent work undertaken by the Institute for Animal Health on cattle brains which were tested in error. [10829]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA has commissioned two independent audits to investigate the provenance of the samples used by the Institute of Animal Health. The reports of these audits will be published. Any publication of results from experiments will depend upon the findings of the audit teams.

  Arable Agrimoney
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from the First Minister for Scotland, about the payment of arable agrimoney; and if she will make a statement. [9710]

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from(a) the Scottish Executive and (b) the Scottish Rural Development Department on the matter of agrimonetary compensation; and what her response was. [9841]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been involved in discussion with Ministers from the devolved Administrations about the issue of agrimonetary compensation for the arable sector. In addition, Ross Finnie, the Scottish Executive Minister for Environment and Rural Development has written to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, Lord Whiny, on this subject.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the 806W
  Government have made of the Council for the Protection of Rural England's report on the handling of the foot and mouth crisis. [7767]

  Alun Michael
  The council for the Protection of Rural England's report "The Strategic Lessons of the foot-and-mouth outbreak" contains much which accords with the recommendations in the reports from the rural task force, which I chair, and from my noble Friend Lord Haskins on the impact of foot and mouth disease on the wider rural economy. Both reports were published on 18 October. We are currently considering their recommendations and will respond shortly, taking the views expressed in the CPRE report fully into account.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the independent inquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak will make recommendations. [9070]

  Mr. Morley
  The Royal Society Inquiry into Infectious Diseases in Livestock has been asked to make recommendations by summer 2002. Dr. lain Anderson's "Lessons Learned" Inquiry had been asked to make recommendations six months after it has officially started.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the outcome of the Quinquennial and Better Quality Services Reviews of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. [12517]

  Mr. Morley
  After having undertaken both a consultation exercise and detailed reviews of the functions, form and performance of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate over the past five years, I have concluded that they should remain an Executive Agency for another term. The reviews established that the retention of agency status would be the most appropriate means of delivering high quality and cost-effective services over the next five years.

  The Better Quality Services stage of the reviews has specifically identified measures to ensure continuous improvement in VMD's quality of service and cost effectiveness.

SCOTLAND

  Prestwick Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with representatives from the National Air Traffic Services about the effects of the downturn in air travel on the development of the Prestwick Air Traffic Control Centre; and if she will make a statement. [10243]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My officials are in regular contact with representatives from the National Air Traffic Services (NATS), and with officials from DTLR, about matters relating to the Prestwick Air Traffic Control Centre.

  The Government and NATS both remain committed to the new centre in Prestwick.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Boundary Commission for Scotland will release its initial report. [10664]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a matter for the Boundary Commission for Scotland.

PRIME MINISTER

  Standards in Public Life
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [12434]

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life with effect from 15 October. He is the member nominated by the Labour party and takes the place of Lord Shore of Stepney who sadly passed away over the summer.

  Special Advisers
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister on what criteria salaries of particular special advisers are decided. [11618]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 467W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the reasons for the decision of the prison service in Northern Ireland to withdraw the royal prefix from letter headings of H.M. Prison Maghaberry. [9872]

  Jane Kennedy
  There has been no change in policy in regard to the naming of prison establishments. Establishments can and have been referred to officially both as HMP and by name only.

  The inclusion or exclusion of the royal prefix is at the discretion of the governing Governor of each establishment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Congo
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the export of a water purification unit to Uruguay for ultimate end-use in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [12316]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Following consultations with this Department and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry issued an export licence for a water 808W
  purification unit to Uruguay for the Uruguayan armed forces. The equipment will be used by the Uruguayan army in the DRC where they are part of the United Nations operation. The equipment will provide the Uruguayans with sufficient clean water for their troops operating in the DRC. As part of the United Nations Mission in Congo, these troops, along with other UN agencies and NGOs, will play a role in facilitating humanitarian assistance to the Congolese people. This decision is consistent with and does not affect the Government's continued support for the EU declaration of 7 April 1993 on arms exports to the DRC.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to(a) the Rwandan Government and (b) the Ugandan Government concerning their involvement in the war in the Congo. [11148]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In recent months my noble Friend Baroness Amos and the Secretary of State for International Development have spoken personally to the Presidents of both countries about their involvement in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. They stressed the need for a peaceful end to the conflict in compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions. We will continue to do so at every opportunity.

  EU Business
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for November and (b) major European Union events for the period 31 December to April 2002. [12433]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows:

  November

  Venue

  Event

  5

  Brussels

  Cultural and Audio-visual Council

  6

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  8

  Brussels

  Development and Co-operation Council

  12

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  15

  Brussels

  Health Council

  16

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  21–22

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  26

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  27

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  29

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  No agendas are available yet

  The following are the principal events in the EU between 1 December and April 2002 (certain relevant events are also included the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).

  Month

  Venue

  Event

  December

  3

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  4

  Bruges

  Culture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  4

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  4

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  4

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecommunications Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  809W

  Month

  Venue

  Event

  10–11

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  Research Council

  12–13

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  14–15

  Laeken

  European Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  January

  8

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  10

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  11

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  17

  Brussels

  Budget Council (Evening)

  18

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  21–22

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  21

  Brussels

  Eurogroup (Evening)

  21

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee (Political Director) Spain

  22

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  January

  25

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  25–26

  Brussels

  Meeting of Employment Ministers (Ministerial Informal)

  28–29

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  30

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  February

  1

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  7

  Budapest

  Political Directors Seminar

  9–10

  Brussels

  Gymnich (Ministerial Informal)

  11

  Brussels

  Eurogroup (Evening)

  12

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  14

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Ministerial Informal)

  18–19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  20

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  Telecoms and Information Society Council (Ministerial Informal)

  26

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  March

  1

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Evening)

  1

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  1

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  4

  Brussels

  Eurogroup (Evening)

  5

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  5

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  7

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  8

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  11

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  12

  Brussels

  Political and Social Affairs Committee

  15–16

  Barcelona

  European Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  21

  Brussels

  Environment

  22

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  23–24

  Brussels

  Defence Meeting (Ministerial Informal)

  25–26

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecom Council

  26

  Brussels

  Political and Security Committee

  April

  5–6

  Luxembourg

  Migrations Council (ASEM Ministerial Informal)

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  9

  Luxembourg

  Political and Security Committee

  12

  Luxembourg

  Political and Security Committee

  13–14

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN (Ministerial Informal)

  15–16

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  Political and Security Committee (EV)

  19

  Luxembourg

  Political and Security Committee

  22–23

  Valencia

  Euromed Conference

  22–23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  810W

  Month

  Venue

  Event

  25–26

  Luxembourg

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  26

  Luxembourg

  Political and Security Committee

  27–30

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  30

  Luxembourg

  Political and Security Committee

  Pakistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent killings of Christians in Pakistan. [11788]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We condemn the attack on a church in Punjab on 28 October in which 18 people were killed. We welcome General Musharraf's assurances that the perpetrators of this heinous act will be brought to justice.

  Our thoughts are with the victims and their families and with all those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Pakistani Government with regard to human rights abuses against Christians. [11789]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We take the issue of religious freedom in Pakistan very seriously. We continue to raise the position of religious minorities in general and a number of individual cases with the Pakistani authorities, both bilaterally and in concert with our EU partners.

  We will continue to take every appropriate opportunity to ask the Pakistani authorities to ensure that the rights of all religious minorities in Pakistan, including Christians, are respected under the constitution.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan regarding the bombing of Bahr al Ghazal in southern Sudan. [11155]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are deeply concerned at these further reports of civilian casualties. In June the Government of Sudan made a public statement announcing that they had brought a halt to aerial bombings. Shortly afterwards, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) launched a major offensive in Bahr al Ghazal, and the Government of Sudan in turn resumed aerial bombings. We immediately prompted an EU statement expressing our concern at the renewed military activity by the SPLA, and at the Government of Sudan's resumption of aerial bombings. We urged both sides to immediately stop hostilities in order to create an environment conducive to negotiations and to engage in a continuous and sustained negotiation towards a just and lasting political settlement.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet John Garang, leader of the SPLA in Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [11157]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have invited Dr. John Garang to visit London. Until he is able to visit London, we shall continue to keep in contact with him and the SPLM/A through our Embassy in Khartoum and our High Commission in Nairobi. The pursuit of peace in Sudan
  811W
  remains the focus of our activity and, in doing so, we believe that it is important to engage with all parties to the conflict.

  Diamond Trade
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the establishment of a global certification scheme for rough diamonds. [11149]

  Peter Hain
  Government, industry and NGO representatives in the Kimberley Process are currently meeting in Angola to refine proposals for the establishment of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. At the last meeting (Twickenham, 11 to 13 September) members agreed in principle on key elements for the scheme. We hope to build on this agreement in Angola, and forge a consensus in time for the ministerial meeting in Botswana scheduled for the end of November. The proposal will go forward to the UN General Assembly before the end of the year. The UK is continuing its key role in the Process and remains committed to the goal of curbing the flow of conflict diamonds.

  North Africa
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the(a) Sudanese IGAD peace process and (b) Egypt-Libya initiative. [11156]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have been disappointed with progress made by the Inter-governmental Authority Development (IGAD) initiative. At the time of the last IGAD summit in Nairobi on 2 June, the Sudan People's Liberation Army launched a major offensive in southern Sudan. Accordingly, neither party was willing to show flexibility on a ceasefire or the negotiations. We were encouraged, however, with the agreement by both parties to appoint permanent negotiating teams. These teams have now been established and should allow for more sustained and accelerated negotiations to take place. We are currently looking at further ways to invigorate the peace process. The sponsors of the Egyptian-Libyan initiative have submitted to the parties a plan for negotiating a peace settlement. As far as we are aware there has not yet been a round table discussion attended by all sides to deliberate the plan.

  UN World Conference Against Racism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial contribution he made to the preparation and running of the UN World Conference against Racism; and if he will rank the UK contribution against that of other UN member states(a) according to size of contribution and (b) according to proportion of GNP. [10463]

  Peter Hain
  The total contribution made by the Government to the holding of the UN World Conference against Racism was £485,000. This contribution included financial and practical support to the Conference 812W
  Secretariat (the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights); to the South African NGO SANGOCO co-ordinating the holding of the Conference NGO Forum; and to other relevant bodies to encourage the widest possible participation on the Conference and its preparatory meeting by civil society.

  There are no data available on total contributions made by other UN member states to the World Conference process. Therefore it has not been possible to draw any direct comparisons. In terms of financial contributions to the Conference Secretariat tie excluding practical support to the Secretariat and funding for non-Secretariat activities), the UK contribution of £100,000 was the 12th largest received from a UN member state. In addition, the European Union contributed US $2,613,859 to the Secretariat in support of the preparation and running of the conference.

  Biological Weapons Protocol
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the draft text of the biological weapons protocol; and if he will make a statement. [10779]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a brief discussion on the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) with the US Secretary of State, in Washington, on 24 October. The United States has not changed its position since it announced its decision, on 25 July, in Geneva, that it could not support the draft protocol and that it could not be made acceptable by further amendment. The United States has, however, made it clear that it remains committed to strengthening the BWC. The United Kingdom is continuing to work with states parties to ensure that multilateral negotiations resume at an early stage, following the 5th Review Conference in Geneva (19 November to 7 December). The United Kingdom remains committed to strengthening the convention by means of effective investigation and enforcement.

  Egypt
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he is offering to schools who have arranged visits for pupils to Egypt and neighbouring countries. [10977]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) provides travel advice, which is broad based and applies to all travellers, on the basis of the information we receive from our staff on the ground. The advice is kept under constant review. The advice is practical and up to date. It presents the facts to allow travellers to make their own decisions about travel. We are not currently advising against travel to Egypt and neighbouring countries.

  Following the terrorist attacks in the US and subsequent military action in Afghanistan, we have been alerting British nationals that there may be heightened tension overseas. We are consequently advising all travellers to

  813W
  maintain a high level of vigilance and avoid situations where there might be tension. However, apart from the countries in our "don't go" list, we are not currently aware of specific threat to British nationals.

  FCO travel advice is available on the FCO's website www.fco.gov.uk and by telephone on 020 7008 0232/0233, by fax on 020 7008 0155/0164 or on written request to our Travel Advice Unit.

  European Single Sky Agreement
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of excluding Gibraltar from the European single sky agreement. [10976]

  Peter Hain
  We consider that the commission's proposed Single Sky package offers the best way of reducing delays and improving safety, and is essential for improving the use and management of EU airspace. Spain insisted that Gibraltar airport be suspended from the scope of application of the Single Sky legislative measures. Given the importance which the UK attaches to the initiative, we reluctantly agreed that clauses suspending the application of the measure to Gibraltar airport will be inserted when the proposal is considered by the Council.

  Suspending Gibraltar airport in this way from the Commission's proposed measures will have no practical impact on the operation of Gibraltar airport, since the focus of the Commission's proposal is on the organisation and use of the upper airspace and on the management of Europe's air traffic service providers.

  We made clear to both Spain and the Commission that our agreement on Single Sky was conditional upon the Commission itself bringing forward a proposal which did not contain the suspension clauses, and on a Council and Commission minutes statement, making clear that suspension does not in any way prejudice the application of the EC Treaty to Gibraltar. Our agreement was also without prejudice to Council discussion of future aviation proposals.

  We have agreed a similar formula with regard to the Commission's proposal for a Regulation on aviation security. The Spanish Government made clear that they would not agree to the measure unless Gibraltar airport was suspended. Given the crucial importance of this measure for the EU's wider counter-terrorism agenda, we were not prepared to see progress delayed. Again, we are confident that suspension will have no practical impact on the operation of Gibraltar airport. The main purpose of the proposal is to require member states to enforce ECAC standards of security. We, and the Government of Gibraltar, can still ensure, through separate measures, that Gibraltar airport is subject to at least as high a degree of monitoring and control as other Community airports, without a requirement to do so in Community law.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sierra Leone. [10750]
  814W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government's strategy towards Sierra Leone was set out in the Foreign Secretary's statement to the House on 6 June 2000. That strategy remains valid. Our objective is to ensure that the people of Sierra Leone are offered a realistic prospect of peace and stability.

  Since the intervention of UK forces in May 2000 we have made good progress in helping the Government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations restore peace. There has been an effective ceasefire in place since May 2001. Some 20,000 combatants have now entered the disarmament process. The Revolutionary United Front has committed itself to a political agenda. Training by UK forces has transformed the Sierra Leone Army into a more effective and accountable force, but a significant challenge remains. We are now working hard with the United Nations and international partners to consolidate the peace, prepare the ground for free and fair elections in May 2002, and mobilise resources to rehabilitate Sierra Leone's shattered communities, institutions and economy.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans have been made by(a) his Department and (b) institutions involved in the preparations for Holocaust Memorial Day 2002. [11277]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 851W.

HEALTH

  Care Home Standards
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will(a) list the groups consulted on the drafting of care home standards; (b) publish the representations he received from those consulted, (c) indicate where these documents will be published; and if he will make a statement. [7992]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department received 1,250 responses on "Fit for the future". A summary of these was placed on the website when the National Minimum Standards for Older People was published in March 2001. The Department has received 500 responses to the younger adult and adult placement standards and a summary of these findings will be made available in due course.

  Winter Pressures
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources he plans to provide to(a) Worcestershire county council and (b) Worcestershire health authority to relieve winter pressures and to enable patients to be transferred from hospitals to more appropriate care; and if he will make a statement. [8039]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 9 October we announced a £300 million 'cash for change' initiative to tackle delayed transfers. This programme of investment and reform will
  815W
  help to free up beds in hospitals, reduce waiting times for treatment and ensure patients, particularly older people, are cared for in the most appropriate place. The resources will be used to purchase residential and nursing care, intensive home care and intermediate care from local providers.

  Worcestershire county council is due to receive an allocation of £713,000 from the £100 million being allocated this year and Worcestershire health authority received an extra £382,000 in April to help it prepare for winter pressures.

  Hospital Beds (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the number of beds inappropriately occupied in(a) acute hospitals and (b) community hospitals in Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement. [8038]

  Jacqui Smith
  As at week ending 7 October 2001 it has been reported that the number of delayed transfers of care patients occupying national health service beds in the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust was 74, and 19 in the Worcestershire Community and Mental Health NHS Trust.

  Worcestershire social services and the local health economy are working collaboratively to address existing needs. Worcestershire county council is due to receive an allocation of £713,000 from our 'cash for change' initiative. Worcestershire health authority also received an extra £382,000 in April to help it prepare for winter pressures.

  Table 1: Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2001: Vacancies in NHS trusts by region—three month vacancy rates1,2

  Percentage

  England3

  Northern & Yorkshire

  Trent

  West Midlands

  North West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  Specific consultant specialties4

  Forensic psychiatry

  5.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  18.2

  0.0

  8.5

  7.7

  5—

  General psychiatry

  7.8

  8.2

  4.0

  11.0

  12.2

  5.8

  7.5

  10.2

  1.3

  Learning disabilities

  13.3

  13.5

  26.3

  8.3

  21.7

  10.3

  12.2

  11.1

  6.7

  Old age psychiatry

  9.3

  10.0

  11.4

  7.9

  14.6

  16.1

  2.3

  8.5

  0.0

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Community learning disabilities

  1.7

  0.2

  0.0

  2.5

  0.2

  0.0

  3.2

  4.6

  1.4

  Other learning disabilities

  3.4

  4.7

  1.3

  4.2

  0.8

  1.0

  6.2

  5.0

  5.1

  Community psychiatry

  2.6

  1.1

  1.1

  1.2

  1.7

  0.2

  7.9

  3.6

  0.3

  Other psychiatry

  3.9

  3.8

  1.6

  2.1

  2.0

  1.9

  7.3

  6.1

  2.3

  Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff

  Clinical psychology

  4.3

  5.5

  1.6

  3.2

  2.3

  3.9

  6.5

  4.1

  2.5

  Psychotherapy

  2.0

  5.6

  3.4

  5.0

  1.8

  0.0

  1.7

  2.7

  0.0

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents)

  2 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental and non-medical work force censuses (whole-time equivalent)

  3 England percentages include staff from Special health authorities.

  4 There are two other specialties (Child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy) that were not separately identified in the vacancy survey and are therefore not included here, but are in the total consultant figures.

  5 Figures based on less than 10 staff in post.

  Note:

  Percentages rounded to one decimal place

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001

  Pharmacies (NHSnet)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to connect pharmacies to NHSnet. [8525]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our information strategy for the modern national health service 1998–2005—"Information for Health", published September 1998 stated that by the end of 2001 a project will be established to explore ways of using the NHSnet to link all computerised general practitioner practices to local community pharmacies. Both of these groups would link to the Prescription Pricing Authority. "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan", published in September 2000 pledged that electronic transfer of prescriptions would be introduced in the community by 2004.

  The Department is working with the commercial sector to establish pilots to test the feasibility, benefits and costs of e-prescribing across the NHSnet. Good progress has been made since my noble Friend the Lord Hunt of Kings Health announced on 29 March 2001 the approval of three pilots to test the benefits, costs and risks of electronic transmission of prescriptions.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff vacancies there are in the mental health sector of the NHS(a) nationally and (b) in each region. [10527]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the tables. Staff working in the Mental Health Sector are collected for the following disciplines:
  817W

  Table 2: Vacancies in NHS trusts by region: three month vacancy rates1

  Whole-time equivalents

  England2

  Northern & Yorkshire

  Trent

  West Midlands

  North West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  Specific consultant specialties3

  Forensic psychiatry

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  General psychiatry

  130

  20

  10

  20

  30

  10

  30

  30

  0

  Learning disabilities

  30

  10

  10

  0

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Old age psychiatry

  30

  10

  0

  0

  10

  10

  0

  10

  0

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Community learning disabilities

  60

  0

  0

  110

  0

  0

  10

  30

  0

  Other learning disabilities

  180

  40

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  50

  20

  Community psychiatry

  280

  20

  10

  10

  20

  0

  150

  60

  0

  Other psychiatry

  1,040

  130

  40

  60

  80

  50

  380

  220

  50

  Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff

  Clinical psychology

  190

  30

  10

  20

  10

  10

  70

  30

  10

  Psychotherapy

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole-time equivalents)

  2 England totals include staff from Special health authorities

  3 There are two other specialties (Child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy) that were not separately identified in the vacancy survey and are therefore not included here, but are in the total consultant figures

  4 Figures based on less than 10 staff in post

  Notes:

  Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10

  Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding

  Source:

  Departmental of Health Vacancies Survey 2001

  Table 3: Department of Health workforce census: staff in post in NHS trusts by region

  Whole-time equivalents

  England1

  Northern & Yorkshire

  Trent

  West Midlands

  North West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  Specific consultant specialties2

  Forensic psychiatry

  150

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  40

  10

  0

  General psychiatry

  1,490

  170

  140

  130

  180

  110

  380

  230

  150

  Learning disabilities

  170

  30

  10

  20

  20

  30

  20

  20

  10

  Old age psychiatry

  300

  60

  30

  30

  40

  30

  40

  50

  20

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Community learning disabilities

  3,340

  430

  250

  590

  490

  510

  310

  630

  140

  Other learning disabilities

  5,060

  810

  660

  510

  760

  610

  220

  1,010

  470

  Community psychiatry

  10,190

  1,320

  1,000

  1,180

  1,230

  980

  1,730

  1,720

  1,030

  Other psychiatry

  25,610

  3,280

  2,520

  2,510

  3,690

  2,220

  4,490

  3,360

  2,240

  Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff

  Clinical psychology

  4,050

  510

  310

  500

  490

  270

  920

  600

  390

  Psychotherapy

  410

  20

  30

  20

  30

  30

  200

  50

  30

  1 England totals include staff from special health authorities

  2 There are two other specialities (Child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy) that were not separately identified

  Notes:

  1. Whole-time equivalents are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Totals may not equal sum of component parts due to rounding

  3. Rates percentages can not be calculated from these figures

  Sources:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census 2000

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census 2000

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women-only mental health day centres(a) have been established and (b) are planned to be established (i) in the current financial year, (ii) in 2002–03 and (iii) in 2003–04. [11529]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: A target has been set to ensure that women-only mental health day centres are in place in every health authority by 2004. Currently the Department knows of 88 women-only community day centres and services being run by the
  818W
  voluntary sector and supported, in part, by statutory sector funding. A considerable amount of development work is under way to further strengthen the delivery of high quality mental health services for women including the production of a national women's mental health strategy in 2002. The strategy document will describe the service specification for the provision of women-only mental health day centres and services, against which we will measure progress to ensure that this target is achieved by 2004.
  819W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the work of the Anam Cara mental health crisis house in Birmingham; and if he will make a statement on the efficacy of such alternatives to hospital care. [11532]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The full report on the evaluation of services at the Anam Cara mental health crisis house is not due to be published until the new year. However, I understand that initial reports are very favourable.

  For many people crisis houses such as Anam Cara can provide an appropriate alternative to hospital and help to meet the particular needs of women and of ethnic minority communities, especially where additional support can be provided. They can complement the 335 crisis resolution teams that we will be developing across the country over the next three years as we deliver the mental health commitments we set out in the NHS plan.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out of area crisis mental health admissions which are not clinically indicated have taken place in each month of 2001 to date. [11528]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what local reviews of mental health services(a) have so far taken place and (b) are proposed in the current financial year. [11526]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The Department has co-ordinated two reviews of mental health services since the publication of the mental health National Service Framework in 1999. They have been co-ordinated through the local implementation teams (LITs).

  In this financial year, the Department announced via the "Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide" that LITs should co-ordinate a comprehensive review of mental health services as part of the planning process required for implementation of the NHS Plan targets and mental health NSF targets. This process was aligned with the local modernisation reviews, which health authorities were required to co-ordinate as part of the implementation of all NHS Plan targets.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2001,Official

  Percentage of patients on in-patient waiting list over 12 months

  Percentage of patients waiting over 12 months

  Health authorities ranked alphabetically:

  August 2001

  March 1997

  June 1997

  Avon

  6.5

  3.9

  7.1

  Barking and Havering

  6.1

  3.3

  4.0

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  6.9

  n/a

  n/a

  Barnsley

  0.4

  2.3

  2.1

  Bedfordshire

  7.0

  1.3

  2.6

  Berkshire

  3.7

  2.6

  3.7

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  5.8

  n/a

  n/a

  Birmingham

  2.0

  0.1

  0.3

  Bradford

  0.8

  0.3

  5.0

  Brent and Harrow

  6.0

  4.5

  6.3

  Buckinghamshire

  5.6

  4.0

  4.9

  820W
  Report, column 28W, on continuing care, if he will set out for each of the last five years (a) the total number of people in each year newly meeting the eligibility criteria for continuing NHS health care and (b) the total number of people meeting the eligibility criteria. [11051]

  Jacqui Smith
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if health authorities are required to comply with the judgment of Coughlan v. North Devon health authority before coming to a decision on eligibility criteria for continuing care. [10739]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: We issued interim guidance on 11 August 1999 (Health Service Circular 1999/180: Local Authority Circular (99)30). This requires health and local authorities, in consultation with each other and, where appropriate, involving primary care groups, to satisfy themselves that their continuing and community care policies and eligibility criteria and other relevant procedures are in line with the Court of Appeal judgment on the Coughlan case and to take further legal advice where necessary.

  Revised continuing care guidance was issued on 28 June 2001 (HSC 2001/015:LAC (2001)18) which consolidated guidance on continuing national health service health care in light of the judgment.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements health authorities are required to put in place for the provision of independent advice for patients in NHS beds when they are asked to sign forms about continuing care. [10738]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: We have already begun to establish patient advocacy and liaison services—to be operating in every national health service trust from April 2002—to provide information to patients, their families and carers when they use health services, to provide support when services do not meet user's needs and where possible to sort out problems efficiently and quickly.

  In-patient Lists
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in(a) rank and (b) alphabetical order of health authority, the proportion of patients waiting a year or more for in-patient treatment (i) at the latest available date and (ii) in April 1997. [11095]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  821W

  Percentage of patients on in-patient waiting list over 12 months

  Percentage of patients waiting over 12 months

  Health authorities ranked alphabetically:

  August 2001

  March 1997

  June 1997

  Bury and Rochdale

  3.2

  1.8

  1.6

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0.8

  0.3

  1.2

  Cambridgeshire

  4.2

  n/a

  n/a

  Camden and Islington

  4.4

  1.3

  2.5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5.1

  0.8

  1.6

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.9

  0.0

  0.5

  Coventry

  2.7

  0.0

  0.2

  Croydon

  9.6

  4.1

  3.4

  Doncaster

  0.3

  1.0

  0.8

  Dorset

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Dudley

  2.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  5.2

  8.1

  9.9

  East Kent

  6.9

  0.5

  0.3

  East Lancashire

  1.6

  0.4

  0.8

  East London and City

  4.7

  4.3

  4.9

  East Riding and Hull

  3.5

  0.7

  3.7

  East Surrey

  8.7

  2.3

  4.1

  East Sussex, Bright and Hove

  6.4

  2.3

  3.2

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  0.5

  0.4

  1.5

  Gloucestershire

  1.6

  0.1

  0.5

  Herefordshire

  3.7

  1.4

  2.7

  Hertfordshire

  6.1

  n/a

  n/a

  Hillingdon

  5.8

  4.6

  5.9

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6.3

  n/a

  n/a

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1.8

  1.4

  2.6

  Kingston and Richmond

  6.1

  4.1

  5.4

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  8.5

  7.6

  11.4

  Leeds

  3.0

  0.5

  1.7

  Leicestershire

  2.6

  0.4

  2.2

  Lincolnshire

  4.3

  8.3

  8.7

  Liverpool

  4.0

  4.2

  5.3

  Manchester

  6.3

  4.8

  7.2

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  5.4

  3.1

  4.1

  Morecambe Bay

  2.6

  2.0

  1.4

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1.1

  0.5

  2.2

  Norfolk

  5.3

  n/a

  n/a

  North and East Devon

  5.5

  1.9

  3.5

  North and Mid Hampshire

  4.9

  3.2

  3.7

  North Cheshire

  7.9

  0.9

  2.9

  North Cumbria

  1.8

  0.1

  3.5

  North Derbyshire

  0.7

  9.5

  11.0

  North Essex

  6.1

  2.5

  4.1

  North Nottinghamshire

  1.0

  2.5

  2.9

  North Staffordshire

  2.9

  1.5

  2.9

  North West Lancashire

  1.5

  1.1

  2.0

  North Yorkshire

  1.2

  0.2

  1.1

  Northamptonshire

  4.8

  2.2

  3.1

  Northumberland

  0.9

  0.2

  1.1

  Nottingham

  2.3

  10.0

  8.1

  Oxfordshire

  4.6

  5.0

  7.3

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  8.3

  8.3

  9.1

  Rotherham

  0.4

  2.0

  2.4

  Salford and Trafford

  6.4

  2.9

  5.6

  Sandwell

  0.8

  0.1

  0.1

  Sefton

  3.3

  2.7

  5.7

  Sheffield

  1.2

  5.2

  6.1

  Shropshire

  3.5

  0.2

  0.3

  Solihull

  1.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Somerset

  3.4

  0.2

  0.8

  South and West Devon

  6.6

  0.1

  0.7

  South Cheshire

  4.7

  2.0

  5.6

  South Essex

  3.9

  0.3

  1.1

  South Humber

  0.8

  7.3

  9.1

  South Lancashire

  2.4

  1.7

  4.4

  South Staffordshire

  5.2

  0.2

  0.5

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  6.4

  6.0

  7.7

  Southern Derbyshire

  2.6

  6.1

  5.3

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3.4

  2.0

  3.5

  Stockport

  3.8

  3.6

  3.6

  Suffolk

  4.6

  3.3

  3.7

  Sunderland

  0.5

  0.0

  0.4

  822W 823W

  Percentage of patients on in-patient waiting list over 12 months

  Percentage of patients waiting over 12 months

  Health authorities ranked alphabetically:

  August 2001

  March 1997

  June 1997

  Tees

  0.4

  0.0

  0.1

  Wakefield

  2.3

  1.6

  2.7

  Walsall

  0.8

  0.1

  0.2

  Warwickshire

  1.1

  0.1

  0.2

  West Kent

  5.3

  1.4

  3.1

  West Pennine

  2.4

  1.1

  1.7

  West Surrey

  10.9

  5.5

  8.9

  West Sussex

  9.3

  4.7

  7.8

  Wigan and Bolton

  3.7

  0.6

  2.3

  Wiltshire

  5.9

  5.7

  5.5

  Wirral

  2.8

  1.8

  1.5

  Wolverhampton

  1.4

  0.7

  1.8

  Worcestershire

  5.0

  1.8

  1.2

  England

  4.4

  2.7

  3.9

  Source:

  Department of Health quarterly return (QF01)

  Health authorities ranked by percentage waiting over 12 months (highest first)

  Percentage of patients waiting over 12 months in:

  Name

  August 2001

  March 1997

  June 1997

  West Surrey

  10.9

  5.5

  8.9

  Croydon

  9.6

  4.1

  3.4

  West Sussex

  9.3

  4.7

  7.8

  East Surrey

  8.7

  2.3

  4.1

  Lambeth. Southwark and Lewisham

  8.5

  7.6

  11.4

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  8.3

  8.3

  9.1

  North Cheshire

  7.9

  0.9

  2.9

  Bedfordshire

  7.0

  1.3

  2.6

  East Kent

  6.9

  0.5

  0.3

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  6.9

  n/a

  n/a

  South and West Devon

  6.6

  0.1

  0.7

  Avon

  6.5

  3.9

  7.1

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  6.4

  6.0

  7.7

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  6.4

  2.3

  3.2

  Salford and Telford

  6.4

  2.9

  5.6

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6.3

  n/a

  n/a

  Manchester

  6.3

  4.8

  7.2

  Kingston and Richmond

  6.1

  4.1

  5.4

  Hertfordshire

  6.1

  n/a

  n/a

  Barking and Havering

  6.1

  3.3

  4.0

  North Essex

  6.1

  2.5

  4.1

  Brent and Harrow

  6.0

  4.5

  6.3

  Wiltshire

  5.9

  5.7

  5.5

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  5.8

  n/a

  n/a

  Hillingdon

  5.8

  4.6

  5.9

  Buckinghamshire

  5.6

  4.0

  4.9

  North and East Devon

  5.5

  1.9

  3.5

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  5.4

  3.1

  4.1

  West Kent

  5.3

  1.4

  3.1

  Norfolk

  5.3

  n/a

  n/a

  South Staffordshire

  5.2

  0.2

  0.5

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  5.2

  8.1

  9.9

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5.1

  0.8

  1.6

  Worcestershire

  5.0

  1.8

  1.2

  North and Mid Hampshire

  4.9

  3.2

  3.7

  Northamptonshire

  4.8

  2.2

  3.1

  South Cheshire

  4.7

  2.0

  5.6

  East London and City

  4.7

  4.3

  4.9

  Suffolk

  4.6

  3.3

  3.7

  Oxfordshire

  4.6

  5.0

  7.3

  Camden and Islington

  4.4

  1.3

  2.5

  Lincolnshire

  4.3

  8.3

  8.7

  Cambridgeshire

  4.2

  n/a

  n/a

  Liverpool

  4.0

  4.2

  5.3

  South Essex

  3.9

  0.3

  1.1

  Stockport

  3.8

  3.6

  3.6

  Herefordshire

  3.7

  1.4

  2.7

  Wigan and Bolton

  3.7

  0.6

  2.3

  Berkshire

  3.7

  2.6

  3.7

  824W 825W

  Health authorities ranked by percentage waiting over 12 months (highest first)

  Percentage of patients waiting over 12 months in:

  Name

  August 2001

  March 1997

  June 1997

  East Riding and Hull

  3.5

  0.7

  3.7

  Shropshire

  3.5

  0.2

  0.3

  Somerset

  3.4

  0.2

  0.8

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3.4

  2.0

  3.5

  Sefton

  3.3

  2.7

  5.7

  Bury and Rochdale

  3.2

  1.8

  1.6

  Leeds

  3.0

  0.5

  1.7

  North Staffordshire

  2.9

  1.5

  2.9

  Wirral

  2.8

  1.8

  1.5

  Coventry

  2.7

  0.0

  0.2

  Morecambe Bay

  2.6

  2.0

  1.4

  Southern Derbyshire

  2.6

  6.1

  5.3

  Leicestershire

  2.6

  0.4

  2.2

  South Lancashire

  2.4

  1.7

  4.4

  West Pennine

  2.4

  1.1

  1.7

  Wakefield

  2.3

  1.6

  2.7

  Nottingham

  2.3

  10.0

  8.1

  Dudley

  2.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Birmingham

  2.0

  0.1

  0.3

  North Cumbria

  1.8

  0.1

  3.5

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1.8

  1.4

  2.6

  East Lancashire

  1.6

  0.4

  0.8

  Gloucestershire

  1.6

  0.1

  0.5

  North West Lancashire

  1.5

  1.1

  2.0

  Wolverhampton

  1.4

  0.7

  1.8

  North Yorkshire

  1.2

  0.2

  1.1

  Solihull

  1.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Sheffield

  1.2

  5.2

  6.1

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1.1

  0.5

  2.2

  Warwickshire

  1.1

  0.1

  0.2

  North Nottinghamshire

  1.0

  2.5

  2.9

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.9

  0.0

  0.5

  Northumberland

  0.9

  0.2

  1.1

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  0.8

  0.3

  1.2

  South Humber

  0.8

  7.3

  9.1

  Sandwell

  0.8

  0.1

  0.1

  Walsall

  0.8

  0.1

  0.2

  Bradford

  0.8

  0.3

  5.0

  North Derbyshire

  0.7

  9.5

  11.0

  Sunderland

  0.5

  0.0

  0.4

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  0.5

  0.4

  1.5

  Tees

  0.4

  0.0

  0.1

  Barnsley

  0.4

  2.3

  2.1

  Rotherham

  0.4

  2.0

  2.4

  Doncaster

  0.3

  1.0

  0.8

  Dorset

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  England

  4.4

  2.7

  3.9

  Note:

  Data were collected on a quarterly basis until June 1998. Therefore, data have been given from March 1997; the nearest quarter to April 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health quarterly return (QF01)

  Suicides (Mentally Ill People)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the suicide rate among severely mentally ill people since 1997. [10012]

  Jacqui Smith:
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: We take the issue of suicide very seriously. This is why strategies to reduce suicide form a major part of the Government's programme outlined in "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation, (OHN)" and why the Department funds the "National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness". It is too early to assess progress on the overall "OHN" target to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least a fifth by the year 2010. This is because the most recent three-year pooled data overlap the start of OHN,
  826W
  which was published in 1999. However, the Department is taking steps to implement recommendations concerning those with a severe mental illness outlined in the most recent report of the national confidential inquiry called "Safety First", published in March 2001.

  Maternity Units
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average cost to the NHS of deliveries in(a) midwife-led maternity units and (b) acute units. [10015]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The information is not available in the format requested. The Reference Costs 2001 Collection, due to be published in

  827W
  late November 2001, separately identifies those deliveries that are hospital based from those that are based in the community or at home. This information will not, however, differentiate between who leads the professional group, for example, midwives or obstetricians.

  The table shows the average costs for all hospital based deliveries.

  1999–2000

  £mean average

  HRG code/label

  NELIP

  ELIP

  N06—Normal delivery with complications/comorbidities

  1,176

  1,102

  N07—Normal delivery without complications/comorbidities

  738

  785

  N08—Assisted delivery with complications/comorbidities

  1,420

  1,189

  N09—Assisted delivery without complications/comorbidities

  1,035

  1,106

  N10—Caesarean section with complications/comorbidities

  2,126

  2,406

  N11—Caesarean section without complications/comorbidities

  1,738

  1,761

  Breast Cancer
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in achieving maximum target wait times of one month from diagnosis to treatment for breast cancer by 2001; and to what stage of treatment this refers. [11064]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: Full implementation of the maximum target wait of one month from diagnosis to their first definitive treatment for breast cancer will be rolled out by 31 December 2001. National health service trusts have submitted action plans setting out their plans to achieve the 2001 targets and have established shadow monitoring arrangements to monitor their progress. Central monitoring will commence on 1 January 2002.

  Private Sector Concordat
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients treated under the concordat with the private sector are at state retirement age. [10489]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The Department does not collect information on National Health Service funded cases in the private sector in the form requested. In 1999–2000 36 per cent. of finished consultant episodes in NHS trusts in England involved people over the state pension age (65 for men, 60 for women); however it is not necessarily the case that the same proportion will apply to patients treated under the concordat.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments he has made of future activity levels under the concordat with the private sector. [10491]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: Latest figures show there have been in the region of 60,000 National Health Service funded cases in the private sector since the concordat between the NHS and the independent sector was signed in October last year. Officials are in discussion with private sector providers
  828W
  with a view to developing a national framework agreement to build longer-term relationships between the NHS and the private sector. The aim of this agreement would be to double the number of elective procedures carried out in the private sector on the NHS's behalf. On that basis we believe that next year NHS-funded elective activity in the private sector should exceed 100,000 cases.

  Nottingham Health Authority
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the additional resources required to bring the Nottingham health authority up to 100 per cent. of its weighted capitation in(a) cash and (b) percentage terms. [11306]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: Nottingham health authority's distance from weighted capitation target for 2001–02 is £7 million in cash terms or 1.55 per cent. below target. For 2001–02, Nottingham health authority received an allocation of £465 million, which is an increase of £39 million in cash terms or 9.15 per cent. The weighted capitation formula is used to set targets that inform allocations, but the formula does not determine allocations.

  Community Mental Health Staff
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional community mental health staff(a) have been employed and (b) will be employed in the current financial year [11523]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Community mental health staff are employed by the national health service, local authorities and voluntary and independent sector organisations. Data currently collected by the Department identify community psychiatry nurses. However, medical, therapy and social care staff working in mental health services in the community are not identified separately. Between 1997 and 2000 the number of qualified community psychiatry nurses employed in the NHS increased from 9,740 to 11,080.

  It is not possible to say how many community mental health staff will be employed in the current financial year. The work force census is carried out on 30 September each year. Data for 2001 will be published in January 2002.

  Mental Health (Prisoners)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prisoners with serious mental illness(a) have left prison and (b) will leave prison in the current financial year without (i) a care plan and (ii) a care co-ordinator. [11531]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: At present prisons do not keep records in a form that would readily provide the statistics requested. The NHS Plan, published in July 2000, gave a commitment that by 2004 no prisoner with serious mental illness will leave prison without a care plan and a designated care co-ordinator. Work is under way to develop mental health in-reach services in prisons in order to meet this and other NHS Plan commitments relating to mental health services for prisoners. A start is being made in 12 prisons in England in this financial year and it is expected that in-reach will be in operation in about 70 prisons with the greatest

  829W
  mental health need by 2004. We are working with Her Majesty's Prison Service to ensure that information is collected to enable us to track progress with this initiative.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of prisoners with severe mental illness are in receipt of treatment. [11530]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: It is estimated that at any one time around 5,000 prisoners have severe mental illness and, depending on the capacity of the prison health care team, will receive some support and treatment. The NHS Plan, published in July 2000, gave a commitment that by 2004, 5,000 prisoners at any time will be receiving more comprehensive mental health services in prison. Work is under way to develop mental health in-reach services in prisons in order to meet this and other NHS Plan commitments relating to mental health services for prisoners. A start is being made in 12 prisons in England in this financial year and it is expected that in-reach will be in operation in around 70 or so prisons with the greatest mental health need by 2004.

  In 1999, the latest year for which statistics have been published, 742 prisoners were transferred to hospital as restricted patients for treatment for mental disorder under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the change in the NHS deflator measure of cost increases for each of the last 10 years; what the annual increase in the retail price index was for each year: and if he will make a statement. [10809]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The table shows the national health service inflation index and the retail price index from 1991–92 to 2000–01.

  Percentage

  Year

  NHS inflation index

  Retail prices index

  1991–92

  1—

  4.0

  1992–93

  5.8

  1.9

  1993–94

  2.7

  2.2

  1994–95

  2.6

  3.5

  1995–96

  3.7

  2.7

  1996–97

  2.9

  2.6

  1997–98

  2.1

  3.6

  1998–99

  3.9

  2.0

  1999–2000

  4.5

  2.6

  2000–01

  1—

  2.3

  1Not available

  The table shows that the NHS deflator has risen by approximately 7 per cent. above the retail prices index, over the last decade. This is primarily because NHS pay has increased faster the RPI. This shows that NHS staff are receiving real terms pay increases.

  Health Services (Somerset and Dorset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a new, unified health authority for Somerset and Dorset; what plans he has to site the headquarters of the new health authority in Yeovil; and if he will make a statement. [11036]
  830W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Public consultation on the boundaries of a proposed new health authority for Somerset and Dorset is under way and will finish on 30 November 2001. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide the boundaries for the new health authority in the light of the comments received during the consultation.

  Decisions on the management arrangements, including the location of the headquarters, for the proposed Somerset and Dorset health authority have not been taken yet. It will be the responsibility of the new health authority, when established, to make these decisions.

  NHS Funding Mechanisms
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into alternative funding mechanisms for the national health service; if he will publish this research; and if he will make a statement. [10744]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: In March 2001 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that Derek Wanless, former group chief executive of Nat West bank, would be leading a review to provide a long-term assessment of the technological, demographic and medical trends over the next two decades that will affect the health service.

  In the light of these trends, the review will identify the key factors which will determine the financial and other resources required to ensure that the national health service can provide a publicly funded, comprehensive, high quality service available on the basis of clinical need and not ability to pay. The review will report to my right hon. Friend by April 2002.

  Surgical Procedures (Cost)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has undertaken into the relative cost differences between surgical procedures carried out in the public and private sectors; and if he will make a statement. [11035]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The Department has recently conducted a survey of health authorities, primary care trusts and acute trusts on the levels of activity being commissioned in the private sector and the accompanying costs. Analysis is not yet complete.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many asylum-seeking children were supported under(a) section 17 and (b) section 20 of the Children's Act 1989 in the year to June 2001; [10810]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in local authority care receiving full board at the latest available date. [10811]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The information is not collected centrally in the form requested.

  The Department is currently conducting a children in need census with local authorities which covers the activity in a "typical" week in September or October 2001

  831W
  selected by the authority. This census, for the first time, includes a question on asylum-seeking children. These data will not be available until some time in 2002.

  The Home Office administers the grant to local authorities for those unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are supported under the Children Act. Such children receive a needs assessment from their social services department. This should look at children's cases on an individual basis but it is likely that those children under 16 will be assessed as needing to be taken into care under section 20 of the Children Act. Older children may be assessed as needing the less intensive support available under section 17. As at 26 January 2001, local authorities were claiming grant for

  under 16 year-olds: 1,376

  16 and 17 year-olds: 4,702.

  For the financial year 2000–01, local authorities claimed grant for the following number of support weeks:

  under 16 year-olds: 67,491 weeks

  16 and 17 year-olds: 239,598 weeks.

  These figures cannot be simply converted into numbers of young people.

  Beta Interferon
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1240W, on beta interferon (No. 7427), what assessment he has made of the cost of beta interferon (a) in the UK and (b) in other countries; and if he will make a statement. [9795]

  Ms Blears
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Appraisal Committee further considered the evidence on the use of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis sufferers on 25 September 2001. NICE has subsequently issued a provisional appraisal determination (PAD) to interested parties for comment.

  The institute has stated that, to allow sufficient time to take proper account of the extensive comments received on the PAD, it issued the final appraisal determination to consultees on 30 October.

  Of those on in-patient waiting list, percentage who have waited:

  Quarter

  Size of in-patient waiting list

  More than 6 months

  More than 9 months

  More than 12 months

  More than 18 months

  More than 24 months

  March 1981

  628,333

  n/a

  n/a

  28.8

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1981

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1981

  619,393

  n/a

  n/a

  29.2

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1981

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1982

  622,480

  n/a

  n/a

  28.2

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1982

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1982

  725,865

  n/a

  n/a

  26.6

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1982

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1983

  726,186

  n/a

  n/a

  27.3

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1983

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1983

  703,755

  n/a

  n/a

  29.3

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1983

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1984

  692,945

  n/a

  n/a

  28.1

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1984

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1984

  682,599

  n/a

  n/a

  27.8

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1984

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Knee Replacement Operations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average waiting times in each English hospital trust for knee replacement operations in each of the last three years. [11811]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average median waiting times in each English hospital trust for knee replacement in each of the last three years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 have been placed in the Library.

  As part of the NHS Plan, the maximum waiting time for in-patient treatment will be cut from 18 months now to six months by the end of 2005. As a first step towards this reduction, the maximum wait for a national health service operation will be cut to 15 months by the end of March 2002.

  Operation Waiting Lists
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been waiting for(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient operations for each reporting period over the last 20 years; what proportion of these people have been waiting for (i) more than two years, (ii) more than 18 months, (iii) more than one year, (iv) more than nine months and (v) more than six months; and if he will make a statement. [10808]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The information requested is in the tables.

  As part of the NHS Plan, the national health service is working towards reducing the current maximum in-patient wait of 18 months to 15 months by March 2002, 12 months by March 2003, nine months by March 2004 and finally six months by the end of 2005. The maximum out-patient waiting time will fall from over six months today to six months by March 2002 and three months by 2005. No specific targets have been set within the NHS Plan for further reducing waiting lists but modelling suggests that as waiting times fall so waiting lists will shorten.

  In January 2001, the British Association of Otorhinolaryngologists released guidance on the use of single-use instruments for tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy operations due to the theoretical risk of contracting vCJD. This had an effect on in-patient waiting lists due to the number of patients waiting for these types of operations.
  833W

  Of those on in-patient waiting list, percentage who have waited:

  Quarter

  Size of in-patient waiting list

  More than 6 months

  More than 9 months

  More than 12 months

  More than 18 months

  More than 24 months

  March 1985

  674,453

  n/a

  n/a

  25.4

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1985

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1985

  661,249

  n/a

  n/a

  24.2

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1985

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1986

  673,107

  n/a

  n/a

  24.0

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1986

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1986

  681,901

  n/a

  n/a

  24.2

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1986

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1987

  687,945

  n/a

  n/a

  23.6

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1987

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1987

  848,022

  45.0

  32.8

  24.7

  n/a

  10.7

  December 1987

  873,130

  44.1

  32.2

  24.1

  n/a

  10.5

  March 1988

  876,246

  43.5

  32.4

  23.7

  n/a

  10.0

  June 1988

  878,306

  44.1

  33.2

  24.2

  n/a

  10.1

  September 1988

  900,051

  44.7

  33.5

  24.4

  n/a

  10.2

  December 1988

  931,495

  44.3

  32.0

  24.0

  n/a

  9.9

  March 1989

  922,676

  44.3

  31.7

  24.2

  n/a

  10.0

  June 1989

  922,877

  43.5

  31.7

  23.6

  n/a

  9.6

  September 1989

  929,056

  43.4

  31.8

  23.5

  n/a

  9.5

  December 1989

  971,845

  42.5

  29.4

  22.5

  n/a

  8.9

  March 1990

  958,976

  41.8

  29.7

  21.7

  n/a

  8.4

  June 1990

  955,786

  41.7

  29.3

  21.6

  n/a

  7.9

  September 1990

  957,533

  41.7

  28.0

  21.2

  n/a

  7.4

  December 1990

  965,520

  39.9

  25.8

  19.5

  n/a

  6.4

  March 1991

  948,243

  39.0

  26.8

  17.9

  n/a

  5.4

  June 1991

  964,050

  39.0

  24.6

  17.8

  n/a

  5.3

  September 1991

  947,842

  37.5

  21.7

  16.7

  n/a

  4.6

  December 1991

  950,098

  34.1

  16.1

  13.7

  n/a

  3.2

  March 1992

  917,717

  29.5

  26.

  8.8

  n/a

  0.2

  June 1992

  937,054

  29.9

  17.0

  9.1

  2.2

  0.1

  September 1992

  939,740

  30.5

  16.6

  8.6

  1.8

  0.1

  December 1992

  977,189

  28.9

  15.8

  7.5

  1.3

  0.1

  March 1993

  994,974

  27.4

  13.6

  5.7

  0.5

  0.0

  June 1993

  1,019,341

  29.1

  14.9

  6.5

  0.5

  0.0

  September 1993

  1,032,038

  30.5

  15.5

  6.9

  0.6

  0.0

  December 1993

  1,065,782

  30.0

  16.3

  7.0

  0.6

  0.0

  March 1994

  1,065,369

  28.5

  14.5

  6.1

  0.4

  0.0

  June 1994

  1,077,497

  28.3

  14.5

  6.1

  0.4

  0.0

  September 1994

  1,071,101

  28.5

  13.9

  5.8

  0.4

  0.0

  December 1994

  1,070,492

  26.7

  13.1

  5.1

  0.3

  0.0

  March 1995

  1,044,051

  23.1

  9.9

  3.1

  0.0

  0.0

  June 1995

  1,052,958

  23.2

  9.9

  3.1

  0.0

  0.0

  September 1995

  1,040,152

  23.5

  9.1

  2.7

  0.0

  0.0

  December 1995

  1,054,948

  21.8

  8.6

  1.9

  0.0

  0.0

  March 1996

  1,048,029

  19.9

  6.8

  0.4

  0.0

  0.0

  June 1996

  1,056,122

  21.2

  7.7

  1.0

  0.0

  0.0

  September 1996

  1,061,557

  22.6

  8.4

  1.4

  0.0

  0.0

  December 1996

  1,104,983

  23.1

  9.6

  2.0

  0.0

  0.0

  March 1997

  1,158,004

  25.0

  10.5

  2.7

  0.0

  0.0

  June 1997

  1,189,962

  26.7

  12.2

  3.9

  0.0

  0.0

  September 1997

  1,207,515

  28.0

  13.4

  4.8

  0.1

  0.0

  December 1997

  1,261,915

  29.1

  14.3

  5.4

  0.1

  0.0

  March 1998

  1,297,662

  29.5

  14.5

  5.2

  0.0

  0.0

  June 1998

  1,287,543

  29.7

  14.8

  5.6

  0.0

  0.0

  September 1998

  1,213,839

  28.6

  13.8

  5.2

  0.0

  0.0

  December 1998

  1,173,598

  26.9

  13.3

  4.8

  0.0

  0.0

  March 1999

  1,072,860

  26.1

  12.4

  4.4

  0.0

  0.0

  June 1999

  1,094,251

  25.5

  12.3

  4.5

  0.0

  0.0

  September 1999

  1,084,157

  25.9

  12.3

  4.7

  0.0

  0.0

  December 1999

  1,108,006

  25.8

  12.6

  4.7

  0.0

  0.0

  March 2000

  1,037,066

  25.9

  12.4

  4.7

  0.0

  0.0

  June 2000

  1,047,890

  26.1

  12.7

  4.9

  0.0

  0.0

  September 2000

  1,031,824

  26.7

  12.6

  5.0

  0.0

  0.0

  December 2000

  1,034,381

  25.8

  12.8

  4.8

  0.0

  0.0

  March 2001

  1,006,727

  24.4

  11.4

  4.2

  0.0

  0.0

  June 2001

  1,037,875

  25.7

  12.1

  4.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Note:

  Before September 1987 figures relate to ordinary (overnight) admissions. Number of people waiting for day cases were not collected before this date.

  Source:

  KHO7 quarterly return
  834W 835W

  Of those on out-patient waiting list, number who have waited:

  Quarter

  Size of out-patient waiting list

  3 to 6 months

  more than 6 months

  more than 9 months

  more than 12 months

  more than 18 months

  more than 24 months

  June 1955

  n/a

  214,165

  87,436

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1995

  n/a

  218,339

  72,688

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1995

  n/a

  185,887

  60,906

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1996

  n/a

  157,633

  58,501

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1996

  n/a

  168,792

  52,385

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1996

  n/a

  201,586

  61,952

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1996

  n/a

  188,644

  68,512

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1997

  n/a

  176,799

  70,689

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1997

  n/a

  210,075

  84,997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1997

  n/a

  253,051

  90,123

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1997

  n/a

  249,039

  106,961

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1998

  n/a

  221,732

  112,250

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1998

  n/a

  269,013

  108,684

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1998

  n/a

  310,863

  126,312

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1998

  n/a

  323,218

  144,404

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1999

  n/a

  303,246

  152,787

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1999

  n/a

  338,752

  145,896

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1999

  n/a

  362,794

  149,247

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1999

  n/a

  336,457

  159,211

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 2000

  n/a

  269,385

  132,223

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 2000

  n/a

  314,157

  130,335

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 2000

  n/a

  309,928

  125,84.0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 2000

  n/a

  285,519

  113,618

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 2001

  n/a

  201,981

  81,847

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 2001

  n/a

  274,421

  85,099

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  Out-patient data not available prior to June 1995.

  Data on the total number of patients on out-patient waiting list is not collected.

  Data on the number of out-patients waiting over nine, over 12, over 18 and over 24 months is not collected.

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Interview (Travelling Expenses)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards recompensing interviewees for their travelling expenses. [11792]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We recognise that it can be difficult for unemployed people to meet the cost of getting to interviews and for this reason we have been running the travel to interview scheme since June 1986. The travel to interview scheme is available to jobseekers from their first day of unemployment.

  The scheme encourages people to widen their job search by helping with travelling costs to attend interviews outside their usual travel to work area. To qualify for the scheme the job applied for must be permanent and full time. People can make applications for

  Benefit Expenditure—Scotland

  £ million

  Terms

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Retirement Pension—basic

  2,408

  2,557

  2,663

  2,798

  2,966

  Retirement Pension—earnings-related

  193

  241

  277

  321

  391

  Christmas Bonus—contribution-based

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  Widows'/Bereavement benefits

  118

  114

  113

  112

  112

  Unemployment Benefit

  125

  72

  —

  —

  —

  Jobseeker's Allowance—contribution-based

  —

  43

  62

  59

  56

  Jobseeker's Allowance—income-based

  —

  158

  321

  303

  281

  836W
  assistance in advance and will either receive a travel warrant or be reimbursed after the interview has taken place.

  Social Security Expenditure (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money was paid in benefits, pensions and other associated services in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK during the (i) 2001–02 financial year to date and (ii) the previous five financial years; and what the breakdown is by benefits for each of those years. [9006]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: The Northern Ireland Assembly is responsible for social security within Northern Ireland. Information on benefit expenditure by country is not available for 2000–01. Expenditure for Great Britain is published on the DWP website at http://www.dss.gov.uk/asd/online.html. The relevant information is contained in Other Statistics, Benefit Expenditure Tables 2001, Table1. Estimated expenditure amounts for Scotland are given in the table.
  837W

  Benefit Expenditure—Scotland

  £ million

  Terms

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Sickness Benefit

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Statutory Sick Pay

  5

  13

  3

  4

  4

  Invalidity Benefit—basic

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Invalidity Benefit—earnings-related

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Incapacity Benefit—short-term

  71

  81

  84

  77

  69

  Incapacity Benefit—long-term

  759

  767

  755

  750

  691

  Incapacity Benefit—earnings-related

  183

  167

  140

  120

  95

  Industrial disablement benefits

  62

  64

  65

  67

  66

  Industrial Death Benefit

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Other industrial injuries benefits

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Maternity Allowance

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  45

  29

  42

  46

  48

  Guardian's and Child's Special Allowance

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Non-contributory Retirement Pension

  3

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Non-contributory Christmas Bonus

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  War pensions

  111

  120

  114

  112

  111

  Attendance Allowance

  212

  235

  256

  274

  290

  Invalid Care Allowance

  66

  80

  82

  86

  91

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  99

  108

  119

  117

  116

  Disability Living Allowance

  440

  521

  570

  610

  644

  Disability Working Allowance

  2

  3

  4

  4

  4

  Income Support (under 60 years of age)

  1,195

  1,012

  798

  802

  817

  IS for the elderly—Minimum Income Guarantee

  348

  344

  345

  335

  353

  Child Benefit

  572

  589

  601

  611

  695

  Family Credit

  184

  210

  225

  237

  185

  Earnings Top-Up

  —

  1—

  2

  3

  3

  Independent Living Funds

  12

  13

  12

  13

  14

  Mobility Equipment Fund

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1

  Social Fund

  24

  22

  18

  19

  18

  Winter Fuel Payments

  —

  —

  19

  19

  90

  Other small benefits

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts

  -1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  —

  Housing Benefit Rent Allowance

  276

  302

  322

  335

  352

  Housing Benefit Rent Rebate

  630

  665

  692

  701

  700

  Council Tax Benefit

  213

  246

  287

  303

  306

  Total benefit expenditure

  8,413

  8,798

  9,014

  9,262

  9,588

  1Less than one million

  Notes

  1. Figures are consistent with the Departmental Report 2001.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest million.

  3. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  4. These figures include all LA spending on Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in addition to the money funded directly by Central Government.

  5. The Scotland expenditure figures have been calculated from the average weekly amounts and caseload figures that have been derived from sample administrative data.

  6. Figures for 1999–2000 are on a Resource Accounting and Budgeting basis.

  Departmental Properties
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the total running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by his Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by his Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6849]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The vast majority of buildings on the former DSS part of the estate are rented to the Department by our private sector partner, Land Securities Trillium. Under the PRIME PFI agreement, the Department pays Land Securities Trillium a unitary charge (the "Facilities Price") for each building and receives serviced office accommodation in return. The Facilities Price covers not only the space we occupy but also a large number of building related services. These are:

  building management and maintenance (including Customer Service Centre)

  838W

  internal and external cleaning security (including facilities and equipment)

  catering (including facilities and equipment)

  provision and maintenance of furniture and equipment

  energy and utilities management

  landscape maintenance

  porterage

  waste management.

  The first table shows the information requested in respect of the Facilities Price, utility charges and business rates for all PRIME buildings where the former DSS are the major occupier. The information is broken down geographically according to nation and former DSS regional boundaries. Details of the corresponding charges paid for the former DSS minor occupancies and non-PRIME buildings are not currently held centrally. These charges are paid for and monitored locally.
  839W
  The second table gives details of the running costs of buildings on the former Employment Service part of the estate. This includes both major and minor occupancies but excludes sub-lets. Information is again provided geographically both on a national and regional basis but is dictated this time by former ES regional boundaries. Running costs on the former ES part of the Estate include all maintenance work (i.e. scheduled, reactive and planned) and minor new works, rents, rates and service charges, cleaning and utilities. These costs are lower than the charges paid by the former DSS as the ES part of the

  Former DSS part of the estate

  Region

  Total (£)

  Total business square metre (BSM)

  Average charge £ per BSM

  AD1 East London and Anglia

  15,330,376.48

  68,774.93

  222.91

  AD2 Chilterns

  20,280,484.46

  82,990.12

  244.37

  AD3 London South

  40,736,959.46

  157,615.80

  258.46

  AD4 West Country

  15,998,514.95

  97,521.38

  164.05

  AD5 Mercia

  13,298,357.23

  67,939.49

  195.74

  AD6 West Midlands

  20,321,903.99

  96,948.44

  209.62

  AD8 North West Coast

  40,967,353.38

  227,128.26

  180.37

  AD9 Greater Manchester

  16,979,155.53

  102,333.26

  165.92

  ADIO Yorkshire

  22,340,174.39

  106,328.42

  210.11

  AD11 Tyne Tees

  10,942,784.64

  57,915.70

  188.94

  England total

  217,196,064.51

  1,065,495.79

  203.85

  AD7 Wales

  12,999,568.66

  71,045.14

  182.98

  Wales total

  12,999,568.66

  71,045.14

  182.98

  AD12 West of Scotland

  17,507,560.03

  70,120.37

  249.68

  AD13 East of Scotland

  18,785,521.46

  82,764.49

  226.98

  Scotland total

  36,293,081.49

  152,884.87

  237.39

  Grand total

  266,488,714.66

  1,289,425.79

  206.67

  All charges are exact for the last financial year. The total business square metres is based on the properties that were occupied as at March 2001.

  Former ES part of the estate

  Region

  Total running costs (£)

  Total business square metre (BSM)

  Average charge £ per BSM

  Head Office (Sheffield)

  6,334,095

  2,9055.10

  218.00

  Northern

  7,772,273

  56,815.62

  136.80

  North West

  15,194,904

  114,036.09

  133.25

  Yorkshire and Humber

  9,944,152

  74,326.63

  133.79

  East Midlands

  9,582,156

  70,122.84

  136.65

  West Midlands

  14,027,018

  90,138.49

  155.62

  London and South East

  55,911,412

  263,813.39

  211.94

  South West

  12,431,947

  78,718.82

  157.93

  England total

  131,197,957

  777,026.98

  168.85

  Wales

  7,046,413

  60,990.66

  115.53

  Wales total

  7,046,413

  60,990.66

  115.53

  Scotland

  16,694,086

  98,797.07

  168.97

  Scotland total

  16,694,086

  98,797.07

  168.97

  Grand total

  154,938,456

  936,815

  165.39

  840W
  estate was not subject to a PFI agreement and does not therefore benefit from the full range of services provided as under the PRIME agreement. Nor has the risk inherent in the buildings and its associated cost been transferred to a PFI provider.

  Details of services, such as post opening and despatch, reprographics and switchboard etc., which are traditionally regarded as business rather than building-related services, (and the cost of furniture and security for the former ES) have been excluded from both tables as we are unable to present the information in the same format.

  All charges are exact for the last financial year. The total business square metres is based on the properties that were occupied as at March 2001.

  Departmental Staff
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the number of staff employed by his Department by region and nation of the UK; and if he will make a statement; [6846]

  (2) how many and what proportion of each civil service grade in his Department is located in each region and nation of the UK; what the average salary is for each grade; and if he will make a statement. [6850]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The details are set out in the tables.
  841W

  Table 1: Number of staff by grade level and nation/region

  Whole-time equivalent

  Government office region

  All grades

  SCS level

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  Industrial/Other grade

  London

  14,678

  89

  339

  1,239

  4,891

  8,094

  27

  South East

  10,841

  1—

  39

  483

  3,591

  6,601

  126

  South West

  8,098

  1—

  31

  412

  2,476

  5,125

  51

  West Midlands

  10,956

  5

  45

  542

  3,383

  6,980

  1—

  North West

  17,990

  15

  204

  1,276

  5,098

  11,058

  340

  North East

  13,693

  17

  122

  937

  3,384

  9,163

  70

  Merseyside

  5,722

  1—

  26

  236

  1,677

  3,780

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12,739

  37

  278

  1,637

  4,367

  6,415

  4

  East Midlands

  5,818

  1—

  27

  263

  1,870

  3,652

  5

  Eastern

  5,286

  1—

  16

  185

  1,519

  3,565

  1—

  England total

  105,821

  167

  1,127

  7,210

  32,256

  64,433

  627

  Wales

  6,490

  1—

  26

  303

  2,065

  3,999

  94

  Scotland

  13,822

  1—

  64

  652

  4,259

  8,642

  201

  Great Britain total

  126,133

  173

  1,217

  8,165

  38,580

  77,074

  922

  Northern Ireland

  8

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  8

  Grand total

  126,141

  173

  1,217

  8,165

  38,580

  77,074

  930

  1 Because there are three or fewer staff in this category the numbers have not been separately identified

  2 Staff numbers for Northern Ireland have not been identified by grade because the small numbers in each category could potentially identify individuals and their salaries

  Notes:

  1. The staff data from which these figures derive are as at 31 August 2001 as this represents the correct staffing position of DWP, which was formed in June 2001. Earlier DSS data are not comparable.

  2. Employment service staff are included.

  3. War Pensions Agency Staff are included as they remain within the overall DWP administrative structure pro-tern even though WPA is now technically part of the Ministry of Defence.

  4. Casual and other staff on temporary contracts are included.

  5. The grade groupings include specialist staff such as accountants, lawyers and auditors in their "generalist" grade equivalent.

  6. Because the staffing make-up of DWP is different from the DSS, the figures above are not comparable with those provided for DSS in Civil Service Statistics 2000.

  Table 2: Percentage of staffing numbers

  Government office region

  All grades

  SCS level

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  Industrial/other grades

  London

  12

  51

  28

  15

  13

  11

  3

  South East

  9

  1—

  3

  6

  9

  9

  14

  South West

  6

  1—

  3

  5

  6

  7

  5

  West Midlands

  9

  3

  4

  7

  9

  9

  1—

  North West

  14

  9

  17

  16

  13

  14

  37

  North East

  11

  10

  10

  11

  9

  12

  8

  Merseyside

  5

  1—

  2

  3

  4

  5

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10

  21

  23

  20

  11

  8

  0

  East Midlands

  5

  1—

  2

  3

  5

  5

  1—

  Eastern

  4

  1—

  1

  2

  4

  5

  1

  England total

  84

  97

  93

  88

  84

  84

  67

  Wales

  5

  1—

  2

  4

  5

  5

  10

  Scotland

  11

  1—

  5

  8

  11

  11

  22

  Great Britain total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  99

  Northern Ireland

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1

  Grand total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Because there are three or fewer staff in this category the numbers have not been separately identified

  2 Staff numbers for Northern Ireland have not been identified by grade because the small numbers in each category could potentially identify individuals and their salaries

  Notes:

  1. The staff data from which these figures derive are as at 31 August 2001 as this represents the correct staffing position of DWP, which was formed in June 2001. Earlier DSS data are not comparable.

  2. Employment service staff are included.

  3. War Pensions Agency Staff are included as they remain within the overall DWP administrative structure pro-tern even though WPA is now technically part of the Ministry of Defence.

  4. Casual and other staff on temporary contracts are included.

  5. The grade groupings include specialist staff such as accountants, lawyers and auditors in their "generalist" grade equivalent.

  6. Because the staffing make-up of DWP is different from the DSS, the figures above are not comparable with those provided for DSS in Civil Service Statistics 2000.
  842W 843W

  Table 3: Average staff salary by grade level and nation/region

  £

  Government office region

  All grades

  SCS level

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  Industrial/other grades

  London

  19,129

  67,853

  44,551

  27,470

  20,864

  15,218

  14,023

  South East

  15,855

  1—

  37,432

  24,639

  19,311

  13,295

  11,248

  South West

  15,456

  1—

  38,344

  24,319

  18,703

  13,053

  12,272

  West Midlands

  15,577

  57,022

  39,766

  24,451

  19,037

  13,026

  1—

  North West

  15,709

  63,875

  45,557

  25,368

  18,611

  12,760

  11,777

  North East

  15,283

  63,371

  41,354

  24,769

  18,408

  12,749

  11,923

  Merseyside

  15,191

  1—

  40,163

  24,412

  18,644

  12,914

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17,339

  63,778

  39,350

  25,012

  18,932

  13,081

  11,113

  East Midlands

  15,777

  1—

  38,524

  24,275

  19,168

  13,253

  11,934

  Eastern

  15,672

  1—

  39,368

  24,635

  19,580

  13,423

  1—

  England total

  16,280

  65,641

  42,177

  25,303

  19,184

  13,280

  11,814

  Wales

  15,564

  1—

  38,605

  24,381

  18,604

  13,261

  11,291

  Scotland

  15,395

  1—

  39,509

  24,477

  18,740

  12,951

  11,440

  Great Britain total

  16,146

  65,526

  41,960

  25,200

  19,104

  13,242

  11,666

  Northern Ireland

  16,389

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Grand total

  16,146

  65,526

  41,960

  25,200

  19,105

  13,243

  11,685

  1 Because there are three or fewer staff in this category the average salary has not been separately identified.

  2 Average salaries for Northern Ireland have not been identified by grade because the small numbers in each category could potentially identify individuals and their salaries.

  Notes:

  1. Average salaries include basic salary and job-based allowances, but not payments relating to working outside normal hours eg overtime, nor employer's National Insurance and Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme contributions.

  2. The figures indicate averages and not the mean; calculation of the mean would have presented significant additional data processing attracting disproportionate costs.

  3. The staff data from which these figures derive are as at 31 August 2001, as this represents the correct staffing position of DWP which was formed in June 2001. Earlier DSS data are not comparable.

  4. Employment Service staff are included.

  5. War Pensions Agency Staff are included as they remain within the overall DAP administrative structure pro-tern even though WPA is now technically part of the Ministry of Defence.

  6. Casual and other staff on temporary contracts are included.

  Departmental Spending
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total amount of spending by his Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of his Department's total spending this constitutes; and if he will make a statement. [6851]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The information is in the tables:

  Benefit expenditure for 1999–2000 by country

  Benefit expenditure (£ million)

  Proportion of GB total (Percentage)

  Great Britain

  98,241

  —

  England

  83,081

  85

  Scotland

  8,689

  9

  Wales

  6,470

  7

  Benefit expenditure for 1999–2000 by English Government office region

  Benefit expenditure (£ million)

  Proportion of GB total (Percentage)

  North East

  5,145

  5

  North West

  12,973

  13

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8,809

  9

  East Midlands

  6,805

  7

  West Midlands

  9,165

  9

  844W

  Benefit expenditure for 1999–2000 by Government office region

  Benefit expenditure (£ million)

  Proportion of GB total (Percentage)

  South West

  8,445

  9

  Eastern

  8,314

  8

  London

  11,509

  12

  South East

  11,916

  12

  Notes:

  1. Figures are consistent with Departmental Report 2001, but do not include some overseas expenditure and War Pensions Northern Ireland.

  2. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of those leaving the New Deal for Lone Parents left to enter(a) jobs lasting less than 13 weeks, (b) sustained jobs and (c) jobs lasting more than 26 weeks. [9681]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The New Deal for Lone Parents has already helped over 100,000 Lone Parents move into work. More detailed analysis of the length of time people leaving the programme for work remain in their jobs will be included in the evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents National programme, which is due to be published in spring 2003.
  845W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many persons(a) were eligible and (b) entered the New Deal for the Long-Term Unemployed under the early entry provisions in each year since its inception. [9333]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The monthly New Deal Statistical First Releases, which are placed in the Library, give information on the numbers joining the New Deal under the early eligibility criteria. Early entry to the programme is voluntary and no estimates are available of the total number of people who would have been eligible to join the programme early.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those entering(a) the environmental task force option and (b) the voluntary sector option in the New Deal for young people obtained a qualification through day release education or training in each year since 1998. [9329]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The monthly New Deal Statistical First Releases, which are placed in the Library, give information on the numbers of young people starting each of the New Deal options. Information on qualifications gained is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary' of State for Work and Pensions what discretionary payments can be made from the Advisers Discretionary Fund; and if he will make a statement. [8098]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New Deal Personal Advisers can make an award from the Advisers Discretionary Fund, up to a maximum of –300 for any goods and services needed to support a jobseeker with jobsearch, or to help them overcome barriers which prevent them applying for or taking up a job.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of(a) personal advisers and (b) senior advisers in the new deal for young people are members of an ethnic minority, broken down by ethnic minority; and if he will give the same breakdown for the members of the new deal for young people. [7978]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Employment. Service collected data on the ethnic breakdown of Personal Advisers across all the New Deals at the end of February 2001 as part of a one off exercise.

  The results of that exercise are in the table.

  Percentage

  Ethnic group

  Proportion of Personal Advisers at end of February 2001

  White

  78

  People from ethnic minority groups1

  7

  No data held

  15

  1No data held on specific ethnic minority groups

  Source:

  Employment Service Head Office Personnel Division

  The ethnic breakdown of clients on the New Deal for Young People programme are in the table.
  846W

  Percentage

  Ethnic group1

  Proportion of new deal for young people clients at the end of July 20011

  White

  79.6

  Black-Caribbean

  3.2

  Pakistani

  3.0

  Black-African

  2.1

  Black-Other

  1.6

  Indian

  1.4

  Bangladeshi

  1.0

  Chinese

  0.2

  Other

  3.0

  Prefer not to say

  4.9

  1 Providing ethnicity information is voluntary, we cannot compel individuals to specify their ethnic origin.

  2 The proportions shown are of those New Deal clients who completed an Employment Service form which requests information about ethnic origin. 95 per cent. of clients completed the form.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many personal advisers in the new deal for young people have left in each year since its inception; how many of these have left as a result of promotion in the Employment Service; and what estimate he has made of the average length of service of such personal advisers. [7979]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average cost per place on each of the four options in the new deal for young people in the last 12 months was. [7976]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  £

  Option

  Unit costs for the year ending August 2001

  Subsidised employment

  1,638

  Full time education and training

  1,358

  Voluntary sector

  2,360

  Environmental Task Force

  2,478

  Source:

  Employment Service Management Information on New Deal for Young People

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of women who in 2001 will reach the age of 60 years after the qualifying week for Winter Fuel Payment eligibility but before 25 December; how the qualification for automatic Winter Fuel Payments is triggered; and if he will make a statement. [7575]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is estimated that 70,000 women will attain the age of 60 between the qualifying week (17 to 23 September) and 25 December 2001.

  Automatic entitlement to a Winter Fuel Payment is determined by identifying those people who meet the qualifying criteria, including age and household composition, from official records.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department can invite staff to remain in post beyond the normal retirement age; and what is the final age at which such staff must retire. [10148]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In the Department, the final age at which all staff in grades below the Senior Civil Service must retire is 65. Staff have the flexibility of choosing to retire at any time from the minimum retirement of 60 up to the age of 65.

  The retirement age for Senior Civil Servants is 60.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 438W, on stakeholder pensions, what income range in pounds sterling per annum is the target group for stakeholder pensions. [11622]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions" identified moderate earners as people earning between £9,000 and £20,000. The Green Paper went on to explain that people earning above £20,000 were in most cases already making additional pension provision. However, it did make clear that higher earners without access to a good quality pension scheme would still be able to take advantage of the new stakeholder regime.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people who are working and claiming benefits fraudulently. [7474]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Estimates have not been made for the total number of people who are working and claiming benefits fraudulently.

  Pension Schemes
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on investigation into the Warwick Group Pension Scheme, the Debenholt Pension and Life Assurance Scheme and the Warwick Sport and Leisure Ltd. Retirement Benefits Scheme, including actions by(a) the Pensions Ombudsman and (b) the independent trustees (i) in respect of these schemes and (ii) in respect of the former trustees Norman and Simon Gidney. [9652]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pensions Ombudsman has received complaints in relation to the Warwick Group Pension Scheme and the Debenholt Pension and Life Assurance Scheme. He has issued his determination in respect of a number of the complaints made, others remain to be considered. The Pensions Ombudsman is an independent statutory commissioner and we cannot comment on his determinations or on actions taken during his investigation of complaints. Copies of his determinations are available on the Pensions Ombudsman's website.
  848W
  The Independent Trustee is still taking action to wind up the Warwick Group Pension Scheme and the Debenholt Pension and Life Assurance scheme which are associated schemes. The Warwick Sport and Leisure Ltd. Retirement Benefits Scheme has been wound up.

  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority has investigated breaches of the Pensions Act 1995 in relation to all three schemes. As a result of its investigation Mr. N. Gidney and Mr. S. Gidney were both disqualified from acting as a trustee of any occupational pension scheme and fined in respect of 13 breaches of the Pensions Act 1995.

  Pensions (Employees)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many full-time employees(a) were in occupational pension schemes and (b) subscribed to personal pensions in each of the last five years. [11314]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The table shows estimates of the numbers of full-time employees contributing to occupational and personal pensions in each of the years 1996–97 through to 1999–2000. Because of a change in methodology on the Family Resources Survey—1999–2000 data are not comparable to earlier years.

  Million

  Year

  Total full-time employees with an occupational pension

  Total full-time employees with a personal pension

  1996–97

  9.4

  3.3

  1997–98

  9.3

  3.2

  1998–99

  9.6

  3.4

  1999–2000

  9.3

  2.6

  Note:

  Totals rounded to nearest 100,000

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey percentages applied to Labour Force Survey totals

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hawalla Banking System
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the potential misuse by terrorists of the Hawalla banking system; and if he will make a statement. [8003]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The informal nature of this banking system makes it difficult for law enforcement agencies to monitor financial transactions that may or may not be connected to criminal activities. However, the police will continue to give a high priority to the investigation of financial transactions instigated by criminals using banking systems, whatever their nature, around the world. In particular, the economic crime unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service

  849W
  is conducting a strategic assessment of Alternative Remittance Systems, such as Hawalla banking, including the possible use of these systems by terrorists and other criminals, which will inform us of what measures need to be taken.

  Terrorist Threat
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of measures taken to counter the terrorist threat to Government buildings in Westminster and Parliament. [10244]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Protective security arrangements are the responsibility of the Secretary of State in each respective Department. Security measures in all Government Departments are kept under regular review to ensure that they provide adequate protection against the range of threats faced by Government Departments and buildings, including that from terrorism.

  In the Palace of Westminster, Black Rod and the Sergeant at Arms have recently met and on behalf of both Houses are actively considering a number of issues with a view to improving security at the Palace and its ancillary buildings.

  More generally, under the Civil Contingencies Committee which I chair, a sub-committee chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, is reviewing the contingency arrangements for the key infrastructure of the United Kingdom. This includes the key structures associated with the parliamentary process.

  In light of the current situation these measures will remain under close scrutiny.

  Security Industry
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures he plans to take to regulate the security industry. [10753]

  Mr. Denham
  The Private Security Industry Act 2001 sets out the Government's current plans for the regulation of the private security industry in England and Wales.

  The Act establishes the Security Industry Authority, which will have responsibility for licensing security operatives and approving companies in designated sectors of the industry.

  The Government wish to see the authority up and running as soon as possible. It will be open to the authority to make recommendations to amend the regulatory framework if it considers this desirable.

  Overseas PhD Students
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas PhD students in science disciplines are in the UK on work permits. [10914]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of PhD students in science disciplines in the United Kingdom on work permits is not available through our information technology systems and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been issued in the Greater London area in the last 12 months under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [10944]

  Mr. Denham
  No applications have been received to impose child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which took effect on 1 August 2001, have recently extended the upper age limit to 15 and allowed the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes.

  Metropolitan Police
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the pay and conditions of Metropolitan police civilian security staff at the Houses of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [10782]

  Mr. Denham
  The pay and conditions of service of civilian security staff at the Houses of Parliament are matters for the Metropolitan Police Authority.

  The Metropolitan Police Service is undertaking a review of pay and grading for all its civil staff, including the security staff at the Palace of Westminster.

  The recommendations are due to be considered by the Metropolitan Police Authority's Human Resources Committee on 1 November.

  Rehabilitation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 213W, whether targets for rehabilitation are published for each prison; if he will list those for Nottingham prison; and if he will make a statement on progress made (a) at Nottingham prison and (b) in the UK. [10970]

  Beverley Hughes
  Targets for individual establishments are not routinely published. The targets for Nottingham prison for measures that relate to rehabilitation for the financial year 2001–02 are listed in the table. The targets for Her Majesty's Prison Service England and Wales were listed in my answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 213W.

  Nottingham Prison

  Target 2001–02

  Purposeful activity hours

  19.5

  Offending behaviour programmes

  24

  Sex offender treatment programmes

  —

  Random mandatory drug testing

  16.9

  Drug rehabilitation/therapeutic communities

  60

  Counselling, Assessment, Referral. Advice and Throughcare Services (CARATS)

  384

  Detoxification

  350

  Basic skills awards—literacy

  15

  Basic skills awards—numeracy

  15

  Key work skills

  5

  Sex offender treatment programmes are not run at Nottingham prison. Performance for the last three financial years for Nottingham prison and HM Prison

  851W
  Service England and Wales is detailed in the tables. The Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office should

  Nottingham Prison

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Purposeful activity hours

  15.3

  20.6

  18.3

  Offending behaviour programmes

  19

  21

  25

  Sex offender treatment programmes

  0

  0

  0

  Random mandatory drug testing

  25.6%

  21.6%

  20.5%

  Drug rehabilitation/therapeutic communities

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare Services (CARATS)

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Detoxification

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Basic skills awards—literacy

  1—

  1—

  27

  Basic skills awards—numeracy

  1—

  1—

  28

  Key work skills

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1indicates that data for these indicators were not collected.

  HM Prison Service England and Wales

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Purposeful activity hours

  22.8

  23.2

  23.8

  Offending behaviour programmes

  3,129

  4,664

  5,986

  Sex offender treatment programmes

  589

  585

  786

  Random mandatory drug testing

  18.3%

  14.2%

  12.4%

  Drug rehabilitation/therapeutic communities

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare Services (CARATS)

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Detoxification

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Basic skills awards—literacy

  1—

  1—

  7,269

  Basic skills awards—numeracy

  1—

  1—

  5,495

  Key work skills

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1Indicates that data were not collected centrally.

  Data Retention
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the John Horrocks data retention report commissioned by his Department will be published. [10419]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The report has been completed and is currently being reviewed within Government. It will be submitted to Ministers. The report includes commercially sensitive information. A summary of its findings will be shared with industry contacts in November.

  Speed Cameras
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speed cameras there are, broken down by county at the most recent date available; and what percentage in each case are operational. [11123]

  Mr. Denham
  The Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that there are some 4,500 speed camera sites in England and Wales. Information on the percentage that are operational is not held centrally, nor is information on the number of speed cameras in each county.

  Community Against Drugs Initiative
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of consultation on the Community Against Drugs initiative. [11216]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Communities Against Drugs funding is paid to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. Partnerships are required to agree their spending plans with Drug Action Teams, and Home Office guidance identifies that other agencies and groups
  852W
  be approached for information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively.

  should be consulted in the development of these plans. We could not properly assess the extent of the consultation undertaken, by partnerships, until the end of 2001–02.

  Crime and Disorder Act
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made of racially aggravated offences under Part II of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [11368]

  Mr. Denham
  Information for 1998 and 1999 was taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database showing the number of persons proceeded against for racially aggravated offences under Part II of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Data for 2000 will be available later this year.

  Persons proceeded against for racially aggravated offences under-Part 11 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—England and Wales

  Proceeded against

  Offence description

  19981

  1999

  Racially aggravated Wounding inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm

  2

  58

  Racially Aggravated Actual Bodily Harm

  3

  299

  Racially Aggravated Common Assault

  6

  367

  Racially Aggravated Criminal Damage

  9

  261

  Racially Aggravated Intentional Harassment, Alarm or Distress

  3

  430

  Racially Aggravated Offence of Harassment

  3

  113

  Racially Aggravated—Harassment; putting people in fear of violence

  2

  63

  Racially Aggravated fear or provocation of violence

  5

  317

  Total

  33

  1,908

  1 Act came into effect in the last quarter of 1998

  Race Relations Act
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been made by the police under section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976 in respect of material or actions likely to incite racial hatred; how many resulted in convictions; and what penalties were imposed. [11387]

  Mr. Denham
  Section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976 was repealed by the Public Order Act 1986, where the provisions on incitement to racial hatred can now be found.

  Information provided by the Attorney-General's office showing the majority of the data requested—for the period 1997 to 2001 (to date)—is in the table.

  Offences of incitement to racial hatred under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Number of consent applications

  12

  2

  4

  7

  7

  Withdrawn

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Not granted

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prosecuted

  10

  1

  4

  7

  7

  Convicted

  9

  1

  3

  24

  3—

  1 To date

  2 Two results awaited

  3 Results awaited

  Source:

  Attorney-General's office

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied minors who are classified as asylum seekers are under the protection of local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [11369]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities state that as of 26 January 2001 they were supporting 6,078 unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). This consisted of 1,376 under 16-year-olds and 4,702 16 to 17 year-olds.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans have been made by(a) his Department and (b) institutions involved in the preparations for Holocaust Memorial Day 2002; and if he will make a statement. [11272]

  Angela Eagle
  Holocaust Memorial Day on Sunday 27 January 2002 will be marked by a national event and associated activities in schools and local communities around the country. Planning has involved wide consultation with schools, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), local authorities and other Government Departments. I plan to announce the full arrangements for Holocaust Memorial Day 2002 soon.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers there were in England and Wales at the latest date for which figures are available. [11751]
  854W
  Beverley Hughes
  There were 6,785 probation officers in post at 30 June 2001.

  Childhood Abuse
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent assessment he has made of the physical and mental health of men and women in prison who have suffered childhood abuse; [10303]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the incidence of abuse in the childhood of men and women in prison.[10302]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: We are unaware of any research that has been carried out across the whole of the prison population of England and Wales which would enable us to estimate the proportion that had been abused in childhood. Our general understanding however, from anecdotal and other evidence, is that the number of prisoners who had been abused would be significant.

  The Prison Service has information about the mental health of all prisoners and about the physical health of sentenced male prisoners aged 16 years and over, from surveys conducted by the Office for National Statistics and its predecessor, OPCS. However, it is not possible to extract the information for those prisoners who may have been abused in childhood.

  Media Briefings
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 10 June his Department gave briefings to the national media on announcements before their formal release; and if he will make a statement. [11478]

  Mr. Blunkett
  None.

  Prison Population
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present level of the prison population; and if it is his policy to increase this further. [11797]

  Beverley Hughes
  On 26 October 2001, there were 68,127 people in prisons in England and Wales. Within the sentencing framework set by Parliament, it is for the courts to determine who is sent to prison and for how long.

  Police Establishment
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each local authority area in London(a) police establishment as of 31 March 1993, (b) police establishment as of 31 March 1997, (c) police establishment as of 31 March 2001, (d) police establishment as of 31 September 2001 and (e) projected target establishment for 31 March 2002. [10176]

  Mr. Denham
  The information has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The Metropolitan police is unable to provide budgeted police officer work force totals for 1993 and 1997. Actual strength figures are available for 31 December in each of
  855W
  those years, and with budgeted work force totals for March 2001 and September 2001 are set out in the table.

  Number of police officers

  Budgeted work force

  Division

  December 1993

  December 1997

  March 20011

  September 20012

  City of Westminster

  1,901

  1,697

  1,580

  1,642

  Kensington and Chelsea

  655

  609

  557

  577

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  548

  542

  517

  539

  Camden

  692

  697

  671

  699

  Islington

  568

  549

  554

  584

  Harrow

  277

  289

  295

  311

  Brent

  620

  613

  606

  637

  Barnet

  781

  706

  517

  542

  Ealing

  653

  627

  611

  656

  Hillingdon

  444

  398

  376

  395

  Haringey

  562

  527

  533

  562

  Hackney

  633

  677

  673

  708

  Tower Hamlets

  690

  568

  549

  578

  Waltham Forest

  474

  464

  453

  474

  Redbridge

  536

  497

  390

  414

  Havering

  375

  334

  320

  334

  Newham

  578

  590

  583

  616

  Barking and Dagenham

  287

  300

  279

  294

  Enfield

  550

  550

  478

  515

  Southwark

  850

  861

  801

  839

  Lewisham

  588

  610

  584

  612

  Bromley

  481

  464

  440

  458

  Greenwich

  518

  612

  586

  613

  Bexley

  273

  282

  310

  328

  Croydon

  580

  601

  549

  595

  Sutton

  390

  405

  254

  270

  Lambeth

  947

  917

  875

  923

  Richmond upon Thames

  321

  283

  260

  274

  Hounslow

  483

  457

  411

  435

  Kingston upon Thames

  396

  367

  256

  272

  Merton

  312

  293

  290

  303

  Wandsworth

  693

  596

  555

  586

  Total

  18,656

  17,982

  16,713

  17,585

  Heathrow airport3

  424

  362

  304

  301

  Divisional total

  19,080

  18,344

  17,017

  17,886

  1 Figures are full-time equivalents

  2 The budgeted work force total for each London borough division is set at the start of the financial year. Projected figures for 31 March 2002 are therefore the same as those for 30 September 2001

  3 These police posts are paid by Heathrow Airport plc

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many care homes have been investigated since 1997 in the historical abuse investigations in each police authority area; [9418]

  (2) what recent research he has undertaken to evaluate the pre-trial procedures in connection with sex abuse inquiries; what recent work he has undertaken to measure the difference in the impact on the rights and liberties of persons accused or suspected of sex abuse crimes from the impact on the rights and liberties of those accused of other offences; what analyses he has carried out on the impact of compensation on the reporting of sex abuse crimes; what recent assessment he has made of police investigative powers in relation to people accused of sex abuse; how many applicants for criminal injuries compensation relating to sex abuse are serving a prison sentence; what steps he takes to advertise the availability of compensation; what assistance police have received from solicitors acting on behalf of victims with respect to sex abuse inquiries; and if he will make a statement on the controls imposed on the police while interviewing (a) suspects and (b) witnesses and on the reasons for the differences between treatment of both groups; [9419]
  856W
  The budgeted work force totals can be subject to change in the light of changes in circumstances.

  (3) how many suspects have been identified in connection with historical institutional child abuse investigations, broken down by police authority and since 1997; on what basis in each such area persons have been regarded as suspects; how many such individuals have been (a) arrested, (b) charged, (c) convicted and (d) acquitted; how many pleaded (i) not guilty and (ii) guilty; how many who pleaded in (i) and (ii) were convicted; of those arrested how many had no further action taken against them; how many individuals who were convicted appealed against their (x) conviction and (y) sentence; how many appeals were successful and, in each case, on what basis and how many failed and, in each case, on what basis; how many complaints of sexual abuse in such cases, broken down by authority were referred to the CPS; what percentage of the complaints received were so referred; how many cases the CPS accepted; what was the basis of each rejection; of the persons charged, how long they (A) waited and (B) were waiting before they came to trial; of the persons arrested, how many persons are on police bail; how many separate complaints have been received; how many complainants there are; how many of the victims have (aa) served and (bb) are serving time in prison; how many victims have applied for compensation; how much each individual has

  857W
  received in (1) 1997, (2) 1998, (3) 1999 and (4) 2000; and how many applications for compensation are outstanding. [9417]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Information is not collected centrally on the number of investigations into institutional child abuse, on the number of care homes involved in such investigations, or on the numbers of people arrested, charged or convicted as a result. A survey carried out in 1998–99 on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Crime Committee established that 32 forces in England and Wales had been investigating claims of institutional child abuse or were doing so during the period covered by the questionnaire, (1 January 1998 to 30 June 1999). Many of the remaining forces stated that they had been engaged in such inquiries at other times. A similar survey was carried out by ACPO earlier this year to which 32 forces responded. During the period covered by this survey (1997 to 2000) those 32 forces detailed 96 investigations (some of which may have involved more than one institution) which had led to 543 arrests. Of the 1,197 referrals made to the Crown Prosecution Service no further action was taken in 940 cases. The survey revealed 193 successful prosecutions and 40 acquittals. Details of these individual cases are not centrally held.

  The information retained by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) cannot be extrapolated to provide the information requested. Records are not kept regarding current or previous imprisonment of any applicants for criminal injuries compensation, and information held by the CICB cannot identify those who have applied for compensation following an allegation of historical institutional child abuse. There are no steps taken in such cases to advertise the availability of compensation to victims. If the police or social workers are asked about compensation they will advise the alleged victim to seek independent legal advice. For the vast majority of complainants compensation is not a motivating factor. Victims are seeking justice, not compensation.

  The police have a duty to investigate all allegations of child abuse thoroughly, and to undertake a complete investigation in accordance with the law.

  They are acutely aware of the need to ensure that their investigative procedures in these cases incorporate the necessary safeguards against false allegations, while fulfilling their duty to ensure that those who have committed serious crimes against young people in care do not escape justice. Discussions have taken place with ACPO and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary about what more can be done to ensure that the procedures in place for conducting these very difficult investigations are fair and robust.

  ACPO are currently drawing up a manual for senior investigating officers working in child abuse cases, which will include a section on good practice in tracing potential witnesses and obtaining corroborative evidence. In parallel with this, an inter-agency working group is developing guidance to the police and social services on the handling of complex abuse investigations.

  Both sets of best practice guidance should be completed shortly. Together they will provide a coherent policy framework for how to conduct child abuse investigations,
  858W
  building on best practice drawn from around the country and ensuring that the necessary procedures are in place to safeguard against the risk of false allegations.

  Cannabis Plantations
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many legal cannabis plantations there are in the UK; and what plans there are to increase this number. [11152]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The cultivation of cannabis (hemp) for industrial purposes is licensed, per growing site, on an annual basis to cover that particular year's growing season. This year, 119 such licences have been issued. There is no restriction on the number of growers or growing sites that may be licensed during any particular year. Any increase or decrease in the number of licences issued would be influenced by commercial decisions and the ability of growers to meet the licence criteria.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Morganatic Marriages
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make it her policy to introduce legislation further amending the Regency Act 1937, and to amend the Royal Marriages Act 1772, to permit members of the Royal Family to enter into morganatic marriages. [11620]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no plans to do so.

  Community Legal Service Funding
  Brian White
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to change the way applications for exceptional Community Legal Service funding are handled; and if he will make a statement. [12516]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor has today announced a number of changes to the way applications for exceptional Community Legal Service (CLS) funding will be handled. These changes are designed to make it easier for applicants to obtain funding in cases that would normally be outside the scope of the CLS. They follow on from the recent case of Rv. the Legal Services Commission and the Lord Chancellor ex parte Jarrett, and from our experience of handling exceptional cases.

  The main changes are as follows.

  A new test has been added to the existing criteria for obtaining exceptional funding. Previously, apart from satisfying the standard Funding Code criteria, applicants had to show that their cases raised matters of significant wider public interest or were of overwhelming importance to them. Now, it will also be practically impossible for the applicant to proceed or there would be obvious unfairness.

  Different criteria have been developed for inquests. This is because these cases are different from standard court cases, the criteria for which are not always suitable. For example, there is no need for a test of overwhelming

  859W
  importance, since the death of a loved one will always be of overwhelming importance. The test for inquests is instead whether the family of the deceased need representation in order to help the coroner carry out the task of determining the cause of death.

  The Legal Services Commission has been authorised to grant funding in certain types of inquest without having to seek the Lord Chancellor's authority in each individual case. This will make the application process shorter and more convenient for the bereaved. The cases in question are those where the death has occurred in police or prison custody, or during the course of police arrest, search, pursuit or shooting.
  860W
  These changes reflect the Government's continuing commitment to human rights. Although the court did not find against the Government or the Legal Services Commission in Mrs. Jarrett's case, it encouraged us to reconsider our guidance on exceptional cases, which the Lord Chancellor has been happy to do. The new test for obtaining exceptional funding will make a major contribution towards achieving access to justice for people whose cases are complex or difficult, or who have particular problems that legal representation can help with. At the same time, the new arrangements for handling applications in inquests will improve the service we are able to give bereaved applicants, at a time when it is important for us to be as supportive as possible.

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

Terrorism and Treason Acts: Awareness
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is a treasonable act for British subjects to take up arms against either the forces of the global alliance against terrorism in general or the Anglo-American forces in particular.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, it is totally unacceptable for British citizens, or those having or seeking permanent residence here, to take up arms against British soldiers and their allies. People should be aware that criminal sanctions will be applied, including the use of the Terrorism Act 2000 or the Treason Act 1351, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that extremely robust Answer. May I ask him to extend that to the question of the sanctions that will be taken against those who, like William Joyce, incite treason, as there seems to be some incitement to treason going on in this country today?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in that kind of situation the sanctions would be exactly the same. The law has not changed. The prosecuting authorities—namely, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police—will take action if the evidence is there. But the law has not changed since the action against William Joyce.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not in the interests of this country to detain here people who wish us such ill will? Would we not be far better off assisting their exit from this country to go and join the Taliban on the clear understanding that they will never again be allowed back in here?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a substantive answer. In this country, British citizens are free to come and go; they are not required to say where they are going and they are not required to say where they have been when they come back. However, when they do come back, officers at ports of entry are always on the look out for people whom we suspect may have committed criminal offences abroad.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the need arises, will the noble Lord proscribe recruitment to and service with the Taliban?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this issue has been raised before. It would not be practical or common sense to
1508
proscribe the Taliban in the way that we have proscribed 35 other organisations. The Taliban is a de facto government for all practical purposes. Nevertheless, we have a considerable dispute with it. The organisations the membership of which is a criminal offence are proscribed by law. To that extent the Taliban would not fit that. However, that does not mean that action would not be taken if British citizens go to fight against British soldiers and our allies.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, does the Minister agree that it might be wise to facilitate the departure of these so-called British citizens to Afghanistan and to let the Royal Marines and the SAS deal with the problem?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it might be useful for those British citizens who are thinking of going abroad for that purpose to have a chat with the many thousands of people from Afghanistan who are at the moment seeking refugee status in the United Kingdom. They could let them know what are the facts of life in Afghanistan. The idea that a British citizen would go abroad to fight for a government who deny women the right to work and the right to education is nothing short of a scandal—and that is using the most moderate language I dare use as a Minister.
Lord McNally: My Lords, would it not be wise for Ministers to follow the advice of Professor Sir Michael Howard, who suggests that as well as keeping our nerve at this time we keep our head? The concept of the enemy within is a very old one in conflicts. After all, our own Royal Family had to change its name during the First World War because of anti-German feeling. Would it not be better to concentrate not on these fringe and lunatic groups but, following the Home Secretary's initiative, on teaching citizenship and concepts of loyalty to the United Kingdom to our minority populations, and getting minority leadership involved in such a programme?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we do not believe that we have an enemy within in terms of listing a subject group. It is outrageous for people to write in those terms about various minorities in this country. They are not an enemy within. There are rotten apples in every group, and where people commit criminal offences, and where there is the evidence, it is the job of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to take the necessary action. It is the job of government—and of all of us—to educate civic society so that there is religious tolerance, freedom to worship and respect for human beings. Clearly there is none of that in Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am a British Muslim and very proud to be so? Is he aware that there is a cemetery in Woking of Muslims who lost their lives during the Second World War? Is he aware that Muslim Pakistan supported our country during the Suez crisis against another Muslim

1509
country? Is he aware that Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia stood shoulder to shoulder with the United Kingdom during the Gulf crisis and during the previous crisis in Afghanistan, and are doing so even today?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend speaks volumes. As a Minister from the Dispatch Box, I cannot cap that. He makes exactly the point I inadequately attempted to make. There are no single doubt groups. People from all religions and all cultures have the rights and the tolerance of this country, and they have defended and come to the assistance of this country in times of need. That applies whether they are male, female, wear turbans, grow beards, whatever their colour or creed. We pay tribute to such people, who come from all walks of life, on a regular basis. For that reason alone it is wrong to compartmentalise people and to slur them in the way that they have been slurred in recent times. However, as I said, where people commit those kinds of offences, they will be rooted out and, where necessary, prosecuted.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if British citizens or denizens went abroad, not actually bearing arms against this country's Armed Forces but being prepared to do so, could they be excluded from re-entry?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if the person was a British citizen, the answer is probably no. It would depend on the degree of evidence. Incitement to commit an offence is a criminal offence—whether it be incitement to treason or other kinds of incitement. That can happen in this country or if people go abroad with the intention of doing so. If there is evidence that someone has committed an offence of incitement, action can be taken.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords—
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has rightly been cautious in his replies, although he has been very definite about some aspects of the issue. There is too much anecdotal evidence, but there are those, sadly, within our overall community who appear to be encouraging some young people—again within our overall community—to go abroad for purposes which we would all agree are improper. The noble Lord said that it is the function of the police and the legal authorities to root this out. What he has not said is whether those legal bodies are considering such action at the present time against any individual. Can
1510
the noble Lord enlighten the House on that issue? Members of the House would be encouraged to know that some action was likely to be taken.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question in the way that he would wish. The Crown Prosecution Service, the police and other qualified security forces are at work on this issue on the streets of Britain, as, indeed, are our people abroad. As far as I know, no one has been arrested. There is scant evidence to support the allegation that British citizens have left this country to take up arms against British forces. Evidence is in short supply—and evidence would be required for any prosecution.

Biological Weapons Convention
3.10 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they anticipate that the proposed protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention, providing for effective investigation and enforcement, will be agreed.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the 24th session of the Biological Weapons Convention Ad Hoc Group, which took place in August this year, concluded without agreement on a protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention. The United Kingdom is continuing to work with states parties to ensure that multilateral negotiations resume at an early stage following the fifth review conference of the convention in Geneva, which is due to take place between 19th November and 7th December.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will my noble friend accept my thanks for that Answer and my congratulations to the Government, who have given a vigorous lead throughout this project? Does she agree that events have demonstrated so dramatically the need for an effective verification regime that words are almost superfluous? Are the American reservations essentially that the draft protocol does not go far enough? If so, is there not a danger of the "best being the enemy of the good"? If the protocol is not in place in time for the review conference in November, will my noble friend assure the House that it will not be left high and dry, like so many worthwhile projects which have missed their time?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his plaudit for Her Majesty's Government on the vigorous way in which we have pursued the protocol. He is right: it is argued in relation to the convention that we need not only verification procedures but also enforcement procedures. The United States felt unable to support the protocol because it believed that it would be ineffective in preventing the proliferation of biological weapons and that it would place an unacceptable

1511
burden on United States commercial and defence interests. I remind my noble and learned friend that, although the United States found difficulty with the protocol, it made clear its commitment to strengthening the convention. It has now come forward with proposals about ways in which that might be done. I hope that we shall be able to make some progress at the review conference.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it not the position that the new American proposals go considerably further than the convention and that they have been presented in London and in other capitals? I believe that they would require new, tighter controls on imports and exports of biological material. What is the Government's attitude to this additional commitment by the Americans? Would it involve changes in our law, and has that been considered?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United States' proposals were received somewhat later than had originally been anticipated—for the understandable reasons that the US government departments concerned were preoccupied following the events of 11th September. I agree with the noble Lord that some of the proposals are far-reaching, including the criminalisation of possession. They include, for example, improving the network for reporting disease that may flow from the use of biological weapons, stricter controls on pathogen handling and a rapid reaction force in the event of any attack. Those are only a few examples.
The noble Lord asked about the United Kingdom's reaction. We are studying the proposals with great interest. I cannot give the noble Lord a blow-by-blow account, but what is being suggested has particular force in the light of what, sadly, we have seen happen in recent days and weeks in the United States. As for any changes to United Kingdom law, those would have to be considered in the light of any agreements that were made internationally.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the passage through this House of the protocol to the chemical weapons convention there was some discussion about the invasion of sovereignty which an effective implementation and inspection regime involves? Is the Minister clear—I hope that Her Majesty's Government are saying this to the United States—that, if there is to be an effective enforcement regime, it must be as effective and as detailed within democratic countries, whatever the commercial interests of their companies, as it is in other countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have no problem agreeing with what the noble Lord says. Indeed, the United Kingdom supported the protocol very vigorously indeed. We, together with our European partners, expressed some regret that the United States did not find itself in a position to do so. But we must look on the positive side. The United States has now come forward with some encouraging
1512
proposals—in particular, regarding the investigation of suspect outbreaks of disease and possible ways in which the international community can come together. If there are to be international verification procedures, that suggests that all countries must make up their minds where they stand on the issue of sovereignty. I believe that the United Kingdom has already made that very clear.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is essential that every scientific and technological effort should be used to improve the detection of biological weapons and the prevention of their use and the consequent medical effects? Does she further agree that the current levels of science and technology in these areas are not sufficient, and that verification is therefore necessary along the lines of the convention?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that every effort must be made to utilise all available ability and expertise in science and technology, both nationally and internationally, in order to take on the threat that any form of biological weaponry may pose not only to this country or to our allies but anywhere in the world. I am not in a position personally to express an expert view on whether there is sufficient scientific and technological capability in this country or elsewhere to fulfil that task. However, I can assure my noble friend that there are many in government who are in a position so to do and their expertise will be called upon when the convention is reviewed between the 19th of this month and the 7th of next month.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation Centres
3.17 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to the legal implications of their decision to deny financial support to asylum seekers who do not take up places in reception centres.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have considered, and are continuing to consider, the legal implications of denying financial support to asylum seekers who decline to take up a place in one of the trial accommodation centres. Further details of the precise proposals will be set out in the White Paper that was announced in the Statement on 29th October.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has often dealt in a very open and robust way with the questions put to him. Having flattered the Minister, may I ask him this? Before he incurs any expenditure in relation to the setting up of reception centres, will he look at the experiment carried out during the admission of 28,000 Ugandan Asians to this country as refugees when it was found that reception centres did not work? The refugees moved quickly into the community where they received better support

1513
and, more importantly, were able to work and settle permanently. Is it not cheaper to allow asylum seekers to receive support in the community, together with the appropriate social security support, rather than incur expenditure beyond what they would normally receive?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's flattery. Given that the Question was tabled only 26 hours ago, I think that we have done quite well so far. There is no comparison whatever with the entry of the Ugandan Asians or the Vietnamese boat people—in regard to which I have paid tribute to the previous administration. Those cases involved a defined number of people over a specific period of time and one could plan. There is no planning in relation to the asylum seekers who are currently entering this country—roughly some 6,000 a month. We do not know how many are entering the country each week or where they come from. We cannot plan. To compare what happened in those years with what is happening now is to compare chalk and cheese.
As we made clear in the Statement, we are not expecting everyone to go to the accommodation centres; we are trialling the centres. We shall have only 3,000 places, using the centres, it is hoped, twice a year. That accounts for only 6,000. The present flow of asylum seekers into the country is about 6,000 a month. So for 90 per cent of asylum seekers, the normal system—better managed, I accept, as was stated earlier in the week, in terms of ending the voucher system and the move to smart cards, and in terms of the management of the dispersal system—will continue for a period of time. That is inevitable. We are seeking to run a fairer, faster system, end to end—so that people who succeed can be integrated faster. But those who fail will be removed faster.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in view of the fact that about 60 per cent of asylum applications arise from people who have apparently already been in the United Kingdom for an unknown length of time, as the Minister told us when we discussed the Statement on Monday, are the Government considering a scheme to ensure that foreign nationals entering the United Kingdom are registered on arrival?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that that matter is connected with what we are discussing. Many people who apply for asylum in country have arrived clandestinely. They did not enter the country via a port of entry with a passport and did not present themselves to an immigration officer. Those who have done so and who are not citizens of the European Union will have had their passports checked against the warnings index. Their passports will be "swiped" through the relevant machine and if they are not listed on the warnings index—the vast majority of passports are not—and they have a visa or the necessary documents, they will be allowed to enter the country. As I say, that matter is not connected with what we are discussing. We do not keep a record of all people entering the country. People may
1514
think that a passport that is "swiped" is recorded, but that is not the case. The point of "swiping" a passport is to check it against the warnings index—that is done in an instant—to determine whether someone is a banned person or is on the warnings index. To record people entering the country would involve much extra work. There are no embarkation controls.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister clarify the improvements that have been made to the dispersal system? As he is well aware, under the dispersal system asylum seekers were often sent to estates that were already overburdened with social problems and many local authorities complained of lack of consultation and liaison with central government. Are those problems being addressed? How exactly is the dispersal system being improved?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, these issues are detailed in the papers that were placed in the Library on Monday afternoon when the Statement was made. The review of the dispersal system and the review of the voucher system have both been extensive. We have set out the recommendations that were made. I refer to two aspects of the dispersal system that could be improved; namely, dispersal according to language and the issue of having much greater consultation with the authorities in areas to which people are dispersed. Some loopholes exist but the system has been incredibly successful when one considers that in 18 months, from a standing start, 30,000 people have been dispersed. There have been problems and there have been tragedies but, by and large, it has been a successful operation. I referred to two aspects of the dispersal system that could be improved; the others are listed in the papers that were published on Monday. Those matters do not require much legislation or even a White Paper. We are implementing the recommendations both in respect of vouchers—in so far as we can in advance of legislation being introduced—and dispersal.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, may I invite my noble friend to look again at the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place made earlier this year; namely, that people should be able to make applications for asylum in countries of their choice from the first safe country in which they arrive?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are discussing that matter with our partners in Europe, bearing in mind that most safe countries are members of the European Union. As we indicated on Monday, we are also considering a system of managed migration whereby people are able to make applications outside this country if their prime purpose is to work in this country. The details of the proposals will be set out in the White Paper to be published shortly.
Lord Renton: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have reached the 25th minute and there is another important Question to be discussed.

Individual Learning Accounts
3.25 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultation took place with relevant organisations before the decision to cease awarding individual learning accounts.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the individual learning accounts programme has exceeded all expectations and has expanded beyond its capacity. Recently we became concerned that a number of companies were misselling ILAs and that some people were being pressed to sign up for low value, poor quality learning. We decided to act quickly and without consultation to protect the interests of individual learners and to protect public funds. We shall introduce a further scheme following extensive consultation.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Can he be more precise and tell me the exact date when the department knew that fraudulent applications were being made?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is a large programme with some 6,000 providers. Complaints were received from the first month of the scheme's operation but they were in single figures. That is to be expected of any scheme of this kind. However, in the summer the complaints reached such a figure that it was decided to strengthen the scheme. However, that did not result in a reduction in the number of complaints and, consequently, we took the action that I mentioned.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as I believe the Minister said, over 6,000 complaints were made before the scheme was withdrawn. Were any monitoring procedures in place? What kind of prior registration and evaluation of providers was required?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we should recognise the uniqueness of the scheme. It is driven by student demand. The whole concept behind it is that the student purchases the appropriate course on the basis of the resources made available to him or her. Therefore, the individual took responsibility for signing up to a course. At the point of enrolling on a course students were advised to contact Learndirect—that is a key element of government advice—to seek advice on the validity and value of courses. We sought to attract a group of people who do not ordinarily participate in learning. We tried to create as flexible a system as possible with the absolute minimum of bureaucracy. That was the basis on which the scheme operated.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it not staggering incompetence on the part of the department not to have tackled fraudulent applications before now? Is it
1516
not even more staggering that on the same day it was announced that the ILAs were to cease being awarded a document was produced by the same department which pledged to continue and expand them?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have pledged to introduce a new scheme to meet what we all recognise is exceptional demand. We have provided resources for a target of I million learners by March next year. That target was reached in April this year. At present there are 2.5 million learners on the scheme. The demand reflected what we have long anticipated; namely, that there is an enormous demand for properly constituted learning. As regards the vast majority of the schemes which are put forward, both public and private providers are thoroughly reputable and the vast majority of learners have had an extremely satisfactory experience.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, is it not encouraging that so many learners have signed up to the scheme? What is its future?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the future is clear. The Government have indicated that a major element of our programme is to expand the provision of education for mature learners. I believe that every Member of this House will be astonished at the figures I shall mention. The Government expected a million students to undertake the courses. Our target was reached almost a year earlier than anticipated. Some two-and-a-half times as many people as anticipated are eager to participate in learning provision. 'That shows a demand which in the past was pent up and was not met in nearly two decades of the previous administration. Our policies reflect that great demand for learning. In the future the Government will introduce a new scheme to meet the requirements of learners.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that he has made a mistake in what he has just told the House? That document came out with a letter on 22nd October. The document said that ILAs were to be extended. It said nothing about a new scheme or a new system. Within the week, the ILAs were suspended. That is the reality of what has happened.
What about the genuine providers and students? What are they to do in this lapse? I should like the Minister to answer that, but please do not forget my first question.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I certainly shall not forget the noble Baroness's first question. The Government acted dramatically on one day because public money and the interests of learners are involved. In circumstances in which we had evidence of real fraud being conducted it was important to bring it to a halt immediately, hence the Government's immediate decision to suspend the scheme. Let me make the future of the issue clear. Those students who sign up for learning before 7th December will have

1517
their positions honoured. The same applies to providers. However, where fraud has been clearly detected, it would be remiss of the Government to allow the scheme to persist, to the loss of public money.

Business of the House: Restoration of Old Palace Yard
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carter, how Her Majesty the Queen's coach will drive into the Sovereign's Tower on the occasion of the State Opening of Parliament now that a raised pavement has been constructed at its entrance? Furthermore, can he tell me whether it was necessary to enlarge the pavement beyond the railings, thus preventing extra cars from parking within?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for giving me advance notice of the Question. Although it is not a matter for the Government, I am happy to respond.
The next State Opening of Parliament is likely to take place in the autumn of next year. Before then, phase 3 of the restoration of Old Palace Yard will be carried out in the Summer Recess in 2002. This work will see the roadway itself cobbled to match the Peers' car park. That will have the effect of raising the level of the road to that of the raised pavement, thus removing the current apparent block on access to the Sovereign's Entrance. I was also puzzled when I saw the apparent problem and I am extremely pleased to have this answer.
The overall design of the restoration of Old Palace Yard forms part of the "World Heritage Squares for All" project and was approved by your Lordships' House in November 1998. A fundamental part of the concept was to improve the facilities and access to visitors and pedestrians. The restoration, as I have observed before, provides one additional car parking space.
I know that there has been some comment about the design. It may help the House to know that the design and the proposal have the support of the Royal Fine Art Commission, English Heritage, Westminster City Council, the House's Advisory Panel on Works of Art, the House's Administration and Works Sub-Committee and the House itself. There was also consultation with the police, the Traffic Director for London, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Government Office for London, the Royal Parks Agency, the International Council on Monuments and Sites, Westminster Abbey, the Lord Chairman's Office and the Thorney Island Society. All those bodies expressed support for the proposal and the design.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Of course, if I had realised that
1518
he had such a simple reply to my Question, I do not think that I would have asked it. There is a little matter of the cost. I realise that it is not fair to ask him about that at this point. Perhaps he would like to write to me about the cost and put a copy in the Library.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the noble Baroness mean the cost of the overall project?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from memory, I think that it was £2.25 million.

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill will allow the United Kingdom to ratify the Treaty of Nice, which was agreed by Heads of State and Government at the Nice European Council in December 2000. It was signed on 26th February this year, but it will not enter into force until it has been ratified by all 15 member states of the European Union. When that happens, we shall have put in place the final institutional reforms that the European Union needs to be ready for enlargement.
Enlarging the EU to take in the applicant countries of central and southern Europe has been a strategic aim of successive British governments for more than a decade. Britain is renowned as the champion of enlargement, but let us be clear: our Government want enlargement just as much as any of the candidate countries do—not just because we have strong ties with the candidates, although we do; not just because it is in their interests to be in, although we believe that it is; but because it is also in British interests to have them in. Enlargement is not a favour that we are doing the candidates; it is a favour that we are doing ourselves. Let me try to explain why.
First, we want enlargement because it is an historic prize. It will reunite Europe at long last after the bitter divisions of World War Two and the Cold War. It is extraordinary to think that a few years ago those countries in central and eastern Europe were still under the communist yoke of the old Soviet bloc. Enlargement is our opportunity to bury for ever the artificial divide that for too long disfigured our continent.
Secondly, we want enlargement because it carries for us, and for all the rest of Europe, immense benefits for the future. It will make us all richer, safer and stronger. It will be good for British companies, which will be able to benefit from access to the largest single market for trade and investment in the world, with up

1519
to half a billion consumers—more than the US and Japan put together. It will be good for British consumers, who, as a result of that huge single market, will have access to a wider range of goods at cheaper prices. It will give us more allies to help us to counter the cross-border threats that we all face—organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration; and it will give us a cleaner environment, because candidate countries are making major improvements in their air and water quality to meet EU standards.
After the horror of 11th September, we need enlargement more than ever. If we are to defeat the terrorists, we need the bigger, stronger Europe that enlargement will deliver and the practical co-operation across the continent that enlargement will allow.
A bigger EU will mean a stronger European defence policy, too, with more troops able to handle the peacekeeping, humanitarian and crisis management operations that Europe may need to run in the future. It will be a European Union better able to stop the kind of instability, on its borders or further afield, in which terrorists can hide and thrive.
The Treaty of Nice is necessary to make enlargement a success. Twelve countries are now negotiating to join the European Union. A 13th, Turkey, has been confirmed as a candidate for accession. Some have argued that the Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement. Many of your Lordships are no doubt ready to brandish a quote from the Commission President Romano Prodi to substantiate that claim. But imagine how an EU of up to 28 member states would work without reform. Unreformed, it would be paralysed. Decision-making would be extraordinarily difficult and often impossible. That is not in British or European interests. The remarks by the President of the Commission that Nice was not legally necessary were, of course, widely reported. What some people were less keen to report, however, was Romano Prodi's later comment that Nice was politically necessary for enlargement.
Let us be in no doubt: without this treaty, enlargement would cripple the EU, not enrich it. That is why we need the Nice Treaty. It reforms the institutions and procedures of the European Union so that it can operate efficiently and effectively after enlargement.
It reforms the Council's decision-making procedures so that the larger member states—Britain included—will have more voting weight in the enlarged Union. That is right. Without that reform, we would reach a point at which countries representing a minority of the European Union's population could outvote countries representing a majority of that population.
The treaty streamlines the Commission, and that is right, too. Without that reform, the number of Commissioners would grow to a point at which the Commission college would resemble a mass meeting. It introduces more qualified majority voting. Again, that is right because, without it, an enlarged Union would grind to a halt. It simply cannot make sense to hold up
1520
the business of the European Union in order to achieve unanimity for measures such as the appointment of members to the Court of Auditors.
The treaty makes it easier for groups of member countries to act in areas covered by the EU treaties without requiring all member states to do so. Again, that is right. An enlarged EU must have that flexibility if it is to thrive and accommodate the differing interests and capacities of a diverse membership. We set out to deal with all those problems at Nice, and we believe that we did so.
However, we set out to do more than simply open the door to enlargement by reforming the European Union's institutions. This Government also sought to ensure that the measures that we agreed were of direct benefit to Britain. Here, too, we believe that we succeeded.
We secured more voting power for Britain. For the first time since we joined what was then the Common Market in 1973, we won an increase in the United Kingdom's voting weight. Our voting power in the Council will go up relative to smaller and medium-sized member states. For example, where previously we had three times as many votes as Denmark, under the Nice arrangements we shall have four times as many.
At Nice we also succeeded in securing our objective of a leaner and more efficient Commission. From the year 2005 there will be one Commissioner per member state. Once the EU has 27 members, a decision will be taken to cap the number of Commissioners at a number below 27, and we shall move to a system of equal rotation. That prevents the Commission from becoming unduly unwieldy and unfocused.
Nice introduces other reforms to the Commission that we in the UK have sought, such as the explicit right of the President to sack a Commissioner if necessary. We secured more qualified majority voting in areas where that is in Britain's interests; for example, in measures to enhance the single market, open up trade in services or improve the efficiency of the European Court of Justice. Majority voting has been vital to the advancement of the UK's interests. Without it, we could never have built the single market.
But, before Nice, we also made clear that there were certain areas of vital national interest where we were not prepared to accept majority voting and where we would insist on retaining unanimity—that is, our veto. We spelt out those areas—tax, social security, defence, the EU's own resources (its revenue), border controls and treaty change—before the negotiation. And we maintained our veto on all of them, just as we said we would.
We have also delivered another long-standing United Kingdom objective—a more flexible European Union. We agreed at Nice on new arrangements which will make it easier for groups of member states to move ahead in areas covered by the EU treaties without requiring all to do so. We achieved that through amendments to the so-called "enhanced co-operation" arrangements which will make them easier to use.

1521
But, in return for making them easier to use, we insisted on proper safeguards to protect the interests of member states which may decide to remain outside a particular activity. The safeguards are that enhanced co-operation must, indeed, be a last resort; it must remain within the existing powers of the treaty; it must not distort the single market; it must be compatible with the acquis communautaire and not become part of it; and enhanced co-operation may not harm the rights of those who choose not to participate. Therefore, let us be clear. Nice is not a price that we must pay for enlargement. Nice brings its own substantial benefits to the UK.
Of course, the treaty has its critics. Recently, we have heard three specific criticisms of the Nice Treaty. The Opposition raised them during debate on the Bill in another place. Perhaps I may now address them with your Lordships. The first charge is that Nice failed to reform the common agricultural policy. Indeed, that is a criticism that I have heard from a number of your Lordships in the past. Let us be quite clear. The common agricultural policy is what it says it is: it is a policy of the Union. It is the details of the policy that need reform and not the modest references in the treaties. One does not need treaty change in order to reform the common agricultural policy. Indeed, mixing up CAP reform with the messy business of IGC negotiations would make beneficial reform less and not more likely.
However, the important point is that we are reforming the CAP. An important package of reforms was secured by the Prime Minister at the Berlin European Council in 1999. That was an important step forward. As a result, spending on the CAP will decline in real terms from the year 2002. In the 1980s, spending on the common agricultural policy was more than 60 per cent of the European Community budget. In 2001 it will be approximately 45 per cent.
Of course, these reforms do not go far enough. We need to go further towards a comprehensive reform of the common agricultural policy. The Government have made it clear that that is what we want to see. We want to reduce the overall cost of the common agricultural policy, and we want to align European Union and world prices more closely; and we want to target support measures better on the rural economy and the environment. Our objective is to secure changes that will benefit consumers, taxpayers, the rural economy, the farming community and the environment. There is recognition within the European Union of the need for reform, and we are discussing with our partners how best to achieve it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend continues, perhaps she will cause her mind to reflect upon the position of the applicant countries. In her view, how would they consider a rejection of what she has so eloquently described as the benefits of Nice? Also, how would they regard the issues not being dealt with at all?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the applicant countries
1522
would find it extremely difficult to understand such a rejection. I hope to be able to persuade your Lordships that such a rejection would be not only against the interests of the applicant countries, many of whom are close allies of the United Kingdom, and not only against the interests of the members who are already part of the European Union, but very much against the interests of this country as well.
Perhaps I may complete my remarks on reform of the common agricultural policy. The point that I want to make is that reform of the CAP must go ahead in parallel with enlargement. Insisting on CAP reform before enlargement would risk delaying enlargement and making it hostage to the member states which, frankly, are least enthusiastic about such reform.
The second charge that we heard in another place was that the "No" vote in the Irish referendum on Nice means that we should scrap this Bill and the Nice Treaty itself. The Government disagree with that assessment. Of course, we respect the outcome of the Irish referendum. It is fundamental to the democratic legitimacy of the EU that changes to the founding treaties do not take place until and unless the constitutional procedures of all 15 member states have been satisfied. If Ireland does not ratify the Treaty of Nice, it will not enter into force. The position is as simple as that.
The Irish Government have made clear that they will need to consider how to respond to the "No" vote and, in particular, how to address the issues of concern which prompted their electorate to vote as it did. The other 14 member states have said that they are ready to help Ireland to find solutions without renegotiating the treaty. In the meantime, all member states, including Ireland, have agreed that we should proceed with the enlargement negotiations and our own ratification procedures. Only by doing so will we be ready by the end of next year to admit new members. That is why it is important that we in Britain, and all other member states, continue with our own ratification procedures.
I recall in passing that the Opposition, when they were in government, were confronted with a similar situation: the Danish "No" to Maastricht. They did not practise what some of them now preach. They did not tear up the Maastricht treaty or seek to renegotiate it. On the contrary, they worked assiduously with the Danes to clarify what the treaty did and did not mean, so as to permit a second referendum, in which the Danish people voted "Yes".
The third charge that we have heard from the Opposition is that Nice itself is not really necessary for enlargement. As we made clear in another place, it would be theoretically possible to proceed with enlargement without Nice—but only in theory. In practice, Nice is necessary for enlargement. It is necessary, first, because the enlarged EU that we want cannot work effectively without the changes that Nice makes to its institutions and procedures. Secondly, it is necessary because all the other member states are agreed that it is Nice that opens the way for

1523
enlargement, and that only when we ratify Nice will we have completed the institutional changes that are necessary for enlargement.
The Treaty of Nice will deliver the stronger, more prosperous and bigger European Union that I believe we all want to see. That is why the other member states support Nice. That is why the candidate countries support the treaty. That is why this Government support it; and that is why I urge noble Lords to support this Bill today.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
3.52 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I begin—not, I hope, improperly—by referring to the speaker who comes directly after me in this debate; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who I understand has just been elected by a large majority to lead the Liberal Democrat group in your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we all wish the noble Baroness well. She proves that there is always a future in politics, which is reassuring for some of us!
I want to raise a procedural point. The Bill was approved with the usual very large majority on Third Reading in another place. It is not our custom or job to oppose it on Second Reading. It is, however, our job to scrutinise, to seek to amend and to improve it as best we can; perhaps we could also make it a little more accessible to the millions of people who, although they may not know it, will be affected by some of its provisions. That is what we seek to do.
I suggest to noble Lords that there is nothing whatever that is anti-European in the constructive but undeniably quizzical approach that we take. On the contrary, we believe that by looking critically at the Treaty of Nice and the Bill—and at the Bill's widely acknowledged ineffectuality, to which I shall come—we are the better Europeans for our scepticism. We are sceptical about certain current trends in Europe and we understand better the true dynamic and requirements of the modern European nexus and what is our best place within it. So I may strike a slightly jarring note. When people describe those of us who have spent half a lifetime committed to greater European unity and freedom—and whose parents and grandparents fought for and, in some cases, gave their lives for, this unity—as being "fundamentally unpatriotic" and "isolationist", that shows a deep ignorance among those critics and it is also insulting. I cannot understand why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office allows its Ministers to utter such nonsense. It certainly does not help the tone of the
1524
debate. I am sure that we shall hear none of it in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I am afraid that the situation was different in another place.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not imputing those remarks to anyone in your Lordships' House.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, am most certainly not. I am sorry if there was the faintest suggestion of that. The remarks were made some days ago by a Minister of State who does not sit in your Lordships' House.
I turn to the treaty and the Bill. First, although the Minister made great efforts to extol the treaty's virtues, it has to be admitted objectively that it had a pretty poor reception, has been deeply unpopular and has been widely criticised throughout the European continent. The most frequent phrase that we hear about it from many sides is that it was a botched job. I refer to the words of Phillip Stevens, the leading columnist of the Financial Times, which is certainly not in any sense a Europhobe paper. He wrote that the Nice agenda was a Eurocrat's dream and a citizen's nightmare. The Centre for European Reform here in London—-it is an impeccably pro-European organisation that maintains a very good output of work—spoke of widespread dissatisfaction. The Prime Minister himself sighed and said, "We can't go on like this". It is a friendless treaty and our contention is that it represents a tragically missed opportunity for Europe to change direction after many years of success and achievement. We are now coming to a time at which we need an entirely new approach.
My second point is that, despite what has been said, the provisions are clearly not the unlocking key to the process of enlargement that the noble Baroness and other Ministers have suggested. We take that view for various reasons. First, the enlargement content of the treaty is pretty marginal—it occurs mainly in the annexed declarations and protocols. There are other ways forward—via accession treaties, as has been done previously. Secondly, we come to the views of Mr Romano Prodi, who is much criticised—sometimes, I think, unfairly so. I shall read all of the quotation that he gave to, I believe, the Irish Times. The noble Baroness was right—we are going to produce this quotation from the President of the Commission; it is very important. He said:
"Legally, ratification of the Nice Treaty is not necessary for enlargement. It is without any problem up to 20 members"—
that is an important qualification—
"and those beyond 20 members have only to put in the accession agreement some notes of change, some clause. But legally it is not necessary".
There are those who make claims about what is necessary for the next stage of enlargement, although we do not know how many members will be involved; Mr Prodi's comments show that those claims fall o the ground. Either that is the case or the President and his advisers do not know what they are talking a bout; in this case, I believe that they do.

1525
Thirdly, as the noble Baroness fairly and rightly said, the treaty obviously did not address the common agricultural policy. She argued that that is not a treaty matter but a technical matter. It certainly has to proceed in parallel; it is a potential torpedo that could sink or seriously delay enlargement. It is wrong to suggest that it is just the Nice procedures that are unlocking the gate to the flow of procedures that will lead to enlargement.
Fourthly, we on this side go further and suggest that the treaty as it has turned out actually stands in the way of enlargement by adding numerous centralising commitments that have nothing to do with enlargement, by pushing forward various questionable projects and by increasing generally Community activism in areas in which people question whether that is the proper role of Community institutions. I point, for example, to Article 137, which is full of new adventures for the Community in areas in which I should have thought the national competences were perfectly adequate. We should have accepted a treaty that simply contained provisions about the mechanics for the weighted majority of the Commissioners, and so on; that would have involved a perfectly competent but perhaps not a vital treaty. We forecast that such tagging on of additional measures—I shall come to some of them in a moment—would slow down acceptance of the more relevant aspects for enlargement. That is exactly what happened with the Irish referendum. It had the effect of slowing down the whole process. If the intention was to get the measures through quickly in order for enlargement to go ahead, that intention was frustrated by the Irish referendum. There is bound to be delay; that is what we said would happen, and it has. Why has it happened? All sorts of reasons were put forward in the Irish referendum case, but we believe that one of the reasons was the attempt to ram into the treaty, which should have been about paving the way to enlargement, matters such as 29 new areas of qualified majority voting, which in the context of modern Europe is going the wrong way.
I am never totally sure whether the Government regard the QMV provisions in the Nice Treaty as so important that we are wrong to question them or unimportant and therefore not worth questioning. The provisions actually come out as a pretty mixed bag. One distinction might be between QMV arrangements that help to create a single market—which have done so in the past, so we would not immediately dispute them—and those that are designed for something quite different, such as building a European Government and a single authority of a central, and in our view outdated, kind. Even market building QMVs can be devastating, as witnessed by the ruling that is killing the London art market at present, or the ruling on workplace consultation, which was bad enough, but made worse by the efforts of the European Parliament, even with the heroic but fruitless resistance of Conservative MEPs.
1526
At root, we believe that the Nice thinking is based on the flawed perception that Europe can be shaped simply by replicating the nation state on a larger scale. That is what lies behind the passionate search for identity, for a so-called Demos, for all the related symbols—a flag, a hymn, an autonomous military force, a currency, a constitution, a projection of Europe on the world stage and a single jurisdiction.
Yet as Frank Vibert of the European Policy Forum argued recently in a brilliant book, those are false goals, guaranteed to undermine European stability and cohesion. As he pointed out, instead of following the tramlines suggested at Nice, the task of organising Europe's future should be quite different from organising the traditional state. Europe's prime need now is not for more central power but more legitimacy. Trust and democratic faith in the whole project needs to be restored as it has been draining away. The time is up for élite-driven initiatives with national involvement as an afterthought.
That means a flexible Europe that is more tolerant of diversity. It means much more involvement by national legislatures in the scrutiny of initiatives at a much earlier stage, before they go to the Council of Ministers or become legal instruments. It means re-involving national Parliaments seriously, which of course means giving them power.
Everyone talks about a citizens' Europe—there was much talk of that at Nice, but a citizens' Europe means handing power to citizens and not just placebos about more transparency and better communication. I agree that all that may be very tiresome and may mean prolonged arguments in various national political settings. It may mean loss of the famous momentum, but the other side of the coin is more democracy and openness, which European institutions really need if they are to carry weight both within and without.
At Nice there was a distinct flavour of the big nations muscling in at the expense of the smaller ones. The principle of double majority by both weighted vote and population weaken the negotiating position of smaller states. Yet the smaller states once looked to Britain for their guardianship and patronage. Indeed, the founding principles of the European Community related to the idea of all states being equal. The move away from that is not good, and it should be recognised that that is a trend in the wrong direction.
As for enhanced co-operation, the Nice Treaty recognises the need for that by removing the veto, or brake, on the idea of a core of countries getting together. That could work out well, but if it is not handled carefully, it could lead to a two-core Europe with the outer group being dragged along towards integration or exclusion. That is not the path to European unity either.
As for the common foreign and security policy and common defence—items that are examined and promoted in the treaty—there too, it seems that the limits have been pushed somewhat far. Far from solidifying a common European approach, the recent world terrorist crisis has obviously led to back-biting and quarrels. The Belgian Foreign Minister said—this

1527
is most unfortunate—that the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, was too bellicose and that his work for the coalition left,
"a bitter taste in the mouth".
Such comments are not only grossly unfair to the Prime Minister, who by common acclaim has fought a marvellous battle for the coalition, but a miserable waste of European energies. There is no better example of the need for flexible and layered relationships between countries and allies and the extreme danger of an over-institutionalised common foreign policy. A "me-too" foreign policy from Brussels adds nothing whatever to the network of coalitions and alliances which this crisis demands.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am now a little confused. I had understood the noble Lord to be saying that Britain should stand up for the rights and influence of the smaller states within the European Union, rather than giving the larger states the lead. His criticism of the Belgians suggests the opposite. Does he think that the larger states should lead on common foreign and security policy or that we should let the smaller states have the undue influence that he was suggesting rive minutes ago?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the concept that I was trying to convey was that foreign policy—certainly in times of crisis, though perhaps not for humdrum everyday events—should be shaped by the pattern of historic relationships, alliances and coalition, which can carry things forward, such as the present relationship between London and Washington. The attempt to latch on to that a fifth wheel of a policy that runs along behind is a waste of energies.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that historic patterns are immutable.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, no, I would not do so. Nevertheless, they are significant. We are all shaped by our history to a considerable extent.
The European Charter of Fundamental Rights has also been given a glad hand by the treaty document. We have recently seen the dangers of extending rights-based doctrines too far into national life at the expense of political authority. The charter is far too intrusive with its assertion of rights to detailed matters such as placement services, environmental protection, consumer protection and so on. Those are admirable aims, but are they the business of the Union and will the charter be mandatory? If not, what is the point of their incorporation into the treaty?
There will be many other points to discuss as we consider the Bill in Committee. There is the question of the funding of European political parties. How can we be sure that the moneys are not used for national political activity, which Declaration 11 of the treaty forbids? These are dangerous waters and we shall need much more openness about the way in which the regulations governing these areas are made.
1528
Out of the treaty there looms the Snark-like search for a constitution for Europe. The forthcoming summit in December at Laeken will set the clock ticking on this, and a so-called convention will prepare the ground for 2004. All democrats should view that with some foreboding. The whole idea of constructing a pyramid or hierarchy of competence is inappropriate in the network world into which we are moving. Even the lawyers realise that trying to push all the treaties into one new treaty—a constitutional document—is a hopeless case. Generally the treaty fails to reflect the fact that the whole of Europe is now in deep transition, that the Monnet era is over, and that much of the Community method has now been invalidated. Genuinely good Europeans should be seeking other ways of carrying forward European ideals.
The other day the Home Secretary said this:
"If we do not have a system where people are clear on who makes decisions—and why they are the people who make the decisions—democracy fails".
That may be true in our own society—Mr Blunkett was criticising the growing power of judges—but it applies 10 times more strongly in the institutions of the European Union. Until that lesson is learnt, the great cause of Europe will not prosper and neither the Nice treaty, nor this Bill, will take us one inch along the way to the new common ground and the restoration of trust in the European institutions that is so badly needed.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for his kind remarks on my accession to the leadership of this party, following the distinguished leadership of my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Rodgers. Perhaps I can repeat the famous remark of the well-known actress, Rita Hayworth, who said
"I am not sure if I have a future, but I sure have a past".
Perhaps I may take up the noble Lord because I read what is happening in the world at the moment rather differently from him. I cannot help noticing that one of the great problems we confront in this and many other countries, is the profound asymmetry between the challenges presented to us, especially the economic, environmental and sometimes the military challenges, and the structure of politics which is still essentially the structure of an ancient state—what academics calls the "Westphalian system".
We can all clearly see that the exigencies of those challenges are compelling us to think beyond the nation state in ways that take us towards closer cooperation and in some ways also towards regional integration. That is not only characteristic of Europe, though Europe was the pioneer in this respect; it is now notably true ranging from NAFTA in North America and Mexico, through to Mercosur in Latin America and elsewhere. Everywhere in the world there is an attempt to try to create political structures that can deal with the challenges of globalisation that confront us.
If we look at the way in which British governments have eventually confronted these challenges. however reluctantly, it has to be said that we confronted the

1529
trade challenge through the Single European Market Act at the time of Mrs Thatcher, as she then was; we confronted the issues of speculation through the Delors committee on monetary union; and we confronted the problems of what appeared to be the difficulties presented by the former Republic of Yugoslavia by creating the concept of the common foreign and security policy.
In every instance, whoever the government of this country may have been, they have been compelled to address the real issues that confront us and in some cases that has meant addressing those issues by closer co-operation and even integration with other like-minded countries. I say that because, in the long weariness of discussing the Nice Summit and the Nice treaty, we tend to forget the sheer historic scale of what that treaty is all about.
It is just worth saying that the concept of uniting western and eastern Europe in a single great market with a single great structure and framework of political co-operation, is a major historic goal and one that will shake the beginning of this new century. We are continually liable to be led away by the endless trivialities of the issues of the treaty from that huge historic objective. I simply want to underline that.
The Treaty of Nice, as such, is not a major treaty. My right honourable friend in another place, Menzies Campbell, described it as being at most a framework treaty; and that is correct. It falls far short of the historic ideal about which I spoke because it is not intended to do more than make possible the achievement of that goal. But I have to confess that, with respect to the Shadow Foreign Secretary who spoke at Third Reading in another place, Mr Michael Ancram, unavoidably one has to recognise that if we are to meet the timetable pledged to the candidate countries of eastern Europe, there is no alternative to the Nice treaty. Following the road of an accession agreement and an accession treaty, by every one of the candidate countries, would be inexplicable and incomprehensible to those countries. They have already waited much too long. At every point we have seen further delays in the date at which they are intended to join as full members of the European Union. In this country there is no profound division between the parties of the desirability of that aim. The Shadow Foreign Secretary said at Third Reading in another place,
"we remain strong supporters of enlargement";—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/01; col. 1184.]
and I believe him. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said much the same thing. But those who will the ends must will the means, and I can see no more effective means, despite the fact that the Nice treaty has many flaws, than this treaty as a way to bring that about.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the treaty of Nice is roughly as obscure as the statement of a brilliant lawyer with a guilty client. It is profoundly obscure. We must find ways—I commend what the Government are suggesting for the IGC of 2004—to simplify what has become a tangle of briar forests of almost incomprehensible phrases. As a simple test I
1530
gave a small section of the Treaty of Nice to my reasonably intelligent family, one of them being a lawyer, and they all found it virtually impossible to discover what it meant.
The second objection raised by the Shadow Foreign Secretary at Third Reading in another place, to which the Minister referred, concerned the common agricultural policy. Let me, as strongly as I can, echo and agree with what she said. It would be quite wrong to try to present a candidate country, at least one of whom is heavily dependent on agriculture, with a fait accompli as part of our attempts to resolve the issue at the stage of the Nice treaty. It has to be a negotiation.
It is easy simply to dismiss the common agricultural policy and in many ways it is a bad policy. But anybody who is concerned with the agricultural community in this country, or any other country of Europe, recognises that we have to find alternative structures that enable our environment to be preserved and our rural areas to be cared for. That alternative will have to depend on some element of public support and cannot simply be limited to the destruction of the common agricultural policy with nothing in its place.
I for one do not want to see again in Britain the kind of desolation that occurred in the years between the wars. We have to think of proper ways of recognising farmers as stewards of our rural environment and as having many roles to play other than simply producing the most amount of crops at the lowest possible cost.
The third objection raised in another place was that the European Union, and in particular the Nice treaty, was not an effective mechanism for dealing with terrorism. While there were a number of things that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said with which I agreed, on this he was uncharacteristically less than generous. On 21st September, with an amazing degree of speed and determination, the European Union decided on a range of steps to be taken against terrorism which went all the way from moving extremely fast on extradition procedures, on speeding up the directive with regard to money laundering and on recognising the importance of closer intelligence sharing between the countries of the Union than one could ever have expected, given how slow some other procedures have turned out to be.
It is important to put on record our appreciation of what the fellow members of the European Union have done to try to support Her Majesty's Government and the government of the United States in dealing not only with the symptoms, but also with the sources of terrorism. I do not need to say to noble Lords in this place, who are extremely knowledgeable, that unquestionably in parts of eastern Europe, the drug trade, the trade in people trafficking and the trade in money laundering has been deeply disturbing. Nothing could be more helpful than to bring those countries within the ambit of a European Union in which they can, at long last, feel reasonably secure.
I turn to the Minister's comments on institutional change and shall briefly mention one or two. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that we on these Benches strongly support the extension of co-decision

1531
making. We should like to see greater extension of co-decision making; in other words, the willingness of the European Parliament to go along with directives, and that they should fall if it is not so willing. We should like to see that extended much more widely because we believe that democracy has to be at a European level as well as a t a national level.
In that context I issue a brief warning. I was disturbed by the willingness at the Nice discussions to accept yet a further increase in the size of the European Parliament. Can the Minister reassure the House that the further increase in size will not be followed up as a result of expansion? Frankly, a legislative chamber of over 700 members is unlikely to be effective and could rapidly turn into a mob scene.
My second point on enlargement with regard to institutional change concerns the question of qualified majority voting, which we have discussed in this House. We on these Benches accept that an extension of qualified majority voting is an essential part of making a larger community work. The Minister will not be surprised that in that context I want to raise one problem about which we feel strongly. I refer to Article 229A. The noble Baroness does not need to look up the treaty. I shall continue to paraphrase it momentarily. Article 229A concerns the agreement that the affirmative procedures will be sufficient to corroborate decisions made by the Council of Ministers.
As I understand it, at present that particular proposal relates to only the mechanisms of establishing a European patent. We understand the importance of that. However, we seek an assurance that that would be seen as an exceptional procedure, not as a first step towards a general procedure of agreeing to decisions made by the Council of Ministers without a procedure through the European Parliament, which simply takes the form of an affirmative procedure in this House.
Before I conclude, I should like to mention two other matters. First, the substantial extension of the part of the European inter-governmental treaty dealing with justice and home affairs raises great questions of accountability. My noble friend Baroness Ludford will speak about that in greater detail. It is important that we in this House should recognise that there has been a steady movement of the United Kingdom Government towards opting into J1–1A, especially with regard to visa and asylum policy.
That requires, in terms of democratic accountability, that this House and the other place should have a full opportunity to debate the gradual shift of visa and asylum policy from the United Kingdom to the European Union. That is not because there may not be arguments for it, especially in the case of visa policy, but because it should be transparent, open and fully debated as it takes place. There are few better tests of the commitment of a country to civil liberty as well as to law and order than asylum policy, immigration policy and visa policy. We on these Benches believe that it is crucial for those matters to be fully debated before any final decision is made about where they should lie.
1532
Finally, I refer to the IGC that is to take place in 2004. We on these Benches believe that a European constitution, far from representing a further step towards an unclear integration, would be the best possible way of defining correctly the responsibilities of national government" and protecting them as the responsibilities of national government and of the European Union. I can think of few ways of better confusing our citizens than for that distinction to be perpetually blurred as it is today.
We should also like to see—as well as a move towards a constitutional structure of competencies, an array of competencies between the national and European levels—a full citizens' debate in this country running up to 2004, which among other things would enlighten the discussion on the simplification of European treaties and, we believe, on the role of national Parliament.
I conclude by saying that we on these Benches wish to see good British citizens who are also good European citizens. The crucial key to that is that our citizens are allowed to discuss, consider and debate European issues with the kind of freedom and thought that they bring to issues about national policy.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, after listening to the speeches of my noble friend the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on taking the leadership of her party in this House—those of us in favour of the ratification of the treaty and the passage of the Bill must be sorely tempted to say, "We rest our case". There is precious little to add. None the less, with a desire to express my support for what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, I shall venture a few remarks.
Winston Churchill once said of Stanley Baldwin, rather unfairly, that he occasionally stumbled on the truth but would rapidly get to his feet and hurry on as if nothing had happened. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition have certainly stumbled on the truth that a failure to ratify the Nice treaty will have serious consequences for the enlargement of the Union to which, they have told us often—I have no reason not to believe them—they are firmly attached and fully supportive. Yet they hurry on down that path of opposition to the treaty as if it would have no consequence for enlargement. Of course, it does, as has already been said by both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Crosby.
What are we to make of that? The Official Opposition, who rarely miss an opportunity to criticise Romano Prodi's conduct of the presidency, now, somewhat ironically, pray in aid his statement following the Irish referendum that ratification is not necessary for enlargement. They seize on that technicality's narrowly legalistic validity but wilfully ignore the political reality, which is that enlargement cannot go ahead as planned and agreed without the passage of the treaty. Those opposing ratification

1533
appear to care not one jot that their objective puts at high risk the target date set for 1st January 2004 for completing the accession of the next wave of entrants.
This modest treaty does what should have been done at Amsterdam to make enlargement feasible, both for members and accession states, in a single negotiated document. Opponents are presumably content to see the whole process drawn out by a one-by-one negotiation with each member state within the framework of the individual accession treaties. Why is it that the opponents to the Nice ratification, whose commitment to enlargement I have not so far doubted, insist that this much longer drawn out, more cumbersome path to a successful and timely enlargement is taken instead of the more efficient process offered by the treaty? It is blindingly obvious why that is. There are reforms in the treaty which, as Eurosceptics, they do not like and they wish to be accommodated on those issues, even though it is to the serious disadvantage of the accession states. That is not mere cynicism; it is selfishness. Let us be blunt about that.
The opponents of the treaty have seized on a treaty that essentially is a facilitating treaty and have erected it into a vast conspiracy to further federalist aims—aims that find no resonance whatever in the text of the treaty. The loyal Opposition is, therefore, using the ratification of this treaty as a Christmas tree on which to hang their every Eurosceptic objection to the European project. Not content with dismissing the treaty as failing to deliver on all the issues left over from Amsterdam, they even vilify it for failing to deliver on objectives that the treaty was never intended to address.
Heaven knows, we all want to see a reform of the CAP—that is essential—but as my noble friend has pointed out, no rational mind ever sought to lumber this treaty with the reform of policies that required no treaty change. As long ago as the Berlin Council, CAP reform was given a modest push. It is being, and must be, pursued on a separate track. To make enlargement conditional on a prior CAP reform is to throw overboard the 2004 target. With an eye to the next financial perspective following 2006, enlargement is a powerful spur to CAP reform. However, to make CAP reform a condition for enlargement is to make enlargement its hostage, with all the uncertainties and delay that that implies.
The Conservative Opposition claim that Nice has more to do with deepening integration than with helping enlargement and that it could be a disincentive to enlargement, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested. Maybe the pleasures of the Summer Recess dulled my senses, but I do not believe that it dulled them that much. I certainly do not recall any cacophony of claims from the accession countries that the treaty had dulled their enthusiasm for accession to the Union as soon as possible—quite the opposite.
Why do the opponents claim that the modest extensions to QMV are eroding our sovereignty? They talk much of their devotion to flexibility within the Union—the word "flexibility" came up again and
1534
again in the other place—yet, ironically, they would maximise the use of a procedure under which a single country can block a sensible proposal. Is that flexibility?
At Nice the Government agreed only to extensions that are in our real interest. Where they manifestly are not, they would most firmly oppose them. Opponents of these sensible extensions of QMV refuse to judge each extension on its individual merit. They are simply against extension, period. They seem to forget that without QMV the single market would have been a non-starter. Their hostility to the extension of QMV on principle is, to say the least, unintelligent. By what twist of logic do they see enhanced co-operation as the antithesis of their famous "flexibility"? In an enlarged Union, not everyone can do everything at the same time. The treaty has made the provisions already enshrined in the Amsterdam treaty more practical while strengthening the safeguards against its use in ways that would harm the legitimate interests of nonparticipating states. What could be more sensible than that?
I could continue in this vein, but many noble Lords are yet to speak and already many points have been well made. I hope that I have reinforced the points made by the Minister. The agenda of the opponents of Nice is perfectly clear. As was said in another place, if this were an à la carte Bill, they would pick the bits that they thought were better for Europe and say no to the rest. In other words, they would vote against the Bill because parts of it did not please them. In simple language, that is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The treaty is not a perfect treaty. Show me one that is. I have never seen a perfect treaty. But it is not a botched job. I have serious doubts about at least one part of the treaty: the reform of Council decision-making. The system is now hopelessly complex and risks making the reaching of decisions even more difficult than before. Maybe at 4.30 in the morning of Monday, 11th December, when I suppose they were all a little tired, those responsible did not quite know what they were doing. The point is that such shortcomings can be remedied; there are means of doing so. The 2004 IGC offers a perfect opportunity and I hope that the preparatory convention, which will be set up at Laeken next month will address that need. I hope that there will be the political will to realise that room must be created on the agenda to straighten out the decision-making process that was not successfully dealt with at Nice.
Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. That is not the way to proceed. Such a desperate act may appeal to people within a party that is riven with dissension about Europe and that is clinging precariously to its ideological hang-ups about the European project. In the world outside, in the world of geo-political realities, such a desperate act would be simple lunacy.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I shall follow the example of others and commence with a word of congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her emergence in such a distinguished position. I look forward to hearing her in that enlarged capacity on future occasions.
With great regret, I offer the House an apology because I may not be able to be present for the windup of the debate. I have a long-standing commitment with the former US Secretary of State, with whom I worked in partnership for some five years, George Schultz. I hope that that may be a reasonable, if not wholly convincing, alibi.
I thank the Minister for the extremely lucid way in which she presented the essentials of the argument that we have to consider. I cast a rather quizzical eye at the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for the disagreeable caricature that he painted of my party. The position is nothing like as grave as that, as we have seen from the way in which my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford addressed the issues before us. I hope that some of the earlier expressions of profound hostility that characterised the last election campaign may represent the high watermark of opposition on that scale to the institution to which my party still wishes us to belong. We cannot overlook that essential feature.
As every speaker has identified, there are reasons for being anxious about some aspects of the treaty. One example given by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford is the charter of fundamental rights. A characteristic feature of the Union is to generate texts of that kind with perhaps a benign intention, which acquire a life of their own and find their way towards the status of Community law. That is one example which is highly undesirable.
I believe that the treaty itself and the Bill now before us are necessary, and necessary now, although I would not go so far as to say that I welcome the provisions as they stand. That is much too emotionally enthusiastic a word for such a complex farrago of words. As has been said already, the important point is that ratification of this treaty and its endorsement by this Parliament signals a necessary and important step towards enlargement. That, after all, has been the long-declared objective of every party in this country, clearly reaffirmed by both Front Benches in both Houses, even today.
I shall not go over the ground covered by the Minister in that respect, except to emphasise that the treaty is clearly important in its own right because of the prospective changes that it makes so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. The re-weighting of our votes is of crucial importance; the reconstruction and the limiting of the size of the Commission is also important. I do not believe that I am wrong in recollecting that we proposed giving up our second commissioner when my noble friend Lady Thatcher and I circulated documents as long ago as 1985. I see a nodding assent from wearied former officials on the other side of the House who are now noble colleagues here.
1536
One other reason for rejecting the invitation to set aside a treaty and to proceed country-by-country is the importance of those provisions already agreed in the treaty. If we were to set them aside, as it were, and begin to try to reconstruct them country by country, we would risk opening either a can of worms or Pandora's box. One way or another, we would not know what might happen.
The picture presented of this treaty being a hugely centralising, mammoth-creating, omnivorous document greatly exaggerates its nature—I part company on that point with my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. Of all the treaties that we have had to consider relating to the European Union, it is probably the least centralising and the least integrationist. Of course there is room for argument about aspects of it, but, granted the difficulty of concluding negotiations in the fog and miasma of European Councils as they run into the night, what has emerged is not a bad compromise. I am anxious for the Bill to be passed.
As I recall, for many years at Conservative Party conferences back in the 1980s, long before the iron Curtain was lifted, we welcomed with enthusiasm leaders of centre-right parties throughout Europe—those who were able to reach us—from beyond the Iron Curtain and everywhere possible. All of them in the following years have been looking forward to the opportunity to join the European Community, now the European Union. Whatever the subtleties of the argument against ratifying this treaty now, it would be hard to explain to them that this party, which was always looking forward to welcoming them, no longer wanted to do so, or appeared to be rejecting their advances.
I turn to two or three of the wider topics that have been discussed. The prospect of yet another intergovernmental conference, looming, as it does, three or four years over the horizon—whether or not preceded by a preparatory convention—does not excite me with enthusiasm. I wish that I could share the optimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that somehow from that will emerge a constitution shining bright and pure, as though it had come from North America in 1776. She may remember the clarity of the Stuttgart declaration of 1983, a text produced by academics for academics or political enthusiasts but which has not arrived at a constitution. Much though I would like that to be the case, I doubt that it will be possible.
I hope that, when the convention that precedes the inter-governmental conference meets, it will at least avoid producing the sort of document that emerges from a short-lived, random group of representatives—namely, a farrago of less than adequate insights. I hope that it may, as the Government suggest that it should, produce an intelligent set of options for wider consideration by those of us who are concerned with the future.
The inter-governmental conference itself must avoid generating anything that is not strictly necessary. Again, I return to my experience of European Council meetings. I cannot imagine a less auspicious place—

1537
tired political leaders faced in the middle of the night with extremely complex issues and being required to choose this, that or the other solution. It is no wonder that mistakes are made, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, pointed out. The smaller the agenda, the more firmly we can distil it to the essential and the less that we are carried away by bright new ideas, the better. More important is to make head-way in filling in the gaps and hitting the targets of actual cooperation that have been so clearly identified for so many years. Of course, the common agricultural policy cries out for reform, but that is certainly not going to be achieved as a condition or precedent for anything. As the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, pointed out, the percentage of the budget devoted to agriculture has fallen steadily as a result of the hours that we spent trying to insert this, that or the other safeguard. That must continue.
On the common foreign and security policy, I begin from much the same position as does the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Recent events show that the European Union has now become an indispensable dimension of international affairs. It is playing—and needs to play—a key role in forging the multinational partnerships that are a necessary response to the more grisly aspects of globalisation. The fact that the European Union exists alongside NATO provided the stage on which our Prime Minister was able to knit together and consolidate the necessary partnership to stand alongside the United States. That is an improvement beyond recognition on the CFSP as it was not that long ago. Commissioner Christopher Patten said the other day that political co-operation in the old days used to be,
"all strong nouns and adjectives and weak verbs."
That is an accurate insight, but we are making progress on that. An example that is worth recalling in the latest response to the Balkan crisis is the continuing military presence designed to maintain confidence in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. That is crucially important, and our American friends have positively championed the idea that that presence should be supplied by a European-led force within NATO. So it has been, with the latest, welcome development of the United Kingdom's role being taken over—increasingly if not completely—by our German partners. That is clear proof of the importance of developing a common and effective foreign and security policy.
The real risk to NATO and to the Europe-American relationship as we develop that common foreign policy comes not from Europe trying to do more but from Europe doing less. If Europe tries to do more and succeeds, nothing could be better for the Europe-American partnership. That is true not just for the CFSP but for security and defence policy, and for the conclusions set out in Annex VI, I think, of the presidency conclusions to the treaty. That is the latest stage in our progress from St Malo in 1998 to Helsinki in 1999, based on trying to locate and allocate fresh efforts firmly within the European Union.
1538
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, will speak on the matter shortly, and will rightly warn us of the risks of the process going wrong. Of course, there are risks to the transatlantic relationship and to NATO itself if we get the balance wrong, but developments so far, with all their glitches, suggest that those risks are being contained. Needs and targets have been identified; but in many respects, delivery still lies ahead and will require firm, sustained commitment by our political leaders. Germany's performance in that respect will be crucial.
However, the positive advantages of a successful, properly fulfilled ESDP for the European Union and its members—new as well as old—would surely be substantial and highly desirable from the point of view of both sides of the Atlantic. If we can achieve that—if we can ensure a better, stronger, more integrated European contribution—the Atlantic alliance will be strengthened and much better balanced.
My closing point is that no possible purpose can be served by a continuing disposition to pour cold water on what looks like the only available project with a politically credible prospect of inspiring and mobilising European willingness to take on, as we should, a larger share of our defence burden—of the burden of NATO as a whole. I hope that we shall see an end to the mockery, ridicule and cynicism with which the project is sometimes treated, and recognition that it is an important objective for Britain, as much as for Europe and for the United States as much as for Europe.
As was clearly pointed out in a booklet, European Defence Co-operation: Asset or Threat to NATO?, recently written by Sir Michael Quinlan, former Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and director of Ditchley, the stark truth is that if this endeavour fails, the damage to Europe and to the Atlantic alliance as a whole will be severe. If it succeeds, as I hope it does—and the proof of that will come in enhanced, actual and proved performance—the benefits to us all will be correspondingly wide.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I agree with almost everything that was said by the previous three speakers, particularly the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. Her speech indicated the likely success she will bring to the leadership of these Benches.
I shall not try to add to those remarks. I shall not speak directly to the Bill, but about some parallels which the European Communities Bill of 1972. Today I want to make the speech which I should have made on the Third Reading of that Bill. I abstained on the Third Reading and did so quietly to avoid causing embarrassment to my Labour colleagues. If a small handful of us in the Labour Party had not abstained, our entry into the European Community in 1973 could well have been frustrated. Abstaining was not a brave act. Instead I was cowardly, despite abstaining against a three-line whip, and I was unduly cowed by the prevailing ethos of Westminster. I should have voted with the Government and I should have spoken out.

1539
Some of my colleagues did speak out in favour of the Bill. The best speech, typically, was made by a brilliant colleague, John Mackintosh, who, tragically, died young. But then he and other pro-Europeans in the Labour Party duly conformed with the unwritten rules of Westminster politics and voted with their party against a Bill which they knew was necessary for achieving the aim which they all supported.
So what are these unwritten rules of Westminster? They require that except on very rare occasions you must put party before principle. If you feel that your party is doing harm to the country's interests, and you stick to your principles and leave your party, you are reviled as a traitor. That happened only recently to my noble friend Lady Nicholson, who is not here today. If you vote against your principles and stick to your party, you are praised by all and sundry for behaving honourably.
Chris Patten recently said on the radio that he had always been a Conservative; that he always would be a Conservative; and that he would never leave the party. That, despite the fact that be believes the party's policy on Europe, about which he clearly cares passionately, is fundamentally wrong. That is his belief. He actually admitted that it was because he was a tribalist. And he might have added, "Proud of it, too.".
The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, for whom I genuinely have immense respect, once told me that there is one golden rule in politics: never leave your party. That rule dismisses the contributions of Peel, Gladstone and Winston Churchill for a start. But to put it another way, it means that if the interests of your party clash fundamentally with what you believe to be the interests of the country, you must always put the interests of party first. I am not blaming the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine; that is the current ethos of Westminster. Tribalism rules and certainly it seems to rule inside the Conservative Party at the moment.
I left the Labour Party in 1972, soon after the Third Reading. I should say at once to those on the Benches opposite that it was a very different party from the Labour Party today. I left not only because it was anti-Europe, anti-NATO and pro-unilateral nuclear disarmament. I also opposed Clause 4—that was then a undreamed of heresy—and I felt that the party was too dominated by the unions. Again, I should add that those were not the days of John Monks and today's sensible union leaders but of a union movement run by Hugh Scanlon, Clive Jenkins and Jack Jones. Today I find the Labour Party, if anything, not radical enough.
When I resigned—
Lord Acton: My Lords, is this in order? Is this about Nice?
Lord Taverne: My Lords, it is relevant because the way in which people vote on Bills of this kind is determined by the unwritten rules of Westminster. If one looks at the vote on the Second Reading of the Bill
1540
in the House of Commons, one will see that one Conservative Member voted in favour of the Bill. It is highly relevant.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for giving way. I wanted to hasten him through this passage so that he could express his great admiration for those members of the Conservative Party who voted against their party and against the Maastricht treaty. It would seem in line with what he is trying to say.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I say at once to the noble Lord that I completely respect those who feel that the most important issue in this country is our relations with the European Union and then vote according to their conscience.
When I stood as an independent social democrat in a by-election, I felt a great sense of liberation and a breath of fresh air. I believe that the same was felt by those who founded the SDP some eight years later. They could no longer pretend to believe in what they opposed or continue to support a party which they felt did not deserve to win.
However, let me return to the position of the Conservatives who are pro-European today. On the whole, with honourable exceptions, they have not—at least so far—been as outspoken as the Labour pro-Europeans were in the early 1970s. People such as Kenneth Clarke, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, have made their position clear and they must be applauded. But the pro-Europeans in the Commons have, with some exceptions, been discreet They have done everything they can to avoid embarrassing their party. And now they face the same dilemma: a choice between party loyalty and principle.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. As he is being so free with his criticisms of those not standing up and declaring what they believe, can he explain why when it comes to European elections his party, which is so pure and righteous, issues manifestos in London which hardly mention the subject of Europe?
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I was absolutely appalled by our party's manifesto issued in the course of the European elections. In fact, the whole thing was a farce because most of the Labour candidates, particularly in my constituency, declared which football club they supported and said nothing whatever about Europe. I do not always support my party but, on the whole, I do at the present time with great enthusiasm.
If the pro-European Conservatives stay within the party, they are saying implicitly that they want the Conservatives to win the next election. Some of them say so explicitly; others say so implicitly. But probably the biggest issue in politics today is the future of Britain in Europe. There are important other issues, too, but the divide on other issues is not as clear, nor are the issues as central to the future of Britain. For example, almost everyone now agrees that the public

1541
services must be improved and that their quality matters more than tax cuts. There are differences, but they are not absolutely fundamental. On Europe, and in particular the euro, the divide runs deep. The pro-European Conservatives know that if their party wins, the issue which they care about most—our joining the euro—will suffer a serious, possibly a fatal, set back. Which is more important: a Conservative victory or the cause of Europe as they see it? Party or country? Tribalism or principle?
In approaching these fundamental issues, is it not time that we abandon the unwritten rules of Westminster politics and realise what parties are? They are not a religion. They are not something you are born with and cannot change, like the colour of your eyes or the shape of your nose—although some people do change that. We are not tied to a party by ties of blood. Parties are combinations which exist to achieve particular aims and which normally share certain beliefs and principles. But parties change and sometimes they abandon their previous aims and modify their principles.
If one is convinced that the cause of party and country conflict, the path of honour and duty to one's country is to abandon party, not to stick to it—unless, that is, one believes that tribalism is and should be the basis for our politics. I hope that we can reach a higher level of civilisation than that.
My Lords, I wish I had said that on the Third Reading of the European Communities Bill in 1972.
5 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of ratification of the Treaty of Nice for a number of reasons. I believe that on all of the essential issues relating to retention of qualified majority voting, this and other governments managed to hold the line and ensure that this unique Union kept the balance between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. If the treaty was not ratified there would be a deep psychological problem in some of the countries which hope to join the Union as quickly as possible. The delay has already been mentioned in some of those countries. Poland now bites on some of the more difficult aspects of the negotiation. Already in the Czech Republic there are signs of public opinion becoming restless. I believe it is extremely important that an enthusiastic signal is sent out to those countries that we want to enlarge rapidly, which means that the main candidates join the Union in 2004.
I believe that it would be extremely unwise for the Government to call a referendum on the euro at least until we know the outcome of the IGC in 2004. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has become the new Leader of the Liberal Democrats, while I am sad that her predecessor felt it necessary to retire on grounds of health. The noble Baroness quite rightly called for a serious and wide-ranging debate in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference. One of the issues that she singled out was the attempt to achieve a better definition in the competencies within
1542
the Union, particularly the Commission and the supranational element, and its member states. That is now the most important debate inside the European Union. If we get it right the EU can make a major global contribution in the next few decades of the 21st century; if we get it wrong and force through a rather elitist design for the European Union and do not reflect the diversity of the different member states, and also the wish of many citizens to retain self-governing nation states, we shall do great harm to the European Union. If from time to time there are criticisms about the euro or some other aspects, I hope people understand that often they are made in what people believe to be the best interests of the European Union.
I am not sceptical about the European Union; I am a strong and consistent supporter of it, and I want it to grow in strength and stature. But I do not support the argument, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, touched in a way which caused me some anxiety, about the change in the nation state. Of course the nation state has changed throughout the centuries, particularly in the 20th. For very sensible and rational reasons, we began to pool sovereignty. In certain areas, for example the environment, there are good reasons why we should continue to pool sovereignty inside the European Union. But the EU is a unique union and we would be extremely unwise to try to base it on some rather old-fashioned federal model.
I move on to the global questions which underlie the Treaty of Nice. We have gone some way towards correcting a number of very disadvantageous aspects of the proposed European Security and Defence Policy. Fortunately, that document was not annexed to the treaty; otherwise, almost certainly we would have to vote against ratification. It has, therefore, no treaty status. Fortunately, already changes are being made to that document. Only recently the German Government, in an extremely interesting and detailed document, dealt with the role of NATO's Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. That is the crux of it. If we can deal with the responsibilities of the senior European commander in NATO and allow him in effect to be double-hatted between the EU and NATO we shall make the European defence identity and ESDP a powerful and important addition to European responsibilities.
To be blunt and open about it, we got it wrong before Nice. The criticism did not come simply from America but from very senior military commanders inside NATO who were extremely anxious about what was going on in the two or three months prior to the treaty. Fortunately, it is being corrected and, I believe, we shall begin to see a readjustment.
I look now to what I have always hoped we would achieve. I have been a long-standing supporter of a European defence identity and the capacity to operate when the United States or Canada does not wish to do so. Where could it go in future? What I hope will emerge from the debate to define ESDP, which presumably will be part of the treaty following the IGC in 2004, is a free-standing vehicle to allow countries to

1543
join that part of the European Union when they cannot yet join other aspects, such as the single market.
The first of the two countries which immediately springs to mind is Turkey. If we so designed it that Turkey could be a member of ESDP in its own right that would be a very flexible, new way in which the European Union could evolve. It would allow Turkey more time before it was willing or able to make the necessary changes to enter the single market, and even CFSP. I draw a distinction in relation to CFSP which must have quite a lot of Commission involvement, if not for anything else the involvement of development policy in the creation of foreign policy.
The other country which is a possibility is Russia. We must do something about the consistent way in which under President Putin Russia wants to join the western democracies. There have been discussions about whether it could join NATO in the French way; namely, in the political committee, not the integrated command structure. I believe that that gives rise to problems, particularly in the United States. NATO, which was written off by some only five years ago, is a successful organisation of proven value in military operations in the past two to three years. One must be very careful not to jeopardise the decision-making structure of NATO. I do not rule out the entry of Russia into NATO, but in a military organisation it would be easier as a first step to join ESDP.
At the Centre for Policy Studies in London last night Henry Kissinger made a very interesting speech. In almost a passing aside he said he believed that one of the areas in which Russia could be brought more formally into the defence, intelligence and military structures was counter-terrorism. I believe that here there is the seed of an extremely interesting idea. It is one thing for all the heads of government to move around in bilateral meetings, but what is needed to counter terrorism, since many people believe that we shall be embarked on this struggle for years, not months—often a period of two to four years is referred to—is a more formal structure within which particularly foreign and defence Ministers can try to co-ordinate some of these policies. I do not believe that over a sustained period it will be satisfactory for everyone to be part of an American-led alliance. Inevitably, America will be the dominant leader now and in time to come.
What should be the grouping? I do not want a great infrastructure but meetings at which Ministers meet privately, with very few officials, to discuss the complexities of the problems. It seems quite reasonable to use G8 as the basic structure comprising four EU countries, Russia, Japan and the two powerful North American countries, the United States and Canada. Missing from G8 is China, and one will not be able to deal seriously with terrorism without the involvement of that country. President Bush has already recognised that. The other three significant military powers that immediately come to mind—two of them are Muslim countries—are Turkey, Pakistan and India. Such a grouping of 12 countries would make a significant contribution in developing a
1544
counter-terrorist strategy over the next two to three years. One way would be to add that matter on to planned G8 meetings. However, I am not sure that we have the time to wait until the next G8 meeting.
The formalising in some way of Russia's role in this area of defence, intelligence and strategic questions would have considerable benefit. One additional benefit is that it would be a good thing for India and Pakistan to be around the same table discussing issues. I do not therefore relate it only to Afghanistan. It needs to relate to other troubled areas and other countries which support and sustain terrorist activities with training and other things. That is an interesting possibility.
Finally, on the question of the Treaty of Nice, it is fair to say to the Government that if one looks at the issues on which we have a veto—it is not a long list—it would be hard to pare that away. I am not saying that I would die in the ditch for every single one of the vetoes that are left, but if one gives up those vetoes one is treading close to a line in which one ceases to be a self-governing nation. That is the fundamental issue.
I have my doubts about the wisdom of the euro. Unlike some people, I personally say that I do not know. It may be the lever which pushes us irrevocably towards a single federal state. It may not be. Under a unique Union it is possible to envisage a situation where one had reserved—clearly and quite deliberately—defence, foreign policy, some of the big judicial questions and border control issues for the nation state; and they were inviolate. One then had voluntarily—out of their own free will—all the countries of the European Union deciding that they could operate within a single currency.
One of my problems with the single currency is that its political complexion meant that some countries already within the zone probably should not have been admitted at that juncture. They were not ready for the discipline of the European Central Bank. As Europeans we must be very careful that this does not happen again and that there are not too many political entries. It is not in our interest, even outside the euro, for the euro zone to fail. It would have serious repercussions on our economy.
We must, however, be very flexible. That is another aspect of the Treaty of Nice. Those of us who have decided to stay outside the euro zone, but still to be a party to the monetary union—it is after all a European Union treaty—when they come to us and want changes made to it, we must be flexible. We are not in it. If they want these flexibilities to make it work, frankly, it will have to be adjusted. The ECB will need its mandate changed. There will have to be a bigger political element in making the decision about setting the inflation target for the euro zone. That is effectively making an impact on unemployment levels. There are some other aspects about the stability pact that will need to be changed.
Therefore, for those of us—Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom in particular—of the 15 outside but also new countries coming into the EU, there will need to be flexibility about this issue. Again, it is right

1545
that this area does not come under enhanced cooperation. It is right that this should remain an EU decision. So my feeling is that thus far I feel content to go. Much greater erosion of the power of veto and further introductions of qualified majority voting would be to me quite unacceptable. I rule it out absolutely without reservation in any area of the ESDP. I rule it out any further than the wording that we currently have on the break mechanism in CFSP.
I personally think that it was a wise decision to have an inter-governmental pillar dealing with the judicial and some of these other questions, covering immigration and border control. These decisions as to how much one will have intrusions in secrecy and into the rights of the individual are judgments that are far better made within the nation state and not within the context of the Commission or a decision which would be subject to the European Court of Justice.
So I think that the balance is all right at the moment. But anyone negotiating in 2004 will have to say no to quite a large number of claims to abolish the veto and to increase qualified majority voting. So long as that is understood and the people of this country can make that view firmly and clearly heard in the next two years leading up to it, perhaps we shall have a successful IGC in 2004. Until I see what is there I certainly think that, quite apart from the economic arguments, it could be politically foolish to make a decision on the euro.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Baroness Symons on a clear and concise explanation of the Treaty of Nice. During the course of the debate we seem to have strayed from that subject. I shall try to take us back to it.
I agree with the noble Baroness's remarks about the reform of the CAP: that it should not be pursued in the context of the IGC. I further agree that such reform needs to be fundamental. I am somewhat less persuaded about the reforming nature of the conclusions at Berlin. It is almost axiomatic that if one gets from the Commission an agreement on reform of agriculture which is watered down first by agricultural ministers and then further by heads of government, it is a fair bet that there is something fairly deficient in that agreement in the long run. It may well be as good an agreement as was available to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in Berlin, but clearly the issue needs to be revisited.
Agricultural reform needs to be revisited for enlargement, for farmers, for taxpayers, for consumers, for third world countries and for liberalised world trading systems. But it is not on the agenda today.
I readily agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his remarks today was much more moderate than some of the voices that we have heard from Conservative politicians since the Treaty of Nice was negotiated. Certainly the noble Lord was much more moderate
1546
than Mr William Hague was in another place when he threatened to campaign against ratification. That kind of attitude, had it persisted, would have betrayed the hopes that successive governments in this country have created among the applicant states with aspirations to join the European Union. It would at the same time have betrayed our own political and economic self-interest.
We are left with a simple but, nevertheless, important Bill. It is simple in so far as it proposes the ratification of modest treaty reforms. They are reforms which will improve the institutional operations of the European Union. It is important in so far as it is the necessary basis for the European Union to operate with a reasonable degree of efficiency and effectiveness following enlargement.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, prayed in aid the words of President Prodi—someone who must wish that people would hang on to some of his other words with such assiduity—that it is "technically possible". But that is a somewhat pedantic approach. Of course it is technically possible to have enlargement, but what kind of Community would we have? We would have a Community that is condemned by that decision not to work.
We have to pause only briefly to imagine what kind of larger European Union it would be without reforms to the size and organisation of the Commission, without reforms that lead to a revision of the system of weighting of votes in council, to the extension of qualified majority voting, to allow the development of enhanced co-operation, to redistribute the seats in the European Parliament, and to implement essential reforms to the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.
We can all agree with Commissioner Prodi—I would even agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell—that enlargement might well be technically possible, but it would be politically disastrous. It would create a European Union which would be neither efficient nor effective and which would be almost an open invitation to greater cynicism and greater scepticism felt by the public as to whether it would ever be able to satisfy their needs and wants.
It is on the basis of the Treaty of Nice, signed by the United Kingdom in February this year and being ratified by this Bill, that our commitment to enlargement will be firmly made. That is because the treaty is not simply a broad and general agreement to enlargement. By the process, we are specifically committed to complete negotiations, by the end of next year, 2002, for the candidate countries—which are ready. That must be done so that they can be ready properly to participate in the elections for the European Parliament to be held in 2004. That is part of the commitment that we are making to them.
Politically, the Nice Treaty reforms are, I believe, the essential preconditions of successful post-enlargement institutional operation. At the same time, they give a signal to the applicant countries that each of the member states of the European Union has accepted its internal reform obligations with the same

1547
degree of seriousness as we have expected applicant countries—quite rightly—to accept their extensive obligations under the Copenhagen criteria. If we were to be seen to be expecting the Copenhagen criteria principles to be adopted by the applicant countries, although for ourselves we were not able at Nice to pick up the Amsterdam leftovers and come to an agreement, we would be sending an incredibly bad signal to those applicant countries.
The Treaty of Nice is a modest treaty—a bit of institutional tidying-up; not much more and not much less. I believe that it was well described in another place by Menzies Campbell when he said that it,
"is little more than housekeeping. It justifies neither euphoria nor hysteria".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/01; col. 286.]
We have not heard much euphoria, but we have noticed in some quarters that a little hysteria has crept in.
It is appropriate to remind ourselves that the Nice IGC is not a special or unique process. There have already been three IGCs. Each has led to significant changes, including changes made to sacred cows such as qualified majority voting. In the past I have felt it totally appropriate, and I am happy to repeat it today, to offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, on the important role she played in securing the necessary treaty changes for the Single European Act. That Act involved 12 extensions of qualified majority voting and no truck whatever with demands for a referendum.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, knows that I am one of his greatest fans when it comes to examining the history surrounding the Maastricht Treaty. He was heavily involved in the negotiations on that treaty., where I believe that he displayed due diligence as regards securing our national interest. A further 30 extensions of qualified majority voting were agreed and, again, there was no demand for a referendum. With the benefit of hindsight, when the noble Lord was able to reflect on his actions in his hook—here I must assure the House that I am not receiving a commission for advertising the noble Lord's writing—he reveals that at the time he had a very different view of the agreement for which he had a high degree of responsibility. He recounts in great detail for the reader how at the time he did not want to sign the treaty, so he got Francis Maude willingly to volunteer for that task. But of course when Francis Maude went off to sign in place of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, what did he sign? Among other things, he signed Article J41 which states:
"The Common Foreign and Security Policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was indeed foresighted both in what he negotiated and perhaps in showing his reservations by demonstrating his unwillingness to have his signature attached to it for posterity.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his praises, but to be strictly accurate, I did not negotiate the parts covering foreign policy.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I happily accept what the noble Lord has said, but if that is the only piece of confession that he is making today, then I am happy that he has accepted everything else I said.
I believe that our interests are served by the extensions of qualified majority voting that have been negotiated at Nice. The extension of QMV serves us well as regards trade liberalisation and better financial controls. I congratulate our negotiators on those improvements. Equally, however, we can praise them all the more when we recognise that, in those negotiations, there was a defence of essential national interest for unanimity on questions such as treaty changes, defence, border controls, own resources, taxation, social security—a long list of all the matters that were promised to be ring-fenced before negotiations on the Nice Treaty began.
I believe that we have here a set of circumstances on which we can all agree: that the European Union is here to stay; that the procedures need to be improved; that the Treaty of Nice helps to improve them; enlargement is imminent and cannot wait; and the ratification of the Nice Treaty which is necessary for the efficient enlargement of the Union. On that basis, those who are looking for more in terms of issues such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell—how we defend the interests of national parliaments—should start preparing now the parliamentary input for the 2004 IGC and, in the mean time, persuade parliaments to embrace the existing powers and responsibilities they have, which are better to monitor and control the activities of governments.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very sincere and characteristically well-informed speech. However, does he feel that the decision reached in the Irish referendum, which did not concern enlargement—that was already broadly accepted—but rather everything else that had been bunged into the treaty, will slow down the enlargement process?
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, that is a matter for the Irish people. Clearly it is not the result I wanted to see in Ireland. I hope that a significant outcome of the result of the Irish referendum will be that the Irish Government will take somewhat more seriously their responsibilities in explaining the benefits of what they agreed to at Nice than apparently was the case during the referendum campaign.
In conclusion, I believe that we have before us a modest Bill to ratify a modest treaty which will bring about essential institutional changes to create the conditions for enlargement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, so cogently described to us, enlargement is a great historic goal. All noble Lords ought to consider very deeply what responsibility they will bear if they do anything to hold it up.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, about the contents of the treaty and the contents of the Bill. The treaty, and consequently the Bill, is not in the main about enlargement—except in the sense that some European politicians, vigorously supported by the Commission, were determined not to allow enlargement to happen unless there was first more integration. Not for the first time, continental politicians have been a lot more frank than our own about what has really been going on.
The German Foreign Minister said, frankly,
"Nice paves the way for deepening of the EU".
More so, he thought, than Amsterdam. What he said was EU speak for, "As a result of Nice, authority will continue to drain away from elected national governments to be bestowed on the unelected bureaucracy at Brussels".
No one will quarrel with the fact that the treaty includes institutional changes necessary to accommodate new members, but those changes take up only a fraction of the final agreement. Qualified majority voting, however, replaces unanimity in about 30 policy areas—not only in trivial and technical areas, as the Prime Minister at one time suggested—not to complete the single market; not to encourage trade; not to make enlargement work—but in important areas of domestic policy which have nothing whatever to do with enlargement. Some other changes are made which will limit enormously our ability to shape the future of the European Union.
Does anyone seriously suggest that Article 137 is unimportant—Article 137, which gives the EU a role in combating social exclusion and the modernisation of social protection systems? It could, of course, well open the door to the EU meddling in our own social security system, but one thing that no one can disagree with is that it has absolutely nothing to do with enlargement, except in the sense that some states are determined to curtail the competitive advantage which applicant states may have as a result of lower labour costs.
Article 100 is not trivial. It gives the EU power to hand over taxpayers' money to states in difficulty, while Article 191 provides for taxpayers' money to go to political parties. I know that that issue will be dealt with by my noble friend in some detail. It is certainly not an unimportant matter, still less is the power to make regulations governing political parties, with the danger of discrimination being practised against those who do not agree with further integration.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that there is a significant difference between what he says is nothing to do with enlargement and what we say is everything to do with an enlarged community? The noble Lord is talking about process; we are talking about consequence.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am talking about the fact that these measures are all part of deepening the
1550
community; they are all part of increased centralisation; they are all part of the process of transferring power from elected national governments and handing over that power to Brussels.
Article 13 seems to assume that states will be racist unless the EU is there to act. Article 144, with its social protection committee to monitor the social situation and the development of social protection systems in member states, is surely an integrationist measure. It has nothing to do with enlargement but a lot to do with limiting the power of elected national governments and placing that power elsewhere. Surely these are glaring examples of the European Union seeking to meddle in matters with which MPs of member countries are particularly well qualified to deal.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He talks about the transference of powers from elected national governments to Brussels. I take it that he is aware that the major decision-making power in the European Community and the European Union lies precisely with those member governments in the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament, of which I have the privilege to be a member, does not have nearly the same amount of power—let alone the Commission, which proposes legislation but does not decide it.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows perfectly well that the Council of Ministers can look only at proposals which emanate from the Commission; it cannot itself initiate policy in any way at all. Therefore I was entirely right to say that it was a transference of power from elected MPs to unelected bureaucrats. I do not detract from that for one moment.
There is then Article 159, which deals with economic and social cohesion outside the Social Fund. That is certainly important, as are the provisions for support for industry and economic co-operation with third countries But they are certainly not provisions necessary for enlargement.
Finally, there are the articles on foreign and security policy: Articles 63 to 67 on asylum, refugees and immigration policy; and Article 7 which gives the Council power to interfere in the affairs of a state which it considers is at risk of breaking the principles of the Union. Everyone must agree that that has deep constitutional significance. It is not a housekeeping matter nor a matter necessary for enlargement; it has deep constitutional significance, as has Article 40, which states that proposals for enhanced co-operation are no longer to be subject to unanimity.
Since Nice, Brussels has not paused for a moment in its plans for further integration. Indeed, today in The Times we read that President Prodi and his officials, like Jo Moore at the Department of Transport, look upon the international crisis as "beneficial" as it favours further integration. Virtually on the nod, EU Ministers have reached agreement on a whole raft of proposals—which again have serious constitutional

1551
implications—such as the EU arrest warrant and much more. The EU arrest warrant is seen in Brussels as a "quantum leap" towards judicial union.
It is extraordinary that after the Danish referendum and the Irish referendum on Nice—not to mention the events in Gothenburg—and when there is more than enough evidence of people in Europe feeling more and more alienated from what the elite is doing in their name at Brussels, the EU and its leaders should be bashing on regardless, telling us all that they do not intend to alter the text of the treaty by one comma; telling the Irish, with extraordinary arrogance and in a perversion of democracy, that if they had voted "Yes" to Nice that would have been an end of the matter but as they voted "No" they had better keep on voting until they get the right result.
I could say much more in that vein but I wish to concentrate on the applicant countries. What of those whose entry into the EU this treaty is supposed to facilitate? After the terrible events of the last century, it is not difficult to understand why they should wish to join the family of European nations. But is it not rather shameful that while they have been waiting at the door, the EU has been devoting its energies not to making it easier for them to join but to increasing the number of rules they will have to obey; in effect, to increasing the cost of admission. There is more than enough evidence that they, like most of us, look with some dismay at the attempts of some to force us down the road of super-nationality.
Perhaps I may say a very brief word about what was said at Nice in regard to the European security and defence policy and the charter of fundamental rights. Noble Lords will be glad to hear that I am not going to reopen the arguments about the rapid reaction force and the threat that some of us feel it poses to NATO. To quote the oft-used words of Labour Ministers in holes, "It is time to move on".
If people were not worried before 11th September about what may happen if the European Security and Defence Policy blossoms in the way the German Chancellor says he wants—and,
"national sovereignty in foreign and security policy finishes up as no more than a product of the imagination"—
they should certainly be worried now.
Europe is an essential part of the coalition that has been painstakingly put together to fight international terrorism. It has been put together and, it is hoped, will stay together simply because states have been able to respond in different ways, and some more enthusiastically than others. What chance would there have been of an EU that was responsible for defence and security giving the kind of support in the fight against terrorism that Britain has given—with Belgium refusing even to co-operate with the FBI in the interviewing of key witnesses, Italy calling for an end to the air strikes before they had hardly begun, Sweden wringing its hands, and Ireland agonising about its neutrality? The answer is obvious.
1552
I am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon spoke as he did about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I shall use slightly stronger language. According to Mr Vaz, it was no more important than a Beano comic, and the Prime Minister thought it a mere political declaration, a showcase of existing rights which would not impact on national law.
Scorn was poured on those of us who begged to differ and pointed out that both the Commission and the Senior Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights, Judge Palm, had said that the charter would become mandatory as a result of the Court's interpretation of it. But it is instructive to look at the recent decision of the ECHR about night flights at Heathrow. I pass over the absurdity of Article 8, drafted to protect people from totalitarianism, being used to give people a quiet night. I merely point out that in that case one of the judges, Judge Costa, actually cited with approval the environmental provisions of the charter which so short a time ago a Minister of the Crown was telling us was of no more significance than a comic cut. That should be a lesson to those who take seriously this Government's forecasts of the likely effect of developments in Europe. Sometimes the effect of these measures can be very different from what the politicians who entered into such bargains imagined at the time.
Much of the Bill has nothing to do with enlargement. For that reason, it must be examined with great care, and parts of it will clearly have to be opposed.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, we must say "Yes" to the Nice treaty because it prepares the way for enlargement. Its rejection would send a political signal that we are not keen on enlargement.
As justice and home affairs spokeswoman for the European Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, I am especially conscious of the importance of admitting the countries of eastern and central Europe, and Cyprus and Malta, in order to extend our co-operation on fighting organised crime, terrorism, and trafficking in arms, drugs and people—especially women and children for sexual exploitation; and to co-ordinate our immigration and asylum policies.
As enlargement is central to the Treaty of Nice, I make no apology for mentioning Cyprus. I returned only last night from a fact-finding visit there. I met, among others, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Kassoulides, and the Turkish Cypriot President, Mr Denktas. I make my remarks with humility—I was about to say in the presence of experts like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, but he is no longer in his place. I am a firm supporter of the accession of the island of Cyprus and all its peoples to the European Union. However, I am concerned at the consequences of accession taking place in the absence of a political settlement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said, enlargement is the opportunity to end divisions. The

1553
perpetration of the division of Cyprus is undesirable both for the EU and for all Cypriots. I hope that accession will be a catalyst for a political settlement.
The assertion that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus are negotiating accession on behalf of all Cypriots is, I am afraid, merely a legal fiction. There are no Turkish Cypriots in the negotiating delegation, and no one knows how they would be incorporated even if they accepted any such arrangement. Most Turkish Cypriots want to join in EU accession and their isolation is sad to behold.
Much of the deadlock in the UN efforts at political talks is down to the obstinacy of Mr Denktas, who is as stubborn as he is charming. But the sense of frustration cannot be directed at only one side. There is also an onus on the Greek Cypriots, who presently hold many of the trump cards. They must make bridge-building efforts in order to demonstrate their firm attachment to the concept of a new partnership between two politically equal communal entities on which a bi-zonal federation must be constructed.
I regret that neither the European Parliament's rapporteur, Jacques Poos, nor the Commission's president, Sr Prodi—who were both in Cyprus last week—saw their way to actually crossing to the North, even if they met some Turkish Cypriots during their stay. There is a need for creative and imaginative thinking whereby acknowledgement of and respect for the equal status of the Turkish Cypriots, and pragmatic acceptance of the reality that a separate administration exists in the North, is not immediately pounced on as being equivalent to legal recognition of the "Turkish Republic of North Cyprus".
Although the Helsinki European Council said that a political settlement between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots should not be a pre-condition for accession, it also said that, when deciding on accession, all relevant factors would be taken into account. I urge Mr Denktas and Mr Clerides to provide some such relevant factors in the form of progress towards a settlement in the next crucial 18 months. This will be good for Cyprus and good for security in Europe.
Returning to the Nice treaty, I agree with others that it is necessary but flawed. Judged by the criteria that the Government claim to share with the Liberal Democrats—namely, that EU decision-making should possess the qualities of transparency, efficiency, accountability and legitimacy—we are still falling a considerable way short of that goal.
Decision-making is made even more confused, and therefore less transparent. I do not know whether I am disappointed or relieved that none of my constituents, let alone any member of my family, has so far asked me to explain the proposed complicated new voting arrangements. Democratic accountability has barely improved since co-decision with the European Parliament has hardly been extended, even to matters where qualified majority voting will apply in the Council.
1554
In reference to the Council, our own Government's grasp of the importance of openness is distorted by their view that the European Union is no more than an organisation of sovereign states—or in the words of Mr Peter Hain yesterday in the Financial Times, a "Europe of independent states". We are surely interdependent. We are not a diplomatic League of Nations. The fact that the Council will, under the Nice treaty, continue to legislate in secret reflects a completely wrong perspective on the demands of democracy and accountability in the Union. The Council may not yet be a representative assembly, but with a membership of 28 it cannot continue to operate as a cosy club shutting out the citizen.
Similarly, the Government do not seem to grasp the fact that the European Parliament's primary role is to ensure, in partnership with our colleagues in national parliaments, that legislation is decided democratically. The European Parliament can do this by having coequal power with the Council whenever the Council votes by QMV.
This Government failed to fight hard to minimise the loss of UK Members of the European Parliament. Germany will keep 99; Britain's membership will be reduced from 87 to 72. But on both the money laundering directive and the take-over directive in the European Parliament, to which co-decision applied—both very important measures, including to the Government—the views of German MEPs were less liberal than those of British ones. Surely the Government have allowed what can only be called their disdain for the European Parliament to undermine our national interests.
On the topic of disdain, I take the opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has spoken, to recall with amusement the occasion in 1984 when he chaired an SDP/Liberal Alliance press conference in Brussels. With myself and my SDP colleague on the platform, both candidates for the European Parliament, he declared that he was opposed to direct election to the European Parliament. Well, I got there eventually.
As my noble friend, and, I am delighted to say, my new leader, Lady Williams of Crosby has said, the situation in the area of justice and home affairs is lamentable. First, in the area which is under Community competence—that is, asylum, immigration and borders—there is something of a mess. Member states as well as the Commission can make proposals, which they do like confetti, usually when they take over the presidency of the European Union and want a new initiative for a press conference. The Nice treaty gives a modest boost to qualified majority voting in this area of the treaty, but mostly we shall have to wait until 2004 for generalised majority voting, let alone for a European Parliament power of co-decision.
The United Kingdom has a supposed opt-out from that area. However, the research paper in the Library has three pages of proposed legislation in respect of which the UK is opting in. I suggest that the Government's intentions are less than transparent in relation to that supposed opt-out. For the part of

1555
justice and home affairs which is exclusively intergovernmental—that is, policing and criminal judicial co-operation and now the co-ordination of prosecutions through Eurojust—the Nice Treaty does no thing to improve democratic accountability. The European Parliament is barely consulted on these so-called third pillar measures and the protection of the European Court of Justice cannot be invoked. This Parliament, as my noble friend Lady Williams indicated, needs to be watchful that the Government do not seek to escape scrutiny here by slipping through third pillar decisions by affirmative procedures.
The Treaty of Nice shows that the purely intergovernmental method of weaving the fabric of European institutions and policies has had its day. I am glad that it has been agreed to hold a convention starting in early 2002 comprising members of the national parliaments, the European Parliament, the Commission and member governments whose task will be to submit to the intergovernmental conference in 2003 a proposal for a constitution as the basis for its work. We can then take the opportunity to rectify the errors of Nice and to scrap the Byzantine system of qualified majority voting in favour of a simpler one that we can all understand. There must be co-decision whenever there is majority voting. I welcome the surge of activity since 11th September to tackle crime and terrorism, but there must be democratic control to ensure that the breach of civil liberties is minimised. We need to settle on the European Union relatively few but very important powers at the supranational—federal, if you like—level, including not only asylum, immigration and free movement of people but also cross-border crime.
But in those areas of justice and home affairs the European Court of Justice must also have full powers of judicial supervision which is currently lacking. It would be guided by the entrenched fundamental rights guaranteed in the treaty through the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am, I am afraid, surprised that noble Lords such as the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Waddington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, dislike the fact that European Union powers would have to be exercised within a framework of respect for individual rights. I think that is a gain for the citizen against the bureaucracy and I am reassured by it.
Finally, the objective of being able to tell our fellow citizens who does what, why and how, which is all that a constitution does, has moved a little nearer with some parts of the Nice treaty, but, I am afraid, farther away with others. We must achieve such a clarified constitution in 2004, but in the meantime we must ratify what is an imperfect treaty but one whose rejection would set back enlargement.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I welcome her as leader of her party.
We shall have many opportunities to debate this Bill in detail in Committee. I want only to ask sonic questions. The first concerns the provision of national
1556
intelligence to the EU. According to a useful memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Sub-Committee C on 28th June:
"Nothing in the development of the ESDP will undermine the uniquely close and important intelligence relationship between the UK and US. Arrangements are being defined that will allow EU member states and other sources to feed intelligence assessments into the EU decision-making process just as we do in NATO, and just as in NATO this will be voluntary".
That is reassuring particularly because, as with NATO, we are presumably speaking of assessments. However, while we are keeping the front door so firmly bolted, what is happening at the back door? On 17th October the Foreign Secretary attended a meeting in Luxembourg to discuss the EU's overall counterterrorism policy in response to the tragic events of 11th September. Either then or at an earlier meeting of Home Office Ministers in September it was reported that EU Ministers agreed that all EU intelligence and security agencies were to pass all relevant information on terrorism to Europol. Also approved was the creation of a Europol anti-terrorist unit to be staffed by intelligence officers. It is that very intelligence which is one of our most vital contributions as a country to military operations. We have a serious and immediate need, therefore, to ensure that that does not happen.
The House may ask why I am raising an issue which post-dates the Nice treaty. I do so because want to know where in the treaty this decision was agreed. I can find something only in Article 30 of the preceding treaty. Article 30.1.b. speaks of the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information. Intelligence and information are not the same thing. So why was this decision made, and was it made by QMV rather than by unanimity? Had this issue arisen under the rubric of the CFSP unanimity would have been required. This decision, if implemented, could have serious consequences both for our relationship with the United States and for the safety of our own soldiers and our agents. No one should deceive themselves about the risk. Europol is a leaky sieve and there is no mechanism for member states to control it. As long ago as 1994, when the Select Committee in this House reported on Europol, it said how vital accountability would be for a body about to be given,
"formidable powers to acquire and manipulate secret and highly sensitive information".
That referred only to information on organised crime. There was concern about the protection of sources and the then Home Secretary gave an assurance that any future amendments would require ratification by Parliament. At that time terrorism was expressly excluded from Europol's mandate but in the Nice treaty it appears in a new Article 31. Europol has lost no time in extending its reach from organised crime to terrorism.
As there is no effective oversight, control over, or scrutiny of Europol—its members are appointed by an EU committee, not the nation states, and report only to that committee—I ask what the position is and what power of scrutiny or control we have? We were told in June that at Luxembourg it was agreed that there

1557
would not be any renegotiation of the Treaty of Nice, notwithstanding the result of the Irish referendum, and that the other 14 states would continue with the ratification process. It is all the more important to know what we are ratifying when it is an area of the treaty where QMV, not unanimity, may be the procedure for decision on some issues. In my view we shall live to rue the day we did not retain unanimity for issues of justice.
The CFSP is being amply reported on by the appropriate committees so I shall state only my belief that we have created an unnecessary mechanism which may grow, in terms of resources, to become a seriously expensive dinosaur. We could and should have secured the increased defence spending needed to keep the Americans in Europe through NATO. As it is, no nation has yet put any serious money or, in most cases, any money at all into defence. We now have an unnecessary and quite expensive duplicate command and control system and political institutions to match which depend for any purely EU Petersberg tasks on being run by our own joint HQ. This happens, as we always warned it might, to be fully committed to operations in Afghanistan.
When we create an unnecessary institution, it soon finds work for itself in order to survive. Which country in the EU other than France will inevitably be required to contribute the bulk of the troops? The UK. I believe that the Government have a healthily pragmatic view of the position. It is nevertheless yet another example of the EU's genius for mission and institution creep. We shall pay dearly for our tolerance of a number of weasel words in the CSFP text. Not least, we must watch carefully Mr Solana's proclaimed technique of using enhanced co-operation and the implementation of common positions with common strategies to move from decisions by unanimity to decisions by QMV. Articles 27b and 27d are contradictory. They, and Article 24, are the critical articles. I hope that we shall discuss them fully in Committee.
6 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, may I, too, take this opportunity to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on her new duties?
The Nice Treaty is a nice treaty, not only in the sense that it is agreeable to me, but also because it is nicely judged and finely tuned to Europe's current needs and aspirations. Like Amsterdam, it lies between the ground-breaking Maastricht Treaty and the forthcoming 2004 IGC. It is a modest treaty, containing much good housekeeping for the European Union, but it is also a treaty that acclimatises us to the important step of the enlargement of the Union from 15 to perhaps 27 countries. I warmly welcome the fact that the Hungarian Foreign Minister has been next door in the Moses Room this afternoon and the Romanian Prime Minister visits the House of Lords next week.
1558
However, for our Eurosceptics, the Nice Treaty is not a nice treaty. For them it is a front, like Halloween—a trick, not a treaty. As ever, our Eurosceptics want to make a mountain out of this relative molehill of a treaty and, as ever, confronted with Nice they find the concept of building a European Union as difficult to negotiate as climbing the north face of the Eiger.
It is hard to see why this piece of summitry should excite fears in our opponents. Are they for or against enlargement? In voting against the Bill in the Commons over the summer, the Conservative Party seemed content to leave the EU applicant countries kicking their heels in the waiting room of Europe until such time as the EU is remodelled wholly in the shape of Conservative thinking. I for one am impatient to open the doors to our natural allies in eastern and central Europe, who, having thrown off the yoke of Communism, deserve better than the cold shoulder of English Conservatism.
We are told that we must wait until the common agricultural policy—the CAP—is reformed, but in their 18 years of rule the Conservatives signally failed to do just that. I am bound to say, if the cap of indecision fits, I suggest to colleagues opposite that they should wear it.
We are also told that we must wait until a referendum has been conducted among the British electorate—this in the wake of a resounding general election result, when the forces of Euroscepticism were roundly routed, and from a party that studiously eschewed referendums at the time of the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty.
We are told that we must not increase the powers of the European Parliament in co-decision-making, even though that would deepen democracy without undermining the supremacy of the nation state and the European Council. The European Parliament is a key institution in holding the Commission to account and has hitherto done a good job. Are the Conservative Front Bench for or against that sensible extension of democratic scrutiny?
Almost as reprehensible as the snub offered to applicant countries by any rejection of the Nice Treaty is the threat offered to Britain's business people, who wish to trade in a simpler and freer single European market. The extension of QMV to important areas, helping small businesses and promoting research and development for industry, will help to cut the red tape that can currently frustrate even the boldest of Britain's business buccaneers.
However, that does not meet with the approval of the sceptics. I quote that tireless, Vulcanised champion of free enterprise, Mr John Redwood, who said in another place:
"We are told that the Community will come to a halt without qualified majority powers—but if, as a legislature, it slows down, that is not bad news; it is good news".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/01: col. 848]
We may legitimately ask our Eurosceptics whether they believe in fair and free markets, and in a single European market in particular. We should be told.

1559
Àpropos of Mr Redwood, I am reminded of Basil Fawlty in "Fawlty Towers", who is enjoined in the presence of German guests not to mention the war. That nostrum has been changed by our contemporary Eurosceptics, whose new self-denying ordinance seems to be, "Don't mention the peace". How refreshing it would be to hear our Eurosceptics acknowledge that if the European Union existed for no other reason, its role in preserving peace in Europe would justify it on its own.
In Committee, there will be ample opportunity to welcome the cautious but important advances in developing the CSFP, to highlight the re-weighting of national votes in Council and to underscore the changes proposed for the community courts, the COR and ECOSOC—a tasty sandwich of acronyms, but also a substantial repast of reforms.
I conclude by highlighting the unfortunate message that Britain would send to the world were we to reject Nice. First, to the applicant countries we would be saying, "Yes, you can join the Eurovision Song Contest, but not our markets, not our community and not our Union". Secondly, the message to British business would be, "Yes, we want you to be the entrepreneurs and to go out as modern merchants, market-making, but be very careful beyond the Straits of Dover, for here be dragons speaking in forked foreign tongues, breathing fire and waiting to ambush you". If we as politicians cannot be bothered about Europe, why should our business men and business women? The constant drip-drip of Euroscepticism serves to demotivate, not inspire, British commerce. Such loose talk will cost Britain jobs and prosperity.
What of our young people—tomorrow's ambassadors of British culture and commerce? We implant in them a latent xenophobia at our future peril. What of Britain in a wider world, where it is imperative as never before to fill in our own global address book? If we cannot make friends in our own back yard, how can we make friends and allies beyond Europe?
The Nice Treaty is not a hop, a skip or a jump, but it is a quiet footfall forward to a purposeful Europe on a perilous planet. We should back it.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that objections to the Bill amount to making a mountain out of a molehill. Like my noble friend Lord Waddington, I have serious misgivings about the treaty, because I believe that in a number of areas it continues the process of ceding sovereignty to a European entity.
A total of 39 vetoes will be replaced by QMV or co-decision-making. Either some of the changes are significant or they and the whole treaty are unimportant. The Government cannot have it both ways by arguing that the whole treaty is vital and yet at the same time saying that individual changes are all as uncontroversial as the reference to the Court of Auditors that the Minister mentioned—an example that I seem to remember featured prominently in the Prime Minister's press release at the time.
1560
My view is that a number of the changes are much more important than that example and that many of them are not in our national interest. We should not dismiss the small changes either. Over time, the accumulation of small changes adds up to big change, as well as setting a precedent for the direction of institutional drift and for the interpretation of the all-important acquis communautaire.
The Government argue that these changes are essential to enlargement. Indeed, that has been the drift of all speakers who are in favour of the treaty. But, as others have said, there has been no serious attempt alongside the IGC to deal with CAP reform in anything like the time-scale that would be required to meet the planned admission of members. Yet without it, any attempt at enlargement is doomed to failure. As noble Lords will know, the scale of the CAP budget is such that admission of members without such reform would, to quote the Minister, "cripple" the European Union.
Therefore, I am led to the conclusion that the enlargement argument is merely window-dressing for forcing through a range of unrelated measures that have other motivations behind them. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, accused the Opposition of creating a Christmas tree of opposition. I believe that the European Union created a Christmas tree by trying to drag through a whole range of changes on the coat tails of the enlargement argument. We must point out those changes.
If the European Union is, as I believe it should be, primarily about fostering the economic benefits of free trade within a single market, we conceded as long ago as the 1980s substantial areas of QMV decision-making in order to facilitate that. I am not convinced that we need more QMV in order to extend the common market to new members; nor, frankly, do any of the proposals in this treaty seem to relate to that.
Therefore, if the changes proposed in the treaty are not related to the common market, they must relate to other areas of sovereignty which, until now, we have not regarded as necessary to concede. Therefore, why should we concede them now? I do not find it a compelling argument that enlargement means that we should now regard existing areas of sovereignty as less vital simply in order to make it easier for a European entity to reach decisions and impose common laws in areas outside those related to the single market objective. That is what it must mean.
Enlargement goes hand in hand with ceding sovereignty only if one has a model of the European Union as an increasingly powerful political government acting across much wider fields. As my noble friend Lord Waddington said, much of this is about deepening the European Union, not about enlarging it. If, like me, one does not accept that vision but sees the European Union as being about cooperation between nation states, then the argument that these changes are needed for enlargement is simply bogus.
Therefore, at stake here is not only the specific changes and the consequences that hang upon them but whether or not, in these changes and the trends of

1561
argument as we move towards 2004, we accept the principle that the proposals signal an increasingly powerful European entity.
Perhaps I may take a few examples, many of which were quoted by my noble friend Lord Waddington, to illustrate the points that I am making. I start with Article 137, to which my noble friend has referred. It already contains quite dangerous powers for the European Union to impose policies on what are called "the social rights of workers" in the UK where those social rights are defined by the European Union through a majority vote of its members. To the existing list of areas where the common European political judgment is regarded as superior to our own democratic process, the treaty now adds two new areas. I quote:
"the combating of social exclusion",
and,
"the modernisation of social protection systems".
I ask what intent lies behind those words. I doubt whether the phrases have been added merely to provide warm feelings.
I believe that historic experience should warn us of the manipulation of meanings. Such manipulation was used in relation to the health and safety regulations when there was an attempt to impose the Social Chapter through the back door. That experience should teach us to be very wary of creating, by adding new words, new openings through which EU regulations that are harmful to our national interest can leak.
If those are not simply warm words, what is the intent? What new regulations, impositions and constraints are on the shelf in the European Commission, ready to be unleashed on the UK once we grant them this power? Why should we believe that the European Union has anything to add to our own deliberations on these topics? And why should the majority view of European governments be superior to the views of our democratic process on how we might develop our own policies for social exclusion or social protection systems?
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether, in her response, she can set out exactly what changes she expects to come about through the addition of these clauses to Article 137, and why this accession of power to the European Union is so vitally important? What does it have to do with enlargement?
I move on to Article 144, which establishes a new social protection committee to monitor and report on social protection policies in each country. That committee will have the right to establish direct contacts with national trade unions and national business groupings in order to do its work. How long, I ask, before that body seeks to position itself as a centralised and corporatist negotiating body which seeks new powers to give teeth to its proposals? What is it there for if not, with the intent of the European Commission behind it, to take more responsibility and more powers? Again, what has any of that to do with enlargement?
1562
What about Article 157, which is a charter for industrial meddlers? Under that article, the European Union is empowered to: take any action that it decides is appropriate to speed up the adjustment of industry to structural changes; foster initiative and the development of businesses; encourage an environment favourable to co-operation between industries; and foster better exploitation of industrial potential. All that will be moved to QMV and co-decision-making.
The issues that I have raised may sound harmless. They may be harmless. But there are very few policies that any past socialist, communist or interventionist government in the European Union or, indeed, eastern Europe and beyond have ever pursued or taken that could not be justified under one of those headings. I fear that there are still many political advocates across Europe for just such intervention. Yet, under this treaty, our national veto to protect us from such folly is removed, and the decision-making is moved to co-decision-making with the European Parliament. Again, I ask the Minister: why do we want to do this; how can it possibly be in our national interest; and what does it have to do with enlargement?
I do not have time to review all the other areas, but perhaps I may mention a few other concerns. I am concerned about the articles which surrender national decision-making on the mechanisms for controlling movement of people across borders and for dealing with external immigration. I cannot believe that, while not formally adopting the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, an attachment can simply be brushed aside as having no significance. The treaty would allow a majority of members to vote that the UK was at risk of a serious breach of the principles of freedom and law, based on their interpretation of those principles.
Under the treaty we would greatly increase the scope of the European courts in their jurisdiction over British courts and British justice. An extension of co-decision-making of itself implies a further shift of power towards Europeanised institutions, as opposed to national governments and national parliaments. Therefore, in this treaty, major shifts in power are intended which I do not believe have yet been fully understood in this country.
Finally, I am concerned that the treaty concedes the right of a small group of countries to move ahead in enhanced co-operation without extracting all the concessions that we might seek to win in return. I certainly do not object to a small group moving ahead towards political integration without us. Indeed, if that is what they choose to do, I prefer that they do so without us.
However, we must understand that, for those countries, this is a major prize, and our consent is an important bargaining chip. If we really were concerned about enlargement, should we not argue, for example, that such consent should be given only once we had also agreed a new and more sensible framework for the common agricultural policy? There are many other arguments that we could have extracted in return for

1563
that concession. There is a one-off opportunity to use it for that purpose, but it appears to be a missed opportunity.
For all those reasons, this is a Christmas tree treaty and, as such, it is a mistake. It is a dangerous addition to the flow towards a decentralised Europe, it concedes new transfers of sovereignty and it fails to protect or enhance our national interest. We have previously seen the danger of soothing words about the meanings of certain passages in treaties—those passages have come to have significant meanings and interpretations that were not appreciated at the time.
Given that constitutional significance, I ask the Government whether they would consider putting the treaty to a referendum of the kind that they used in relation to constitutional change in Wales and Scotland. I raise that because I do not believe that the British people have had a proper explanation of or debate about what is involved. It is not just about appointments to the Court of Auditors. If the British people had that opportunity for understanding and debate, I believe that, like the Irish, they would reject the proposal. If the Government do not volunteer that action, we should consider whether the Bill should be amended in Committee to achieve it.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, over the years there has tended to be a rule of thumb for judging European treaties. If they are criticised by those I should call maximalists (the supporters of a European federal state) and by those I should call minimalists—although, listening to their rhetoric, it might be better to call them nihilists—(they regard any step towards greater European integration as an unacceptable surrender of national sovereignty), the treaty that is in the middle between those two extremes is thought to be a modest, cautious but necessary step forward. The Treaty of Nice, whose ratification requires the approval of the Bill, certainly fulfils the first of those conditions. It has been assailed vigorously by the maximalists both for the lack of ambition in its content and for the somewhat messy way in which it was negotiated. It was criticised by the minimalists for being one more step towards the inexorable construction of a European super-state. I believe that the treaty fits neither of those caricatures and is indeed a modest, cautious and necessary step forward. That is why I support its ratification.
There is perhaps more to that rule of thumb than first meets the eye. It is not just some cynical diplomat's observation. In the politics of Europe, just as in national politics, the battle for the middle ground is what really counts. There is plenty of sound and fury from the two wings; but neither of them determines the consensus outcome, which is what every European treaty has to be, because it has to be approved by unanimity; that was the case with this treaty. That is surely just the sort of pragmatic approach that is part of our national political heritage.
It is odd that so many critics of the European Union in this country are now such ideologues at a time when our continental European partners, who were often
1564
held guilty of that sin, have become quite pragmatic. A treaty such as this one is not, of course, light or easy reading. Indeed, it is that incomprehensibility that creates an obstacle to a proper understanding of and sympathy for what the EU is all about. Yet the purpose of the treaty is crystal clear and is of the greatest importance for the future of our Continent—it is to make the EU ready to welcome up to 12 new candidate countries and to ensure that it can function effectively when they have joined.
The political and diplomatic significance of this major enlargement can hardly be exaggerated. It will transform the EU from a body that, for all its use of the European label, is in fact not much more than western Europe, into something that is worthy of the title. It will heal the wounds of Europe's division during the Cold War. It will underpin the democracies and market economies of those countries that languished for so long under the dead hand of Soviet domination. It will greatly enlarge the single market and transform Europe's common foreign and security policy. Those objectives have been shared by all the main parties since the end of the Cold War first made such an enlargement a real possibility. That is the wood of which we must not lose sight when examining individually the trees of which this treaty is made up.
Enlargement on that scale inevitably requires substantial adaptation to the functioning of the Union's institutions. It cannot make sense to try to run those institutions in a union of 27 member states in exactly the same way as we have run them in a union of 12 or 15 member states. Are we to allow the Commission to expand far beyond the number of tasks that are available for its members? Are we to allow the European Parliament to expand to a point at which one would have to hire a football stadium to accommodate its members? Are we to allow the voting weight of the smaller member states to become more and more preponderant over that of the larger member states? I should have thought that the answer to all of those questions has to be, "No". But that is exactly what one would get if one said "Yes" to enlargement and "No" to the changes that are set out in the Treaty of Nice.
So far as the weighting of votes in the Council is concerned, it must surely be in Britain's interest to reverse the steady drift, through recent enlargements, towards a situation in which our votes count for less and less in the composition of a qualified majority. That is precisely what this treaty does. As more decisions are taken by qualified majority, this reversal—this shift back—is all the more important: to us. Of course it is easy to mock the complex formulae for voting—to point out that one would need a sophisticated calculator to work them out. But that conceals quite a simple point. Is Britain's voice to have more or less weight in the taking of decisions?
I should like to pause for a moment on the question of majority voting. It engenders a good deal more heat than light. It is argued that the extension of majority voting represents some fundamental sacrifice of our national sovereignty. When I listen to some of the views expressed from the Opposition Benches—the

1565
phrase, "extension of qualified majority voting", is always used with the word, "concession"—I have to pinch myself. How on earth can it be a concession by Britain to extend qualified majority voting to the trade in services, in which we have been prevented, in various trade rounds, from getting the liberalisation that we wanted and in which we should now be able to do so? That cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as a concession. It might be a concession by France but it certainly was not a concession by the United Kingdom.
Qualified majority voting has been a crucial part of the European treaties from the outset. The original treaties provided for it in 1958—important policies such as agriculture, trade policy and the budget fell within its scope. Those were the treaties that we accepted in 1973, when we first joined. Those who object to majority voting as such must object to Britain's membership of the European Union as such.
If majority voting was needed to run a community of six—it was—how much more is it needed now that we are contemplating a union of 27? We found that out for ourselves when our early efforts to make progress towards a single market were continually frustrated by the requirement for unanimity in the relevant parts of the founding treaties. That was what led us to accept the single biggest extension of majority voting in the history of the EU in the Single European Act 1986. The fruits of that were not long in coming. Between 1986 and 1992, a series of measures of deregulatory legislation laid the foundations for a single market, which has brought huge prosperity, economic security and job growth to this country and our partners.
In examining that single market, I add that we owe a great debt of gratitude to a Member of this House—to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who did a great deal to ensure that that was not just a few words on paper but a real, living single market. If anyone doubts the case for majority voting, I suggest that he compares the amount of single market legislation that was adopted before 1986 with that adopted after that date; it is quite a salutary comparison.
The extensions to majority voting contained in the Treaty of Nice are modest compared with those contained in the original treaties, the Single European Act and in the Maastricht Treaty. There is a simple reason for that. The extension of majority voting is now bumping up against the natural limits for it. It is coming up against a determined reluctance in a whole range of member states to allow such decisions to be taken in matters of great national sensitivity such as tax and social security. No doubt there will continue to be those who will argue for an extension—the maximalists will do that—but I doubt whether the extension of majority voting will ever again be the centrepiece of a treaty revision conference, as it has been hitherto. In that view, I join the noble Lord, Lord Owen, although I would not go as far as him in opposing any such move on any such matter.
Already the focus of attention is moving towards what Europe does rather than how it does it. In the war against terrorism, people will be far more interested in
1566
results. Are we more secure? Is Europe able to throw its considerable weight into the struggle? Can we clamp down effectively on the activities that terrorists have been carrying out in our midst? When euro notes and coins are introduced in the Eurozone in two months' time, people will want to know whether that has been achieved without undue dislocation or a boost in inflation. Will it reduce costs and make price comparisons more transparent? Will it contribute to stability, jobs and investment?
So it should be with the Treaty of Nice. The key objective is to bring in as many of the 12 candidates as possible and as are ready to accept the burdens and responsibilities of membership of the Union by 2004, with the accession negotiations having been completed as near as possible to the end of 2002. That is the purpose of the treaty and why its rapid ratification is an important signal for us to send both to our partners in the Union and to the candidate countries themselves.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I strongly support enlargement of the EU. I have had the opportunity of seeing how the prospect of membership of the EU encourages economic reform in eastern Europe, the building of civil society and the ability for those countries to put communism behind them. Without the prospect of EU membership, many hard decisions would be avoided in these countries. I certainly look forward to the day when the wholly artificial division of Europe is ended.
It is said, and has been repeated endlessly in this debate, that by opposing the Bill and the treaty, one is opposing enlargement. If I thought that the Bill was essential for enlargement, I might well be in favour of it. There was an earlier exchange about the precise significance of the words used by Mr Prodi. In that exchange, we lost sight of the fact that Mr Prodi referred to up to 20 members—that is, five more new members. There is no problem in running the institutions of the EU. That is what he said. All this business about amending the accession treaties of each country, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly pointed out, would be laborious, would be after five more countries had joined the EU. Mr Prodi's point was not just a narrow, technical one, but highly significant.
The real point, made forcefully by my noble friend Lord Waddington, is that there is so much more in the treaty other than the provisions dealing with enlargement. Brian Hindley, in his brilliant pamphlet on the treaty, pointed out that the part dealing with enlargement is in the annexes dealing with the votes in EU institutions and accounts for only 5 per cent of the contents of the treaty and the presidency conclusion.
The most depressing feature of the treaty is that it schedules yet another treaty and yet another constitutional conference in 2004. I know that my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who loves these things, will enjoy it, and his wife will enjoy it, too. They will be going to many conferences. But for many

1567
others, our hearts sink. Why do we have to go on this never-ending journey? Why is the EU never complete? Why are we always told by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, that if we do not carry on bicycling we will fall off the bicycle?
Why is there another treaty in prospect? It is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, because the EU is responding to specific problems. It is not that at all. It is part of the endless process of salami slicing in the building of a European political entity. Each small step is small enough to be difficult to object to. We are told to consider everything on its merits and to consider the next step only when it is taken. But when the next step comes, we are asked, "How can you disagree with this when you have agreed to so much already?".
The treaty is rightly described as modest, but it takes small and significant steps towards the creation of a full political union. Because they are modest steps, perhaps there would be no loss in dropping them. The treaty also contains potential threats, as I shall try to illustrate, to our own rights and freedoms.
I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. It is not the changes in qualified majority voting that I most strongly object to, although I should prefer an EU that did less with less majority voting. Like my noble friend Lord Blackwell, I note the contradiction between the Government's insistence that all these changes are technical and unimportant but simultaneously vital for enlargement.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, about the removal of the right of veto on enhanced cooperation. It is made crystal clear that that does not apply to military or defence matters. To object to other countries going ahead with integration in certain areas that we might not want to participate in would be a dog in the manger attitude. Removing the veto makes it easier for Britain to say no to proposals that it does not like.
I am more concerned about Article 100, which allows the EU to take appropriate measures, including financial assistance that may be agreed, to aid member states in financial difficulty. There was some discussion about that in another place. Peter Hain claimed that it did not undermine the "no bail out" rule, which is central to maintaining budgetary discipline behind the single currency. It is clear from the amendments made at Nice that Article 100 refers not only to national catastrophes but to other circumstances beyond the country's control. Perhaps the Minister can explain the purpose of Article 100.
It is all very well for Peter Hain to assert, without offering any reason, that the provision could not be used to bail out, or compel countries to bail out, other countries with financial problems. We remember how health and safety provisions combined with QMV were used to force through the working time directive. It is right to be suspicious about anything in the treaty that is widely and vaguely drafted. There is plenty of that in this treaty.
1568
An important veto removed by the Treaty of Nice about which I am concerned covers breaches of fundamental rights by a member state. Under Article 7 the determination of the existence of a breach of fundamental rights by a member state still requires unanimity. However, the article, as modified at Nice, allows action in the event of so-called "risk" of a breach of fundamental rights. It allows the Union to put forward appropriate recommendations. If a state is judged to be in breach of fundamental rights, it can be punished, and that includes suspending the voting rights of that country.
Last year we saw the hysterical, alarmist overreaction to the inclusion of Mr Haider's party in the Austrian Government after democratic elections and perfectly normal negotiations to form a coalition. I have no time for Mr Haider; I dislike his politics. But the EU's reaction was dangerous, counterproductive, an insult to Austria and simply plain silly. The EU knew it was silly; otherwise it would have taken more serious action than it did before it found a way of climbing down.
But one of the most adolescent scenes I have ever seen in politics was that of EU finance ministers with badges of Mr Schusses bow tie and a big cross through it saying "No". That may be appropriate for student politics when running for the rectorship of Edinburgh University; it does not seem the right way for people to behave in the Council of Ministers. It does not give one confidence about how additional powers of this kind will be used in the future.
Another dangerous area with potential for more politically-correct meddling comes with Article 191 covering political parties. At Nice it was decided that the Council,
"shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level, and in particular the rules regarding their funding".
That was the addition. I appreciate that it refers to political parties at a European level. But it is not always logical to distinguish between European political parties and national political parties; the two may find themselves opposing each other at European elections. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm one point, which I believe to be the case; that is, that any EU funding of political parties requires unanimity.
The merits of Article 191 depend on the detail. But one is not encouraged by the letter to Mr Prodi from the leaders of the four main groups in the European Parliament who proposed that political parties which did not respect fundamental rights might be subject to suspension proceedings—yet again, the Haider approach: "We do not like you; we will ban you". There is not much of the spirit of Voltaire there.
It is easy to imagine certain political groups proposing similar measures against parties seeking to defy the conventional consensus on Europe. They will be called "xenophobic". Is that exaggerating? I wonder. Look at the Commission proposal for a regulation on the financing of political parties. I acknowledge that it is designed to deal with the

1569
leakage largely of Community funds from MEPs to European political parties. None the less, it provides for funding from the EC budget for European political parties. To qualify for such funding, guess what? Parties must not be xenophobic. They must not be intolerant. They must not be opposed to fundamental rights.
There are arguments for and against state funding or European funding of political parties. I am not always sure which side of the argument I am on. But of one thing I am certain. If we are going to have state or European funding of political parties, it cannot be decided on the basis of whether we approve or disapprove of those parties. That is wholly and completely wrong.
To qualify for funding, parties also have to have elected representatives in at least five member states, or have received at least 5 per cent of the vote in the most recent European parliamentary elections in at least five member states. When Mr Hain appeared before the European Union Committee of this House, he said to me that the Government did not want to see parties which are not part of European-wide groupings prejudiced in their ability to fight European elections. With respect to the Minister, that is exactly what the proposed rules do. National parties which are not part of wider groupings will be at a huge disadvantage. They will not receive financial support.
We have already had the Government putting forward a rigged proposal for any referendum on the euro; now apparently we are to have rigged European elections in terms of finance. It is no answer to say parties are free to join another pan-European grouping. What if they do not want to? The whole purpose is the use of EC money to create something completely artificial: European-wide political parties designed in turn to create something else that is completely artificial—a European public opinion.
Another area where bland, innocuous sounding proposals may turn out very differently, is police and judicial co-operation; the so-called "Eurojust" under Article 31 in Title VI. The Belgian presidency's website announces that,
"Eurojust is a permanent unit of magistrates with power of enquiry established in Brussels".
What use is going to be made of that? The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, talked about the response of the European Union to the events in New York on 11th September. We have seen the introduction of a European arrest warrant which would largely replace extradition proceedings. The proposals would make it compulsory for a person wanted for an offence punishable by at least a year in prison to be handed over to the authorities in the member state that requested extradition. Although it was claimed initially that the warrant would only cover terrorist offences, it seems from the draft text that it could be used for any offence carrying the minimum sentence. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.
With respect, it is no answer to say that the details, which are being negotiated, are not in the treaty and are separate. They stem, if not directly from the
1570
provisions in the treaty, from the same idea of judicial co-operation and if we are to be asked to give our approval of that we have to know what use will be made of it. I put it to the Minister that the proposals being negotiated are ones that go very far in removing the rights of an individual in resisting extradition.
What use will be made of the Charter of Fundamental Rights? M Jospin hoped it would be,
"an integral part of the pact uniting the nations of Europe".
Enthusiasts wanted it to have legal force. That did not happen; but it is only delayed. The presidency conclusions note that the question of the charter's force will be considered again later. And the declaration on the future of the European Union made clear that the charter will be on the agenda at the next IGC in 2004.
So much of the charter just reflects social democratic orthodoxy reflecting the political complexion of Europe as it is at the moment. A true charter of fundamental rights would not reflect passing political whims and fashion.
One wonders what is the point of articles like Article 29 giving everyone the right of access to a free placement centre. What is the point of asserting the right of everyone to marry and start a family. It all sounds like a PR effort for the EU, trying to imply that our right to marry or our right to have children somehow derives from the European Union. Indeed, Mr Vaz, in his short period in the Foreign Office, appeared before the Select Committee of this House and said, "We are going to give out plastic cards with the rights of everybody on them so that they know what their rights are". Fortunately we have since heard little of that proposal.
I would also be interested to know if the Minister can tell us whether the Government intend to uphold the right enshrined in Article 19.2—the right not to be extradited to a country with the death penalty. Are we really going to refuse to extradite to the United States anyone arrested here and accused of involvement in the 11th September atrocities? I gave the Minister advance warning of that question and hope she will be able to comment on it.
Some of the articles are strangely illiberal, such as the article which says that no one is entitled to engage in any activity or to campaign against any of the rights enshrined in the charter itself. So if I wanted to campaign against the right to refuse to extradite someone to the United States, by doing that, according to the charter, I would be doing something against the charter.
We have seen in this debate that the Bill and the treaty contain many strange things which have nothing to do with enlargement. If the issue was enlargement, my welcome would be very different. But so much is about political correctness and about extending the powers of Europe into areas where it need not go. There are many provisions in this treaty that we would be better off without. In my view it would be no great loss if Britain followed the example of the Irish.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, for the benefit of noble Lords, perhaps I may inform the House that there is a firework display nearby.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thought that it was divine disapproval for the line being taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
Perhaps I may add my congratulations to those already given to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on her elevation. I often wondered what the "gang of four" was all about. In that connection, I noted with great interest the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, on the case for the referendum on the euro being—I hope I get this right—not before but maybe in, 2004. That would tie in with Berlin. I assume that he would not necessarily vote against it at that time; otherwise I may have missed his point.
Some people say that we are rushing our fences on Europe; others that we are proceeding too slowly. Every step in the EU since the 1950s has been damned with faint praise in some sections of opinion in Britain. Sometimes that is because, it is claimed, it is overambitious and will fall flat on its face; it has not. It has been a remarkable success story, the leading model of regional integration with the nation state in the world. We are certainly not slavishly following the constitutional model of the United States, which is the main alternative. Europe is its own model, sui generis.
In that kind of setting, Nice should be seen, as my noble friends Lord Grenfell and Lord Tomlinson have dubbed it, as a careful, modest, necessary but permanent addition to the construction of a larger EU. I am afraid I do not understand—here I echo the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—how the noble Lord, Lord Howell, concluded that it is not necessary for enlargement. The new formula for votes in the Council of Ministers is surely self-evidently a pre-requisite of enlargement. The agreement on voting weights was not an easy one and I think that the French deserve congratulations on hanging in there. I hope that congratulating the French does not infringe any ancient Act of Parliament which entails being sent to the tower.
On qualified majority voting, enlargement means that we cannot, surely, have a national veto on the range of EU work. It is surely a fact that the EU would grind to a halt if we allowed every country—to be concrete about that, Latvia and Malta—to exercise a veto on the sort of issues extended to QMV in the Nice treaty. On the question of enlargement, perhaps I may add that the challenge of adding countries with an average GDP per head of only 30 per cent of the average EU GDP is daunting. That is a good deal lower than it was when countries of low GDPs, such as Greece, Portugal and so forth, came in.
I suggest that the real reason why anti-EU opinion is miffed by Nice is not that it is inadequate, but that it has destroyed the illusion, popular with some sections of opinion, that widening, to use the jargon, is at the expense of deepening. It is becoming more and more apparent that the two go hand in hand. That
1572
must come as a shock to the illusions of those who seriously thought that enlargement would water down the whole thing.
I turn to defence and the European rapid reaction force. Does my noble friend the Minister not remember well the support she received on that, not only from these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches, but from noble and gallant Lords on the Cross Benches who pointed out that they had been working on that for many years? The problem of Turkey has been cited. Nothing has prevented Turkey from participating in assistance in the Balkans, for example, as it has done recently, having committed some 1,000 troops to Kosovo. Am I right in saying shat in such cases the appropriate umbrella would be available as now but the rapid reaction force would bring additionality to that? I may be on the same line as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in that respect.
As regards the importance of the social and employment dimensions of the EU, Nice should be the signal for a great number of countries to think in a more practical way about how they will transpose the acquis, not just by passing laws—closing the chapters as it is called in the jargon—but by engendering people to take responsibility on the ground in implementing the changes. In my experience in a number of countries in the past few weeks, from Lithuania to Macedonia, that has to receive a great deal more emphasis. The trade unions of Europe are now working together at a practical level as they never did before. That is partly because we can create a better life and a better society together, rather than if we act on our own. That has always been the spirit of trade unionism.
I turn to agriculture. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong on one point which has not so far been mentioned. I believe that the next step is for agriculture to be dealt with in the WTO negotiations in parallel with internal EU discussion. That is inevitable, and that is why I am pleased that Qatar will go ahead—I hope I am right on that—and that the two timetables will therefore be expected to dovetail in about 2004.
Before concluding, perhaps I may mention the second front, which is not in Berlin but here in Westminster. Nice sets out a clear job of work to be done in national parliaments, including Westminster, which means us. When we criticise the EU for sins of omission—for not streamlining its procedures, and so on—let us remember the injunction, "first remove the mote from thine own eye". The European Union Select Committee structure does an excellent job, but we need to think about how it should be supplemented in relation to the convention.
Page 78 of the blue treaty document states that there will be discussion leading up to Laeken—we have missed that—and after Laeken with national parliaments, and all those reflecting public opinion, in four areas. First, it refers to delimitation of powers between the Union and member states; secondly, the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; thirdly, simplification of the treaties; and, fourthly, the role of national parliaments. I suggest that it is apparent from that that we in this House do not move at the speed of

1573
a greyhound in adopting new procedures. We are moving forward to the convention and on this occasion we really do need to have consultation in depth.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend the Minister that we must get the right combination. Can she indicate whether that is how she would see it? As a Foreign Office Minister, she will know that the relationship between the Executive and the legislature is a delicate one. To make discussions work, should not we have a combination of formal and informal procedures for the involvement of this Parliament in feeding back what is happening as regards the convention?
Along with other noble Lords present I welcome the initiative of my noble friend yesterday in arranging an informal meeting, open to all Members, on the work of the convention. That complements well the formal procedure. The range of those who attended yesterday made good use of an hour's question and answer session, which was far freer and, perhaps I may say, more illuminating than that which is often the case when everyone is prepared to make a speech on the record. After Laeken we need a new type of future scoping paper, perhaps along the lines of a discussion document and perhaps one notch down from a Green Paper.
Now is the time to stop being the theatre critic who often gives the play a bad review and to get out there on the stage. I am sure that our representatives on the convention would also benefit greatly from that. There is one point on which I believe we would all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington; that is, one would not find much understanding of the Nice treaty in a public bar either in London or Dublin. A point follows from that. As we start to use more popular language and endeavour to meet the point, I trust that we will not then be said to be simply making propaganda. I hope and believe that getting the euro into people's pockets will be an example of how we have to take risks in getting popular understanding, and that when people then look back in a few years' time they will ask what all the fuss was about.
7 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the entrance fee for this debate is to pay a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and to congratulate her on being appointed Leader of the Liberal Democrats. I happily make that payment. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford has explained the modalities that prevent us from voting on this legislation this evening, which I understand. If I were still in the other place, I would happily have joined the Conservative Party in voting against this legislation on the occasion of their consideration of Second Reading. As we no longer have a vote, we can concentrate on our voices.
I shall reflect on where we have come from and where we hope to go. To my mind, the debates on Europe that were initiated in the late 1950s and in the 1960s, when the Rome Treaty prescribed a
1574
homogeneity of the original six that made the term "closer union" have a certain understanding, are of recent recollection. One great protagonist of the debates on Europe in this country was inspired to talk of "Europe, a nation".
Since then we have gradually seen the enlargement of Europe into its present state, both in terms of its ambitions and its territorial commitment. We have seen that the pursuit of "Europe, a nation" has encountered a number of serious considerations that should make us all ponder and reflect at this time on Europe and her institutions. I shall choose—not in any sense of malice, but with a sense of significance—three areas where, on any tolerable judgment, I do not believe that the European Union and its institutions stand well regarded.
The first, and perhaps the most important, is popular endorsement. Europe, seeking the consent and the endorsement of the European people, stands in a very sad situation. Direct elections were initiated in 1979 and on five occasions such elections to the European Parliament have taken place, starting with a turn-out of votes of 63 per cent, which during the 1999 election fell to 49 per cent. Each election has recorded a drop in the number of votes over the preceding election.
There is no sign whatever of a popular enthusiasm and a popular endorsement, above all a popular understanding of what sacrifice means in governmental authority as far as the European population is concerned. I believe that to be a profoundly dangerous situation. At the end of the day, popular voting and popular involvement give those who take authority, and who require discipline, the tolerance that comes with popular participation. If you take that away, you will not take away conflict; you will almost certainly ensure that eventually conflict will be taken to the streets. In my view, it is evident that that is the danger, although it lies over the brow of the future.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he view the fall in turn-out during the last British general election and the ever-decreasing turn-out in the American presidential elections as signifying a real distance and a real lack of commitment to democracy?
Lord Biffen: My Lords, of course I do. If we are to bandy about statistics, the United Kingdom component of the European Union direct elections is one of the biggest and most profound challenges of all, as the figure has fallen to 24 per cent.
I turn to the second consideration. For many across the spectrum of those who endorse membership of what was then the Common Market, the prospect of open trade was particularly attractive. It included the prospect of the dismantling of tariffs, of our own industrial base being subject to more competition and of access to a wider European market. I have no doubt that in the early years that was a satisfactory consequence. However, when one looks at the position of the economy across western Europe today, it is not

1575
characterised by a growth in the dynamic of open trade and of liberal principles; it is characterised by a growth in regulation, in harmonisation and in bureaucracy of one sort or another that has made the balance within the: European Union considerably different from that anticipated by the pioneers. As ever, it was put graphically by my noble friend Lady Park when she talked of "institutional creep". Throughout Europe there is a subterranean growth in governmental involvement in regulation, which is a serious challenge.
Thirdly, I turn to the agricultural policy. There is something Augustinian about the agricultural policy. Its reform always lies just over the brow of the future. It is a relatively reasonable situation to analyse. Agriculture has been a subject of social considerations, environmental considerations and food production considerations. They have been held in a balance. The agricultural policy has never been purely a farming consideration. It has problems and difficulties, which I shall not chronicle because they are well known and they have been acknowledged by practically every noble Lord who has spoken. The ability to resolve them appears to be beyond our reach. At the end of the day, the politicisation of the price mechanism prevents those three factors adjusting themselves to the changing national and world conditions.
I have identified three great issues—popular commitment, the liberal ethos of economic policy and the common agricultural policy—that are still at the top of the agenda in demanding major and fundamental reform within the European Union. I ask one simple question: will enlargement help the solution of those three issues? I shall quote only one witness, my noble friend. Lord Renton of Mount Harry, whose views on these matters are close to those of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, and somewhat distant from my own. My noble friend Lord Renton gave evidence to the Lords Select Committee that considered enlargement. He said at page 37 of the evidence taken on 21st October 1999:
"We are all in favour of enlargement in general terms but when it comes to the principles of how do you create a European Union Commission, Council, Parliament that is actually going to work with 26 members we do not really see an end result that is either acceptable to us individually or acceptable to the members generally".
That is the problem. The enlargement of the European Union is seen as an extension of the institutions which were fashioned in the late 1950s and which still stand central to what is now proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made an argument, with the hauteur and self-confidence that I would expect of the Foreign Office, based upon the continuation of the central features of 1959, as though one could proceed without a major change. Yet we are now compelled to consider a major change. I say that because the nature of Europe, the threats to Europe and the challenges to Europe are being transformed.
From now on, 11th September will always have an imprint on our considerations and judgments; it is not a quick, dramatic situation that will diminish as we adjust to it. It is bringing a greater reality to the words of Charles de Gaulle in 1959, when at Strasbourg he
1576
talked of a wider Europe. I can quote de Gaulle's words only in French—I apologise to my audience on that account. He said:
"Oui, c'est l'Europe, depuis l'Atlantique jusqu'àl'Oural, c'est Europe, c'est toute l'Europe, qui décidera du destin du monde".
Of course, he was right. The Europe that we think of today is one that now stretches to the Urals. It is a Europe in which, if we were to ask the applicant countries, "Look, for the moment, you can have one or the other: NATO or the European Union", my money says that they would choose NATO. There is an increasing anxiety for the wider Europe to be seen primarily in terms of defence. We can then consider all the other challenges to do with trade and the issues that properly occupy this debate but which are none the less secondary to defence.
Once we talk of NATO and its extension to involve Russia, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, mentioned, we must negotiate a whole series of subtle relationships that relate to Russia, defence and terrorism with our partners in the wider Europe who want NATO, but originally wanted it on rather different terms.
That is the challenge. I am not in the slightest upset that those on my Front Bench have been somewhat restrained in how they have approached the topic of this debate, because it misses the realities and challenges of today. In her opening speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, talked about the treaty "increasing our wealth". It might increase our wealth, but today we are not concerned with the argument of shopkeepers; we have totally different considerations. The old-fashioned arguments about domestic product, trade and the rest of it, which may have served 20-odd years ago, do not hold central relevance to the kind of Europe that we should be considering today.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords. I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, on adding to the linguistic pluralism of the House. This week, we have heard Gaelic, French and a strong Canadian accent, so we become more varied every day.
We heard a wise judgment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about the Treaty of Nice—that it is, if not a minimalist treaty, a necessary and modest one. None the less, it gives rise to strong emotion and raises several important issues of principle. I should like to address both an emotional context and an issue of principle.
However, I shall begin by sharing an experience with the House, like the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who, as we heard earlier in the debate, played such a critical role in the more important conference and Treaty of Maastricht. I was present in the modest role of a journalist and remember being briefed with other journalists in the early hours of the rooming in the British briefing room. A chap came across and told us in tones of hushed urgency that the Prime Minister was across the road in the other building, "surrounded by foreigners". Indeed, so he was, and rightly so.

1577
The emotional issue, as in all debates on Europe, concerns the basic feelings of the House and of individual Members about the nature of sovereignty. There is clearly a deep, instinctive divide. Some of us in the House and in the other place, in essence, take the view that in an increasingly interdependent world—since 11th September, the democracies of the world are interdependent to an unparalleled degree—the way for democracies to hold sovereignty is to find the right levels and the right subjects on which to share sovereignty. There is another feeling, which is that that path leads to the abolition of the nation state, and with it the freedoms that Parliament and our democracy represent.
We all find a position somewhere between those two extremes. Increasingly in the European debate, our fundamental instinct guides us to a detailed position on this or that clause, paragraph or next step. I wonder increasingly whether, if the Conservative Party could turn the clock back or forward—I do not know how that would be done—it would vote for the Single European Act or for Maastricht. Has some kind of hindsight now taken over the Conservative Party that says, "All this was a disaster; we should not have done any of it"? It is sometimes alleged that the fault lies with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, because she did not read the Single European Act, or that others did not foresee what might be its consequences, that it was all a terrible mistake and that we should never have gone down that road.
The Nice treaty is a modest step, but it recognises that, in a world of increasing danger and increasingly obvious interdependence, it is important that in our geographical area of Europe we decide on which matters by sharing decision-making and sovereignty we can increase the real quantity and quality of sovereignty. The Treaty of Nice, although a modest treaty, a somewhat inelegant treaty—born of an extremely fractious and inelegant summit, despite where it was held—is nevertheless a step in that direction. Why? What is the most important thing about the treaty? Its most important consequence relates to enlargement.
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, acknowledged the beneficial impact on the modernisation of eastern and central Europe and the movement of economies and democracies there into the full modern age of the acquis communautaire. Countries have had to adapt in such a way. If we did not ratify the treaty, Mr Prodi might feel that we could still get five countries in. I am not reassured by his confidence about the five; I am aware of the fact that 12 have applied. However we argue it, the message that we would send to east and central Europe if we refused to ratify the treaty would be: delay. We would be saying that we did not recognise the real historic dimension of this moment and that our own internal, domestic argument was of greater importance. And what is the result of delay? The result of delay is dismay. It inevitably will put a break on the process of modernisation and on the urgency and the focus of meeting the chapter in the acquis communautaire which
1578
exists and which from my experience of travelling in eastern and central Europe is a factor of the greatest importance.
My plea would be that in approaching the treaty and its ratification we should not bat our way into the 21st century with our eyes fixed longingly on the 19th. We must view this treaty in the context of the challenges that we in the European Community and Union face and are likely to face in the next decade. In that context, the Nice treaty is a modest but necessary step.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I am pleased to intervene from the Cross Benches today, although I feel a little like a Motherwell supporter at a Celtic v. Rangers match. It is an essential protection for our sovereignty that the United Kingdom Parliament must take the decision on the ratification of any changes to the Treaty on European Union and the treaties establishing the European Communities. Those treaties are, in a sense, the constitutional basis for the United Kingdom's position, its rights and obligations within the European Union and the European Communities. The need for the ratification of any changes, just like the earlier ratification by our Parliament of the existing treaties, is therefore once again the clear demonstration to our citizens that in the European Union it is the member states which rule, okay!
Bureaucrats cannot change the treaties; Eurocrats cannot change the treaties; Commissioners cannot change the treaties; Ministers cannot change the treaties; only Parliament is sovereign. For that reason, even if some of the changes may not seem too important, we need to be attentive to the changes which are now to be given effect in domestic law.
That was always the case when past intergovernmental conferences led to treaties, such as the most recent Treaty of Amsterdam, which were added to the treaties listed in the 1972 Act. But in the case of the Treaty of Nice, which we are discussing today, there is another element; a genuinely political element which should also weigh heavily in the balance. From the early days of the discussions and negotiations between the member states which led to the Treaty of Nice, it was widely understood that an acceptable agreement there on some institutional questions would clear the way for the completion of the negotiations now taking place with the countries of central, eastern and southern Europe which seek membership of the European Union. That has been clearly stated in this debate and we cannot avoid the obligation that that imposes on us here in the UK Parliament. There are about 108 million people in those countries which are currently negotiating accession and we all know that that will be a step-change in the nature of the Union.
When I spoke in this House immediately after we knew the results of the intergovernmental conference at Nice, I stressed the importance of the political perception of the completion of Nice for the enlargement of the Union not only within the present

1579
Union but within the acceding countries themselves. I believe that we must make our further contribution to that political perception by ensuring that the United Kingdom ratifies the Treaty of Nice.
Of course, I am well aware that Ireland has not ratified, but we must take our own responsibilities and not make the mistake made after Maastricht by allowing our attention to be too much diverted to what another member state has done or is likely to do. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I do not want us to lose the momentum of the enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement is a political change of high importance; the creation of a new type of Union because of its diversity and the traditions and priorities of the new members states. All that is, for me, positive. And we must also wake up to the greater prospects for trade, commerce and contacts between citizens within the enlarged Union.
That is what is opening up in central and eastern Europe and in parts of southern Europe. It has little or nothing to do with bureaucracy or technocracy, but it has a lot to do with enlarging our community of interests. We must recognise the even greater responsibilities which the Union will take on in the wider world as it enlarges within, I hope, the near future.
With the ratification of the Treaty of Nice by the enactment of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, I would like to see the message go across the Channel to the Council of Ministers and to the European Commission: let us work to finish the negotiations with the applicant countries by reducing those chapters—already few, I am pleased to say, for some countries—which require the final decisions of Ministers and let the Ministers decide.
I turn to some of the specific changes included in the Treaty of Nice, in particular to the institutional changes. I am not very interested in institutional changes but I have a lot of experience of the European institutions and some changes were signalled beforehand as of importance in themselves and for the further enlargement of the Union.
The first is the voting weight; that is, the number of votes available to each member state for use if there is a vote in the Council or, for example, in the management committees. There are three elements in the changes agreed at Nice. First, there is the most important point; namely, the United Kingdom's own position. That position is improved as the United Kingdom will in future have a greater percentage of the total votes. Of course we must welcome that.
Secondly, it makes a qualified majority slightly more difficult to achieve because there is a small lift of the threshold. In addition, it introduces the requirement that at least half the member states must agree and the favourable votes must represent at least 62 per cent of the population of the Union. I see no difficulty whatever in the new criterion of a substantial percentage of the population, which is a democratic approach. As regards the higher threshold for the votes, I would personally have preferred to leave it as it was, but the difference is slight.
1580
Thirdly, in Declaration 20 on the votes, we now have the application of the votes in a Union of 27 members, thus avoiding a potential argument at the conclusion of each acceding country's accession negotiation. I should say that in the final stages of negotiation of the earlier Treaty of Amsterdam, heads of state and government were close to an agreement on the revised weighting of votes for the current member states. I was present on that occasion and I believe that had that point not come towards the end of long and exhausting negotiations they might have concluded then. But the fact that we now have that agreement plus the agreement on votes for the new acceding states shows the added value of Nice.
Furthermore, there are a number of changes to the prospective number of commissioners to take account of enlargement. It is well known that some smaller member states which were less well treated as a result of the changes in voting weight were all the keener in consequence to retain their commissioner while other member states wanted to set a strict limit to the number of commissioners. It was therefore necessary to reconcile the view, particularly in the light of the forthcoming enlargement.
The result is not exactly glorious, but it has the great merit of taking the issue out of the disputed domain, at least until 2010 when, no doubt, your Lordships' House, having settled a number of contentious issues about its own composition, will be able to return to the question of the number of European commissioners. We can assume that in the shorter term the number of commissioners will rise because, for example, in the period up to 2005 one will be added for each acceding country—and I hope that there will be a good number of such countries. It is only in 2010 that that number will be definitively reduced.
The treaty also contains a number of small changes which will increase the role of the President within the Commission. It will none the less remain a body which takes its positions on a collegiate basis.
A good deal has been made of the other areas of change; those concerning the areas subject to qualified majority voting and the so-called "enhanced cooperation". It is perhaps difficult to convince oneself that the change to QMV in those areas will make much difference in practice, although I would signal the potential effect on some measures; for example, the procedures for checks at external borders (Article 62)—it has not been mentioned in the debate, which rather amazes me—where the United Kingdom now has an opt-out which is rather charmingly described as an "opt-in".
When I went to Brussels in 1987 I made what I believed to be a very good speech which was immediately attacked on both sides. One British newspaper featured it under the heading "Thatcher adviser goes bush". Enthusiastic Europeans attacked it because I suggested that in some important areas the Community was, or shortly would be, at cruising speed and it did not need a spate of legislation or other changes. I hope that we are now at cruising speed on QMV and that in the coming years it will not be

1581
necessary to reopen the balance achieved between areas subject to unanimity and areas subject to QMV. In that respect I am exactly in line with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Owen: if it works, don't fix it.
As to enhanced co-operation, it is a little odd to amend the text agreed so recently at Amsterdam before it has ever been used. It is said that that text was difficult to operate, which was why I liked it. I am not too concerned if there is some variation of pace between member states in the intergovernmental areas, such as the common foreign policy. But I am glad that there are still important safeguards and hurdles to protect the coherence of the Community and the rights of non-participants.
Although declarations do not have the force of treaties, it is right to recognise the importance of Declaration 23 on the future of the Union. That declaration highlights certain subjects—for example, the role of national parliaments—for a future intergovernmental conference in 2004 and the preparation for it, including the association of representatives of national parliaments. I am sure that that method of preparation will be better than that which I suffered in the three major IGCs before Nice. With the huge increase in the legislative role of the European Parliament in recent years, a better association of national parliaments and, I hope, more transparency in the Council's role as legislator, we can say that if there were a democratic deficit this would be the way to deal with it.
Some matters are not in the treaty, in particular the agricultural policy. However, as others have said, the existing treating contains only broad objectives for agriculture. All the market mechanisms and prices, already much reformed and reduced—although not noticed over here—do not require treaty amendment. Some future changes may be needed but not in the treaty that we are examining today.
It may be thought that I have damned this treaty with faint praise, but that is not so. I have praised it but only very modestly.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. Perhaps the noble Lord has added more interest than other speakers. It is not my business to sum up. I know that that task will be performed extremely competently by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. Perhaps I may say how much I admire her stamina and resilience. She has sat in her seat almost unmoved except for one moment. It is strange that these days very few Members of this House can tell the difference between fireworks and gunfire. I believe that that was the only occasion on which I saw the Minister move, not in any sense of panic but curiosity.
There are two speeches about which I must say something. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is now back in his place. All I say to the noble Lord about the speech which he said he should have made 30 years ago is that I do not think that it has improved with the
1582
keeping. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is not in his seat. He criticised Conservative governments, of which I was a member, of the 1980s for not getting on with enlargement. I gently remind the noble Lord, perhaps through the columns of the Official Report, that at that time several of the applicant nations were members of the Warsaw Pact and the leader of his party was dashing backwards and forwards to see his wife around the boundaries of Greenham Common. Things were rather different at that time. Had it not been for a robust government I do not believe that those countries would now be free to apply for membership.
I return to the Bill. I believe that there are three main objections to the measure which come under the following headings: what the treaty contains, what it does not contain, and the Irish decision. First, as to what it contains, there are new provisions for the voting system in the Council. It is important for both Eurosceptics and Eurofanatics to remember that there are times when the United Kingdom wishes to get decisions made or unmade. We who are attached to the unanimity rule must remember that effectively it can give one Parliament a veto over its successors. For example, the decision by this Government to submit to the Social Chapter can be reversed only with the unanimous agreement of our fellow member states or renunciation of the Treaty of Rome, regardless of the wishes of the people of this country, however expressed and in however many elections.
Therefore, we need to remember that the unanimity rule is a double-edged sword. So, too, are the provisions of the Treaty of Nice on blocking votes. I believe that the best solution to the difficulty is not to muck around with unanimity rules and percentages of blocking votes but to reduce, not increase, the size of the policy competence of the European Union. That is the way in which we help to resolve that difficulty.
The detail of the treaty is not the material of a Second Reading debate, but on this issue it is sufficient to say that the ability of Germany to block proposals coming forward under QMV would be greater than that of any other power. We all accept that Germany must have a privileged position in this respect because of the greater size of its population, but we must also remember what powers are being given to one particular nation within the European Union.
On this matter the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, produced some rather dodgy arithmetic. They both asserted that we were gaining influence in the number of votes that we would have under the treaty. As I understand it, we now have 11.49 per cent of the total voting power in the European Council. After the accession of all the candidates we shall have 8.41 per cent. That is a bit of an Irish increase, if I may say so. It is also worth noting that at the moment we have about one-sixth of the votes necessary to carry a proposition under QMV. Sometimes we do want to carry a proposition; we are not always against a proposal on the table. On my arithmetic, after 1st January 2005, in the absence of accession, we shall still have about one-sixth of the votes to carry a proposition. However, after the

1583
accession of the applicant states we shall have about one-ninth of the votes. I do not regard that as an increase in our voting power. I am rather surprised that the arithmetic of both the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and the Minister goes in that direction; mine does not.
One matter that emerges from a careful reading of it is that the structure of Nice either before or after enlargement facilitates blocking minorities. It makes it easier rather than more difficult for a minority to block a proposition. It is said that that is in order to make the European Union more governable. I am not a federalist or Europhile, as the House will be aware. To make it easier to construct blocking minorities is a strange way to make it easier to govern. That is one of the fascinating but puzzling aspects of this treaty.
We find that the extension of co-determination not only increases the power of the European Parliament but the difficulties inherent in European Union decision-making. The loss of the national veto in another 39 areas is more serious in some than others. We find that industrial policy is to be subject to co-determination. Have noble Lords seen the miracles worked by the European Union's agricultural and fisheries policies? I regard a proposed European Union industrial policy only with grim foreboding.
The provisions on enhanced co-operation are entirely perverse. The way forward for member states who want, for example, to merge their tax systems, their police forces, their armed services or any other functions, or to agree that they will have a common foreign policy, is outside the Treaty of Rome. So long as that does not involve in any way the Commission, the Council or the Parliament, that can be accomplished without breaking or bending the treaty.
Why should we object if the French and the Germans wish to join into some kind of European republic? If the French want to be governed by the Germans—we have shed enough blood and treasure trying to save them from it—we should now say,
"Well, do go ahead but outside the treaty. You can come back again into the European Community, into the European Union, as the Franco-German Republic with your place at the table and your appropriate number of votes and everything else".
There is no barrier to that, any more than there is a barrier to the United Kingdom as a union of four nations being a member at the table.
There are some objectionable attachments to the treaty. The charter of fundamental rights is one. Although it appeared in the presidency conclusions of the IGC rather than in the treaty, we should bear in mind the annex entitled "Declaration on the Future of the European Union". That is placed on the agenda for 2004. Like other moves—outside the treaty but at the IGC—towards a European defence force, this should be borne in mind as we consider the case for ratification.
Secondly, I turn to what is not in the treaty, nor in the presidency conclusions. As other noble Lords have observed, there is nothing in it about the common agricultural policy. That has been brushed off. One does not need to amend the treaty in order to amend
1584
the common agricultural policy. But one needs to do something to amend it. It has been slightly amended, but it has been broadly the same policy for the 30-odd years that we have been in the Community. We have been trying to reform it. But that will not come about until one or more member states goes to an IGC and simply says,
"We are not going to agree to anything until the heads of government have agreed on the bones of a proposition to reform the CAP".
If that comes nearer to abolishing it than reforming it—it may be incapable of being reformed—so be it.
There is nothing about the fisheries policy either. That is another of the European Community's great achievements. It is one which has devastated fish stocks and our own fishing industry.
Thirdly, like other noble Lords, I must refer to the Irish decision. This treaty cannot come into effect because it has been rejected by one member state. There has been a great deal of talk about it having been agreed at Nice by all member states. It was not agreed at Nice by all member states. It was agreed at Nice by the heads of government. When it was put to a member state—that is the people of the Irish republic—they said "No". They disagreed with it. They have been told one way and another, and they have been told again today:
"Oh, don't worry about that. Sooner or later we'll sweet-talk you into changing your mind, as we did the Danes over Maastricht. We will put some pressure on. We will make some threats and offer some inducements. We'll say that you have misunderstood it. We've all misunderstood and you'll come round".
You can vote as often as you like as long as you vote "Yes". Once you have voted "Yes", there are no second votes after that. That is it. The door of the trap goes snap.
It is an insult to the people of Ireland that we are all pressing on with the process of ratification as though they had not spoken. How would we feel if we had been granted a referendum and everything pressed on as though we had not spoken? Is that how the referendum on the euro will be regarded by the Government if they lose?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that Sinn Fein had a leading part to play in opposing the ratification of the Nice treaty in Ireland? Is he happy that that badly conducted campaign was led by a political party that many of us do not regard as democratic and in dealing with which I know the noble Lord has had much bitter experience?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will tell me whether he thinks that the Sinn Fein campaign in support of the Good Friday Agreement invalidated that too.
We must give the Irish people credit for knowing what it was that they were voting on. If we are prepared to give credit to the people of Northern Ireland on the Good Friday Agreement, then we must

1585
give it to the people of Southern Ireland on the Nice treaty. I am surprised that the noble Lord has come up with such a weak argument.
I noted that it has been observed that Mr Major's government treated the Danes in the way that the European Union is prepared to treat the Irish. I thought that was disgraceful. I said so at the time. I opposed the Maastricht treaty. I voted against my party. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, was not able to do that 30 years ago. I hope that the noble Lord has learnt to do it now, because there are a good many occasions when he should be voting against his party.
The question we should ask ourselves is: would it really matter if this treaty were consigned to the trash can? Of course it would not. It would not, or it need not, hold up enlargement. It would not take very long to fillet out those parts of the treaty which are objectionable and then resubmit it as an enlargement treaty to the people of Ireland. I have a feeling that they might say, "That's fine". They were not voting against enlargement any more than if I vote against this treaty at Third Reading I should be voting against enlargement.
It was the other bits to which they objected. It is to the other bits which I object. In any case, as Mr Prodi has so clearly said, the treaty is not essential to the first stages of enlargement. We could get the first four or five countries in. Indeed, we could go further than that by ensuring that the treaties of accession carry the changes in weighting of votes in the Council and the other things which are essential.
Lastly, perhaps I may refer to an argument which has been developed more outside this House than it has inside; that is, to ratify this treaty would be both contrary to Magna Carta and a breach of the Coronation Oath, which sprang from the settlement of 1688. I find many of those arguments extremely persuasive. We are no longer being governed, as our constitution requires, in accordance with the traditional laws of England.
But I have to say to those who think that that is an insuperable bar to progress on this treaty: forget it. The courts of this country have always had an acute political perception. I am quite sure that if it was ever taken to court, the acute political perception of the members of our judiciary would ensure that, no matter what facts were laid before them, they would conclude that Parliament could do exactly what it liked, even signing its own death warrant. Of course this treaty is not Parliament's death warrant. It is just another instalment on the way towards it.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to those offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on her new role. She will bring great style and substance to her duties. When looking at the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am reminded of the interesting discourse offered by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, on the meaning of "party".
1586
That in turn reminded me of when my daughter was three or four years old. One day she solemnly asked, "Mummy, when is the Labour party? Can I have a new party dress to wear, and will there be chocolate cake?".
A trawl through the Second Reading speeches on this Bill in another place unveils some colourful name-calling of the Nice treaty which, even on a bad day, it really does not deserve, but which epitomises the all too familiar polarisation that we have wearily come to expect during important debates on Europe. I am glad to say that so far in this House our debate has been more measured and rational, due in large part to the excellent lead given by my noble friend in opening it.
On 4th July in another place, the treaty was referred to as, "puny and paltry", "wide-ranging and far-reaching", "not perfect and fairly modest", "a missed opportunity", "lousy and messy", and,
"a treaty with immense practical benefits for Britain".
It cannot possibly be all those things but, as a PE—Euro-jargon for a "practical European"—I shall opt for the final description. That is because I believe that the Nice treaty will indeed benefit Britain, our European partners and, most important, the applicant countries in a number of modest but significant ways.
It will further reform the EU's institutions so that enlargement can operate effectively. Putting our house in order so that the accession of the applicant countries can take place has been, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, Mr Jack Straw,
"a strategic aim of successive British Governments and our allies for more than a decade".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/01; col. 263.]
Given all the necessary work and detail of revising the current system of weighted votes in Council, changing the size and organisation of the College of Commissioners, the extension of QMV and the increases and changes to the distribution of seats in the European Parliament—some might say that you can never have too many MEPs—it would be easy to lose sight of the reason why we started down the road to enlargement in the first place. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, put the same point most movingly in her contribution.
It was to put behind us the European wars and dictatorships. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lady Symons pointed out earlier, it will leave behind the suffocating Iron Curtain dogmatism of the previous century and open up more and more European countries to greater opportunities for peace and prosperity within a wider Europe. Those who absolutely oppose the treaty are, in effect, opposing the real possibilities that it promises for accessing the world's largest single market for trade and investment. They are opposing the opportunity for British companies far more readily to reach the prize of half a billion consumers; much greater co-operation within the European Union to fight the drugs trade and organised crime; and the requirement in the treaty that applicant countries must clean up their act on air and water quality. It is hard to understand such opposition to the opportunities.

1587
As my noble friend Lord Grenfell remarked, it is no use paying lip service to the idea of enlargement but then opposing the means by which enlargement can take place. Opponents will say that the treaty does not solve all the problems of enlargement—and nor does it. Being an advocate both of the idea and the practice of enlargement does not mean that I dismiss the very real difficulties in areas such as agricultural reform, where, as many noble Lords have said—the point was put eloquently by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson—we still have a long way to go. But that reform is under way in many important details, in particular as regards the budget. I do not dismiss the difficulties surrounding external border security, as has been detailed effectively in the House of Lords Select Committee report on Enlargement and EU External Frontier Controls.
However, the call for blocking the treaty altogether because of such difficulties must be resisted because it is a call that masks a far more fundamental antagonism to any further European integration by and through any means. It is not helpful to Britain or to the accession countries, which are making great strides in their preparations to be welcomed by the agreed timetable.
In my former capacity as a Member of the European Parliament, chairing the European Parliament Women's Rights Committee, and in my present role as chair of the Women's National Commission, I have met and worked with many women from the applicant countries. Many of them are acutely aware of the European Union's positive record on equal pay and equal treatment in the workplace. They have followed the agendas of the Social Chapter; the agendas for better maternity and paternity leave; for the right to parental leave; and for better working hours and conditions for European workers. What right have we to delay their access to such improvements? They wish to access the economic opportunities and stability that they believe enlargement will bring for them and for their families. I believe that those women's voices must form a part of our debate on the treaty.
We are aware that the Nice treaty, through an attached declaration, points the way forward for future action in matters such as simplifying the treaties. Again, noble Lords have referred to this matter. Of course there is an enormous need to ensure that the treaties are made more understandable. They will never become the talking point of pubs and clubs in my former constituency, but it is a problem for democracy when it is almost impossible to make sense of the treaties. Simplification is long overdue.
Addressing the role of national parliaments in the European Union is also a matter for the future. It is needed because all noble Lords know that, increasingly, we see that the national electorate is not engaged with European policy and policy making. It is a policy process that often seems entirely remote from the national electorate, despite the best efforts of the European Parliament and the European Commission. And, of course, there should be an opportunity to review the status of the Charter for Fundamental Rights, on which eminent colleagues in this House have
1588
worked so assiduously and which should not be dismissed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, dismissed it, as so much political correctness. That would provide an opportunity for us to look to future action aimed at bringing to the fore, in a clear and understandable way, people's rights and responsibilities within the European Union.
In our support for this important Bill, none of us would dismiss the gap that currently exists between citizens and the European Union itself. That gap cannot be tolerated if we are to have a rational, grownup debate about our future in Europe—particularly if we are to have a debate about our future and the euro. I shall be supporting the Bill because, ultimately, its successful passage will be good for jobs and security, environmental progress and citizens' rights—not only the rights of British citizens but of our European partners—and, particularly, it will be good for the citizens of the accession countries, who have waited long enough.
8 P.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I am not quite sure why we are spending so much time discussing this mish-gnash of a treaty. After all, the treaty is effectively dead in the water following the decision of the Irish electorate to reject it in a referendum in May this year.
But, of course, the reaction of the Commission and some other member states was all too predictable: the Irish vote would change nothing. The Irish Government will simply be told to go on asking the same question ad infinitum until they get the right answer—that is, yes, the Irish do want to give over more of their powers to the centrist bureaucracy in Brussels.
That is what the treaty does; that is what it is all about. Emphatically it is not uniquely about enlargement. As has been said many times by other speakers, enlargement can go ahead without: this treaty. I make no apology for citing the President of the Commission in this regard. He has been quoted several times on both sides of the argument, and he has said that enlargement is possible without Nice. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lamont for pointing out that that was not a slip of the tongue. It is a highly technical matter. But the first five candidate countries could come in without this treaty. Therefore, enlargement is possible without Nice. Noble Lords opposite should not take issue with those of us who quote Mr Prodi. They should take Mr Prodi behind the bicycle shed and have a word with him; they were his words, not ours.
If the treaty were about enlargement it would have to deal with the common agricultural policy. It is not good enough simply to brush it aside and say that it will be dealt with at inter-governmental conferences or, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea, said, leave it until the negotiations with the World Trade Organisation five years or four years hence.
Currently, the common agricultural policy takes 45 per cent of the EU budget. Poland, one of the candidate countries, has more farmers than all the

1589
current members of the EU put together. We cannot go on pretending that we can have enlargement without a serious, deep reform of the common agricultural policy. So far there has been absolutely no desire to do that. There has been tinkering at the edges, but that is not serious reform.
So if the treaty is not about enlargement, what is it about? Once one has agreed that it is not about enlargement, it becomes clear that it is about transferring powers from member states to the Commission and to other supranational organisations. It seems to be common ground that that is what the treaty is about. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the treaty which states that it will give more powers back to the member states. It does not work like that. Indeed, every EU treaty has stated that the ratchet towards a federal state cannot be reversed. That is what the acquis communautaire is all about.
I mistakenly used the word "clear" in relation to the treaty. I withdraw it unreservedly. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I believe that, like other treaties, this one is impenetrable. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might say that it is deliberately impenetrable to all but specialists in the field.
However, the one thing that emerges from the treaty is the irrevocable, continual transfer of powers. The national veto is to be removed in 39 areas, of which 14 are subject to co-decision by the European Parliament. I wish to touch on only three of those areas today.
The first area is the loss of veto over enhanced cooperation. Like my noble friend Lord Lamont, I have no difficulty in accepting that if certain member states wish to join together to build a socialist Utopia under the highly restrictive conditions set out in the treaty, it would be churlish to stop them doing so. However, the fact that the Government played their hand so incredibly badly in those negotiations was a mistake. The gift of enhanced co-operation was an ace in their hand which they simply threw away. We could have extracted some meaningful concession if the Government had had a poker player in their team, which they obviously did not; they simply threw away the best card they had. There are a number of areas in the treaty which could have been improved in return for giving away the veto over enhanced co-operation.
I turn now to Article 157, which deals with industrial policy. This article is—and always was—a meddler's charter. It is even more likely to be a meddler's charter now that it is subject to co-decision by the European Parliament.
To get the flavour of the European Parliament's attitude to enterprise, business acumen and energy, we need look no further than one of its recent decisions in a vote on 23rd October—to which my noble friend Lord Howell referred—when it backed a new law which will effectively give workers a veto over company decisions. Originally, the proposed law would have affected firms with 50 or more employees; now the European Parliament has watered it down—or strengthened it, according to one's taste—so that it will affect firms with 20 or more employees in a single
1590
site, or 50 or more in scattered sites. It will require those firms to consult employees during the early stages of business negotiations. Employees would have access to market-sensitive and commercially-sensitive information.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he does not like the present composition of the European Parliament? The parliament was elected by people, so what is his beef against it?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am in the middle of explaining my beef against the European Parliament. The Government pretend to be pro-small business, pro-enterprise. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said that the European Parliament is pro-enterprise. This proposed law gives the lie to that. The European Parliament is stifling enterprise. Worker participation and worker co-decision in commercially-sensitive areas will stop people making a success of their business. So that is why I have a beef with the European Parliament.
That is but one example of the kind of rubbish of which the presidency conclusions in Annex 1 are so proud, calling the European social agenda,
"a major step towards the reinforcement and modernisation of the European social model, which is characterised by the indissoluble link between economic performance and social progress".
In fact, the European socialist model is characterised by massive unemployment, especially among the young and ethnic minorities, and by low economic growth. Quite the opposite of what is stated.
Article 191 has already been referred to. This article could be used to refuse funding to political parties which do not meet the acceptability criteria at European level. That seems to mean that any party which is rude about Europe will not get any funding. I believe that that is what it means. Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify the matter in her reply.
Finally, under Article 7, the Council may now decide, by a majority rather than by unanimity, when it deems that there is "a clear risk" of a breach of fundamental rights in a member state, that the state can be ostracised, thereby losing its voting powers and its power of veto. We saw an example of that last year when Austria was effectively stripped of its rights and ostracised. Even members of the Government who were questioned on the matter admitted that Austria had done absolutely nothing wrong. It was thought that Austria might do something wrong, so it was better to ostracise it early on—a kind of pre-emptive ostracisation.
Is that really acceptable? I do not think that it is in any kind of democracy. A lot of hot air is spoken about democracy in the European Union, but the decisions of governments—particularly those elected by universal suffrage—should be respected and not simply overturned because members of the European Union do not like them.
The treaty as it stands simply will not do. The Irish have rejected it. According to the EU's own rules, that, as I understand it, is the end of the matter. So why are

1591
we discussing the Bill? Are we to spend endless hours and days in Committee discussing a treaty which is legally invalid? I hope that someone may contradict me on that point. No one is contradicting me—so the treaty is technically dead.
I conclude by reminding your Lordships that whenever the voters of Europe have been asked for their opinion on whether they want more EU or not, their answer has been very clear. First, there was the Danish referendum: Denmark gave the thumbs down to the single currency. There was the Swiss vote in March this year in which 77 per cent of voters indicated that they did not want the Swiss Government even to open negotiations with the European Union. And in May there was the Irish referendum. Those are three very clear messages. Why do we not listen to them?
8.11 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, one of the notorious problems with debates on Europe is the gap between visions (or nightmares, as the case may be) on the one hand, and the often grubby reality of the European Union—or, to put it a little less dramatically, the gap between a discussion of objectives and a discussion of the issue at hand, which is usually much more prosaic.
I would describe myself as a "Euro-realist". I therefore find myself close to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, without wishing to invoke his support for the slightly more colourful language that I am likely to use.
This is not a very good treaty. It is not one that I should like to use in order to persuade people of the great merits of the European Union. It is procedural, and technical. It is hard to explain and often difficult to understand. It is the result of a rather unseemly wrangle. It is a pretty miserable little treaty.
The purpose of some of the key measures proposed is to reform institutions in order "to improve their efficiency" and,
"to enable the EU to operate effectively".
I take those phrases from the Explanatory Memorandum to the treaty. They have recurred throughout the debate.
One of the questions that I have asked myself for some time is: "Efficiency and effectiveness for what?". What exactly is it that cannot be done in the European Union unless these minor measures to improve its efficiency are introduced? To put it in historical terms, the last time there was a set of important objectives which many wanted to implement was when Jacques Delors translated the Common Market into the single market, with all the implications of that notion. Did the institutions prevent M. Delors or others who supported the objective from doing what they wanted to do?
I begin to wonder whether the institutional debate about the European Union is taking place almost in a political vacuum; and, worse, whether interest in institutions has taken the place of interest in substance. In these terms, I confess that I even worry about the
1592
next intergovernmental conference We may have years of discussion on institutional changes without any sense of where the European Union is supposed to move or what its next major themes in substance will be.
If, however, one examines its institutions—contrary to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, I do not mind doing that every now and then—one sees that the problem of the European Union is not one of efficiency. It cannot be stated too often that the problem is one of democracy. The joke is so well-worn that one almost does not want to repeat it, but it is a fact: if the European Union applied for membership of the European Union, it could not be admitted. Its institutions do not comply with the principles laid down for the accession countries. Those principles describe in considerable detail—and I am pleased about that—the democratic qualifications that countries must have to become members.
I am not naïve about democracy in institutions such as the European Union. I would argue that, so far, we have not been able to develop truly democratic practices and institutions for those wider spaces which transcend the space of the nation state. So far, truly democratic parliamentary institutions have worked only within nation states. What we are doing beyond these spaces is almost a desperate attempt to introduce at least some of the principles that underlie our belief in parliamentary democracy in these areas too. Elections to a parliament do not solve the problem of democracy.
I wonder whether we may have to settle for unsatisfactory or half-satisfactory institutions. The rule of law is of critical importance. It is highly desirable that the European Union should be described as a union of law and that it should practise adherence to law. But there are other issues. Transparency is important. I find it unacceptable that a legislative agency—the EU Council of Ministers—can legislate in private. There may be other things that the European Council has to do, but as a legislative body it should accept at least the basic first principle of democratic government; namely, to be observed in what it does. There are other checks and balances to be discussed, but I argue that it will remain democratically unsatisfactory, and that what we invent will be second-best. That is why I agree with those noble Lords who have insisted on the role of national parliaments in scrutinising and controlling decisions that are taken beyond the space of the nation state.
That is in some sense by the way, because none of these issues appears in the treaty that underlies our debate. The efficiency argument is most often related to enlargement. I sometimes wonder whether the historic moment has not gone. When I visit my friends in Poland or in other countries of east/central Europe, I realise that they have gone quite cool on some of the demands made by the European Union and on the EU more generally. There are now those who say: "It was more important to join NATO first and we can now think about the European Union at our leisure". I definitely agree with those—notably my noble friend

1593
Lady Williams, who is now the Leader on these Benches—who have spoken emphatically and warmly about our responsibility for uniting Europe and having the former Communist countries in as soon as we can.
I think that President Prodi probably spoke the plain and rational truth when he questioned whether we needed to have the Treaty of Nice to achieve enlargement in the early phase. But I am also convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, used an important term; that is, "political perception". Now that the political perception, not the rational reality, is that without the ratification of the Treaty of Nice we cannot go ahead with enlargement, we are faced with a different set of facts and we have to react to that different set of facts. Political perceptions are themselves important facts.
While I cannot see from reading the text that any great harm would be done to the European Union or to member states if the treaty did not come into force, I appreciate that political perceptions suggest that ratification is necessary. Therefore, I propose to shrug my shoulders, let it pass and turn to other more important matters such as the completion of the enlargement or accession negotiations and the principles of democracy in their application to the European Union and other decisions taken in international spaces.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I believe that by now the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, must be aware that right across the House great pleasure is felt at her new office. I gladly add my good wishes to those already expressed.
As others have commented, it is a different world we live in after 11th September from the one in which the Nice treaty was formulated. But the very changes in our world reinforce the need for this treaty which brings about the necessary changes to the EU's institutions and procedures to enable enlargement to proceed as planned to admit the first wave of new members by 2004. As it was not known exactly when and in what order the applicant countries would join the Union, the new distribution of seats in the European Parliament, the new composition of the Commission and the new definition of qualified majority within the Council are all determined by the Treaty of Nice for a Union of 15 member states. The treaty restricts itself to setting out the principles and methods for changing this system as the Union grows.
Enlargement is not just about the economic and general political advantages that have been well aired in various debates here and in another place and in the media, but enlargement also brings stability and cross-border co-operation in the fights against terrorism which we now have to wage probably for years to come.
EU members are already tackling cross-border crime and the smuggling of drugs and people. They have agreed a European arrest warrant, speedier
1594
freezing of assets, better intelligence sharing between members, et cetera. All of these will be the more powerful and effective when they apply not just in the 15 member states but in the much wider and stronger Europe that enlargement will bring. The new challenge to our democratic societies makes it all the more imperative that our co-operative fight is by the widest possible Europe, co-operating and pooling resources.
There are many aspects of the Nice treaty which one could treat at length at Second Reading, but, in addition to enlargement, I should like to touch on two other subjects: enhanced co-operation and common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The Nice treaty amends the arrangements for enhanced co-operation (which is a procedure introduced in the Amsterdam Treaty) to allow groups of member states to cooperate within the EU treaties in a specific area. The Nice amendments extend the scope of the enhanced co-operation to the implementation of the common foreign and security policy, although not to defence. They require the participation of at least eight member states. The enhanced co-operation can be launched by a decision of the Council by QMV, must not undermine the single market and must be open to all member states wishing to participate.
It is therefore the case that the provisions have been comprehensively overhauled although the essential characteristics of enhanced co-operation are largely unchanged, such as the principles whereby enhanced co-operation can be undertaken only as a last resort and must be open to all member states.
I find those changes entirely positive. They will allow flexibility inside an enlarged European Union for a substantial group of member states—at least eight—to proceed in subjects without everyone being required to join in. In fact I agree with my honourable friend Denis MacShane who said in another place on 17th July that the improved enhanced co-operation arrangements are a valuable feature of the treaty. Along with my noble friend Lord Grenfell, I believe that the Nice treaty makes the provisions for enhanced co-operation easier to use while strengthening the safeguards.
I turn to the common foreign and security policy. The only element of the European security and defence policy (ESDP) to be included in the Treaty of Nice is the establishment of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) under amended Article 25. I shall confine myself therefore to speaking about the PSC and not the wider subject of the ESDP or other EU military structures or the Rapid Reaction Force which I have expanded upon before in this House and which are subjects about which I care a great deal but which are not covered by the Bill before us today.
The PSC is the new designation of the political committee and may be authorised by the Council, in order to manage a crisis and for the duration of that crisis, to take the appropriate decisions under the second pillar in order to ensure the political control and strategic leadership of the crisis management operation. It has been rightly commented that the establishment of the PSC is the first time the EU has

1595
institutionalised security and defence policy. The PSC will also play a major role in consulting with NATO and any third states involved.
The PSC and the North Atlantic Council (NAC) met for the first time on 5th February 2001 and the PSC and the NAC met again in March to discuss the safety of EU monitors in southern Serbia. The PSC has been actively involved with NATO in dealing with clashes between Albanian rebels and Macedonian forces on the Kosovo/Macedonia border.
The Secretary General/High Representative—currently Javier Solana—may chair the PSC, especially in a crisis, and during an operation would keep the Council informed through PSC reports. The chair of the European Union Military Committee (EUMC)—currently General Gustav Hagglund of Finland—will attend PSC meetings when necessary.
I am pleased that the British Government supported and argued for the proposals on the PSC. I agree completely with the argument for the creation of a permanent committee based in Brussels to act as the primary forum for preparation of advice to Ministers on common foreign and security policy matters.
Ratification of the treaty seems to me to be self-evidently in the interests of this country economically, politically and for our future security and indeed in the interests of both our current fellow member states and our future partners in the European Union. The treaty paves the way for a widening and a deepening of the European Union and as such should be heartily endorsed.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her election. That is the first statement that I shall make that evokes a positive response from all of your Lordships. The second is that, given the hour, I intend to be brief. I fear that that exhausts the statements that fall into that category.
I shall begin by offering the criteria that I think are useful for assessing a Bill of this nature. There are essentially five criteria for judging any Bill dealing with the European Union. First, does it provide for the accession of new member states? Secondly, does it constitute a significant shift towards achieving European integration? Thirdly, does it address fundamental faults in the structure of the European Union? Fourthly, does it address the democratic deficit in the EU? Fifthly, does it provide for some incremental but necessary adjustment to the existing arrangements of the EU? That fifth criterion should not be seen as independent or free-standing. It must be accompanied by the fulfilment of at least one of the other four criteria. The first four thus constitute the principal criteria for assessment.
The Nice treaty is not an accession treaty. It therefore has to be judged against the other three principal criteria. I shall take each in turn. The second criterion—making a significant move towards European integration—is a contested one. There is a fundamental divide between those who favour greater
1596
European integration and those who do not. I appreciate that the two sides take very different views of the Nice treaty. Those committed to further European integration believe that it does not go far enough. Those opposed to further integration believe that it goes too far.
It is possible to find the treaty objectionable without accepting that it marks a significant shift—certainly not a paradigmatic shift—towards achieving further integration. If one objects to decision-making competences being transferred from national governments to the EU, the Nice treaty is objectionable because it marks an extension of that development. If it marked a novel departure on the road to European integration, it would be even more objectionable than it is. However, it is an amending treaty, not a primary one. As such, it does not meet the second criterion.
Whereas the second criterion is a contested one, the other two principal criteria are not. Few could object to attempts to address structural faults in the EU or to diminish the democratic deficit. To what extent does the treaty address basic structural faults in the EU? It clearly makes some adjustments to the existing institutional arrangements of the Union to facilitate enlargement. However, when we look in detail at the provisions, one has to ask to what extent the treaty adds much to that which it appears could have been achieved in the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Nice treaty is designed to deal with the leftovers of Amsterdam, but it is not clear what has been achieved that could not have been achieved earlier. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
The treaty is obviously the product of compromise. Some see that as a virtue that is necessary to make progress. However, I see two particular inter-related problems with this particular compromise. First, it may not be the best compromise for the purpose of facilitating enlargement. We can infer that from the response to the Irish referendum on the treaty. The Minister has conceded that this particular treaty is not necessary legally to allow negotiations for enlargement to proceed. Signor Prodi and others concede that a treaty will be needed, but not necessarily this treaty.
The second and related problem is that the treaty does not address basic structural problems in the EU. We know that from those responsible for its negotiation. The intention is that the next IGC should address those problems. Speaking in the other place on 4th July, the Foreign Secretary said that, for the purposes of the 2004 IGC, we must ask certain questions. He said:
"We have to ask what exactly is the European Union for? What precise purpose does it serve? To get the answer, we need to look at what the EU actually does, and analyse rigorously and frankly the tasks it does well, those it does less well and those that it does badly. Once we have a clear sense of our citizens' and constituents' priorities, only then can we sensibly ensure that the EU's institutions are properly organised and equipped to deliver them".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/01; col. 272.]
Let me repeat that last sentence. Once we have a clear sense of our citizens' and constituents' priorities, only then can we sensibly ensure that the EU's institutions are properly organised and equipped to deliver them.

1597
It is clear from the Foreign Secretary's words that we do not have a clear sense of the priorities of the peoples of the European Union. It flows from that that we cannot at present sensibly ensure that the EU's institutions are properly organised and equipped to achieve those priorities. Yet here we have a Bill designed to give effect to a treaty that changes the institutional arrangements of the EU. Surely we should be proceeding from first principles in agreeing to change the structures of the EU. What if we find that the changes introduced by the Nice treaty do not accord with citizens' priorities—or rather, do not provide the means for delivering what the peoples of the EU want the Union to achieve? The clear implication is that the provisions of the treaty may prove to be short-lived.
We thus have a treaty that changes the institutional arrangements of the EU, but does so independently of any fundamental consideration of what the EU is for and what form its structures should take in order to meet the needs of the peoples of Europe.
The fourth criterion is the extent to which the Bill addresses the democratic deficit. That there is a democratic deficit is widely conceded. That recognition is at the basis of the debate about the future of Europe and it will underpin the 2004 IGC, although I strongly share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on the approach likely to be taken by that IGC. That the problem underpins the next IGC is apparent from the declaration in Annex IV of the treaty. The IGC will consider how the treaties can be simplified in order to be better understood. It will also be an opportunity to see if national parliaments can be given a more defined role. The Foreign Secretary said in the other place:
"We are determined to improve the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the EU".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/01; col. 272.]
That is fine, but it is something to be addressed in the future; it is not addressed in the Bill.
The Minister may well say that the Bill is not intended to address the democratic deficit. She would be right. However, the problem is that the Bill exacerbates the democratic deficit in two ways. First, far from simplifying the arrangements of the EU, it adds to the complexity. The decision-making process of the Union is extremely complex and difficult to follow at times, even for those who are engaged in the process. We now have further complications, including in the method of voting in the Council of Ministers. The 62 per cent rule adds to the complexity of the rules, as do the provisions governing voting in the event of accession or non-accession by applicant states. Those new complex rules will take effect in 2004 and 2005, at the time of and following the IGC that has the task of simplifying the treaties.
The second way in which the treaty exacerbates the distancing of the EU from the peoples of Europe is by its very existence. It constitutes one more treaty amending the existing treaties or creating new structures and powers. For the past 20 years, there has been no significant steady state period—no time when
1598
citizens could learn what the Community, now the Union, was about and know that that knowledge would remain current for some time. For most of the time, some negotiations have been taking place for a new treaty. That almost Trotskyist approach of continual revolution does nothing to allow citizens to understand what the EU is about. The more treaties there are, the greater the difficulty that people have in keeping pace with what is going on and understanding what the Union is for.
Given that, one has to ask whether the changes to be made by the treaty are really worth it, bearing in mind the potentially negative consequences that I have just identified. Indeed, the Bill appears to fail the four principal criteria that I have identified. The treaty makes some adjustment to existing arrangements but, as I said, I believe that this should not be a freestanding criterion. It needs to be allied to one of the principal criteria.
My reasoning for that is implicit in what I said about those criteria. There are significant dangers of distancing people from the EU if treaties are negotiated on an apparently relentless basis. I also believe that member states cannot continually be asked to ratify treaties. We need to address fundamental problems within the EU and, having done that, we need to seek some stability—cruising speed, perhaps—in institutional arrangements.
I fear that this treaty is neither one thing nor the other. It does not really advance much beyond what could have been achieved at Amsterdam. It does not address the fundamental questions to be tackled at the next IGC. It is a holding, compromise measure, and not a very good one at that. I know of the argument that the treaty is necessary for the applicant states. But I believe that in this measure we have not done our best for those states; we certainly have not done our best for the people of the European Union.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is the first speech that I have made in your Lordships' House since I was summarily suspended from the Labour Whip on 16th July. Therefore, noble Lords should be aware that I am speaking from these Benches as an independent Labour Peer.
One person whom we have missed this evening in our debate is our former colleague, the late Lord Shore of Stepney. His death has robbed British public life of a decent, upright, intelligent man, dedicated to the improvement of the lot of ordinary people attained through fairness, freedom, democracy and self-government. The Eurorealist movement, in particular, has lost a great leader whom it will be difficult, if not impossible, to replace.
I thought that the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that the EU, or its treaties, are Trotskyist was one of the best that I have heard. It is true that perpetual revolution is occurring; it never seems to stop. And the Nice treaty is just one further part of the continual revolution which never ends.

1599
I suppose that eventually, if it goes on and on, the only place that we shall come to is back where we started in the beginning. Of course, that may be all to the good.
What we must ask—many noble Lords have already asked this question and I shall ask it again—is: why is this Bill before us today? Why was it rushed through the House of Commons on a guillotine? All constitutional Bills seem to go through on a guillotine no matter what government are in power. There is no real need for hurry because, as we have already heard from many speakers, the people of the Irish Republic have voted in a referendum against ratification. There may be no resiling from that under the Irish constitution. Until that decision is reversed, the treaty cannot come into force. There is no question about it. Mr Prodi has told us that that is the case; therefore, it must be right. It cannot come into force, so there is no need to rush along the road for ratification.
We are now open to the charge that we are pressurising the Irish people to change their mind. As we know to our cost, the Irish people do not like to be pressurised, and they resist it. They have been resisting certain pressure for hundreds of years and we should keep that in mind. As Mr Prodi told the Irish people, eventually they will have to reverse their decision. But, unfortunately, he does not know the Irish people, and they may very well not listen to what he says. By rushing this Bill forward, not only are we insulting the intelligence of the Irish people but we are appearing to behave like Prodi's poodles. I do not believe that that is good for this country or for democracy.
Noble Lords have said tonight that the Major government introduced the Maastricht treaty Bill before the second Danish referendum had taken place. I am not sure that that is true. I believe that the Major government delayed the introduction of the Maastricht. Bill until that referendum had occurred. I may be wrong, but that is what I believe to be the case. I hope that we shall be able to check that fact. However, I believe that we should have delayed the introduction of this Bill until the outcome of a second referendum in Ireland.
Therefore, the haste cannot be justified on the basis of urgency. Again, we have heard that ratification is not necessary for enlargement to proceed. Nothing that I have heard in the debate has convinced me otherwise. Indeed, our friend Mr Prodi confirmed that it was not needed for the purposes of enlargement.
The treaty is simply the latest in a long line which have increased the scope and powers of the European entity. First, it was to be a common market, and that was what the British people voted to remain in at the referendum. Then it became the European Economic Community and, after that, the European Community. Now we have arrived at the European Union. Whether or not that is the final stage, I do not know. Indeed, the Single European Act started us on the path on which we are now embarked. That path is not towards a federal Union. Let us not be under any illusions about that. The path upon which we are embarked is for a European unitary state.
1600
The ensuing treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice were consolidations and extensions of the powers conferred by the Single European Act. The Nice treaty, which is promoted as being only a small tidying-up treaty, devolves further powers from national governments and parliaments to the institutions of the European Union. That means less accountability of government and the House of Commons to the people of this country who elect them in the belief that it is Parliament and the Government who make the major decisions affecting their lives.
With every new treaty, including this one, decisions on major parts of our economic, social and political life are being transferred to a group of states which can outvote the British Government but which are not accountable to the British people in any way. Indeed, they may be of a political colour of which the British people would never approve. We should keep that in mind. As we have already heard, it is completely undemocratic that decisions are taken in secret so that the British people and, indeed, the British Parliament do not know what is happening. They certainly do not know the details of the discussions which led to those decisions being taken.
Although this is not the time to discuss the treaty in detail, it is necessary to counter the idea that it is of little consequence. For example, the treaty abolishes about 30 vetoes. I shall not go into the details because we have already discussed them. There is one article that concerns me and it should concern other noble Lords; namely, Article 100, which concerns the financial assistance that may be given to member states facing severe financial difficulties. There is much concern about the fact that the treaty could be used to finance pension deficits in many European countries, whose deficits in relation to pension accounts sometimes amount to as much as 120 per cent of GDP. Our pension liabilities amount to only about 20 per cent, and we could find ourselves helping to finance the deficits of those other countries. That may not be so, but the threat is implicit. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurances in that regard.
Also foreshadowed, but not part of the treaty, is the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It will become a treaty if other countries have their way. That will be tantamount to the imposition on this country of a written constitution. That is inimical to the English and the United Kingdom constitution, which evolved over many centuries.
I understand that there will be a constitutional conference to prepare for the 2004 IGC. What arrangements will be made to have representatives who are opposed to further integration and who wish significant powers to be returned to individual nations? I sincerely hope that those views will be represented at the constitutional conference; it is important that they should be. After all, opinion polls in this country have consistently shown that 33 per cent of the British electorate would come out of the EU if they were given the chance; on occasion, that figure has been even higher.

1601
I turn to the military annexe to the treaty. I had better not refer to a European army; otherwise, I should get into trouble with the Minister. When I was her noble political friend, she smashed me around the Chamber when I dared to mention the European army. Unfortunately, we again come back to Mr Prodi. On 4th February—not long after the relevant Question was taken on 26th January—Mr Prodi's comments appeared in an article in the Independent under the heading:
"EU is becoming the 'European government', says bullish Prodi".
He is quoted as saying:
"When I was talking about the European army I was not joking. If you don't want to call it a European army, don't call it a European army. You can call it 'Margaret', you can call it 'Mary-Ann', you can find any name".
Who is right? Is my noble friend the Minister right? She is nodding her head, and I sincerely hope that she is right. If she is, she should go to Brussels and take Mr Prodi apart in exactly the same way that she took me apart on 26th January. Then I should be satisfied. I hope that she will report to me that she had a very satisfactory and positive result with Mr Prodi. I also hope that she will write to the Independent and tell it about the matter.
This treaty is more important than it seems; we should make no mistake about that. I sincerely hope that the House will have the time and energy to ensure that the treaty receives the proper treatment—it should be dealt with properly in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. It did not receive such proper treatment in the House of Commons. I hope that the House will not be impatient with those of us who want to probe the treaty very closely indeed. I sincerely hope that in this regard we will be led by the Official Opposition, who have made known their opposition to the treaty.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, In her absence, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the party that had the good sense—it does not always demonstrate such good sense—to elect her as its leader. I always knew that my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who has just spoken, was independent but I never knew that he was an "Independent Labour Peer". I agree with him in one respect—in relation to Lord Shore, who was a close friend of both of us. He was my first Secretary of State and I shall always cherish his friendship, as I know my noble friend will.
At the beginning of the debate, the Minister asked a very pertinent question that no noble Lord has properly answered. She asked: how would applicant countries view the rejection of the Nice treaty? That was not answered by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who was devastating in his criticisms of the Nice treaty—he skilfully side-stepped that question. However, one cannot side-step it for ever.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, may have given a hint of the answer when
1602
he said that in his experience of travelling in central Europe these days, people in many of the applicant countries were beginning to doubt whether they wanted to join the EU because of the extent of the obstacles that were being placed in the way by the acquis communautaire.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, not one bit of evidence has been adduced in favour of that question by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, or by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. All that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said is that he believes that the people of eastern Europe do not accept the ideas of the Rome treaty; however, that is not proof. Not even the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, can accept that as being true.
This remarkable debate occurs just weeks after the seismic events of 11th September. My personal belief is that it is incumbent upon us more than ever to do our best to strengthen the EU. That is basically what the Nice treaty is about. It will broaden, and thereby strengthen, our links with each other's countries. It is about sharing this continent in such a way that disagreements are hammered out as a result of the political process and do not spark into conflagrations. By itself the Nice treaty is modest, but it is important, too. Unless we talk about enlargement and do something about it, it will not happen.
There has been a great deal of talk around conflict resolution. I wonder where we would be today in the Irish conflict, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, if Ireland and Britain had not been members of the European Union, meeting regularly, enjoying cordial relations and mutually benefiting from common economic and trade policies. I think that it was that relationship, forged in Europe, which helped to foster the Anglo-Irish Agreement, leading to the historic movement for peace in the island of Ireland.
I remain firmly of the view that ultimately—with no degree of pressure from us—the Irish people will come round to believing that it is essential that they, too, support the Nice treaty. I may be wrong, but that is my firm belief.
If we are to move forward together, it is essential to create political structures so that dictators cannot get a handle on power, as has happened in the past, and terrorise their people. The Treaty of Nice is also important for our economy. British companies should be able to avail themselves of the opportunity of the enlarged markets that eastern and central Europe will bring. It is a market of 500 million consumers and we cannot ignore it. It will bring about an expansion in jobs and an expansion in growth. Jobs and growth are what the European Community is all about.
Qualified majority voting, which is widened, is of special significance. It broadens trading opportunities and provides for a corresponding reduction in the possible use of the veto, which can stall progress. In addition, under this treaty Britain will have 29 votes instead of 10 in the Council of Ministers. I dispute the arithmetic of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, but I promise to look in Hansard carefully tomorrow at

1603
what he said. Yes, the total votes will also increase, hut, nevertheless, we obtain an advantage. It has not been easy. Sometimes the contest has been acrimonious, but it has been decided—dare I say it democratically.
Co-operation in the fight against crime and drugs and, it goes without saying, against terrorism, has increased. We shall have a smaller but, hopefully, more efficient Commission from 2005. There will also be changes in the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. It will be a fairer solution and greatly to the advantage of this country. Overall, Nice will bring benefits to the citizens of Europe. In particular, they will gain more jobs and a safer environment. I am very much concerned with the environment because I had responsibility for the European Environment at one time.
The new situation will not mean an end to the freedoms that we currently enjoy. It certainly will not mean a federal European state. It is undoubtedly an important step for the future, but that is all. So why is the Tory leadership now demanding a referendum? After all, before the general election, while the Tories were arguing about what is being proclaimed at Nice, they did not call for a referendum then, so why call for one now? In government, the Conservatives agreed to no less than 42 extensions of QMV—12 in the Single European Act and 30 in the Maastricht Treaty. Why did they agree to those extensions?
In fact, an extension of QMV worked in Britain's interest in the past. The loosening of the stranglehold of the veto led to moves to improve the management of structural and cohesion funds, financial regulations and changes for the better in industrial and environmental policies. Undoubtedly, all that resulted in the enhancement of stability and security.
Why not build on those precedents? Why should we fear further advances in that direction? Of course it is important to bring the citizens with us. We cannot ignore them; we ought to listen to their concerns and to what they have to say. I accept that the Nice treaty is far from ideal, but it is infinitely better than anything that is envisaged by the Opposition. The changes it brings in its wake can also bring about immeasurable benefits.
The Conservatives want a European enlargement, but only on their terms, and those terms include a watering down of everything the European Union stands for. I believe there are clear advantages in enlargement for stability, jobs, prosperity and peace. The treaty may not be perfect—nothing which is a compromise is ever perfect—but it is the best move forward for Europe in many years and I wish it well.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I shall eschew the temptation to talk about political party arrangements under the treaty, Article 7 sanctions on member states, the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, police and judicial co-operation. If I may I shall concentrate on the issue of democracy, not as so eloquently spoken of by my noble friend Lord
1604
Dahrendorf and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—that is to say, looking at democracy in terms of the institution—but looking at democracy on the ground. I refer to the perception among the public at large of the European Union and its institutions here and now.
There is a real scepticism in the country as to how far we any longer have control over our own destiny. Some believe—I am among them—that the time for us to have made a formative input into the major issues decided at Nice was long before the negotiations began. Others may share my sense that the die has already been cast and that it is too late to remove even a few rotten apples from the Brussels apple cart, let alone overturn it, even if we wanted to.
That fatalism is added to by the complex technicality of the Bill and treaty to which other noble Lords have made reference. It is a clever lawyer's nightmare; impenetrable even if, like me, you are a lawyer. Although the Explanatory Notes are helpful, they only take us so far. It is long overdue that we had available in the most ingeniously accessible form the text of the existing treaties with the articles of the Nice treaty marked on them—additions and subtractions—annotated and cross-referenced to the provisions of this Bill. It is forbidding to have to hack one's 'way through documentary undergrowth in order to be confident that one has married the right article in the new treaty with the right provision in the old one—that is before one evaluates the same in political terms.
All that is a severe disincentive to the participation of fellow parliamentarians in these vital matters, let alone the wider world. Most of the people to whom I talk—I did a lot of canvassing at the last election—feel that politicians and civil servants show arrogance and studied indifference to what people know and think about Europe. The arrogance comes in our assumption that where Westminster and Whitehall go, the public must eventually follow. As regards our indifference, many feel that their fundamental rights, vis à vis Westminster in relation to Europe are ignored by the political establishment.
Surely it is a fundamental right for so-called "ordinary citizens" to have the chance broadly to understand major sovereignty developments in the European Union and to have the opportunity to express a view, not after the deed is done, but at a time when that view might just influence the outcome. Taking public involvement seriously has not really happened since the referendum of 1975, and that is a long time ago. We politicians, by and large, only show any interest in what the public think when we want something from them—I do not mean their opinions; I mean their votes. From that I exempt most MEPs who struggle valiantly against hopeless odds.
Many people compare the righteous zeal with which the Government and indeed most of us brought in the new Human Rights Act with the way in which we deal with their greater right, as many see it, not to have the sovereignty of their Parliament diluted year by year and treaty by treaty without so much as a word to or from them, the people. I say nothing of the merits of

1605
such one-way ratcheting, but I believe that the process by which that has occurred has been consistently undemocratic and high-handed.
Surely there is no more fundamental right in our ancient democracy than the right to have one's say where Parliament is taking effectively irreversible steps towards ever closer union, even when we are doing such a good thing as enlargement. Yet the public have not been consulted since 1975. Not only has there been no referendum such as most other countries have had, but there has been no objective, effective public information campaign and no national debate. That is a fact.
In the other place the Home Secretary said that it would be "absurd"—that was his word—to have a referendum. I believe that the temper of that remark is revealing and not untypical. The Irish did it, and it may be that they do not think they were so absurd.
I do not argue with the right of the euro-integrators to pursue their ends relentlessly, but I challenge their right to do so by means which, to say the least, can be cavalier and unthinking in terms of the true spirit of democracy. An argument advanced by some of them is that the ordinary citizen cannot be expected to understand all of this. Insofar as that point is not self-serving it is a condemnation of the impasse we have already reached: ever closer union by ever less democratic means.
I revert to the justification for forging ahead willy-nilly; namely, that the electorate will eventually catch up. But what if the good people of this land are no longer following? We must remember that at the European elections in May last year, fewer than one in four voters even went to the polls. That needs reflection. Given that as many as one-third of under-25s were not registered to vote, and the even lower turnout of that age group who had registered, it would seem that as few as one in eight of the upcoming generation cast their precious and only vote. What does that say about the European Union and democratic adhesion in this country?
It is not even as if this disconnectedness from politics is borne of indifference. It is the predictable fruit of long years of public non-involvement for which we here are significantly responsible. Despite that, some in the "full steam ahead" party have the temerity to say that it is not really worth bothering about and is largely illusory in any event. I confess that, while I think I understand most of the other arguments of the "press-on" brigade, I cannot get my head round the idea that those who have least, value what they have least. Human psychology works precisely in reverse.
There is then the "efficiency and effectiveness" claim. Comparable arguments have been used over the past 30 years to justify the endless transfer of local powers to central government with disastrous results for local autonomy, democracy and community cohesion, which is all around to see. The fact is that whatever may work for other member states, our old organic democracy already has severe EU indigestion.
1606
The greatest danger to the EU, a potentially mortal one in due course, is that a loveless union, as it is, is the loveless union it will remain. The little-by-little political integration of the EU on a continental scale is perceived by probably the majority of people in this country to run directly against the grain of their own lives; against their feelings and fears in terms of its huge scale, its control, its impersonality, its uniformising pulse and its apparent siding with the big battalions, who are also its main protagonists. That underlines just how remarkable was the decisive defeat of the entire forces of the Danish establishment, business and political, in its most recent fourth referendum.
When the big political crises come, as come they must, now that the European monetary system is in place, what shared loyalty among member states will see the crises through? What common sentiment will permit the massive transfers of tax which will then be needed from the countries doing well out of the "one size fits all" monetary policies to those doing badly?
It is only if the hearts and minds are rooted and engaged that the EU will be able to cope with the intense pressures which must inevitably come. Perhaps I underrate the common loyalty which already exists in the original member states. However, what I am certain of is that it does not exist or come near to existing in this country. Such feelings here grow slowly. Those who look to the United States may reflect that they took well over 200 years to develop into a country and had a civil war en route.
I make one final point. It is what the people want that will ultimately decide whether the European Union sinks or swims, not what we want or think. Many noble Lords have made nodding reference to the importance of speaking to the ordinary people of this country and gaining their support for the European Union. I am profoundly pro-European Union and profoundly in favour of extension of membership. However, I am profoundly convinced that if we proceed along the path we are taking, disregarding the substantial fears and anxieties of the British people, the fact that they do not own the community and do not feel that it is theirs, those of us who set so much store by its future could see its implosion in 10 to 15 years.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as so often, made some interesting points that will be well worth studying. Being open-minded like most Eurosceptics, I readily acknowledge that there are one or two good points in the Nice treaty: the re-weighting of votes in the Council and the redistribution of seats in the European Parliament, so that the larger countries become less disadvantaged and the smaller countries less over-privileged, which is long overdue. However, that is as far as my approval goes. Given the lateness of the hour, I shall skip to the most important objections.
What really sticks in the gullet is the further erosion of the national veto and the extension of QMV. As Mr Denzil Davies, speaking from the Government

1607
Benches in the other place, said on 11th July this year, once the veto goes the democratically elected British Government can be outvoted by a group of states whose governments are not accountable to the British electorate. From the other side of the House, Mr John Redwood, argued that changes in QMV,
"will lead directly to more Community activism, orchestrated by the European Commission".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/01; col. 848.]
The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, quoted General de Gaulle. How horrified de Gaulle would be today by the integrationist agenda and the erosion of national self-determination. Our ideal is a grouping of friendly, freely co-operating, but totally independent nation states. After all, a good neighbour is one who gives help when help is required but otherwise comes into your house only by invitation. A bad neighbour is one who forces his or her way in and starts to bustle about ostensibly for your own good, the sort of individual who creates bad feeling and hostility between people and, by extension, between nations.
I submit that not only are the British Eurosceptics de facto Gaullists, but in a low key way most ordinary people on the European continent are as well, although they may not acknowledge or realise the fact, in sharp contrast to their political elites. The one exception may be the people of the Benelux countries, in particular the Belgians, given the chronic tensions and hostility between the Flemings and the Walloons. Some of them believe that only by subsuming themselves into a larger entity will those tensions be dissipated.
Clause 3 of the Bill approves an increase in the powers of the European Parliament, and it is claimed that increasing those powers will enhance democracy and bring the European Union closer to the people. It does no such thing. It is extremely difficult for the European Parliament to monitor, to interpret and ultimately to reflect public opinion for two main reasons. The first is that constituencies are inevitably far too large—nothing can be done about that—and the second is the iniquitous closed-list electoral system. A closed-list system means that MEPs have to be more attentive to their parties' demands than to the demands of their constituents if they are to have any hope of selection the next time round.
Originally it was hoped that the European Parliament would block, or water down, some of the inane control freakery emanating from the Commission. Alas, at the moment the exact opposite appears to be happening. The parliament is gold-plating two of the Commission's proposals: the directive relating to employee consultation, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and that which would restrict the driving of tractors and the operation of vibrating machinery to only two hours a day to the enormous detriment of British business and to future job opportunities in this country.
It is argued that the further erosion of the national veto is vital for enlargement—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe—and taken for granted that enlargement is an unmitigated good thing
1608
for all concerned. To suggest otherwise is considered heresy and unthinkable. However, scepticism is no longer considered heretical in most applicant countries. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Owen who mentioned Czechoslovakia, where only 40 per cent of the electorate now want entry to the EU. It is some time since I last visited the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary or Slovenia, but during the past 18 months I have visited Malta twice, as well as each of the three Baltic states. My, admittedly totally unscientific, conclusion is that about 40 per cent of those electorates now oppose EU entry. Of course, that 40 per cent mainly comprises conservative elements—in the cultural, not the political sense—but they are increasingly joined by others who are more progressive, again in the cultural, not the political sense.
Those who still favour entry—apart, of course, from the political elites, who form only a small proportion of the population—are, first, young, educated people who see the EU as an avenue of escape from their relatively backward countries. For the most part, they aspire to work permanently in the heart of western Europe, returning, perhaps, once a year to holiday homes—log cabins in Saaremaa or apartments in Gozo. From their own, selfish—I do not use that word in a derogatory sense—point of view, they are making a sensible decision but one that will be to the great detriment of their country, which will lose their skills.
The second group comprises older people who have no desire to leave their country but who, with reason, fear the Russians or, in the case of Malta, the Libyans. However, I suspect that those fears have to an extent been over-ridden by a dawning realisation that EU entry will not bring them the benefits that they once expected. Those countries will have much less political clout than the Republic of Ireland, Portugal, Greece and, above all, Spain have enjoyed during the past 15 years or so because they stand to have proportionately fewer votes in the Council and fewer seats in the European Parliament than anticipated and are faced with the prospect of eventually losing a commissioner. They will not benefit from the enormous largess showered on those four countries because there is no more money in the kitty. Spain has made it clear that she does not intend to give up a single penny of the structural funds and cohesion payments that she receives in favour of poorer applicant countries.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that the hypothesis that Spain will not give up a penny and that the structural fund will not change undermines the hypothesis that Malta would not benefit? Arguably, the reason why Malta would not benefit is that in order to get 75 per cent of countries into category 1, under the ongoing formula we would have to redistribute money to all the countries below 75 per cent, and Malta would not then qualify. Is the noble Lord's hypothesis on Spain not totally different?
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is possible that the noble Lord is right. He has obviously studied the matter in

1609
great depth. All that I know is that evidence shows that, over the years, Spain has been an enormous thorn in the flesh of the rest of the Community. When it has objected to something or other, it has usually got its way.
The applicant countries feel understandably insulted at the restrictions to be imposed—mainly at the behest of Germany, it appears—such as the seven-year ban on freedom of movement, the freedom to travel to work in other EU countries.
Finally, they have woken up to the implications of what one might term "obsessive centralisation". The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, once spoke of obsessive harmonisation and I have always agreed with him about that. Obsessive centralisation is a variation on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, in his excellent speech, said that Europe should be much more tolerant of diversity. Indeed, I wholly agree with the noble Lord that it should. But all the movement seems to be in the other direction. Only the other day I read of a proposal that a uniform 75 miles an hour—I suppose 120 kilometres an hour—speed limit should be imposed right across the EU, thereby ensuring that the proud ancient nations of Europe have less freedom to decide their own traffic laws than Rhode Island or Delaware. The nations of eastern Europe did not endure 45 years of communist tyranny for that kind of thing.
It may be that, like Norway, their electorates will conclude that NATO membership, which will provide the physical security that they desire, combined with membership of the less restrictive European Economic Area, would suit them better. It would preserve their agriculture to the extent they want it preserved, and it would boost them economically while allowing them to retain their independence to a greater degree than would be possible were they to join the EU. Moreover, they would have achieved their aim of being in a common market in so far as industrial goods and services are concerned.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am in the very unenviable position of knowing what the pressure is for me to conclude my remarks as speedily as possible so that everyone can get home. I am sorry about that but at the same time I feel I have a duty to put forward some thoughts to which I hope the House will pay a little attention, if only in return for my being present throughout the debate from its beginning, except for about 10 minutes.
I joined the Labour Party in November 1935, which is an awfully long time ago. I can, therefore, possibly be attacked on the basis that I am completely out of touch with what is happening at the present time and that all I am entitled to is a good natured and friendly reference to my advancing years, with the possible hope that I may go on.
One of the things I learnt in politics, particularly as a member of the Labour Party, was how important people were. I learnt how important it was to meet
1610
them; how important it was to talk with them; and how important it was to argue with them. The most enjoyable moments of my political life have been spent in trying to persuade my fellow human beings to join the Labour Party and to agree with me on the ideals for which it has always stood, although temporarily perhaps it may now have abandoned them.
The other thing I learnt was the value of the British Parliament. That was made quite clear to me very early on—and I go back to 1945. One of the things which impressed me most was the fact that the right honourable gentleman Mr Winston Churchill, as he then was, worshipped Parliament. He spent his life defending Parliament and for him Parliament was the supreme arbiter. That view was shared by Clement Attlee, another devotee of Parliament. As long as they could get things through Parliament, they were happy about it.
Another lesson I learnt was that the whole system of parliamentary democracy depended on the universal acceptance of the validity of dissent. The parties had to be separated by stipulating a certain distance between Benches so that Members could not attack one another with swords. Inevitably, dissent was then considered to be a valued attitude to take. I was always taught that progress came from dissent, and that remains my view.
I shall not bore the House by dragging matters out unnecessarily, but ever since I entered Parliament in 1945 I have taken very much to heart, first, the importance of people, and, secondly, the validity of dissent; that is, the ability to disagree amiably with others without being virtually howled down as someone who has long since taken leave of whatever senses he has in the political sense of that term.
Noble Lords will recall that occasionally even in your Lordships' House I have obtained official Labour Government assent to my proposition that no Parliament can bind its successors and that a future one can change direction. That is now seriously challenged. I am also bothered about the interpretations of law. I was always brought up to believe that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Even that principle is now being assailed, and I do not much care for that.
When one comes to European legislation handed down to us to put on our statute book, one finds that the UK is subordinate to an entirely different system of law. We do not operate in the same way as the European Court of Justice. The ECJ, whether it be the Court of First Instance or another level, relies on an altogether different principle. Instead of taking the letter of the law, which we debate in this House and in another place in very great detail, the ECJ takes into account when arriving at its judgments the numerous preambles and recitals at the beginning of legislation. Therefore, the objectivity of a decision of the European Court of Justice, which then becomes binding on the United Kingdom under Article 21, contains an ingredient that is completely foreign to the UK, and also to me. I could elaborate as to how this comes about.

1611
We now have a new draft treaty at the conclusion of an intergovernmental conference. That treaty was concluded and, presumably, signed under conditions that are well known to all noble Lords. We know that very often our Ministers have insufficient time to read the papers relating to any particular draft proposal until they are on the aeroplane. They are too tired when they arrive. They are often fallible. They are subject to tiredness so that they are quite inadequately equipped under conditions—I well know because I have been in them—in the rooms of the Council and of the Commission. So they find themselves confronted quite frequently with the conclusions of the president in office, even before the meeting has started. Therefore, the meeting starts off with what the final communiqué is going to be. It is then up to Ministers, on the assumption that they have been able to read and understand the legislation or proposed legislation, to arrive at an objective judgment.
We all know these defects exist. They have been described in papers. I was a member of the European Parliament from 1975 to 1979. I do not claim any particular distinction for that, except that I tried to exercise due diligence in the duties that I performed. I know what happens. I know, for example, how the Commission even then was in a position to allocate and apportion expenditures under the budget to the various countries concerned. The Commission could do it. In fact it was the only body that could do it. The Commission had enormous powers even in those days.
The case of Ireland has been mentioned. There have of course been others, including Spain where, as Mr Brian Connely has pointed out, without contradiction, the votes were literally bought by extra allocations of European money, which is partly our money anyway, to them by way of a bribe; otherwise the Maastricht Treaty would never have got through—as many of us, including my noble friend Lord Stoddart, thought at the time.
So it is not all quite as easy as one might think. I turn to the Commission. The Commission was given wide new powers. It already had them. The president of the Commission was given the power under Article 219 to be responsible for the political direction of the rest of the Commission. That has now been changed. Article 217 on page 23 of the treaty states:
"The Commission shall work under the political guidance of its President, who shall decide on its internal organisation in order to ensure that it acts consistently, efficiently and on the basis of collegiality".
That was already in the treaty. It has been repeated. The following has been added under the new Treaty of Nice:
"The responsibilities incumbent upon the Commission shall be structured and allocated among its Members by its President. The President may reshuffle the allocation of those responsibilities during the Commission's term of office. The Members of the Commission shall carry out the duties devolved upon them by the President under his authority".
It further states:
"After obtaining the approval of the College, the President shall appoint vice-Presidents from among its Members".
1612
It continues:
"A Member of the Commission shall resign if the President so requests, after obtaining the approval of the College".
Those are quite extensive powers for the Commission. Indeed, the views of the president of the Commission, Senor Prodi, who has held the position for some time, are well known. It is his view that the Commission should become the government of Europe. He has gone on the record on that point. Unless we have taken leave of our senses, we should have regard to that. It may be that my right honourable and noble friends think that that would be a good thing. They may think, in effect, that British law, practices and politics ultimately should be subordinate to the president of the Commission. However, I do not see any reason why that should be the case or why we should agree with it.
I do not think that I need exercise more than normal discretion when I come generally to consider the role of the bureaucrat. I refer both to Brussels bureaucrats and to English bureaucrats. It is increasingly obvious that, week by week and month by month, to an ever-growing extent, we are being governed by the bureaucracy of Europe in alliance with sections of our own bureaucracy. There are very good reasons for that. Ministers are human and need to sleep. They do not have the time to read everything, or even to think. So we have come to accept bureaucracy. Believe me, if at any point I am challenged to do so, I can prove it. It is what I have been told by some of our own bureaucrats.
When we consider legislation being put on the statute book, we should not be under the illusion that every bit of it has been personally authenticated by a Minister. Ministers could riot do it because they do riot have the time. I devote more or less all of my time to reading the documents, and even I cannot get through them all.
I do hope that we shall not pay undue attention to this treaty, in particular in light of the fact that, so far as enlargement is concerned, the willingness of other states to join the European Community depends on their acceptance of the acquis communautaire. When we joined Europe, do noble Lords know that we had to absorb and to enforce some 32 volumes of acquis communautaire in our own country? That, I think, should act as a sufficient deterrent.
In my view, there is no question that the most sensible move would be this: a withdrawal from Europe. Many matters can be dealt with by agreement between member states. The function of the Commission could be that of co-ordination of the views of those various member states that were willing to undertake their obligations as agreed between them. It would be a voluntary association rather than one laid down by sheaves of directives, decisions and regulations emanating from Brussels and becoming enforceable without any parliamentary control whatever. EU orders do not go through Select Committees; they are placed straight on to the statute book. If noble Lords would like to verify that, I am quite sure that the government departments

1613
concerned—the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry—would be only too pleased to grant them the facilities to do so.
I come back to the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I congratulate her on her new appointment. I refer to her statement that she found the treaty to be incomprehensible. I have never been able to bring myself to rely on the incomprehensible, much less to pass on any conviction for an incomprehensible treaty to those who may seek to be persuaded to follow it.
I apologise for the length of my speech. I hope that some of it may have found tolerance with your Lordships. After all, one of the benefits of democracy is supposed to be tolerance of one another's views, pleasantness to one another when arguing, and making due allowance for the excesses of oratory. I thank your Lordships for the honour of listening to me.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a very constructive debate on a very modest treaty. It is a treaty which would not have been necessary had the heads of government had a little more stamina in the middle of the night in Amsterdam in 1997 when they could have taken the decisions which were put off to the Nice inter-governmental conference.
But European co-operation operates through an almost continuous process of negotiation as governments struggle to hold the balance between their commitments to national sovereignty and national accountability and their recognition of the necessities of closer international co-operation. We all recognise that this leads to unsatisfactory, uncomfortable compromises, and to what my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said are often half satisfactory solutions. He also recognised—I agree strongly with him on this—that we should talk about what needs to be done, at what level, and then decide what institutions we need, rather than getting ourselves caught up in wonderful institutional architecture of the kind which, sadly, some of our continental colleagues wish to wrap us up in.
This is a treadmill that we cannot get off. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, half suggested that we could get off it but, as he well knows, finance Ministers nowadays necessarily work together multilaterally—within the European Union, within the Bank of International Settlement, within the G8—far more actively than they had to 20 or 30 years ago. That is one of the consequences of living in a global world.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested that in a network world we do not need these kind of things. I think we have all discovered that we do need international regulation in order to cope with globalisation, and international institutions to provide the international regulation that we need. The EU is not particularly satisfactory in this regard, but when one compares it to the World Trade Organisation or to the United Nations, it does not work all that badly.
1614
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said, if we look at the necessity of dealing with the more grisly aspects of globalisation, as he very nicely put it, the evolution of the third pillar of justice and home affairs policies in the past 10 years, of a common foreign and security policy and now of a defence policy are necessary, constructive and useful responses to that sad need.
We have gained an open and peaceful Europe. We are now in the process of extending security, prosperity and democracy across central and eastern Europe through enlargement. It is a tremendous achievement which, sadly, the younger generation across much of western Europe now takes for granted, thinking that the whole thing is run by a bunch of bureaucrats.
The achievement of that level of open-spaced, trans-border co-operation has consequences in terms of transnational crime, migration and so on. Therefore multilateral responses, new institutions and new regulations are necessary. That is what this modest treaty is about. It is an interim agreement preparing for future enlargement.
Again, I agree with a number of speakers from the Conservative Benches who have said that this will be a very different institutional structure from the original Community of Six of 1958. It will need further reform to cope with 25 member states, 470 million people and a GNP which will probably be a third larger than that of the United States. It will be very different.
If the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, had read, as I did the other week, a document that emerged from a group of "grand old men" in Brussels entitled A Wake Up Call for Europe—which had all the elements of the "bicycle" theory of European integration and how we need to rediscover the old religion—he would have been even more horrified than I was at the extent to which there are some within the European Union who still do not accept that the world has changed and will change a great deal more.
This treaty is a half-way house. The next intergovernmental conference will be much more important. I note that there is now an overlap between the ratification process in this country and the debate about how we prepare for the next inter-governmental conference. I thank the Minister for the useful consultation meeting that we had yesterday. I regret that many of those who declared themselves most committed to national sovereignty and national accountability were not able to join us on that occasion.
If one looks at Declaration 23 attached to the Nice treaty, which looks forward to the Laeken Declaration which heads of government are supposed to produce in three months' time and sets out the agenda for the next inter-governmental conference, it gives us something to discuss further. It declares that we need a more precise delimitation of powers according to the principle of subsidiarity. I think that that would command general agreement in this House. It talks about clarifying the status of the Charter on Fundamental Rights, about which some doubts have been expressed. I share some of those doubts. It talks

1615
about simplification of the treaties, and about the role of national parliaments. It aims to set up a convention to prepare for the next inter-governmental conference.
I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Phillips that one of the things most lacking in this country has been adequate public debate, or adequate public explanation of where we are going. I ask the Government to ensure that this time we do have a full public debate. Indeed, the Government were committed by the European Council nearly a year ago to promoting a full public debate during the past year. For some reason, they do not quite seem to have got round to it. When the Laeken Declaration is published, can we have a full debate on the implications of that declaration in government time in this House and, I hope, also in the other place? Can we also be much more transparent this time on the process whereby we appoint what are supposed to be the UK Parliament representatives for this rather important and long-term convention? Can we also ensure—this is a question to the Whips—that those representatives receive effective support from Parliament itself? I found absurd and shocking the remarks yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, on how he had printed out the papers from the convention through his e-mail at home because he had been given no support from this House. Can we have a regular report-back process to the committees of this House and to this Chamber during the 18-month process, so that no one in this House has the chance afterwards to say, "We did not know what was going on. We weren't informed. It's another conspiracy".
If we were to assess the Nice treaty by the criteria set out in Declaration 23, we should see that in some ways it is deficient. On the delimitation of powers, I agree with those who say that Articles 137 and 144 take us too far. I also wish the Government—as some of us attempted to persuade them—had used the Nice treaty to claw back some of what has shifted to the European Union on education and culture. These are clearly matters that should be dealt with at a subordinate level. If we believe in subsidiarity, that is the kind of thing that we should be doing: to aim to return some powers, including much of the chapter on social policy and much of the chapters on education and culture.
As to the status of the charter, it is not by any means a perfect document. However, I hope that we all agree that the preservation of the protection of fundamental rights above the level of the nation state is itself a desirable principle. Indeed, when the sub-committee that I had the honour to chair examined the Article 13 directives one of the most striking things was the memorandum from the CBI strongly supporting the implementation of the directives, on the grounds that executives of British companies who happen to come from ethnic minorities need to have their rights secured throughout the European Union as they pursue their careers across the European Union.
Simplification of the treaties can easily be decried as a constitution for Europe, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested. But simplification seems to me a useful and important objective. The treaty is far too large. It contains a large number of subjects that
1616
are matters of policy and should be negotiated as policy and not as a treaty. I remember the Belgian permanent representative who negotiated the Maastricht treaty, whom the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, will well remember, saying that if someone had told him that, at the end of the process they had negotiated, copies of the document would be distributed to every voter in Denmark he would have understood that he was doing something entirely different. One of the reasons the Danish referendum was lost was precisely because the Danish Government made the mistake of distributing to everyone the almost incomprehensible lengthy document which, not surprisingly, they did not understand.
Treaty simplification is a highly desirable process. It is also possible. The Schuman Centre of the European University Institute has made a decent job of first drafts. I declare an interest, as my wife is now the director of the Robert Schuman Centre. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for making such generous remarks about her continuing and future active employment. Let us try to ensure that the next inter-governmental conference is well prepared on all these issues and tries to achieve a more stable treaty framework. After the messy final negotiations at Nice the Prime Minister was right to say that we cannot and should not go on like this. The convention that is planned in the three year lead-up to the 2004 IGC gives us the opportunity to get the treaty framework better next time although, as with all international negotiations, no doubt we shall not get it entirely right and we shall have to have another go in a few years' time, as that is the nature of all forms of multilateral negotiations among governments.
There are many other matters on which the Nice treaty is only a halfway house. As some speakers have suggested, we have an extremely messy triple majority system. It would have been much simpler to have a clear dual majority that one could explain to schoolchildren. We could have got it if the French had not become so paranoid about recognising that Germany is larger than France.
We have taken a small first step to limit the size of the Commission. I am in favour of taking a much larger step next time and having 11 or perhaps even nine commissioners. Then we would have a proper executive and not the triple forms of representation in Brussels. As regards the overlap of the Commission and the Council secretariat, we now have, as the second and third pillars expand, a dual bureaucracy operating in Brussels with the Council secretariat growing alongside the Commission and duplicating much of its work. Non-treaty reform is also important. What Commissioner Kinnock is doing about Commission reform deserves our active and full support, but he has a good deal further to go on that.
There is more to be done also on the common foreign and security policy and defence policy where clearly we are in a highly transitional period with people learning on the job. In three or four years' time we shall need to look again at the institutional structure. As regards justice and home affairs, matters have developed extremely rapidly over the past

1617
10 years in response to the fall of the Iron Curtain which kept western Europe so secure from a whole host of problems of people smuggling and so on because the Red Army kindly guarded the frontier for us. We now clearly need further institutional checks on that. The British police and other law enforcement agencies are extremely enthusiastic participants in all of these transnational European networks, but, like all police forces, they prefer to do that informally and without proper scrutiny. We need to ensure that there is accountability both at the national and European level. The obfuscation of Her Majesty's Government on that matter in wishing it to be known that they are opting out and then half opting in, so that none of us can quite understand which bits we have opted into and which bits we have opted out of, does not contribute to any intelligent debate and manages to escape effective accountability both at the national and European level.
I have two or three other rapid points to make. I welcome the reforms of the European Court of Justice and the extension of the European Court of First Instance, because European integration was running into the problem of the immense overload of the legal system. The rule of law is fundamental to an effective European Union.
I am deeply sceptical about the area of enhanced cooperation. It is highly theological. The French, Belgians and Luxembourgers want it in the treaty because they would like to believe that somehow they could have a cosy core with the Germans that would exclude the awkward British and lots of others. They had this principle in the Amsterdam treaty and have not done anything about it, so I think it highly unlikely that the enhanced co-operation process will ever go into effect. Conservatives in this House and elsewhere should be familiar with the use of theological arguments over Europe. This is another theological argument over Europe on a slightly different basis.
On Article 100, we heard again the pension deficit bogey. I have read and re-read Article 100 and cannot see how the pension deficit bogey gets into it. Natural disasters are there, as are "severe economic difficulties, especially in the supply of certain economic products", but that is very different from bailing out countries if their pension arrangements fall down. We need to avoid conspiracy theories. I believed wholeheartedly in the idea of those clever foreigners who were determined to outwit the honest, straightforward Englishman when I was 14, having read the complete works of John Buchan and G. A. Henty. But I now understand that the world is not quite like that.
We have long suffered in this House and in the other place from Gresham's law of European debate—that Eurosceptic speeches drive out reasoned scrutiny of detailed proposals. Tonight, thankfully, that has not happened. We have had some high quality and well informed speeches from all over the House.
We need to domesticate the European debate, given the necessary interaction between European and domestic legislation that is now so intense. We need to ratify this modest treaty, which wraps up the leftover,
1618
uncompleted decisions from the Treaty of Amsterdam, and then move on to prepare for the unavoidably more ambitious reforms needed for 2004, to adjust to an institutionalised Europe of 25 states and 470 million people.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we have heard some outstanding speeches from all sides of the House and from varying viewpoints. That reflects the reality of the European debate in this country. The division on Europe cuts across parties.
The combination of today's subject—the Nice treaty—which represents another milestone in the development of Britain's relationship with the European Union, and the eminent speakers, including eight former Cabinet Ministers, a former EU Commissioner, two MEPs, five former MEPs and other noble Lords with extensive knowledge of the European Union, has meant that this debate has been informed and constructive. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, agrees that any disagreement has been amiable.
I join my noble and learned friend Lord Howe in being a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, described these Benches in terms of selfishness. He and I have worked constructively to improve British-French relations through the parliamentary group, so I hope that he does not have me or my noble friend Lord Howell in his sights.
My noble friend Lord Howell made it clear at the beginning of his speech that we shall not oppose the Bill but shall do our duty to seek to amend and improve it. However, I agree with him and with my noble and learned friend Lord Howe that we should consider carefully how decisions were reached in those all-night sittings. Keeping heads of state and their exhausted staff up most of the night over three days does not seem the best way to build a workable democratic structure.
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, described the treaty as "finely tuned", which made me think of a sleek Ferrari. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, said that it was "inelegant", and my noble friend Lord Lamont called it "modest".
There was much debate about the treaty giving more power to Brussels. At a time when the divide between the attitude of the people and the politicians of Europe grows ever wider, we consider that the Nice treaty was a missed opportunity. We believe that the negotiations should have been used more effectively to return some of those powers to national governments, where national interests can be pursued most effectively.
As my noble friend Lord Howell said—
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. If he believes that some powers should have been repatriated, will he provide us with a few clues as to which ones?
Lord Astor of Hever: At this late hour I do not want to go into details. I shall be quite happy to do so at Committee stage, when we shall come forward with a number of amendments.
As my noble friend Lord Howell said, that does not mean that we are anti-European but pragmatic and realistic about the European Union. People do feel disconnected from what is happening in Europe. My noble friend Lord Biffen pointed out the very low turnouts in European elections. When a country as traditionally pro-European as Ireland votes against the treaty, it is time for Europe's leaders to listen to their citizens.
My noble friends Lord Tebbit and Lord Willoughby de Broke speculated on what might be done to make the Irish "get it right next time", as did the noble Lord, Lord Stodd art of Swindon. I share the warm tribute paid by him and by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to the late Lord Shore. I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said in a very powerful speech. I look forward to reading that speech in Hansard.
We on these Benches will support moves to strengthen democratic accountability, and I hope that we shall find some common ground with the Liberal Democrat Benches on the issue during the Committee stage. I join other noble Lords in warmly congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her election.
I agree with the Minister that it has been the strategic aim of successive governments to welcome enlargement. We remain strong supporters of it. Enlargement will mean that British companies will be able to benefit from access to the largest single market in the world for trade and investment. Enlargement is a way of stabilising countries that have recently experienced turbulent times. There was much debate on both sides of the argument as to whether the Nice treaty is necessary for enlargement. To the disappointment, I am sure, of the Minister, Commissioner Prodi's comments were widely brandished.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the European rapid reaction force. We have long supported the concept of pan-European defence co-operation under NATO command. The Anglo-French Air Corps and the Anglo-Dutch Amphibious Force are examples of that. But we have firmly registered our opposition to the proposed EU rapid reaction force. We must do nothing that would undermine our relations with NATO and with the non-EU countries within NATO.
The noble Lord, Lord Owen, said that a serious rethink and adjustment is taking place. I should be grateful if the Minister could add in any way to the noble Lord's comments.
There can be no benefit from duplication between NATO and the EU of military and political staffs and analysts. We need one clear chain of command. We do not need two interpretations of a crisis as it develops—one by NATO and one by EU staffs.
1620
I am also concerned, as was my noble friend Lady Park, that there will not be sufficient commitment to providing financial support to ensure military capability, particularly because few EU governments have the appetite to expand defence expenditure.
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe and my noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Tebbit mentioned the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the context of funding political parties, my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Willoughby de Broke raised the possibility of the EU banning political parties of which it disapproved.
My noble friend Lady Park made some important points about Europol and terrorist intelligence. The House will want reassurance on that point from the Minister.
Many noble Lords mentioned the IGC. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Crawley, that one area that should be discussed is the simplification of treaties. I also agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made about paperwork. We on these Benches will come forward with positive and constructive proposals for the IGC in order to create a modern, forward-looking and flexible Europe.
The CAP has been a recurring theme throughout the debate. Enlargement cannot succeed with the CAP as it stands. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. said, the reforms that were agreed at the Berlin Council in March 1999 were inadequate for that purpose. The Prime Minister said in 1995—in his early days as the leader of the Labour Party—that,
"reforming CAP is a necessary precondition to enlargement to include the countries of central and Eastern Europe".
Bearing in mind the changes in European governments, particularly of the German Government, does the Minister agree that we have a real chance to build up an alliance for agricultural reform to save the EU from bankruptcy?
We heard many arguments about QMV. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, said that enough is enough, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, chided these Benches for our views on QMV. I have carefully read the Hansard reports of the Bill's progress through the other place, and several Back-Bench Members in the Minister's party were very critical of QMV.
My noble friend Lord Blackwell asked some important questions about Articles 137, 144 and 157. If the Minister is unable to answer them tonight, maybe she could write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
One example of a directive being passed against the vote of our Government is that of the art levy directive, which my noble friend Lord Howell described. The practical effect of that will be that most valuable works of art will no longer be sold in the EU—they will be sold not in London but in New York, Japan or Switzerland.
We on these Benches are keen to learn from Europe. We accept that some European countries arrange things—in particular, their public services—better

1621
than we do. Plans are well ahead for members of the Opposition health and education teams to visit different European countries to learn from their successes.
We want the EU to work. We want to help the accession countries. However, we do not believe that the Bill will help enlargement. It fails to achieve the aims that were set out by the Government and it fails to advance the vision of a flexible Europe that lies at the heart of our policy. The Opposition will table substantive amendments in Committee and I look forward to contributing further to our debate at that stage.
10.20 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging and an extremely well-argued debate. The judgment of your Lordships has been varied. Most of your Lordships have welcomed enlargement, but have raised fundamental questions as to whether any comprehensive treaty, or this one in particular, is necessary for that enlargement to take place. A huge range of other issues has also been raised, and I can only hope to touch on the arguments that I venture to suggest we shall discuss in greater detail in succeeding stages of the Bill's passage.
I join others who have participated in the debate in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her election as Leader of the Liberal Democrats. She is an extremely gifted and highly persuasive parliamentarian, and I wish her well in her new role.
I now turn to some of the arguments and shall start with enlargement. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, fulfilled all my hopes and expectations by quoting Romano Prodi. Frankly, I was not entirely sure why he did so, as I did not believe that there was any difference between us. The President of the Commission said that Nice is not a legal prerequisite for enlargement, and I made very much the same point in my opening remarks. In theory it is possible to proceed with enlargement without the Nice treaty, but only in theory. The point that I made was that the treaty was a prerequisite for successful enlargement. In a practical sense, the treaty is necessary for enlargement to take place, but I did not hear the noble Lord dissent from that proposition. Indeed, he did not go on to address what would happen in a practical sense were we not to have the treaty and still go for enlargement.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the Minister say what she thinks Mr Prodi meant when he said that up to 20 members was not a problem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am in no position to interpret Signor Prodi's remarks, but the noble Lord knows very well that he went on to qualify those remarks by making it absolutely clear that he was speaking in a legal sense. The Government have not challenged that position. In my remarks, I was addressing the far more important point of successful enlargement.
1622
The points made by my noble friend Lord Grenfell were eloquently and persuasively argued, as were the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond. If we do not ratify the treaty, we shall at best delay, and at worst entirely wreck the enlargement that most of your Lordships have said is desirable. We cannot, as my noble friend Lady Crawley made clear, pay lip service to enlargement and then oppose every practical means of achieving it.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, on a slightly different point, I think that the Minister said in her opening remarks that there was no cause to delay the Bill in the light of the Irish referendum because the Conservatives had not delayed the earlier treaty after the Danish "No". The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, triggered something in my memory, which is not as good as it was, but I checked and found that the Minister was wrong. The government of the day, led by John Major, decided to delay the Bill after the Danish referendum. It was delayed for several months and then brought back a few months after the famous Monday in June when the Danes delivered their vote. Would the Minister like to correct that for the record?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not in a position to correct it because unlike the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I have not had the opportunity to check it. If I find that there is a need for correction, I shall of course correct what I said. But the point that I was endeavouring to make is that the Opposition believe that the treaty should be renegotiated. As far as I know, the Maastricht treaty was not renegotiated as a result of the Danish vote. I shall check what the noble Lord has said and if it is necessary to correct what I said, I shall do so.
The fact is that we are arguing about what other changes are needed in order to facilitate enlargement. Our first priority was to obtain more voting strength for the United Kingdom; that is what we got. The treaty increases the relative weight of Britain's vote in the Council of Ministers for the first time ever, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, made clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, took issue with us on the arithmetic. I have no doubt that we shall be able to pursue all these issues in further stages of the Bill, but it is only logical that if the number of members increases, the proportion of the vote we cast is less. I made the point that what increased was the relative vote, relative to the greater proportion of the small and medium-sized countries such as, Denmark and Sweden. I am sure we will have an interesting time looking at the arithmetic of that at future stages of the Bill.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way but she should not spend too much time worrying about this. The arithmetic is perfectly clear. Today we have 11.49 per cent of the votes; after accession of the other candidates we will

1623
have 8.41 per cent. A reduction from 11.49 to 8.41 cannot be an increase even after the Government's spin doctors have got at it!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not say it was an absolute increase. I said it was an increase relative to other countries and I made the point in relation to small and medium-sized countries. I am sure the noble Lord is extremely good at arithmetic. But it behoves him to listen to the premise upon which my remarks were originally made rather than the premise he would like us to believe.
I turn to the question of the size of the Commission. As the noble Lords, Lord Williamson of Horton, and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, we have agreed to a smaller and we believe better Commission. Nice means that there will be fewer commissioners relative to the number of member states, so the Commission will be able to function more effectively after enlargement; it will be reformed and streamlined.
I turn to a. point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who was concerned about the number of seats in the European Parliament. There will indeed be a reduction from 87 to 72 seats for the UK, but that reduction wall be gradual and the increase in the EP ceiling from 700 to 732 ought to ease the position. Perhaps I should make clear that in representational terms the United Kingdom will have one seat for every 791,000 people in this country, as compared with one seat for every 818,000 people in Germany. So person for person we shall have better representation than Germany.
I turn to another topic which excited much comment: that of qualified majority voting. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, expressed misgivings about QMV and its expansion. But I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, was rather nearer the mark in his comments. We have retained unanimity where necessary and have extended qualified majority voting only when it is in Britain's interests.
As my noble friend Lord Tomlinson pointed out, in what I felt was a very robust speech, the Opposition ought to have no difficulty with that either. They agreed to move from unanimity to QMV; they gave away the veto, as they now like to call it, in the Single European Act under Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, and at Maastricht under John Major. They did so on some fundamental articles; for example, all general single market legislation and on almost all the environmental provisions. So the Opposition cannot claim to be against QMV in principle, as my noble friend Lord Harrison pointed out.
Many extensions of QMV are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, made clear, very much to our advantage; others are relatively minor. Appointment of EU social representatives on foreign policy where unanimity could clearly hold up important work is an example, and where those envoys allow one member state to hold out against the best candidate for the job cannot be the sort of situation with which we want to continue. Similarly, the salaries and pension of the Registrar of the Court of First
1624
Instance; I am bound to suggest that the Opposition cannot have the British people trooping off to the polls for a referendum on an issue such as that, and then argue about not having a referendum on the euro.
As for financial regulations on probity, it will now be easier to carry out reforms and to tighten up financial management, again now subject to qualified majority voting, something which the Opposition on other days say that they would be happy to see.
My noble friend Lord Grenfell said—I think he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on this issue—that the Opposition's argument about the extension of QMV seems to be an argument in principle, but when faced with practical arguments about the extensions and how they would really operate, it is far more difficult to rationalise their position. Perhaps I may say that I shall not apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for what happened over the veto. The Government did exactly what they said they would do. We maintained the veto where in our judgment it was in the national interest so to do. That is what we said we would do and, indeed, what we went on to do.
I turn to some of the questions on ESDP. ESDP helps to ensure that European nations can make a stronger contribution to crisis management operations both within NATO and where NATO is not engaged. Perhaps I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that its purpose is to tackle peace-keeping and humanitarian and crisis-management tasks. Despite the assertions of some noble Lords opposite, it is not war fighting or, indeed, a territorial defence and it really is no competitor to NATO. NATO remains the basis of our collective and territorial defence. That is an uncompromising statement. The ESDP is focused on the so-called Petersberg tasks, so it really is not a choice between the EU on the one hand and NATO on the other. The two complement each other. I am afraid I thought that the question raised—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Does she not agree that the Petersberg task, separation by force. does involve war fighting?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords., I have never argued that the Petersberg tasks do not involve military conflict; of course they do. They not only involve peace-keeping but peace enforcing. By their nature, therefore, that must involve military engagement. The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, in trying to juxtapose the two positions was, therefore, somewhat artificial.
As my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale made clear, one of the aims of the initiative on which real progress has been made is to develop the relationship between the EU and NATO into a strategic partnership. My noble friend said—indeed, she was right—that deep and detailed links have now been set up to allow that. They have been used. We can witness the way in which the two organisations worked hand

1625
in hand in the Balkans. That was a point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, was kind enough to make.
We are talking to our American allies all the time about all aspects of the proposals. They strongly support the EU's efforts to increase its ability and responsibility to act in times of crisis. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall for reminding us about the judgments of our noble and gallant friends and, indeed, in particular the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, a former Chief of Defence Staff, on this subject.
Perhaps I may say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I was disappointed by the point that he made on the Belgian Minister's remarks about our own Prime Minister and the attempt that he made to link the ESDP with the current conflict and a less than altogether satisfactory European attitude to that. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the Declaration by Heads of State of Government at Ghent on 19th October stated that,
"The European Council again unequivocally states its full support for the action being taken against terrorism in all its aspects within the framework defined by the United Nations and reaffirms its total solidarity with the United States".
We cannot get better than that as a full-hearted statement of solidarity from the European Union. To portray Europeans, or, indeed, those who support ESDP, as somehow anti-alliance was uncharacteristically a little unfair of the noble Lord.
I turn to the points on intelligence raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. Intelligence will not be passed to EU bodies unless we are absolutely satisfied that it will be dealt with as it would be if it were to be passed to NATO. There is an interim security agreement now agreed with NATO on those points. The noble Baroness also asked about the EU statement which was issued on 17th October. Part of an action plan discussed at the Ghent European Council will again be discussed at the Laeken Council, to which noble Lords have referred, though the details have yet to be finalised. When they are, I shall do everything I can to ensure that the noble Baroness receives the details on a subject in which I know she is not only interested but at which she is extraordinarily expert.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised questions about asylum from a rather different point of view, as did the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The Government are determined to stamp out the evil trade of people trafficking. Therefore, we have raised this issue as a matter of urgency with our European Union partners and we are putting forward concrete ideas for co-ordinated EU action. For example, we are leading EU efforts to station immigration liaison officers from EU countries in the Western Balkans and other key transit countries to assist with training and to help to disrupt people trafficking networks.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, raised questions about the European arrest warrants. Mutual recognition is not about Europe having a single legal system; it is more about the process whereby a judicial
1626
decision made in one member state is enforced in another member state with the minimum of formality. The aim of the European arrest warrant is to speed up extradition procedures by introducing more simplified procedures. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that is worth while.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Am I right in thinking that some procedures are being discussed in case there should be a sudden refugee emergency, of the kind that we are seeing in Asia at the moment, and that that will bring about a common discussion with the European member states?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a number of such issues are being discussed at the moment. A number of additional points on the various issues are being discussed under the JHA pillar. I shall look into the detailed point raised by the noble Baroness. I was also about to say to her that I shall write to her in relation to the questions that she raised on Article 229A. The position is quite complicated. As she was the only speaker to raise the matter, perhaps she will be content if I write to her.
The noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Willoughby de Broke, raised questions about the funding of the European political parties, a subject on which they both had concerns. To qualify for funding a European political party must respect the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the fundamental freedom of the rule of law. There are a number of other qualifications. Perhaps the noble Lords will forgive me if I give them a fuller answer in a letter. I shall place a copy in the Library so that all noble Lords may see it.
The noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Lamont, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, raised questions about the charter of rights. I should make it clear that the charter is a political declaration. It is not legally binding. It was neither incorporated nor attached. It is not referred to in any of the treaties. The questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about extradition to countries that use the death penalty comes back to the point that the charter is not legally binding. It was not incorporated; it was not even attached to the treaty; and it is not referred to anywhere within the treaty. I fully accept that the EJC has referred to it, but the ECJ is free to refer to it. It is an important political guide, but it does not follow that the charter is legally binding on any country. I hope that clears up that particular point.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. This may be a pedantic point, but the charter is referred to at page 78 of the treaty.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, tomorrow I shall give my officials a hard time about that! If that is the case, I apologise. I am grateful to the

1627
noble Lord for giving me special leverage with the officials when I speak to them about this on a future occasion.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way to me once again. Having said that it had no effect in this country, she went on to say that, of course, the European Court of Justice could take account of it. But the findings of the European Court of Justice are binding upon this country, so, in effect, if they so choose, the convention is binding upon this country.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not say that it had no effect. I said that it was not legally binding. There is a great deal of difference. The noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Stoddart, referred to Article 100, which is an important one. That article cannot be used to bail out countries in the Eurozone that cannot live up to their responsibilities. That is guaranteed by the treaty. The article is there to assist member states following natural disasters or other circumstances beyond their control.
I turn to the questions on the common agricultural policy.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, the question that I precisely asked was: what is meant by "other circumstances"? That was the phrase added at Nice.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord about what are "other circumstances", but I believe that they would be along the lines of natural disasters or including circumstances that were beyond the control of the countries concerned, not the sort of mismanagement issues that, I believe, were at the root of the noble Lord's concern.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, before the Minister turns to the CAP, may I save her—or, more precisely, her officials—by pointing out that the only reference to the charter of fundamental rights is in the declaration, which says that the next IGC will consider the status of the charter. The Treaty of Nice does not say anything about the legal implementation of the charter. As a. former civil servant, I should hate to see officials skewered and kebabbed tomorrow.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, they know very well that they would not be skewered and kebabbed in any case. I, too, have been a civil servant in my time, and know about the exigencies of dealing with such issues.
If I may say so, I think that this is a teeny bit OTT. The noble Lord raised the question; he said that I owed the House an apology for having misled it on something. The noble Baroness takes a different view. I have already undertaken to consider the matter; I will do so. If I need to write to anyone as a result, I will of course do so, as your Lordships would expect.
1628
If I may, I will pass on to the common agricultural policy. I reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, that we continue to press the case for CAP reform with our partners and we will work with them to deliver changes that benefit consumers, taxpayers, the rural economy, the farming community and the environment. The on-going debate in Europe is increasingly in favour of such changes.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, that the reform process we are undertaking to reduce European spending on the CAP was secured by a Labour Prime Minister at the Berlin Council in 1999. My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall is absolutely right: agriculture will be on the agenda for discussion at Doha, although I cannot of course predict what is likely to be the basis of a new trade round. If I may, I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about the questions that she asked about Cyprus, because there were several of them, and I think that a letter would be appropriate to do her justice.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, spoke movingly about the importance of a real vision for Europe—having more confidence in Europe, a more tolerant Europe, a better vision of what Europe should be about. I agree with much of what he said. As he pointed out, it is also a case of having more trust in the European institutions. I also agree with the extraordinary and impressive argument laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick.
However, I make no apology to the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, for stressing that part of the UK vision will be that Europe should be more prosperous. Like my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I believe that national wealth is not only a legitimate but a praiseworthy aim of government. Without safeguarding and growing national wealth, we cannot improve our living standards, our schools or our hospitals—which, after all, is the basis on which the British people voted for the Government in June.
As my noble friend Lord Grenfell and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, the next IGC in 2004 will discuss exactly the kind of issues that the Prime Minister identified in Warsaw: how to define and delimit the EU's competence, simplifying the treaties to make them easier to understand, improving accountability and transparency and involving national parliamentarians—a point with which I know that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is especially concerned—more closely in EU decision-taking. I hope that the debate has given us all the opportunity to consider these important issues, difficult and complex as they are, and I shall welcome further debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, went so far as to argue that the very existence of a new treaty worsened the democratic deficit. I hope that he and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will interest themselves in the fundamental issue, which we shall address. We want to make the European Union more transparent, more accountable and more relevant to the issues that concern people. They are very much the concerns which my right honourable friend raised in

1629
his Warsaw speech and they were reflected most lucidly today by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington.
I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the importance of the forthcoming debate. It is one which the Government welcome and one which we intend to continue to lead. Indeed, we discussed the arrangements for it with Members of all parties in your Lordships' House yesterday. I was very interested in the suggestion for informal channels of communication in the run-up to the next IGC and I shall undertake to discuss the matter with my ministerial colleagues. I hope that the very fact that we had the meeting yesterday indicates my view on that issue. As regards the debate post-Laeken, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, knows that I am not in a position to make undertakings about that at the moment.
Perhaps I may say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, my noble friend Lord Stoddart and to other noble Lords that as regards the Irish referendum, although it was suggested that we should not even be debating the Bill, the Irish Government urged us to go ahead. They have said as the democratic leaders of their country that we and other EU partners should
1630
proceed with our ratification process. Furthermore, the treaty was in the public domain before our general election. It was published on 26th February this year. Perhaps it is worth reminding all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, that the treaty was published, we stated in our manifesto that we would be pursuing it and we believe that we have the mandate from the people so to do.
Since the Government came to power four and a half years ago, we have tried to build British policy in Europe to get the best out of Europe for Britain while shaping Europe's future in the interests of the whole continent. We have shown that positive engagement with the European Union and our European partners really can work; that we can win the arguments; and that we can exercise real authority and real influence in Europe.
On a previous occasion I indicated how very much we shall miss my late noble friend Lord Shore in our forthcoming deliberations. Notwithstanding that, I look forward very much to our debates on the Bill. I look forward to them with considerable relish. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Democratic Republic of Congo: Exports.
  Democratic Republic of Congo: Exports.
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist-related Murders
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist-related Murders
  Northern Ireland: Baton Rounds
  Northern Ireland: Baton Rounds
  Omagh Bombing Inquiry
  Omagh Bombing Inquiry
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Freedom of Speech
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Freedom of Speech
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Human Rights Act 1988
  Human Rights Act 1988
  Magistrates' Courts Service
  Magistrates' Courts Service
  Exceptional Community Legal Service Funding
  Exceptional Community Legal Service Funding
  Road Policing and Traffic
  Road Policing and Traffic
  Police Officers: Retirement
  Police Officers: Retirement
  IRA and the FARC in Colombia
  IRA and the FARC in Colombia
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
  Genetic Tests in Insurance: Moratorium
  Genetic Tests in Insurance: Moratorium
  Patient Information and Data Protection
  Patient Information and Data Protection
  Salisbury/Yeovil Railway Line
  Salisbury/Yeovil Railway Line
  Road Projects
  Road Projects
  Damaged Lights on Traffic Islands
  Damaged Lights on Traffic Islands
  Physical Agents Directives
  Physical Agents Directives
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Historic Environment
  Historic Environment
  Constitution Hill: Memorial Gates
  Constitution Hill: Memorial Gates
  Public Order Act: Incitement to Racial Hatred
  Public Order Act: Incitement to Racial Hatred
  House of Lords: Management and Services
  House of Lords: Management and Services